This is page numbers 853 - 883 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 7th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was recall.

Topics

Item 13: Tabling Of Documents
Item 13: Tabling Of Documents

Page 870

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table Tabled Document 84-12(7), correspondence between the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Northwest Territories Minister of Justice with regard to the agreement respecting legal aid in civil and criminal law matters and in matters leading to the Young Offenders Act. Thank you.

Item 13: Tabling Of Documents
Item 13: Tabling Of Documents

Page 870

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. Item 13, tabling of documents. In accordance with clause 30(2) of the Northwest Territories Act, I wish to table Tabled Document 85-12(7), Report of the Auditor General of Canada on Other Matters arising from his examination of the accounts and financial statements of the Government of the Northwest Territories for the year ending March 31, 1994.

Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Mr. Dent.

Item 15: Notices Of Motions
Item 15: Notices Of Motions

Page 870

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

FOR FIRST READING OF BILLS

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, April 10th, I shall move that Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2, be read for the first time.

---Applause

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. We will take a 10-minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

I call the House back to order. Item 18, second reading of bills. Mr. Lewis.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 870

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 31, Recall Act, be read for the second time. Mr. Speaker, this allows voters from an electoral district of a Member of the Legislative Assembly to apply to the chief electoral officer for the issuance of a petition for the recall of the Member. Where a recall petition is issued and is signed by the required number of voters, the chief electoral officer shall declare that the seat of the Member is vacant and direct that a by-election be held to fill the seat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 871

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

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

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 871

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Members know that I've raised the issue of accountability many times in this Assembly over the past seven years. Members will recall I worked on a system for electing the Premier-at-large so that people would know, in fact, who is in charge of the government and was going to be providing it direction and so on. I've also worked on various ways in which party politics could emerge in the Northwest Territories if there were legislation in place in order to support it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, accountability was a major issue when I first ran for election in 1987. I've worked on things that I've promised to work on and since accountability was the major issue, this is the one on which I spent quite a bit of my time.

During the past seven years many changes have taken place across the country. The effect of the debate over the Meech Lake Accord and the referendum over the Charlottetown Accord showed us how out of touch politicians are with the electorate. The rise of the Reform Party with its dedication to direct democracy is a very clear indication that the public wants to be more involved in the political process. The extensive national debate on the Constitution has focused public attention on other ways of making the country, the government and Parliament work better. There's a clear message that the government should connect with the public in a far better manner.

Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I began working on recall legislation as one of the ways to reinforce that an elected Member in our system be directly accountable to the electorate. In the absence of political parties, all Members of the Legislature are elected as independents. No one gets elected as part of a territorial team that raises money and develops a platform to obtain a majority of party Members in this Assembly. Despite the apparent accountability to the public in the Northwest Territories, however, Mr. Speaker, the public has no disciplinary powers over its Members in the way that a political party does in the provincial Assemblies or in the House of Commons, although there is a gradual movement to allow people free votes in some jurisdictions.

Recall, Mr. Speaker, is one of the ways to establish the linkage of accountability in our system of government. I know that Members have wrestled with the problem in the past but nobody has brought forward a solution. Read Mr. Braden's letter to me which I tabled yesterday, and Members will know how much has gone into this bill and how long the delay has been, how many times this has been referred to different places. So I should like to point out to Members and to the public that this is not a last-gasp initiative. It's taken years.

I would like to remind Members that at second reading we're dealing only with a very simple question. Do you believe that the electorate should have the power to remove its Members before his or her term of office has expired? Do you believe in accountability to the public in the absence of party politics? Do you trust the people who elected you well enough to give them the power to remove its Member?

At this stage, we're not discussing the details of recall, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing only the principle of recall itself. There have been two lengthy debates on recall over the past year: one in the House of Commons in June 1994, and one in the British Columbia Legislature in July 1994. These debates provided a full range of arguments over the advantages and disadvantages of recall. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the main argument used in the House of Commons against recall was that no nation state had ever adopted it yet. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that below the level of the nation state, it does exist in the cantons of Switzerland and in the state legislatures of the United States and there's widespread use of the mechanism at municipal and regional levels. The principle of recall exists in aboriginal governments and it exists in the way we operate in this House with regard to the recall of Cabinet Ministers.

