Supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

Is it the Minister's intention then to continue issuing tenders that can only be bid for by one Northwest Territories company?

Thank you. Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was never the intention to send out a tender that can only be bid by one company. All tenders can be bid on by all companies. But to encourage northern manufacturing, the tanks that go on those trucks will be made in the north. Thank you.

Thank you. Final supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

Will the Minister undertake to make sure that these future tender calls will include separate provisions for the supply of a vehicle and the supply of the tank so you would not be creating a monopoly?

Thank you. Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will look into that issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 5, oral questions. The honourable Member for Inuvik, Mr. Koe.

Mahsi. Just following up to my colleague from Iqaluit on the Power Corporation housing strategy. The Minister responsible for the Power Corporation, I think she stated that in June 1992 at the board meeting, the board discussed principles for the sale of Power Corporation staff houses. My question is, what is the current status of the strategy to sell Power Corporation staff houses?

Thank you. Minister responsible for the Power Corporation.

Madam Speaker, in my response I did indicate that direction was given to develop a method for selling staff accommodation and to withdraw from providing accommodation in communities that have road access. If the Member wants more detail I can provide that, but my understanding is that as much as possible if units are not needed they are sold. The Power Corporation is taking much the same approach to try to encourage people to become home owners. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 5, oral questions. Time has lapsed for oral questions. I will recognize you first on Monday, honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Gargan. Item 6, written questions. Item 7, returns to written questions. Item 8, replies to opening address. Item 9, replies to budget address. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Lewis.

Madam Speaker, I just realized how quickly time passes. Monday, in fact, will be the last day that you can reply to the budget address, I believe. So I wouldn't want there to be a rush of people at the last minute suddenly deciding that they should be replying to the budget. So I will take advantage today to make a brief reply, since I've done so ever since this item has been on the order paper.

I don't have a massive, prepared text, Madam Speaker. I'm not on the Standing Committee on Finance any more, so I'm not privy to all the inside discussions that take place within that committee and perhaps don't have the same grasp of all the details that I would have were I a serving Member of that committee.

I have a few observations to make though, Madam Speaker. The first one being about the criticism that this budget lacks focus. I've said many times in the past, it's very easy to be critical. It's very simple to be a critic. I would like my remarks to be taken as a reflection not on the fact that the people we have doing the work do things badly, but that perhaps we're limited because of the kind of system we have and therefore you are limited in the ability that you have to provide the kind of focus and direction you would like because of the nature of our consensus-type government.

I know that in the past we have referred to some of the mistakes that we've made in the past. I refer back to the beginning of this document, which outlines our fiscal position and outlook, and points out that from time to time we find ourselves going into debt or finding that we don't have enough money to serve our programs, because during the transfer we never made arrangements to make sure that there was a proper transfer of money. I refer particularly to fire suppression where we were given the responsibility for protecting the trees, but we weren't in fact given that responsibility but we were given responsibility to put out the fires when those trees were threatened.

The same kind of dilemma it seems to me is being posed by the possible vacuum that exists right now in relation to social housing. There is a bit of ambiguity when we hear, on one hand, that we're going to take an overall government approach, a package approach, when we get into our next meetings with the federal government to sort out of fiscal arrangements, that we won't be going piecemeal. Yet, for the past several months -- and it's certainly to his credit because he's shown, as I said before, bulldog tenacity in going to see the appropriate Minister of Housing in Ottawa. But you have someone who, in fact, is spending a tremendous amount of time trying to solve this problem with one Minister, yet we're told no we're not going to do it that way, we're going to do it a different way. We're going to have a total package approach. We're not going to take it bit by bit by bit. Yet that seems to be the way we're going.

There is also some ambiguity about what we are going to do with relation to taking over responsibility for things. On one hand we're told, no, the federal government has the legal responsibility for housing, so that's the position we're going to take. The point I'm making is that we've heard that there should be no ambiguity about who is responsible for housing. It is a federal responsibility. Yet, from time to time we hear that's one of the reasons we have to sell off the Power Corporation, because if we do that, look at the money we'll have to solve our housing problems. You get a mixed message when you're told we are going to be absolutely adamant that the responsibility of the federal government will remain and we won't equivocate on it, on the other hand we're told that if we had more money of our own then we would be able to solve the problem. We can't have it both ways. Either they're going to do it, and we're going to insist they do it, or we say it's our responsibility and we have to find the money to do it. So we get mixed messages. That's why, I think, you get comments that there's some lack of focus, some real sense that there is no plan in place to solve our problems.

As far as priorities are concerned, Madam Speaker, there's no doubt in my mind, since I was involved in education for many, many years in the early years of my life that I will be accused of some bias. But it seems to me that the Government of the Northwest Territories is not out of line in making education and training a priority. That's the position that's been taken by every industrialized country in the world today. That is the solution. You have to have a very well-trained education workforce. That is the argument why the United States in now in decline. It's an empire that's rotting because the education system is not working. Ninety million people, they reckon, in the United States, find it very difficult to simply fill out a form. There are lots of forms, as we all know, that citizens are asked to fill in these days just to be a functioning member of society, let alone a strong economic unit.

