Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the principle of this bill, initially I supported the concept of it but, after discussions with my constituents, there seems to be a concern. This bill will give the ability to the Premier to hire her Cabinet Ministers and to dismiss them accordingly, as he or she sees fit. The concern that has been expressed to me is that it's, number one, moving towards a party politics system; number two, the particular concern is that basically, once the Members agree on a Premier, then you're giving them full authority to select their Cabinet. Many people feel that in the event this bill goes through, the Premier should be elected by the people of the Northwest Territories and not just the Legislative Assembly.

I find that this bill is going to allow for manipulation in our democratic process that we've adopted as Canadians. I also find that with this particular bill, if it's allowed to go through, as our consensus system of government now operates will take a great step towards party politics and I don't know if all northerners agree with that.

So, with all due respect, I do not support the principle of this particular bill. Thank you.

To the principle of the bill. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Ballantyne.

Mr. Speaker, eight years ago I supported this principle and at that time, I think we managed to get five Members or so to support it. Four years ago, like Mr. Dent, I supported it but I think we only got up to six Members. So, it's been a slow process. I'm going to stay consistent. I've felt very strongly for many years that this is the way we have to go. I think if we don't do something, there is more danger that we're going to get into party politics. What I see as the direction for the Northwest Territories -- both in the east and the west after division -- is not party politics but team politics. If team politics doesn't win then party politics is an inevitable fallback position, there's no doubt in my mind.

You need a system that transcends regional differences. Without some kind of approach that can rise above regional differences, the collective won't work. It is my belief that the individual parts are too weak to work, so we need something that can unify us. I think having the Premier choosing the Cabinet would go along with the path of having at least one cohesive force here in the Legislative Assembly which transcends, at least theoretically anyway, regional differences.

Now, I've read in the paper alarmist statements that, somehow, this is going to lead to some sort of a dictatorship but that's nonsense. The reality is, even with this new power, the Premier of the Northwest Territories will have one-tenth of the power of a provincial Premier or the Prime Minister. If we're talking about dictatorships, in fact we presently have 11 quasi-dictatorships across the country. It's called the system, by the

way, and we won't nearly approach that with this system. I think that was an alarmist statement.

There is the other factor of accountability, which I think is a valid factor, but the Premier still has major checks and balances to keep the unbridled power of the Premier in check. In this House, the eight Cabinet Members still need to find five colleagues to support them on every issue. And, rather than calling it a minority government, the way I look at it is as an ever-changing coalition government. The very nature of an ever-changing coalition government means that the government can never really be arrogant because of the different groups, issues and MLAs who may support the government. I think our system actually has some really good safeguards against a Premier running amuck.

We also have the ongoing safeguard that if the Legislative Assembly is not happy with either the performance of the Premier or of the team, they can come up with a vote of non-confidence for one or the other and take the Premier out. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important to the next Assembly that there is a plan that people can agree on, that there is a strategy to implement the plan and that there's a team to ensure the strategy is carried out. I think that, unless we bring in this critical component, it won't be possible. You have to give the Premier that power. Otherwise, in my own personal estimation, the system is going to ultimately break down.

As the fight about division, the problems with division, the lack of money, and the different aspirations of the different regions take hold, the whole system as we know it can break down. The ultimate result of that would be the big cry for party politics in a lot of corners of the Northwest Territories. I fully support this and hope Members support it. I think it's a step in the right direction. With this critical component, I think there's a very good chance that the next government, the Premier and the Legislative Assembly, can lead us through the very difficult times we'll face in the next four years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hear! Hear!

---Applause

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the chance to give my views on this. I, too, have spoken on this matter as it has been considered in previous Assemblies and I'm going to remain consistent. I've had the difficult job of being Government Leader and I would like to think that I'm adding that experience to my consideration of this bill.

