Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to recite some of the reasons for this motion and perhaps deal with some of the questions. I am aware, Madam Speaker, that there are some people who may think that using the term "Premier" may be just a little bit pretentious. I know that was certainly the reaction in some quarters when Government Leader Tony Penikett announced he would adopt the title during the height of the Meech Lake crisis, at the very time when the territories were aspiring towards equal status with the provinces. I am not sure that timing was well-conceived.
However, I would like to remind Members of this House, what they well know. Apart from the area of natural resources, this government has all the powers and responsibilities of any province in fields such as education, health, social services and local government. Indeed, in the area of housing, I understand we build far more social houses in a year, than all of the Maritime provinces combined. I had some fun discussing this with then Premier Gihz of Prince Edward Island when I met him, shortly after his election. Our budget in the Northwest Territories is well over twice that of the province of Prince Edward Island.
As to the absence of power in natural resource areas, even though we have worked very hard on the northern accord, intensely for the last six years or so, Alberta and Manitoba became provinces and they were carved out of the Northwest Territories and then waited until 1930 before they were granted control over natural resources. Two provinces have used the term "Premier" with the same jurisdiction as the Northwest Territories has now.
Indeed, a careful reading of history, and perhaps Mr. Lewis will give us more details than I have knowledge of, will show us that the term "Premier" was used many years ago by leaders of the Northwest Territories, Haultain being one who used that title.
I think there are very good reasons for using this title today, Madam Speaker. I think it would reflect our evolution and our coming to the table in what has been called, by political scientists, the very important institutions of executive federalism. Executive federalism is that relatively new, but important creature called the First Ministers' conference, which has dealt with major constitutional and economic issues in recent years.
For example, I understand that under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Chretien, the December 23 First Ministers' conference, which our government attended, and our Premier attended as an equal, had serious discussions on a national strategy for deficit reduction and tax reform. This is an increasingly important forum, Madam Speaker. The good news is we are now in the club as equals.
In the early 1980s, the first leader of the elected Executive, the Honourable George Braden, was subjected to the indignity of sitting in the gallery of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, while Premiers met below. He was not only an observer, but a very distant observer...he and Chris Pearson of Yukon.
Progress was slow over the years, although it was measured by small victories. This almost sounds trivial, but I do remember at the time what a significant event we thought it was when the late Premier Hatfield, who was hosting a First Ministers' conference in New Brunswick, invited Mr. Sibbeston, another former Government Leader, to attend a dinner of First Ministers being held after the first day of an FMC, that was considered to be a breakthrough. Mr. Sibbeston had been an observer at the meeting, but he was invited to the table for dinner.
I, myself, recall another small victory in 1987, when Mr. Penikett and I were invited to the table after a coffee break at a First Ministers' conference on the economy, but only to make a ten minute presentation. Then we were politely escorted back to our seats in the peanut gallery beside the press. I recall at that conference in Toronto, that Mr. Penikett, and I and our staff became very excited because we did receive a formal invitation to a dinner that night from Premier Peterson, only to learn from anxious aides of the Premier, later that day, that the inclusion of our names on the invitation list to dinner had been a mistake. We weren't invited after all. We were tempted to crash the dinner party, but we didn't.
Madam Speaker, there were breakthroughs, finally, in the 11th Assembly. Perhaps as a benefit of our high profile position on the Meech Lake process, we got invitations to participate as equals at the First Ministers' conference in Ottawa on the invitation of Prime Minister Mulroney and to the western Premiers' conference at Neepawa, Manitoba, on the invitation of Premier Devine.
Our leader is now an equal in every sense with the provincial Premiers. There is no real reason for a distinction in title from other provincial leaders. I think, Madam Speaker, having experienced this myself and having talked to the present Government Leader about it, there is also a very practical reason for making this change and that is simply this. The term "Government Leader" is inevitably confused with the term "Government House Leader." This error is often made, Madam Speaker, even by experienced politicians who should know better. When our leader is introduced at public events, for example, the Western Premiers' Conference, it is very confusing for the public when our leader is described as the Government House Leader, quite a different status from a provincial Premier.
We have a very hard-working Government House Leader, Madam Speaker, in Mr. Pollard. Let's end the confusion between Mr. Pollard and his job, and that of Ms. Cournoyea and her job.