In British Columbia, there was little question about the principle of recall. The major criticism of the NDP government-sponsored bill was that it didn't go far enough. The main fault found was that 60 days was too short a time to organize a petition and there were too many regulations governing the recall campaign. Social Credit Members who originally supported a private Member's bill on recall introduced by Jack Weisgerber from Peace River, claimed the bill gave the public no real chance of recalling a Member. Others argued that the 60-day period was more than twice as long as the election campaign which lasts 28 days and therefore provided ample time. The debate showed all Members to be appreciated about the introduction of the legislation. Each Member who introduced this particular bill was treated with tremendous courtesy, they were thanked very much for the opportunity to debate perhaps the most important change in parliamentary democracy in over 700 years. In fact, everybody seemed delighted that this issue was on the floor for debate.

During the two debates on recall which I am referring to, several references were made to a conference called "Reinventing Parliament" which was held in Lethbridge on February 25 and 26, 1994 and organized by the Canada West Foundation under the direction of Dr. Elton who was referred to in Mr. Braden's letter to me yesterday. Over 100 people from across Canada were invited to attend and to speak on innovative approaches to public participation in their Legislature, on the basis of unusual approaches to decision-making. What makes the NWT government unique, of course, is our consensus style of government and how we achieve accountability in it. Now, out of the blue, although I was aware of this conference and really wanted to go, I suddenly got an invitation. I attended this conference with Mr. Zoe, chairman of our Rules, Procedures and Privileges Committee. We participated at that very important conference in Lethbridge on the dates I referred to. At that very important meeting where leaders from across this country were in attendance, there was a vote on recall in the conference working groups and there was a majority support for it. The conference report...

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 871

Henry Zoe

Henry Zoe North Slave

They were all Reform.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 871

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

I'm a Liberal and you're a Liberal, Mr. Zoe.

---Laughter

---Applause Every workshop recommended to the conference that governments in Canada allow for recall of elected Members. On no item of direct democracy did a more clear consensus emerge. I've heard it said by Members that the direct democracy bandwagon is just a fad, just a passing whim; people are promoting it because it is a politically correct thing to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the NWT, the principle of removing elected people is already a well-established practice in many of our communities. Mr. Bill Erasmus, who was contacted in connection with this issue, says that he serves at the pleasure of his members and he can be removed at any time. The chiefs in our communities as well as band councillors can be removed from office before their terms have expired. The process may vary from band to band but the result is the same and elected members can be removed from office. As I've pointed out, Members even in this Assembly are not safe if the majority decide that they no longer want to have them serve as Cabinet Ministers.

I've heard many times that our system of government should more closely reflect the values of the people it serves. It's clear to me that accountability is one major value that all northerners share. Outside of our Legislature, throughout the territories accountability is widely practised. Since the principle of recall exists and flourishes in other institutions of the people we serve, we should surely, if we want to have any credibility at all, embrace that same principle here. Recall is the means to do it, at least one of several that have been looked at and we've never advanced much beyond talking about it. How can this Legislature achieve credibility if it won't adopt the fundamental values of the people that it's supposed to serve?

Mr. Speaker, two years ago Members treated the issue of recall as some wild, eccentric idea; interesting, but not really worth spending too much time on. It was something that could never happen in Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, it has happened. Our close neighbour, British Columbia, now has a process which allows the public not only to recall its Members but also to initiate its own legislation, legislation that is meaningful to the people that governments are set up to serve.

In Alberta, and I'd like to point this out, Mr. Gary Dickson, a Liberal MLA, tried and will try once again to introduce a recall bill which failed in 1993, if he's given the chance to do so. Mr. Zoe has pointed out, and perhaps it was not recorded, that this is a Reform Party idea. It would be a mistake to associate the idea of recall with any particular party or ideology, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the most influential supporter of direct democracy and recall is Patrick Boyle, a Tory Member of Parliament who wrote the definitive book on direct democracy and has written a whole chapter on the issue of recall. Initiatives on recall have been sponsored by a New Democratic Party government in British Columbia, not a Reform Party government. Social Credit has attempted to introduce legislation when Weisgerber, before British Columbia's Mr. Harcourt, tried to introduce legislation on behalf of the Social Credit Party in British Columbia. I've also pointed out that Dickson in Alberta who was a Liberal also tried to introduce this piece of legislation. So, it has nothing to do with the Reform Party, it just happens that it is an idea they're associated with.

