Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I have the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures Report on the Review of the Establishment of a Mid-Term Review Process.
Introduction
One of the first actions by Members of the 18th Assembly was to task the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures with recommending a process for a public mid-term accountability review. Motion 7-18(1), entitled "Establishment of a Mid-Term Review Process" and carried on December 17, 2015, states as follows:
WHEREAS the Members of the 18th Legislative Assembly have resolved to work together to set priorities and to develop a mandate to guide this government over the next four years;
AND WHEREAS the development of a mid-term review process will provide an opportunity to evaluate progress on implementing the Assembly’s agreed-upon priorities;
AND WHEREAS such a review will also provide a mechanism to evaluate the performance of the Executive Council and standing committees, both collectively and individually;
AND WHEREAS the establishment of a public mid-term review process will demonstrate the commitment of the 18th Legislative Assembly to greater transparency and accountability;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, that this Legislative Assembly conduct a mid-term accountability review of the adopted mandate of the 18th Legislative Assembly, including the performance of the Executive Council and Standing Committees, to take place in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly prior to the Fall 2017 sitting;
AND FURTHER, that this Assembly refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures to recommend a process, including terms of reference, for such a review and that the standing committee report back to the House with its recommendations during the Fall 2016 sitting.
The committee met 11 times on this matter from January to October 2016, in addition to countless internal discussions with other Members, Ministers, and staff. To the best of our ability, the recommendations in this report represent a positive step in the evolution of consensus government in the Northwest Territories. We look forward to consideration of this matter in the House and by the public at large.
Despite efforts to reach full consensus of committee Members, the recommendations are not unanimously supported. The Honourable Louis Sebert, the Minister Responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency, exercised his right to issue a dissenting opinion. It is included in its entirety in the addendum of this report.
Background and Precedents
The challenge in conducting mid-term reviews in a consensus government is focusing on accountability -- the government's progress on its priorities, and legitimate performance issues -- rather than individual opportunity. This uneasy dynamic has cast a shadow on mid-term reviews since the NWT's first one in 1985. It was conducted entirely behind closed doors, and resulted in a new Government Leader and two new Ministers. The news was delivered in a terse press release with no explanation of the process or Members' reasoning.
It is worth remembering this took place in a different time, when the Government Leader (not yet Premier) had much less sway over his or her Cabinet. Ministers were selected to represent a wide range of regional interests from Fort Liard to Pangnirtung. There was no guarantee this collection of Ministers would pull together as a team; they had little official direction and no mandate letters. The government's overall priorities were vague; the Northwest Territories' consensus system was in an early phase of its development.
Subsequent mid-term reviews, held only twice and in public, were much less dramatic and attempted to add a layer of accountability to our consensus government. Members of the 12th and 13th Assemblies both agreed at the outset of their terms to carry out a mid-term review of Cabinet performance. Both were conducted by the Territorial Leadership Committee, which was then, as now, the forum for selecting the Premier and Cabinet. The mid-term reviews featured extensive discussion of priorities and questioning of Ministers by Regular Members. Neither review resulted in changes to Cabinet membership, but grades from A to F were assigned to Ministers in 1993. No mid-term reviews have been conducted by Northwest Territories Assemblies since the creation of Nunavut in 1999.
Nunavut, however, adopted a mid-term review as a regular feature of its consensus system. Four successive assemblies have conducted the review, which features public questioning of Ministers about priorities, progress and leadership. Confidence of the House was formally affirmed for every Minister but one. In the past two Assemblies, this was done by a secret-ballot confidence vote for each Minister.
Today's Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures has heeded the lessons of history, and recommends a mid-term review process that reflects the goals of the 18th Legislative Assembly, as outlined in the initial House referral motion.
Principles for a New Mid Term Review
The Committee’s next order of business was to set out principles to guide the mid-term review and elaborate on the goals of the process. All process options were considered in light of these principles:
● Accountability to the Legislative Assembly: a consistent, formal mechanism is needed to assess progress on achieving the mandate, demonstrate the responsibility of Cabinet, and make necessary changes.
● Public accountability: a formal mechanism is needed to improve public understanding of the Assembly’s work and demonstrate the accountability of consensus government demanded by voters.
● Flexibility and adaptability: a mechanism is needed to adjust the government’s mandate at mid-term to fit changing circumstances, and in light of what has been achieved.
● Fairness and transparency: the process for assessing the government’s progress in delivering on its mandate, Cabinet’s performance, and committees’ performance, must be fair, consistent, transparent, and evidence-based. Anonymous assessment surveys are not consistent with a fair and transparent process.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to Ms. Green to deliver the next part of the committee's report. Mahsi.