I want to say that I strongly support the bill. I think if we want to have a strong Premier, a Premier who is a leader, and if we are going to continue to demand accountability of the Premier for the actions and decisions of Cabinet and from Ministers and departments of the government, we must find ways to strengthen the accountability of Ministers to the Premier. We must find a way to ensure that Cabinet Ministers are loyal to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, it's a tough job and I recall seeing a wonderful cartoon during the life of the 10th Assembly that appeared in News/North. They used to have good cartoonists, then. It showed the Government Leader as a chuck wagon driver. Unfortunately, although the Government Leader had the reins, had a whip and was seated in the driver's seat of the chuck wagon, the horses -- and there were seven horses, each with the name of a Cabinet Minister of the day on their saddles -- were all galloping at full tilt, each one in a different direction.

Mr. Speaker, I think that -- and that was, of course, an extreme illustration -- the problem that we are trying to guard against with this bill is simply that a Minister who is challenged by the Premier for not following government policy, for not being loyal to a Cabinet decision, for undermining a colleague, may say to the Premier and can say to the Premier under the present system: "Well, you are challenging me but I don't have to listen to you; I was put in this job by MLAs and I know who they are, and if you are going to challenge me then I am going to take it to the people who put me here, and your job, Madam Premier, your job, Mr. Premier, is going to be on the line, because I don't owe my job to you. I owe it to the people who supported me in the Caucus." That is the danger, Mr. Speaker, and the weakness in our system.

Now, I would like to say, and I think I agree with the honourable Member for Thebacha, I have grave reservations about the party system and it being applied in the Northwest Territories. I think we already have, with our huge geography, our many languages and cultures, our many geopolitical interests within the Northwest territories, more than enough divisions and reasons for not working together in the territories. I feel that party politics would add to an already complicated political mix in our consensus system. So I don't believe that party politics would help.

I don't agree, however, Mr. Speaker, with the Member when she says, this will take us on the road to party politics. In fact, I agree with Mr. Ballantyne that by putting this extra measure of accountability into the office of the Premier, we will be avoiding that step to party politics. Party politics will guarantee loyalty and discipline of Ministers, and if we don't put this measure in which I think will guarantee that Minister will be loyal to the Premier, then the next alternative is going to be that we will have to create a party system and the party whip will make sure that there's loyalty.

So I see this as a safeguard against party politics rather than taking us inexorably towards party politics, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I want to say that, although I personally think there is a lot of merit in the idea of going further and electing the Premier at large, that procedure certainly will not flow from this bill and should not be confused with this bill. That is another issue and another step, and that might take us perilously close to party politics. This measure need not do so.

Basically, what we are proposing with this bill is something we have considered in Caucus seriously the last two times we have selected a Premier, and that is, we've considered having the Premier select the Cabinet rather than having Members of Caucus select the Cabinet. I know Members like to sometimes have their voice, but I would agree with Mr. Ballantyne: ordinary Members have an awful lot of power in this Assembly, mainly because, Mr. Speaker, there are 15 of us and eight Cabinet Ministers. So, at any time, the ordinary Members can choose to remove a Minister; indeed, the whole Cabinet. They have a lot of power and a lot of ability to demand accountability without insisting that they vote on secret ballot to select Cabinet Ministers.

There is one thing that I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, and I intend no criticism whatsoever of the current Cabinet, but I do believe that having the Premier select Ministers could ensure a better balance geographically, in terms of gender and those things that are important in a government.

Right now, with Cabinet Ministers being elected by secret ballot, there is nobody really there to ensure that the result is balanced. So, for example, and again I don't intend to criticize the current Cabinet Ministers who are all discharging their responsibilities across the territories, but right now, we have a Cabinet that has three Ministers from one region of the Northwest Territories out of eight, and the largest region in the Northwest Territories doesn't happen to have any representation on Cabinet.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cite this not because it was anyone's strategy or plot but because when you have the present selection of Ministers occurring by secret ballot, it's a bit of a lottery. No one really knows what the outcome is going to be. So one advantage of having the Premier select Cabinet Ministers is that there is, I think, more likelihood that there would be a better balance, geographically and otherwise, within the Cabinet.

So, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I am going to vote for team politics. I think that's what we are voting on here, to ensure that there's a team and that the Premier selects that team and that team has loyalty to the Premier. I think that what we are voting for here today; team politics, not party politics. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Antoine.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak to the principle of Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 3; to this point here: "The Executive Council shall be composed of persons appointed by the Commissioner on the recommendation of the Premier."

