Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick questions. According to Mr. Gargan, there were some other freezes that, according to Mr. Zoe, still come up to only $27,000 savings to the government. Is that with all the travel and everything else that will be frozen? Is that $27,000 the right amount?

Last one, Mr. Chairman. Is the $39.729 million an estimate from the previous year's revenue or is this the maximum potential if you collect all the revenue?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this $39 million fairly conservative for 1994-95 or is it an average?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just need a clarification here. You have total expenditures of $77.526 million. You also have total revenues of $39.729 million. Is there an incentive for the local housing organizations to be able

to collect revenues more aggressively, or is $39.729 million the maximum we can get from all the households to date?

Mr. Chairman, my last question is not related to that one. There is a section or provision in the final agreement of the land claims. I don't have my copy with me right now so I cannot pinpoint the exact clause it's under, but I know there is a provision for the community to extend their boundary beyond the present hamlet boundary or municipal boundary. This amendment to the Hamlets Act will not prevent that to continue to accommodate the community needs.

Mr. Chairman, that comment was a little closer by having to have a public hearing in order to create new parcels of land. This is the present practice right now, anyway, for the leased lands. If a new municipal development is held in the public meeting in the community hall every year once the land is being assigned, there is no change whatsoever. There is no danger either because the leases can be cancelled by violation of the lease or by other means. But, sale is different. Is there any protection for the community to slow down, at least not to have land manipulation by the rich people in the community for the protection of the community's interest?

For example, there is a land lease or land for sale beside the Explorer Hotel. I know it has been there for quite a while, at least since this Legislative Assembly building has been up. However, Mr. Brown or Mr. Chang haven't bought it yet. This is good because Yellowknife has developed it for anyone. What I'm trying to say is that from the small community point of view, the story is different. If you have only 500 people in the community, and somebody comes in and lives there for two years, he has a bank account in Toronto of I don't know how much, he could very easily manipulate the small population of the community. Is there any prevention somewhere so that the community has a say as to what areas of land can be developed for what before they are declared for sale?

Not even close, Mr. Chairman. In this act or under a regulation of MACA, would there be something stating that once you have a referendum approving that plots of municipal land will be assigned for sale, how often these municipal land maps or town maps could be amended, changed, extended or expanded for the purpose of continuing the spirit of the referendum? I guess I will ask that first.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I am leery that there are elections for hamlet councils every year and every two years for a mayor, depending on their own by-laws some of them can go as far as three years. I am trying to protect the community interest by not having the new influential town councillor who also happens to be a multi-million dollar man in a very small community -- I believe I'm exaggerating here, I'm not trying to pick on anybody -- to influence the council to create new plots of land for sale for his own, or to accommodate somebody else. After the referendum, after the lands have been selected, the town plan has been developed for the purpose of sale, then after two years you need to make new lands for the purpose of development for sale. Is there a provision somewhere that there will be a referendum every year, or will it be up to the council to expand those plots of lands?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not quite. Maybe I didn't phrase my question properly. Say a municipality, through a referendum, decides they want to start selling plots of land and they decide that an area will be sold for commercial use and another area would be sold for residential use, et cetera. However, when after a new election a new mayor gets in and says he would like to propose an amendment to the by-law by opening a particular area for commercial or residential use to accommodate himself or someone else that is connected to him. I want a provision that once the municipality holds a referendum and creates a plot of land for sale, there will not be further authorization through amendments of the by-law opening up until the next referendum, whether it is six months or a year from now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this amendment very much because it will not just accommodate the Inuvialuit region, but also Nunavut and other communities that desire to start building an economic base using land development for the purposes of residential and commercial use. I come from a small community and in a small community there are always very clear, influential citizens. Some of the them become mayors and business people. I skimmed through this and tried to find something that prevents the municipality from amending their own by-laws to accommodate potential applicants or buyers of the land, if you know what I mean.