Mr. Chairman, this clause gives us some concern and probably needs some clarification by the Minister. If the clarification is not enough to resolve the issue, I have an amendment. The problem here is, we want to make sure that if, for instance, in a different district a program is not offered and it is decided it would be in the best interest of the student to go to Yellowknife, Fort Smith, lqaluit or whatever, the way it's worded now, the receiving board is responsible for providing accommodation. Our feeling is that it should be very clear that the board from which the student comes that should be responsible.

I'll give you a number of reasons: one, there are financial implications of that; second, I'm sure the parent and the student would be much more comfortable if they had the responsibility to choose where the kid is going to stay. I think it's unfair to put this responsibility on the board to which the student is coming. It has been stated many many times that here in Yellowknife we welcome students if programs aren't offered in other communities or regions. But, it should be very clear that it is the responsibility of the student's home district to: one, pay for it; and second, to have the responsibility to make sure the student has proper accommodation.

For many reasons, it makes a lot of sense. I wonder if the Minister can clarify here. We need a little bit of light on this particular section. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Final supplementary. Let me just try to pin this down so everyone knows. Essentially we have come to the end of capital. They've capped O and M. So my last question is a question I've asked the Minister. It's always been my fear that now they've done those two things, the next thing they are going to do is look into cutting back on their O and M commitments. The Minister was going to look into it to ensure that our present agreements were airtight and that there's no chance that the federal government will start to claw back their commitment to O and M funding of our present stock. Is the Minister confident that he can protect the present agreement with the federal government for their present social housing stock?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The second part of that response is interesting. Even though we haven't taken advantage of it, because we haven't built any social housing that needed the O and M component, if, for instance, the Minister this year decided to build 100 units that weren't part of the home ownership plan, would the federal government cost-share the O and M?

Thank you. At the very least, we can probably say a trend has developed, and the capital part of the federal government contribution is slowly dissolving to nothing over a period of time.

My second question to the Minister is, do we still have a firm commitment that for whatever new houses we build, the federal government will continue to pay their portion of the O and M for social housing?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for housing. Mr. Speaker, can we say now, finally and absolutely, that the federal government is out of any capital assistance to the Northwest Territories government to build new houses? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Sunday was Father's Day. it is a day for fathers across the Northwest Territories to celebrate their relationship with their kids and reflect on the most important role that men with children must undertake in their life: that is, bringing up their children to be productive and caring adults. We often hear about parents' rights and we hear, very often in this House, about the responsibility of governments, courts, teachers and police officers to care for children. Let there be no doubt, the primary responsibility for bringing up children lies with their parents. We have the responsibility to ensure our kids stay out of trouble, become educated and to become active and productive members of society. We should also take a moment to think about fathers less fortunate than us, who have lost children to crime, suicide and accident. When we're reflecting on the joy that our children bring to us, we should remember the tragedies that happen out there. We can never forget that. I think all of us have the responsibility to protect all children, not just our own.

We can count our blessings as parents. In the 1990s, the role of men has changed significantly. Men can no longer leave the raising of their children to their wives; we must be involved in every part of our children's lives. Having children is a wonderful gift, and it is a gift that we must take the time and effort to nurture. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I just have a question of clarification for the Minister. This was brought up to me by some of my constituents. I want to make sure that there is no problem between the definition of "the resident" as being someone here for 12 months and the definition of "the resident" as someone who is a landed immigrant. In clause 5.1, would the person have to qualify under all three clauses? If you qualify as a landed immigrant, you could theoretically be here for a shorter period of time than is required as a territorial resident.

What am I doing?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, was a little concerned with the process. I would have liked if the aboriginal leaders had come to the Western Caucus and we could have worked out a protocol and an approach so they were satisfied that their concerns were being addressed by this Legislative Assembly.

I have talked to representatives of the aboriginal leaders yesterday and today, and I am convinced that their intentions are good. They have some legitimate concerns. They just want to express them here. From what I am told by representatives of the aboriginal leaders, the intent here is not political criticism of individuals. I know when any of us go to a Dene or Metis assembly, we respect them, and I have no reason to believe that Members here won't be respected by the aboriginal leaders.

What I think we should keep in mind, though, is that this is a new approach. We are living in a brand-new age, and things are moving very quickly. Division is coming down the pipe, and there is a lot of possibility for misunderstanding. We now have some very sensitive discussions and negotiations taking place on the northern accord, on self-government and on division. Because of the nature, especially of the western Arctic where there are so many groups involved, it's very easy for misinformation or the wrong information to get circulated and for problems to arise.

I think what we are going to see in the next four years is that it's going to be very important that when those problems or misunderstandings or questions arise, there will be more requests for people to appear here at the Legislative Assembly, and I think we should let them. I think the Nunavut leaders, I am sure, in the next four years are going to ask to appear here because of concerns they have. I am sure that leaders from the tax-based municipalities are going to want to appear here, and though it's not in the normal parliamentary practice in southern Canada, nowhere in southern Canada are they facing an issue like division.

So I think new times are going to take new approaches, and I think that we have to start off by believing that the people's intentions are honourable. People just want to have a forum to express legitimate concerns, and on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I will support this motion. Thank you.

---Applause