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against this bill. I don't support it. Originally, we asked the government to develop a bill, Bill 28, which was a bill to provide that the Commissioner, on the advice of the Premier, may revoke the appointment of a Member of the Executive Council. When the Standing Committee on Legislation reviewed this bill, they recommended to the government to develop Bill 33. Originally, I supported Bill 28 because, through the life of this Assembly, I see that there is a need for a little more authority to be given to the Premier in the discipline of Members of the Executive Council. But as it went one step further in giving the authority to the Premier to appoint Members of the Executive Council, I have to take a stand against it.

The reason for that is that I believe in consensus government, as an aboriginal person, as a Dene person, as a former chief in a small community. That's the way we conduct our business in the communities, and it has worked for centuries. Many years before this government came here, we had a form of consensus government. As a chief, you don't go around selecting your own councillors. The people select councillors to sit with you to direct the business of your nation, to conduct the business of your tribe. The previous aboriginal MLAs that sat here before us tried to incorporate that into this Assembly. That's why they call it consensus government.

We go around the world and in southern Canada, and we say that we have a unique form of government and it works. We have been saying that to people as we travel. It does work. In southern Canada and in different parts of the world, people have travelled to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings. We express these things to them. By changing Bill 33, I think it's going to really change it; it's going to be a big, fundamental change to the way this consensus government will work. The authority will be placed on one person in this Assembly, and that's going to be the Premier. The Premier is going to have the authority to hire and fire the different Members on the Executive Council, and that will take away from the form of consensus government. That's the way I see it.

You can play with the English language by saying it's going to be team politics and so forth, but, fundamentally, we're here to represent people. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, if we pass Bill 33, we're giving some of our power and authority away to a Premier. The power and authority you have is to vote for who you think will be a good Minister, and you're letting more of your authority go.

The fundamental philosophy that I have is that I'm totally against this one here, especially at the end of our term. We should leave it up to the next Assembly to talk about. It's publicly discussed quite a bit, and whoever gets into the next Assembly should decide how they want it to be governed. What we're doing is setting up the law for the people who will come after us here.

The selection of the Premier; I don't have very much support for any type of party politics. I've travelled in southern Canada and I've seen how things work. Here, we don't have to toe the party line. We've seen what happened to Warren Allmand the other day when he took a position against the Liberal Party. He got booted out as chairman of a very powerful committee in Ottawa. That's what party politics boils down to. That's the ultimate end in party politics. You tow the line or you get kicked out of responsible positions.

Here, people in communities select us. We're here, we represent them the best we can and nobody is telling us how to do it. But with party politics that will change. For example, if the Premier were a strong Liberal person, who would this Premier select? Is he going to select strong Liberal-type people from the east and the west? How is it going to eventually happen? We're talking about this session and maybe into the future.

This is what I'm concerned about, that we're setting a precedent here that we say is not a step towards party politics, but it could be that way. Even now, people are talking about party politics for the next election. This is a topic that has been discussed in public, there's nothing wrong with that; it's a free country and people can talk about whatever they want. But here, we have a unique form of government. By passing Bill 33, I think it will change fundamentally the way we do the consensus government here. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Mrs. Thompson, to the principle of the bill.

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've listened to all the arguments and I was trying to figure out if there was anything new to say that hasn't already been said.

I also remember eight years ago, or nearly eight years ago, when we had this debate. I was very much in favour, at that time, of the leader, as the person was called at that time, doing the art -- because it is an art -- of putting a Cabinet together that could do all the work that needed to get done; but, there were only five people in support of it and four years later there were six, today there may be as many as seven.

I know that in politics, change doesn't come quickly. Parliamentary systems act cautiously and move along quietly, and you don't do things by revolution; things evolve.

I would speak a little bit about all these bogeymen that people pose about imposing party politics. This Legislature can't impose party politics, but that's what happens; people do that. And if people get so fed up, sick and tired about what goes on here because we can't solve our problems, or don't evolve fast enough, then it will happen. There is a bigger danger in not doing something to improve our system, than setting up the fear that we're imposing party politics on people by what we do. If we don't do things to fix the problems that people are always telling us we have -- and they have been referred to earlier -- then it's very simple to start party politics.