Those countries that are providing a good, solid, modern, forward-looking education system for the young people, are leading the world. That's the way the economies are going. That's the point we also made three years ago in our Special Committee on the Northern Economy. People couldn't understand that that's an economic issue. Your trained workforce is where it all starts because if you don't have the guns you're not going to win the war, and that's the name of the game. So I certainly appreciate the position of the government and also the response from SCOF, that this is an issue of priority and I'm glad to see that we're putting the resources into it. It's not a biased view, it's the view that's held by nearly every economist in the world today, that that is where you have to put your effort.

I know I've been criticized in the past because I haven't made it absolutely clear what I mean about transportation and transportation infrastructure. I know that Members in this House accuse me of making statements about roads to nowhere. It seems to me that the priority that this government has placed to try to do something on the Mackenzie Highway makes sense, because it ain't a road to nowhere. You're talking about linking up places, where there are people, or where there are goods that are being transported, and it's so obvious that if you have communities linked along a line --, an old transportation car that existed even before we thought of roads -- that that's what we should be doing. That isn't a road to nowhere.

What worries me is when you have some scheme that you suddenly see as a vision that will create expectations that may never happen. We know there are people needing services and that the services will be provided. But if all you have is a dream, and the dream hasn't been thought through, then perhaps it's not a good way to spend your money. It's just a pipe dream. So I'm happy to say that that in fact is being given consideration because it makes sense to do that, despite what some people in the city of Yellowknife may think, that a priority should be a road to the coast. That will happen one day. One day I'm sure that will happen. But things have to evolve in a natural, organized, planned fashion and that's the position I would always take.

I've looked through the other departments and I've worried very, very much about how our government intends to get the kind of revenues it needs to do the work that needs to be done ahead. I can see that it's very difficult in our form of government to do the kinds of things that you like to do. I know three years ago Mr. Kakfwi was talking about having to legislate. We have huge problems so maybe we have to legislate. In a consensus House like this, it's very difficult to do that. It's okay for us to legislate ourselves and take the two per cent off our own salaries, but you try to legislate to do that with all kinds of other people and it's very, very difficult and you will put tremendous burdens on us to do that.

It's very difficult in our form of government to get a tough bill through the House. In my opinion, Mr. Pollard was lucky last year that he was able to get his payroll tax through, because all the thinking, all the talking, all the impetuous for months before that was that how are you going to get people to agree that we should do this because it's an unknown tax, the impact was going to be this or that, it was unknown and people were worried about it. Although we did all agree to it, I know that, personally, in Yellowknife people were very, very upset with me for even voting for it. It's very difficult to get taxes like that through the House. A corporate tax is a bit easier because it doesn't effect every individual in the way that the personal taxes do, individual taxes.

I note that if you really believe that the way to go is to develop an economy throughout small business, they have been burdened. It's incredible, the amount of burden that we put on small business that have to worry about GST, the payroll tax and all the other accounting that we have to do just to keep little businesses floating. They spend an inordinate amount of time just to do the paperwork. It seems to me that has to be sorted out somehow.

Another problem I see in our consensus type House to do tough things is when you identify, Madam Speaker in our budget book, that we are going to really look at the way in which we handle the public service, the management of the public service. It's all right to say there's one-third of our money there. That's the place, obviously, where we can look for savings. Again, we don't have the power to legislate the way other people do and to use the power of the numbers. But you really don't have control over that process. The best you have is a shared responsibility. It's not something that you can say we're going to do this, bang. When you sit down with people it's a give and take process. You're not going to be able to say we want to take. If that's the goal of the exercise, just to take, you're not going to win because you'll end up going to arbitration. I'm afraid that our one or two per cent that we've taken off ourselves will not provide you with much of a precedent to settle a dispute about salaries or benefits. Everything else that you want to do is going to be at a table, it's bilateral and you don't have the power. It's a shared responsibility and it's not part of management of government, as such. That's a different process. Managing a government and bargaining are two completely different things.

Having said those things, Madam Speaker, I'm really not being negative about this budget. What I'm saying is that the faults that our government are being credited with or discredited with, are because of the nature of our system not because of the people who are in it. I believe they're doing the best they can with the tools we have available to us. When you look at achievements over the many years, even though we have from time to time been very critical, we still exist, we're still struggling along. For our all faults, we still seem to be able to get out business done.

So that is this year's response to the budget address. I was very happy to be the first to do so. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you. Item 9, replies to budget address. Thank you. The House will recess for 15 minutes.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call the House back to order. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. The honourable Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I now seek unanimous to proceed with Motion 12-12(5) on the use of "Premier" as the title for the Government Leader, of which I gave notice yesterday.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent for Motion 12-12(5). Are there any nays? There are no nays. Please proceed, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

WHEREAS, in 1979 this Assembly adopted the designation "Leader of the Elected Executive" to describe the leader who has been chosen by the elected Members of the Executive Council at a time when the Executive Council was composed of both appointed and elected Members;

AND WHEREAS, since 1983 this Assembly has adopted the designation "Government Leader";

AND WHEREAS, the Government Leader of the Northwest Territories has been recognized as equal to provincial Premiers at western Premiers' conferences since 1991;

AND WHEREAS, the Northwest Territories has been recognized as equal to provinces at First Ministers' conferences since 1991;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake, that this Legislative Assembly adopt the designation "Premier" to refer to the Government Leader and chair of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you. Seconder for the motion, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

The honourable Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Patterson.

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.