Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, I am not asking whether the government allocated social housing to the community. What I am asking is, does that community lose its other allocation then? This effectively puts five more units into the community of Fort Simpson, Nahendeh, and four social housing units in the Sahtu community of Norman Wells. Normally you only get a certain amount of units that are allocated according to the housing needs survey, so if you are getting five social housing units plus your normal allocation, then you are getting two or three times what you would normally get. What I am asking is, in Fort Simpson, say, do they get these five units plus their normal allocation? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I am glad to know there is a policy in place to handle this. What does the policy indicate about the fact that these units are going in and about the allocation of units that those particular communities already have? For instance, I am not sure what their allocation was. Say, Fort Simpson is supposed to get five units this year. Are those five social housing units that are going in now additional units in that community? Do these units here take the place of the units that would have gone into those communities? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry. You did not see my hand up. The indication here is that surplus staff housing units are going to be used for social housing in the communities of Fort Simpson and Norman Wells, five units in Fort Simpson and four units in Norman Wells. Could the Minister indicate if this is part of the yearly housing allocation that goes to communities? Every year communities get a specific allocation of housing units. Normally there are only two or three a year, and every community gets their fair share according to the housing needs survey that is done periodically. I think the last one was done last year. What I am wondering is if these allocations of five social housing units in Fort Simpson and four social housing units in Norman Wells are part of the yearly allocation based on the last housing needs survey that was done. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson, I am sorry. What page were you starting on?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the four year term of the 13th Legislative Assembly expires on November 16, 1999,

AND WHEREAS it would be desirable to hold the general election earlier than December 31, 1999

AND WHEREAS, under Section 9(3) of the Northwest Territories Act, the Governor in Council, after consultation, may dissolve the Legislative Assembly thus causing a new legislature to be elected.

NOW, THEREFORE, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake, that this Legislative Assembly requests that the Government in Council dissolve the 13th Legislative Assembly by October 21, 1999, to permit a general election for the 14th Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to be held on December 6, 1999. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank people who have indicate that they will be voting for this motion and I appreciate the fact that the government agrees that there is a need to place a high priority on the resolution of the outstanding land claims and self-government negotiations. Mr. Speaker, the first whereas indicates that a few things have caused serious rifts amongst the people of the Northwest Territories, and that is just a plain fact, Mr. Speaker. That is what we heard. I am not trying to harp on this. This is not rhetoric. It is just one of the facts. I know Cabinet is trying to make some movement. They have agreed to do certain things to try to get things moving in a proper direction, and I appreciate that as well. With that, Mr. Speaker, I guess we may proceed on voting on the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason we are making this motion is outlined in the whereas clauses. We believe that these land claims and self-government negotiations have been going on for years and years. They do create political and economic and even social instability by taking so long. People, investors are reluctant to invest in areas where claims are not settled. Even where claims are settled, if the self-government negotiations are still ongoing, there is still a bit of reluctance in those areas as well to invest. It seems that this government while we are placing a priority and we are working hard in the land claims area, we think that there should be a higher priority placed and whatever this government can do to facilitate those claims, I should not say whatever, but we feel the government should work harder to facilitate these claims so that they can go faster. I think a good gesture was done in the past year where more staff was hired so that there could be more people working in the land claims areas. These are the types of things that have to continue. We have to ensure that there are enough people working on the claims so that our government is not holding things up, so that if there is research that needs to be done, if negotiators have to negotiate that there are actually people, enough people dedicated to this so that they do not hold things up.

It is fine for some of the regions I suppose if their land claims are already concluded, but there are some that are not. There is a lot of them. There are the Metis, North Slave Metis, South Slave Metis, Akaitcho Treaty 8, the Dogribs are close, but they are still not finalized, the Deh Cho. There are a lot of groups out there that are still trying to successfully negotiate their land claims and some of them now are moving into self-government and that has been an outstanding sore point as well In the past they have not been able to deal with self-government in the land claims. Now there has been a movement and we feel that it is time that a very high priority be placed on this.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue is that this government needs clarity on the devolution issue and movement on the land claims and self-government issue will help to clarify that. We know that there have been attempts in the past particularly with a Northern Accord, but those have failed and those are largely failed because there are no land claims in some areas or self-government agreements. Those are the main reasons why we are asking for this motion to be passed and that this government place a very high priority on the settlement of land claims and self-government agreements. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the recent electoral boundary court challenges and the introduction of Bill 15 has created serious rifts among northern peoples;

AND WHEREAS political stability is necessary if the Northwest Territories is to have a healthy society and a positive economic and investment climate;

AND WHEREAS the land claim and self-government negotiation processes have been underway for over twenty years;

AND WHEREAS the support of aboriginal people is needed if the Government of the Northwest Territories is to progress in its efforts toward further devolution, resource development and revenue sharing;

AND WHEREAS the existing uncertainty surrounding land claims and self-government processes is harmful to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and to the economic, social and political stability of the Northwest Territories;

NOW THEREFORE, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River, that this Legislative Assembly continues to support the resolution of land claims and self-government agreements among all aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories.

AND FURTHER, requests this Executive Council and the Government of the Northwest Territories to place a high priority on the negotiations and settlement of outstanding land claims.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to deal with my motion today. Thank you.