If I wanted to, from now until October, all I would have to do is get enough people -- and I think I need three people -- decide on a platform, register under the societies ordinance, call myself whatever I wanted -- the Equality Party, the Freedom Party -- I could sell memberships, and I can ask people if there are enough of them to share my ideas about where I want to go. It doesn't happen from the top, it happens from the grassroots. That's what's going on right now in our system.

The idea that we don't understand party politics, team politics or the ideology is just nonsense. We have Members of Parliament in Ottawa. We send people there, that's our government. We have two Members right now; we're Liberals. Everybody understands what they are, what they represent, we vote for them and we send them there. That's our government. So, to say that we don't understand is just not right. People do understand. The territories votes in federal elections and send people to Ottawa that we want to have there representing us. It's nonsense for people to say they don't understand what party politics is; they do. Whether they want it in our Chamber here is a different question. That's the question we have to ask.

And, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, the problem we have now is this: we've made some token gestures. We decided that we don't want our leader to be called the Government Leader any more and we want that person to be called the Premier, because when that Premier goes to all the meetings with all the other Premiers, we want to show that we are the same as everybody else; for that purpose. Yet, it doesn't mean anything if the Premier is no more than a chairman of the board who makes sure everybody stays more or less decorous, follows the order of business and whatever rules are set down. But, really, there are seven governments here; you don't have one. Whatever a Minister wants to do, he will; as much as he can, decide to do that. Some people like the broken field play, that they have tremendous autonomy to do this, this and this, even though it doesn't seem to be consistent with what other people are doing.

Mr. Speaker, since I promised not to repeat what other people have said, I'll say the danger is this: if we don't improve our own system and do something to fix the problems people say we have, then we will get party politics. And, it will have nothing to do with what people do here, it will have to do with what people do out there. They will decide what will happen. It will only happen, though, if we fail to make our system better, to improve it so that the consensus system that we have will evolve in a way that is consistent with many of the things that have been said in this Chamber about our uniqueness, how different we are and how we solve our problem in a modern way, if you like. It's not only modern, it's a way that is consistent with the traditions that have been passed down over a long, long period of time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Pudluk.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to speak briefly on Bill 33. I believe what the Member for Aivilik stated earlier, that the communities are not trained in the doings of the government. NTI representatives stated that the representative of Parliament who represents Nunatsiaq said that he supported the people of Nunavut with regard to gun control. He was elected by the people but, because he is a Liberal, he feels he cannot go against the gun control legislation.

Although the Inuit are in support of amending parts of the gun control legislation, Jack Anawak was not able to say whether or not he was in favour of gun control. The Inuit vote for people who can represent them in the best way possible. There are a lot of people who are not in favour of gun control in the north, but the Members of Parliament cannot state whether or not they're in favour of the bill. Although Jack Anawak represents the Inuit, he cannot.

Today, I think people need to be trained and, perhaps, later they will have a better understanding of how to present themselves. If I was to ask people in my constituency about what they know about the bill, a lot of them would probably say that they don't know enough and that there's not enough consultation. Because of this, I cannot support this bill. Thank you.

To the principle of the bill. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the proposed bill, I would like the proposed bill to be explored more in our Assembly. We have a committee process in this Legislature.

(Microphones turned off)

---Laughter

I have been listening with great interest to what Members have to say about this bill and I would like to hear more about it. However, if we don't pass it to second reading, we can't do that.

Hear! Hear!

---Applause

So I would like the committee to explore the pros and cons of this legislation.

Do we have time?

(Microphones turned off)

Mr. Speaker, since the government will give this bill to the Standing Committee on Legislation after second reading, I will allow that to happen, so there will be more views expressed.

---Applause

Thank you.

To the principle of the bill. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe, as Mr. Patterson might be reminded, I was the one holding the reins in the 10th Assembly.

---Laughter

I had to pull back some of the people who were sometimes somewhat hypocritical about their positions.

Ohh.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments. There are, Mr. Speaker, I think, legitimate reasons for the recommended change. I think, speaking from experience, that one of the underlying reasons that most people want to make choices is the whole issue of some certainty of loyalty.