I've read everything I can get my hands on about the growing movement towards involving people more in the ongoing struggle for good government. The argument that recall is unworkable was used only once or twice in the debates on recall which I referred to. The argument that it is unworkable, Mr. Speaker, is no argument at all. It has operated in three Swiss cantons -- or provinces, if you like -- since 1848. In the United States, 16 states have recall provisions for state-elected Members and 36 states have provisions for recall of elected Members below the state level.

Experience with recall shows that in the US, it has not been used very often and very, very seldom with success. Professor McCormick, a Political Science professor at the University of Lethbridge has written: "The power is not used very often. Recall in the United States has claimed one state Governor, along with an Attorney General and a Secretary of Agriculture, seven state representatives and one state Senator."

Out of the total number of years that recall has been in place -- and in the 16 states where recall is in effect, if you add up all the years that those state Legislatures have had recall, you get about 1,000 years that recall has been in place in those states -- only 10 successful attempts have been made to use recall and those were on matters that were so grievous, so serious, that you did get people out in numbers to support recall. McCormick goes on to state that this low level of success is an effective reply to most of the objections made to the idea of recall.

The arguments are very well-known: it would be used for narrow, partisan purposes; to harass office holders; punish legislators for innovative or controversial measures; or, help organized and well-funded organizations to achieve their goals. Mr. McCormick agrees that all of these things are true about the idea of the initiative of recall. Unfortunately for the promoter of recall, almost all petitions fail to get the required threshold of signatures.

What recall does is make elected officials accountable through a transparent process. People have to come out into the open and be counted, and our current system of elected officials are subject to incredible political pressures that many members of the public are not even aware of. Some Members, I'm sure, have felt the impact of subtle and indirect attacks which are difficult to defend against. Recall brings these things right out into the open. The wisdom of the act would strengthen rather than weaken the standing and stature of the Member if he is, in fact, the target of malicious and self-serving office seekers. That's been the experience in the United States and elsewhere.

If recall were in place, we would have a mechanism that would make sense in our system because we have no form of accountability. What must be understood in the debate on the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that we are servants of the electorate. They've put their trust in us and, unfortunately, whether you like it or not, we have to put our trust in them. It's a two-way street.

At the appropriate time, I shall ask for a recorded vote on the principle of this bill. I'm sure the public will be interested in who will be present at that time.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 872

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

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

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 873

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Merci, M. Presidente. Mr. Speaker, I seconded the motion to introduce Bill 31, Recall Act, because I believe in political accountability. Since I've been a Member, I've heard much criticism about our system of government from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike, yet I still defend and support the consensus model. I seconded this motion since I've heard many speeches on the issues of ethics, conduct, behaviour and trust, but I've seen little initiative to make them meaningful.

It is important that we re-establish any lost trust between ourselves and the electorate. The public can see very clearly how reluctant we are to impose discipline on ourselves or our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I believe the public is frustrated because our system provides no mechanism for them to impose discipline on us. We've discussed the issue of recall in Caucus and in our two planning workshops held in Fort Smith and Cambridge Bay. In none of those meetings have Members advanced arguments against the principle of recall.

What is at stake in this bill is a simple principle. Should the electorate have a mechanism at their disposal to recall a Member from office prior to the expiration of his or her term of office? That is the only principle at stake here. Is accountability to the electorate ongoing or does it exist only at election time? Mr. Speaker, it is my position that accountability should be ongoing. Recall would accomplish this.

It would also encourage the public to take a deeper interest in political issues and political life. People would no longer have to shrug their shoulders or shake their heads in frustration because they are powerless. Recall would give meaning to the high standards we have set for public office in our ethics and conduct guidelines. Recall would help to restore the public trust in our elected officials.

I know that although Members have not expressed themselves publicly on the issue of recall, there has been some uncertainty. It seems to me the uncertainty has not been about whether the public should have the right to recall a Member. The uncertainty is about the process, itself. At this second reading stage, it's the principle of recall that's at stake. It is no longer a strange or novel idea. In fact, as my colleague, Mr. Lewis, pointed out, British Columbia's NDP government made an election promise to introduce recall and delivered on its promise by passing Bill 36, Recall And Initiative Act, on July 7, 1994. A 1991 referendum indicated that 80 per cent of the people in British Columbia favoured recall.

