Mr. Speaker, the particular units we indicated would be available for sale in the three communities, are what you call detached units or extended units, and are owned by the territorial government. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the objective was to get ourselves out of the housing business. We felt we could do it now in the three communities of Yellowknife, Fort Smith and Hay River. We felt we could do it with the particular units designated because government employees were already inside these units. We would only sell to the employees who are presently residing in the particular units. In this way, it does not disrupt the present housing market. If those particular employees choose not to buy the units, life will go on as is for a few more months. As I said, our long-term housing strategy, which we will provide in June, will hopefully address the course we take with regard to dealing with these units at that time. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated that yesterday in a reply to one of the questions a Member had asked, that the units are being sold to those employees who are presently occupying the units that we designated, and there are no conditions on the length of tenancy. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think I was trying to indicate that we do not know what we will be telling communities like Fort Simpson. We do not have anything to tell them now. What I am hoping is that in June, when we deliver our long-term housing strategy, communities like Fort Simpson will have their questions answered. What do we do with the government units in that community? That is the commitment we are making here. I hope it will be sufficiently addressed in that strategy. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, at the Toronto conference three weeks ago, all of the aboriginal leaders, with the exception of the Native Council of Canada, made arguments in principle that all the aboriginal people across Canada support Quebec in its aspirations to protect itself as a distinct society, and that it should be given proper recognition and resources and capacity to endure what is very much an English-dominated northern hemisphere.

The argument went on to suggest that because of the principles that moved aboriginal people to support Quebec, they should give the aboriginal people of Canada the same type of support in that they, too, are a very distinct people and that this should be reflected in the Constitution.

The controversy erupted on this issue because of the wording. It was felt that Quebec has claimed ownership to those two words, "distinct society," in the Constitution of Canada. Distinct society is reserved for Quebec. Quebecers were very insistent that that should apply only to Quebec, and if aboriginal people should seek recognition, I guess, of their own distinctness, as Zeebeedee Nungak said, then we should look for our own words.

The original intent, at least for many of us there, was just to line up in the media to get the message across to Canadians that the very reasons why there would be a move to support Quebec in its fight to survive and to promote its identity, were that the same types of principles should move them to support aboriginal people as well.

From there, I think all of us sort of separated company. Some of the leaders said that they did not want to get into a fight with Quebec. They did not want to distract from the main issue, which was to get constitutional recognition of the inherent right to self-government in the Constitution. They felt, for instance, in section 35 of the Constitution that recognizes aboriginal rights and treaty rights, that if the inherent right to self-government was inserted in there that it would be very, very, very strongly implicit that aboriginal people are, in fact, distinct in the Constitution, and that it would only be a secondary reserve support to put another line somewhere in the Constitution, in the Canada clause, for instance, to say that aboriginal people are also distinct.

I think people felt that the word "distinct," particularly "society," is not one that should be used for aboriginal people. We are not societies; we are nations and first peoples. That is, basically, where we ended up.

As a participant, my own comment at that time was that I am not hung up on wording. I did not think we all were. It is something that is going to be resolved at the upcoming talks. At the meetings next Monday and Tuesday, the Ministers have agreed to meet, only because we found the federal government somewhat lacking in enthusiasm to call aboriginal Ministers together in the wake of the Oka crisis, and in the absence of any forum for us, as territorial and provincial leaders, to have discussions about how to address aboriginal issues. We did not want to get into a situation where we were communicating by mail. There were court cases that were coming up, and we thought we should share those, at least on an informal level. We should talk about the big feud that we all have about how clear we can get it, for instance, in claims agreements, about what the responsibilities of the federal government are. Especially in the areas of costs, as opposed to provincial and territorial governments, and the delivery of programs and services, to see how we can all brag or be ashamed of ourselves about how poorly we are doing in those areas.

So those were the original reasons for the agenda. Ontario took the lead in calling for it. As a government, we hosted an official meeting here last summer that was preparing the way for this Ministers' meeting that is going to happen next week. The federal government and Quebec will not be attending, but everybody else will be there. Thank you.

Yes, I was speaking to the motion. This is my preamble. Now this particular motion is getting very specific about what I would say is not unimportant, not insignificant, but it really can be seen as a very small part of an enormous task that we are going to jointly define. We have said, and I think we have agreed, that this committee is going to look at all the jobs that need to be done to reshape northern government, and yet we have here a motion that is jumping the gun. This kind of motion would be coming, I thought, only after there is massive consideration of the entire job that has to be done, not just picking specific little areas, and I find it quite premature. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am, I guess, a little bit puzzled by the behaviour of some of the ordinary Members, in that they have been complaining all week about not feeling that they are involved in a grand plan of how to approach implementing changes or recommending changes. We have, I thought, just reached agreement that we are going to set up a working committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how extensively we can go into these questions, because it is an issue that is in front of the committee of the whole. The plebiscite direction proclamation is tabled and is presently on our agenda in committee of the whole. I do not mind continuing here, but whether it should be continued or not --I can do that, but -- I guess I answered my own question.

I am of the view, and I think everybody should be, that this is not about wondering whether division will happen or not. We are going on the assumption that the call for division was answered in 1982. A plebiscite at that time said that the people of the North support division. This plebiscite is asking, based on the assurances in the preamble, are you going to support this particular line as a boundary for division? This is what it says. If it seems to be in the affirmative, it is perhaps not unlike some people's thinking; but it is trying to take a positive slant to what is going to be a very historic event. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the general conditions under which most political leaders of the Western Arctic have indicated they would support division have been fairly consistent and fairly clear since 1980-81. Those conditions were that the constitutional future of the residents of the western territory would be fairly secure -- those are my own words -- before division would proceed. There would be some assurance that the level of service that is provided for people, that they are accustomed to, would not be adversely affected or disrupted in any major way. Also, a more recent arrival to the scene was the growing concern for the well-being of our government workers, that they would not be unfairly dealt with if division should occur. Those have been fairly consistent, and I think we have already taken those into account in drafting the question. They are provided in the preamble. Thank you.