Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tools for Assessing Individual Performance
In addition to the tools mentioned above, various others – all of them public documents – may assist a review of individual Minister’s performance, including:
● Consensus Government in the Northwest Territories: Guiding Principles and Process Conventions;
● Ministerial mandate letters by the Premier;
● Speeches by the candidate for Premier before the Territorial Leadership Committee, December 9, 2015;
● Questions and answers to and from candidates for Premier before the Territorial Leadership Committee, December 16, 2015;
● Speeches by ministerial candidates before the Territorial Leadership Committee, December 16, 2015;
● Hansard excerpts of responses to oral and written questions in the House, and before Committee of the Whole.
These documents, along with performance before standing committees, also enables assessment in areas such as:
1. effective leadership;
2. responsiveness to issues related to the portfolio mandates;
3. ethical conduct, honesty, integrity and impartiality;
4. commitment to transparency and accountability;
5. open, respectful, considerate communication with fellow MLAs;
6. ensure Regular Members are informed of and given opportunity to provide meaningful input in important decisions in a timely and respectful manner;
7. inclusiveness, earning a support the respect of NWT residents by engaging the public, municipal governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations in the volunteer sector seeking their input and advice;
8. work to build and maintain respectful and effective government-to-government relations with Aboriginal governments;
9. work to build and maintain respectful and effective relationships with federal government;
10. engagement, encourage others to give full consideration to different, sometimes opposing, points of view in order to promote informed decision making.
Such fundamental matters as these should not be reviewed solely in a mid-term review after two years in office. They are currently dealt with relatively informally by standing committees or even fireside chats between the Premier and regular Members. While not part of the new mid-term review process, the members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures commend Ministers, express desire for more regular feedback to promote productive relationships. We therefore make the following recommendations, Mr. Speaker:
Recommendation 5
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning meet annually with each Minister to conduct an oral performance appraisal similar to those in many workplaces, and for the Ministers to raise any performance issues that they may have with committees. The meetings should be informal, in-camera, with set time limits and strict adherence to openness and fairness.
Review of Standing Committees
A Mid-Term Review of Standing Committee's operation and accountability was considered by Members of the 12th Assembly, but no criteria were developed and no review took place. This may be because of fair and productive review of the standing committee is a difficult and risky task.
Standing committees are appointed in the House by motion and are individually and collectively accountable to the whole Assembly, which also establishes the mandate and terms of reference for each committee. These are set out at Appendix 3 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly. Notably, the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures include two Ministers; one is a fulltime member, and another is an alternate. Given these factors, the proposed Mid-Term Review Committee would provide the most suitable forum for a public review of standing committees' performances if one is conducted.
Standing committees are generally tasked and review proposed legislation, departmental business plans, budgets, strategies, action plans and how they are implemented in overall departmental performance. Policy initiatives in the implementation plans are reviewed, as described in consensus government in the NWT Guiding Principles and Procedures Conventions. Providing advice to Ministers is a common element of all the work and can be contentious. This is a natural aspect of the job, part of the healthy tension between Cabinet and Regular Members. Standing committee may also call public meetings, issue press releases, seek external advice, and even subpoena witnesses.
The work of standing committee is therefore a key accountability mechanism in consensus government. It's primarily through these committees that Regular Members exercise the responsibility, review and monitor the leadership and the direction of Cabinet and to hold it accountable as set out in consensus government in the Northwest Territories Guiding Principles and Process Conventions. Communities' effectiveness and the effectiveness of a consensus government requires a high level of independence for standing committee. Standing committees select their own chairs and govern their own meetings and procedures. They are largely self-policing with members and chairs holding each other to account. There is a strong incentive to do so because standing committees' performance is critical to Members' daily work. Resignations and removals of chairs are rare, but do occur as personal or performance matters arise. Members believe that this internal accountability is appropriate, practical and efficient.
These considerations loom large in the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures deliberations on how committees' performance might be assessed in a mid-term review. Moreover, Members were unable to envision a public process in the House that would be appropriate, productive and efficient. The committee therefore advises that informal feedback be sought annually from Ministers as outlined in Recommendation 5 as an additional tool for ongoing self-regulation by committee.
Recommendation 6
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommended mid-term accountability review not include the performance of these standing committees collectively or individually. Further, that the standing committee complete internal evaluation annually with informal input from Cabinet as set out in Recommendation 5.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point in time, I'd like to pass over the vote to Mr. Beaulieu who will continue.