Mr. Speaker, I would argue that anybody who thinks that there is anything wrong with the system when we have gone through two leadership questions in one year, they have to rethink that answer.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have given a consent to any budget. Well, I do not think there was a consensus reached about our spending priorities or our social priorities. I do not remember that. To say that is a complete and utter denial. All I have ever been able to do is okay, maybe a small consent.
Let's look at how we are serving the public interest. What are the big issues we have had to deal with in this House that perhaps we could have done better if we had a government that had a mandate and they had enough power to move on this agenda. The energy policy, it has taken us three years. We still do not have it. We have the future of health care which, if we ever discussed it, it boils into a rural or urban issue. We have a Kyoto agreement that we have not had a discussion on, and we are on the verge of doing but we still do not have. We have the biggest disaster, environmental disaster sitting right underneath Yellowknife. I mean, it is like top ten in the world agenda as the contaminated sites. Have we had a discussion on that? Of course not, because that is, like, a Yellowknife issue.
Mr. Speaker, a transportation strategy, we have not had an agreement on where we build the road. We have not had an agreement on do we go where the traffic is? Do we go where there should be more jobs created? Should we build the road first? Should we go to the diamond mines? We have never had that discussion here.
If we have a consensus government, where is the discussion on how we are spending the money? What are the priorities? The best we can show to the people is that the Cabinet coalition goes in there, they have their little try at consensus building. I am sure they have seven party leaders proposing their seven party platforms, and we come down to the lowest common denominator, or whatever they can agree on. Then we have 11 party leaders get into a coalition on the other side and we talk about that, about what we think, and of course, 11 of us come from all different places with our own platform and we are our own respective leaders of our own party, so the only way we can get anything pushed is if we can get a coalition together as a party leader.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, on and on about the issues we have not been able to agree on. Tourism issues -- we could not agree on that. Addictions facilities, can we agree on where the facility should go, or whether there should be a little treatment centre in every community or it should be in Yellowknife? Education...anyway, I do not want to say that this is the fault of Cabinet. I think that Cabinet or this Assembly as a whole has tried, and God knows every one of us here has worked really hard to push those.
But to say that these 19 people come in here with the best intentions and they are making judgments on the basis of their personal beliefs, personal judgment, their local issues, whatever...the best thing we bring to the floor, to say that 19 of us could actually sit here or sit in another room or at a retreat or wherever, and that we could actually discuss in a substantive way, and discuss it long enough and hard enough to come up with a decision that leads to the needs of the general, mutual and public interest, is a complete denial. That is not happening here and I do not see it. The only loser in this game is the public. That is how I see it, Mr. Speaker.
For me, the accountability question comes to, on what basis do we, each 19 of us have, each one of us make our decisions about these important issues? I have a position on the energy policy, transportation, whatever. As hard as I try, it is not, and you know, I am working like a party leader here, but I do not have a party leadership convention. I do not have a policy convention. All I could do is call different people. I try to read everything I can, but I am only one person. So where is the link between each 19 of us say and to extend on and to vote on and what the people out there are thinking? I am not knocking the job that each Member here is trying to do. We are trying to represent our constituents in the best way that we can, but I do believe we have to find a system where the views of the people that we serve can be better reflected in the way we stand on issues. That is really, really important, because otherwise, we are just an isolated vessel in here, talking in the best way we know how, but it may be totally out of touch with what the people out there are thinking.
I have been asked a lot, because I said on other occasions that we have a very, well, I do not know if we have a completely dysfunctional system, but I do know, without any doubt, that whatever we have here is not a consensus government. What I think is we are part of a party politics of 19 members, except that we have sometimes the worst part of each system. In consensus government, if you cannot agree on something that is of public interest, then you get to agree on the least contentious basis.
In party politics, God knows that there are a lot of problems with party politics. But one thing that is good about party politics that we do not have here is that whoever gets into a party, they can govern. They can govern for the period of time that they have. Then they are held accountable at the end of their mandate, whenever that may be, whether it is set or it is by the Premier. In parliamentary systems, Premiers or Prime Ministers could call an election. In the system in the U.S., they know that they are going to go into an election every four years. Another good thing about party politics that is not here is that before the government is formed, people out there know what the government stands for. Even if, you know, they do not live up to those expectations, at least any respectable party will have a publication out there that tells the people where they stand as a government, not as an individual member.
What we have here, we do not know that. We form a consensus government on the basis of a coalition of seven party leaders. They get together. They work out an agenda after six months. They try to explain to the other 11 of them. I tell you, I know that some Members here think that we do not get consulted enough. We would like to be a part of the thing. Sometimes I think I am just consulted too much. Like, Cabinet Members cannot move anywhere because they have to ask 11 of us all the time. But then, I do not have a say on... I cannot delete an item in the budget. I cannot say no, I do not think Kyoto is the first thing. I want more money for Stanton. I mean, I cannot do that. I cannot say, as a party leader, that is what I will fight for in the next election and I cannot ask that this party to be accountable on that.
I think I have made... I do not even know how long I have talked. I am sorry. I think that it is irresponsible for politicians, or members of any group such as this which is a Legislature, to say let's just bury our heads in the sand and say this is consensus. This is consensus and this is the way to be, and we are unique, and look at the party politics. It is horrible. Let's just move on with it and let's just pretend that this works, and let's just keep on going with our collective denial that this is what is working. I think for those who think that this is the best system that the NWT deserves, then let them stand up and defend it. If anybody else who does not agree with that, then we should, I think we deserve it, I think the people deserve it to have a really serious discussion about how we could improve the system, not necessarily to lead to the party politics, but maybe we could be totally creative and ingenious and come up with some kind of hybrid that would combine the consensus system and party politics that would minimize some of the down side of both systems and make the system that we have better.
Another thing I did not mention is the fact that the double-edged sword of individual power, the power of an individual Member in consensus government, can be put to such a good use and I have days here where I go wow, I made a difference, this one person.
I know that my power and my ability to do the job is only as great or as limited as my own beliefs, my own backgrounds, my own shortcomings and my own positives. I think that at some point, people have to ask, is that good enough? I think that is a very relevant question that should be asked.
I am going to close there and I do hope that we will discuss this again sometime soon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.