In the Northwest Territories, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a poll on recall. The results of this poll, which were released in February, showed that 63 per cent supported recall, so there should be no doubt about support for this principle. It seems to me no longer a question of whether we need recall or not, the public has indicated support for it.

If Members decide they're unsure what safeguards there are to advance good government, to protect Members and to balance those with that of the public interest, I urge them not to defeat this bill at second reading. The public will find it difficult to understand opposition to involving them more in the life of the government that is there now to serve them.

Defeat on the principle of this bill would send out a very onerous signal. It will signal that we don't trust the residents of the electorate. It will signal that we have no confidence in ourselves. It will signal that we don't want to hear from the electorate, except every four years. We have talked about accountability, and we have talked about it long enough, Mr. Speaker.

We have a unique system of government here in the Northwest Territories, where the accountability seems only to be to ourselves. We have struggled with the various ways of changing that over the years. Perhaps through discussion in this House we can force ourselves to come to grips with it publicly. I will be disappointed, and others will be disappointed, and the public will be further disillusioned if we don't come up with something concrete at this juncture. The public expects us to do something.

The bill before you is as complicated as the set of proposals contained in the legislative action paper that was widely distributed. In response to concerns raised by the Native Women's Association, for example, the process has been simplified. Despite this, the recall procedure still places a considerable burden of work on those promoting recall. It will be just as difficult to recall as it is to elect. Anyone deciding to promote recall would not do so lightly. I have faith in the wisdom of the public to judge wisely if a recall position is begun; a petition is begun. It is because I believe in the wisdom of the electorate and the need to make more use of it that I am pleased to support this bill. Thank you colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 873

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

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

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 873

Dennis Patterson Iqaluit

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very appropriate that there be a mechanism to hold Members accountable on the rare occasion when it is required. I have been a Member now for over 15 years, and I have seen instances in almost every one of the four Assemblies I have served where this issue has come up. Where mayors, and municipal councils, if not entire communities, have asked us whether there is any mechanism for dealing with these rare circumstances where they have lost confidence in their elected representatives for good reason.

We have some mechanisms in place to discipline Members in this House. They have rarely been employed. In my experience, we have been very reluctant to employ these methods in a consensus style of government, we are kind and gentle with one another. And we are too courteous to really take the strong action that sometimes and, I would say, rarely has been required.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a concern in our constituencies. It is a concern among the people of the Northwest Territories. So I would like to see this bill taken to the next stage. That is all that we are discussing today; taking it to the next stage so that it can be considered and have input by the public through the Standing Committee on Legislation. I think this would be the best way to see what our constituents think.

If we do not support giving this bill second reading and forwarding it to the Standing Committee on Legislation, we will, in fact, be depriving the people of the Northwest Territories of the opportunity to have the timely input into this bill that is required on the eve of another election in the Northwest Territories.

I have consulted some of my respected constituents on this, they acknowledge that there are both pros and cons about this kind of legislation. I would say to Mr. Lewis, who I know has worked very hard on this bill and produced several drafts, that I think perhaps the bill before us may be improved. Perhaps, for example, there should be a higher majority required. Perhaps a mechanism should be developed to ensure that, in constituencies where there is more than one community, there is an insurance against one community, the electors of one community being pitted against another by perhaps requiring at least 50 per cent or more of the electorate in each community in a constituency before recall is implemented. Perhaps more names should be required on the petition. But these are details which I think we should leave to our constituents and the people of the Northwest Territories to have input on.

Perhaps a majority of our constituents may even speak against the bill. And I am willing to respect the judgement of the people and give them the opportunity to be heard. So lets at least have the courage to take the next step to let the people of the Northwest Territories have input into this bill. I fear that if we don't take this step, the public may conclude that we are afraid of this mechanism or that we are acting out of self-interest. That may be the conclusion.

I would also like to say that the time to act is now. I know the government has recently communicated to Mr. Lewis their intention to put together a legislative action paper which might be ready for the June session, which might be discussed in the dying months of this Assembly, but really would not realistically result in any new legislation in place for the next Legislature. An election is slated for the fall. Lets put the bill forward and see what our constituents have to say.