I understand the concern that my honourable colleague for Nahendeh has that the process of reaching consensus is designed to ensure that there is some appreciation and understanding of the positions and the variety of positions that might be taken.

But I also want to remind Members that probably the most powerful political party in the last two decades, until its demise five or six years ago, was the Dene Nation. In terms of the party relationship and the partisan positions that we took on claims, on aboriginal rights and the collective position we held together, we really showed, I think, that we were, in fact, a great political party. The bad part about what has happened, I think, indicates exactly those things. There came a time when all of us or some of us, in fact, didn't take seriously the collective importance and the political partisan relationship that was necessary for that group to be very powerful.

I see that situation as being probably the same thing with our Cabinet. There has to be a leader who leads us that receives the loyalty and support that is necessary to carry out the collective will; no different in many respects, Mr. Speaker, than our support that, at one time, we showed collectively for a man by the name of Georges Erasmus in the Dene Nation. He was our leader and we collectively supported him.

I see this whole process as being of a somewhat similar nature. Maybe in some respects we need to have this discussion outside of this Legislature and certainly we need to ensure that the people have an opportunity to make their choices.

But I am also going to say this. Despite our efforts to pass the Legislature or to give whatever direction necessary, I think it is an important issue that needs to be taken to the people. I think that, whether we take it now or whether we take it through the election, it's important that we hear clearly what the people have to say about the authority that our leader should have.

Now, saying that, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we understand that, as Mr. Lewis has said, it should really be left in many respects to the choice and direction of the people, and maybe one way of hearing that, if it doesn't happen, is through our standing committees, and if not, I certainly do hope it is one of the issues that is articulated and clearly identified on our political platforms.

The other point I also want to make clear is that I think the principle, while we are debating it, is that we are also giving second reading and therefore giving an opportunity for others to at least have their view and express their position clearly on this particular matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

To the principle of the bill. Mr. Whitford.

Ohh.

Mr. Whitford, can we avoid any debates here and have some order in the House? Continue, Mr. Whitford.

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very interesting debate on the bill. I have been hearing a lot of different opinions from the Members of this House. I don't have a lot of opinions on this bill; however, I would like to make a few comments.

The reason why we are debating this bill is because of our constituents; so that we can better serve them in the future. This is not just for the current Members of the Legislature. We try and look for ways that we can improve our ways of life and quality of life. We would like to see this bill being debated with dignity and equality for all people. Somehow we have to try to come up with a compromise so the pros and cons of this bill can be debated further, to help our people in the future.

Some Members stated earlier that in the smaller communities, there is no such thing as party politics, that this is something new to us. However, our younger generation will be more involved in party politics, as it is becoming inevitable. At this time, we have to be able to make up our minds about what would be better suited for the public we serve. Although we would like to make everyone happy when we pass legislation, we cannot always make all the people we represent happy, whatever it is about. I would like to state that I'm coming from an aboriginal point of view. I am here to represent my constituents and I have to speak for them, since they cannot be here.

I would like to encourage young people who will be involved in government in later years to become more aware about what is happening today in our Legislature. We have to start educating the people we represent so they will be better informed and have a better understanding about what kind of system we want to have in our government. We have to have a good government and have to work together to come up with a system that would be best suited for all the people we represent. I have a concern that, in light of fiscal restraints we are currently undergoing, come 1999 we aren't sure where we will be fiscally. I know we are going to go through a tough time trying to get a government running in Nunavut. However, we have to start preparing now so that our government can run smoothly in Nunavut.

I really can't decide whether I'll oppose or vote for the bill we're discussing right now. These are all the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes our constituents tell us that we don't give them enough information or that we don't consult with them enough before we vote on important issues such as the bill we're debating at this time. We have to be able to inform the public about what kind of system we will move to in the future. I know we try to do the best we can for our constituents. I can't say whether I will be voting in favour or against this bill at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the principle of the bill. Mr. Zoe.

To the principle of the bill.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 33 has had second reading and, accordingly, the bill stands referred to committee.

Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Committee Report 10-12(7), Report on Bill 32: An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2; Bill 25, Education Act; and, Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2, with Mr. Whitford in the chair.