Not that I'm aware of, but I think there are other ways of making the third-party interest issue easier to deal with.
The specific example I'd use is to think of yourself as the third party. You have some right on the land. The land is going to be purchased by someone else, in this case a first nation. They either maintain your right or buy you out.
The trouble is, you're going to be moved under the Indian Act. What's the comparable instrument under the Indian Act to my current right on this property, even if the first nation wants to leave me there? There is no comparable instrument under the Indian Act. The first nation doesn't have the authority to issue these instruments.
So you get into these convoluted legal mechanisms of taking things under the real property act and having to get into....
The simple example is in my remarks. If first nations had adequate bylaw and land-use planning authority under the Indian Act—which is largely an enforcement issue, not legally a very difficult issue—and it wanted to acquire land and there were interests on it, it could have a community land-use planning vote, like any other community would. They could say they were interested in these lands, they would maintain these activities on it, or whatever, and there would be no issue. That could all be done before the land was added to reserve.
There are a variety of ways of getting at this process, some of which I know are under study by the working group I referenced earlier. There is no facility for this kind of thing. My experience, having had some responsibility for it for a number of years myself, is that the federal government would be very loath to use that responsibility even if it had it. It's operating in a local area. It's provincial land; it's not federal land to begin with. Is it going to go in and start annexing people?