A final question, Mr. Chairman. Then there is a provision in this act allowing the Minister to make regulations giving permission or provision for the by-law to include -- or at least a liquor regulation to include -- search and seizure of. Can this be done?

I guess my concern here is section 55(2). You have an airport, airplanes and facilities for them. I'm interested if the prohibition regulation can include what Coral Harbour has been asking about. It's not only Coral Harbour, there are other communities, too. Pangnirtung has exactly the same problem. They cannot actually go in there because of a question of legality.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we've been dealing with that for a long time now. The liquor regulations are not easy to deal with under the municipal acts. Next week we are going to deal with Transport and they will say exactly the same thing. So, when we are dealing with the Liquor Act sometime in this order paper, we'll be dealing with that too and they will say the same thing.

Is there anything the three departments can do so it will become easier to incorporate. At least a cooperative amendment so that it applies or complements the acts, rather than preventing the combining of the acts which leads to the lack of authority of one over another act, department or regulation?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then we are more or less dealing now with what goes first. It is just like applying for UIC or a visa to get a passport. It is a question of what goes first. Nobody wants to go first. If you cannot get a visa before you get a passport and you cannot get a passport unless you have a visa, so you have to fight with two departments at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that this by-law might apply outside the boundaries of the municipalities with respect to sewage, public incinerators, public garbage, water, fire protection, et cetera. My concern with Coral Harbour is that it is a dry community. Our airport is 11 miles away, outside the municipality at the moment, although the hamlet has made a proposal to MACA to extend the boundary to the airport. We have not received a response yet for that proposal.

However, it is not extended and our legal regulations require that prohibition be within the boundary of the hamlet. If and when the municipal boundaries are extended to the airport, there is still a question of whether this particular airport, within the municipality, belongs to the Ministry of Transport, which is the Government of the Northwest Territories. There is a question of whether it is a municipal operation on municipal property. Although the Department of Public Works is within the hamlet and on municipal land and has to conform to municipal by-laws, the RCMP always have a question about whether we can impose search and seizure of illegal liquor from aircraft. The question is, does it belong to the municipal government or hamlets?

Why is this provision allowing the municipalities to deal with sewage and drainage systems, public incineration, water distributions systems, et cetera, and airports, or facilities for aircraft excludes the prohibition regulation in some communities?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For example, we had a concern from Mr. Zoe, Mr. Gargan and Mr. Ng on the question of authority on the pending claims outside of the municipalities. Right now I don't think we're prepared to make those provisions or clauses to allow the concerns expressed by some Members in this bill. However, after first reading, we might get together -- 15 Members -- and make an amendment that suits some of the municipalities have -- band councils, hamlet councils and the Government of the NWT in one place that may have conflicting interest because of the pending claims to deal with that. To comply with those wishes, then there may be some requirement for amendments which will only be done after the first reading.

I guess that's the scenario or example that the Minister is requesting, depending on what kind of amendment there would be. Is she saying that no matter what kind of amendments we make concerning the citizens of the NWT regarding quarry programs outside the boundaries, that they cannot be changed if they were not coming into effect, because these will be deemed to be into force after the first reading?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the Minister's concern here. Let's not have any more lawsuits here. This act will just do it perfectly. My question is what about if there is a formal motion amending the...after first reading, is my question.

I need clarification, again. Is clause 4 commencement? Am I right on that one? Mr. Chairman, this act is deemed to come into force on the day this was in first

reading? What will happen after this first reading. You'll still have to still deal with it in second reading. What will happen if there is an amendment made through a formal motion after the first reading?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mean the committee is requesting the government to come up with a new bill, after the amendments have been passed for these bills, from Bill 9 to Bill 12. Are you asking them, after these bills are passed, to put together all of this legislation to bring it up- to-date? As long as I have that understanding, I have no problem in dealing with the amendments. Qujannamiik.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we proceed with Bill 9, I would like to ask a general question. I just need clarification of the committee report. I'm just a little confused about the last paragraph of the committee's report. I want to be very clear as to how we deal with Bill 9. This part is confusing me a little bit. On the last page, given the age of the legislation and the implementation of various land claims, the committee suggests that the government review the legislation as a whole with a view to bringing it up to date. In other words, do I understand that because this bill is not legislation as a whole, but rather some amendment to the existing legislation. In the next paragraph, it's stated that the committee passed a motion that bills 9 to 12 were ready for consideration in committee of the whole.

It seems confusing to me because maybe I don't understand the procedure here. If I was asking the government to review the legislation as a whole, I would not recommend bills 9 to 12 to be ready for consideration in committee of the whole. Can I have clarification from the chairman before we proceed?