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.

Mr. Speaker, I am too new to this to make a comment. When the NIC had their meetings in the towns, consulting with people on what type of government we want, I felt that the Inuit people in the communities were not properly trained or properly informed or educated to make decisions on what type of government they wanted. In our Inuit society, we have never had party politics. We have lived in harmony, electing our own leaders by the majority of the public. That's the style we have used for thousands of years.

I understand exactly what Mr. Dent and Mr. Ballantyne have said. I know about the structures of the different governments, but my Inuk mind will always say we are not educated enough yet to make decisions on what style of government we want. I wouldn't want to inherit the style of government that was imposed on us or given to us by people who have not lived in our shoes before.

I was very upset at the NIC meeting at being asked without being informed, without being given pamphlets, without being educated on the styles of governments around the world; just to be asked what type of government do you guys want. I understand there has to be team work, but we have done team work in our Inuit communities very well. I guess I'm saying that before we start introducing these bills, from my riding I would like my communities to be educated first as to what types of government there are in the country, what types of government work around the world, before we are given a chance to say anything about what types of styles we need for our future.

Maybe it's good to have party politics, coming from a non-aboriginal point of view, but it just didn't sink into my Inuit mind and I know it didn't sink in my father's mind; no one tried to explain to him that team work in this style of government is a drama played before the public.

I was very upset that my people are not educated enough to be asked what style of government we want yet. Before we do that, we don't feel comfortable making a decision.

I understand where the non-aboriginal people are coming from, and I understand that's the best way for you guys to do it. But coming from a small community, coming from an Inuit perspective, I cannot comprehend this yet. I know the people in the communities cannot comprehend that yet because we have not had any other type of governing body in our communities. Thank you for your time.

---Applause

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.