The Commissioner lives on my street. As I have said before, I like to reply to him. But the thing is, there is not much to reply to. So it is the expectation that when we make our response to the Commissioner's opening address, that what we will be doing is replying to the Premier and not to the Commissioner?

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the general past replies, I believe there was an indication from some Members' replies that they had taken into consideration what the Government Leader had said. If it has to be more formal, I am not particularly stuck on one way of doing business. I don't have any objections that, in these replies, the mention of priorities or statements be incorporated into that. It has been done before. I just felt that the Members took that into account. At this stage, I would think if there was a feeling that there should be more in the Commissioner's address, we can change that, if that is the wish of the House. If the replies to the Commissioner's address incorporate some of the things I have said, I have no objection to that.

Item 6, oral questions. Your final supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

Many jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, have ways of conveying to the public what their government is all about. As some jurisdictions have a state of the union message, ours has always been a combination of things. The Premier is right. You have the passage of time, the passing away of elders, important events that happen and, of course, the plans and priorities of the people's government. I would like to ask the Premier, would she consider bringing this as an issue so we can determine exactly what she has in mind when the Commissioner is asked to make a state of the union reply. Would she consider presenting something to us in a way we can respond to. Thank you very much.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to do that. Thank you.

Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, in our system of parliamentary democracy, the Commissioner is the representative of the Crown and traditionally has been spokesman for the government in indicating the plans and priorities for the coming session. I would like to ask the Government Leader, the fact that the throne speech has been downgraded to, as my honourable colleague called it, a brief history lesson, does this indicate that the Government of the Northwest Territories wishes to de-emphasize and downgrade the office of the Commissioner? Is this the government's intention? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, definitely not.

Item 6, oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, since it is traditional that the opening day of session the government presents its plans and priorities for the Members and for the people of the Northwest Territories, I wonder why the Premier did not -- if it was her intention to make that statement herself and not through the voice of the Commissioner -- make that major address and major statement on the opening day as is the tradition...

---Applause

...in our system of democracy. Why was it delayed a day and not made on the opening day? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of us here in this Legislative Assembly had a very historic occasion taking place -- the opening of this Legislative Assembly -- and very important people taking the time to come to the Northwest Territories such as the Prime Minister and also

members from the general public. I believe that, beyond myself, every Member of this Legislature was concerned on how we presented ourselves during this special occasion. That was the reason why the speech was not made the first day. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, since the Government Leader acknowledges that the practice of having the Commissioner make a merely symbolic throne speech now appears to be in place, and since our rules allow Members and provide Members the opportunity to reply to that throne speech, is it then the government's intention to propose, through it's representative on the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges, that the reference to the Commissioner's address in the rules be changed, and that instead the rules be changed to allow Members to reply to the Premier's opening statement. Is it the government's intention to advocate a change of the rules to reflect the new reality that we've seen in this new Legislature? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not predetermining anything. The honourable Member, Mr. Lewis, brought it to our attention that perhaps this should be looked at and I appreciate that suggestion. We will do that. But, I presume, Mr. Speaker, that we'll be looking at it collectively. It may be that more is wanted in the throne speech. Maybe the way we're doing it now may be adequate. Maybe there are some things we haven't thought of. So, I don't intend to do this in absence of other Members' involvement because as we are changing and as people are becoming more involved and a lot of the other political and constitutional issues are rising, Mr. Speaker, I'm willing to entertain any ideas and suggestions on how we might proceed and where various statements can be. So I'm not predetermining a discussion. Thank you.

Item 6, oral questions. This is your final supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Judging from the willingness of the Premier to respond to suggestions of Members and caucus about how to handle this change, Mr. Speaker, do I take it then, Mr. Speaker, that this significant change in practice and in precedence and departure from the rules of this Assembly has not really been considered or thought through by the Premier? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the order of events was not an intentional plan. The fact was that on a day-to-day basis we conduct -- and you have entrusted myself as Premier, and the Cabinet Ministers to do an order of business. It was thought that since the business has been done at the Cabinet level, that it was appropriate we express it at that level. If it's felt that it should be done a different way I'm open to those suggestions, but there was no stated plan or idea of how specifically the order of business had to be done. Thank you.

Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Pudluk.