I would like to say that I have every confidence in the Members of the Standing Committee on Legislation, that they will be able to handle this responsibility, they are already planning extensive hearings on the new Education Act. They will be able to discharge this responsibility and give us good advice by June about just how this very important issue should be handled.

If we defeat the bill at second reading, Mr. Speaker, especially without saying why -- and I have heard rumours that Cabinet has already decided they are going to vote against the bill en masse, then I suspect that our constituents will assume that we are afraid and I don't think that is democracy. I, for one, have confidence in the people of the Northwest Territories, I think they will give us good advice. I also don't think they will act capriciously or use the bill against a Member for their views, or even against the government for making a tough decision.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, if we trust the wisdom of our constituents who put us here, then we certainly will not vote today to deprive them of the chance to give comments on the bill. That is why we should vote "yes" today; to put the issue before the public, allow members of the public to have input through the Standing Committee on Legislation.

I would like to commend Mr. Lewis for his hard work on this issue. I would like to challenge Members who are going to vote against this motion to stand up and say why. Let this bill be considered by the people of the Northwest Territories in a timely fashion, before another Assembly is elected. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Ms. Cournoyea.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

Nellie Cournoyea Nunakput

Mr. Speaker, Cabinet acknowledges the role of Mr. Lewis and the other Members who support recall; for advancing the recall accountability issue on this Assembly agenda in recent months. As directed by the Standing Committee on Rules, Privileges and Procedures last October, the government is preparing a legislative action paper on recall which will be tabled during the June session.

The terms of reference for the legislative action paper contain all of the issues and questions which the standing committee recommended for consideration in the action paper.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis's bill and other proposals which he prepared for consideration at the April 1994 Fort Smith strategic planning workshop provide recall models to assess in the legislative action paper. However, Cabinet is concerned that Mr. Lewis's bill does not contain some of the standing committee's important recommendations; for example, identifying the grounds for initiating recall.

On the other hand, a preliminary assessment of Mr. Lewis's bill suggests that it may be difficult to initiate a recall petition, at least in some territorial constituencies. Cabinet also believes that it would be important to consider a number of legal and constitutional issues which we understand could still be factors in determining if British Columbia's recent recall legislation, for example, will be challenged before the courts.

Finally, Cabinet believes in order for there to be an informed debate, a legislative action paper is required to present all of the issues and the pros and cons of recall to the territorial electorate. Therefore, Cabinet has decided that it will not...

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

An Hon. Member

Shame.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

Nellie Cournoyea Nunakput

Therefore, Cabinet has decided that it will oppose Mr. Lewis's recall bill, primarily because...

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

Some Hon. Members

Shame.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

Nellie Cournoyea Nunakput

...it is premature and would preclude consideration of the legislative action paper during the June session and the upcoming territorial election. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the principle of the bill.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

Some Hon. Members

Question.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 874

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Mr. Koe.

Bill 31: Recall Act
Item 18: Second Reading Of Bills

Page 875

Fred Koe Inuvik

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lewis, in proposing this bill, has been very clear on the principle that he is advocating; that is, whether or not voters can remove a Member from office before their term of office has been completed. For many of us, and me especially, it is a real political dilemma because it is very hard to disagree with the principle that is being advocated by Mr. Lewis. In this day and age, it is politically correct to vote for such a principle.

However, the problem I have is I don't agree with many of the details that are proposed in the bill. I know the debate today is on the principle of the bill, but I would like to state some of the issues that I have with the current bill before us.

The number of voters in a recall petition has been advocated at 50 per cent. Reviewing the number of electors in certain constituencies, there are a very small number of voters in some of the constituencies; the smallest being 580 to 600. So the number of people required to recall are very small and could cause a lot of frivolous recall petitions.

The other area is the application fee for filing is very low. The main issue is what are appropriate grounds for detail. They aren't detailed in the bill. This bill, I believe, has been created to address the code and conduct of MLAs, not only on our conduct in this House, but our conduct outside of this House. I don't feel that this bill is, as it is formatted, addresses that issue.

Currently, I am accountable to the electorate in Inuvik. I will and have followed the directions of the majority of people who have advised me and who I talked to over the past three years. So I do agree, as I mentioned, with the principle of the bill and if it advances to the next stage, I am going to work very hard to make or try to get appropriate amendments to the bill to address the issues that aren't raised. Mahsi.