Mr. Chairman, on the issue of representation in the House of Commons for a proposed Nunavut territory, that was not included in this Consensus Report. Again, what we were trying for was a generic application, that each territory of Canada would be allocated at least one Member in the House of Commons. Right now, for instance, the Yukon is guaranteed one, the Northwest Territories is allocated two. So, it is our hope in the House of Commons, that simply we just split that at the time division happens.

On the question about Nunavut representation in the Reform Senate, as I tried to explain earlier to Ms. Mike, the understanding in the course of negotiations was that the legal text would simply say something generic, that each territory of Canada would be guaranteed at least one Senate seat. This was right up until it was understood politically and at the officials level, I do not know what day, but during the Charlottetown discussions, upstairs the Premiers were, our Premier was, locked into a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the provinces, the territories, and the aboriginal leaders. They were finishing off discussions. In another room, officials were working on wording and legal text.

In the course of those meetings, some officials launched into saying the legal text has to be specific for each jurisdiction. The understanding that we had that it would be generic, is now one of the options, it is no longer the only option. It is our view that we will continue to try to get legal wording that will reflect that, and if not, to have a specific legal wording that would say, in the event that a Nunavut territory is created, that a Nunavut territory would also be guaranteed one Senate seat.

That is where it is. The discussions are carrying on right now by officials. They will continue even into the weekend. That is one of our objectives. I should note, as well, that the federal government had agreed with the provinces that the question of aboriginal representation in the Senate, which would be above and beyond what is presently allocated, to the federal government and the provinces will be discussed, and they will try to finalize that during October/November.

There again, the understanding is some of those Senators will be possibly allocated to represent Inuit and aside from the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec, and Labrador, there is no other jurisdictions that would be asking for representation there. I think we have done well in it, as I say, it would have been preferable if we had tied it down. We thought it was, and we keep working on it. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct. I am going on the understanding that the new territory, if it is created, will not be denied representation in the Senate or the House of Commons. That is the understanding that I have, and if the Constitution does not reflect that, at this time, then the question comes up, then is it necessary to, is it useful to support, or reject, the package as a result of this.

I would argue Nunavut is not quite in the bag yet, we still have a few hoops to jump through, including the ratification of the T.F.N. claim, and our own process up here, to come to that realization. In my view, we have to press really hard, but I do not think we should let it develop into something that could constitute a deal breaker for us. That if, for instance, in a worse case scenario, that somehow there is no assurance that a Nunavut territory will, if it is created, be represented in the House of Commons and in the Senate, then my advice would still be that we should endorse the package and nail down the significance we have made, and press on to make the other gains that we see as shortcomings at this time. Thank you.

Just, perhaps as a trivial point, but, in the event that these amendments go through as it is, without any assurance to the Nunavut territory, there is one hypothetical situation that might be of interest to the particular member. The Nunavut Territory, as it is prescribed now, would constitute a territory of Canada.

If the western territory should make use of the provision in the amendments that would allow for the creation of aboriginal governments, that may not necessarily be constituting a territory of Canada, under the present constitutional definitions. I am not certain that this part of the territory would be assured representation in the House of Commons or Senate, but surely the Nunavut Territory would meet that particular definition more comfortably.

I raise that just because I think it has been mentioned to me by one interested observer.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the government, at this time, is preparing a more definitive position than what we had going into these discussions earlier in the year. It is in our view that we have to protect the preferential policies that this government has in place at this time. The wide open policies were strongly sought by the federal government, in fact, at one point the federal government said this was the one element of the deal they absolutely had to have in order for a deal to be made.

It should be mentioned that the position of our government is that, as a small jurisdiction, as a developing jurisdiction, as a unique jurisdiction within Canada, we have to have exemptions. We have to have some protection for the kind of approach we take to developing our own economy, our own people, our own businesses. These are the types of exemptions we sought.

It has been the suggestion that should these constitutional amendments go through, then we will see, probably, a first Minister's conference on the economy fairly soon thereafter, at which time, if such an event takes place, it has been recommended by many of us that the Members of the Legislature should bring specific Members, who are very concerned and knowledgeable in the area of trade, goods and services and the business world, to come and assist the government in the course of these discussions. Mahsi.

Yes, I take the Member's comments, and accept that we can do something about putting together a paper that would describe the approach we took, and describe, at least in general terms, what we are developing at the negotiating table with all of the different participants, because, as dry as it might look, it is quite fascinating as the Member knows. Thank you.