Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

The Toolbox: Measuring the Government's Progress Priorities of the 18^th Assembly and the Mandate, 2016-2019

New tools recommended by the 17th Assembly and put into effect by the 18th Assembly make it much easier to fairly measure performance of the government and all Members – not just at mid-term, but also at election time. The 18th Assembly’s priorities were developed by Caucus before the selection of Cabinet, with all Members having equal opportunity at all levels of their creation. For the first time, a televised roundtable discussion of priorities took place in the House on December 14, 2015, after a similar private roundtable with leaders of Aboriginal and community governments. The resulting priorities are published and available on the Legislative Assembly’s website, as well as the transcript of the roundtable discussion. These priorities represent the first tool for Members and the public to use in measuring the performance of the government: its actions should advance the 18th Assembly’s priorities, and be consistent with them.

However, a statement of priorities is not a realistic mandate for a government, which must be tempered by consideration of what can be accomplished in a four-year term with the resources at hand. After Cabinet was selected, it was directed to draft a mandate based on the 18th Assembly’s priorities. This draft mandate was publicly discussed, amended, and unanimously approved in the House. It is a statement of goals akin to the platform of a political party. The revised Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019, was then published, re-tabled in the House, and is available on the Assembly’s website. This document serves as the primary tool for measuring the government’s collective performance, and that of the Premier and Ministers tasked with carrying out work in specific areas.

Other Potential Tools

A variety of other tools will be available to assess Cabinet’s performance. The government has committed to public annual reports on its progress in implementing the 18th Assembly’s mandate. The committee recommends that a report be completed by August 31, 2017, and include an assessment of the need for potential changes and additions to the mandate. It should also include Cabinet’s formal assessment of its own performance. Those results will be compared with an evaluation to be produced by the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning, comprised of all Regular Members. The committee evaluation will include consideration of the government’s performance in implementing its mandate, reviews of annual business plans, the government’s responses, and the Cabinet’s collective effectiveness in carrying them out. These two reports should be public and tabled in the House. These are the principal tools for measuring the collective performance of the Executive Council, or “Cabinet,” or “the government,” as it is generally called.

Scope of the Mid-term Review

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures was directed to develop a review that “includes the performance of the Executive Council and Standing Committees both collectively and individually.”

There was much debate over the need to include individual Ministers and standing committees in a mid-term review. The committee considered recommending that individual reviews of Cabinet Ministers (including the Premier), and standing committees not be carried out. Proponents of this view argued that the purpose of the mid-term review is to adjust the mandate if needed, and provide updated public direction to the Premier and Cabinet for the final two years of the Assembly’s term. It was also pointed out that if need be, a Minister’s appointment can be revoked at any time by passage of a motion to that effect in the House. Some considered this method the fairest and most transparent, as voting on this type of motion is public and not by secret ballot. It would not, however, likely be a “free” vote. Cabinet solidarity is sure to be invoked, if only to preserve necessary working relationships. Motions of revocation or non-confidence are rare, of course, but past experience suggests they deepen the normally healthy tension between Cabinet and Regular Members, and undermine future prospects for consensus.

The committee considered processes and the outcomes of a mid-term review without assessing the performance of individual Ministers and standing committees, but ultimately found them lacking when measured against the principles for the review and the instructions contained in the House referral motion.

Most Members noted that a decision not to review individual performance of Cabinet Ministers reduces accountability and diminishes the potential for constructive direction, expression of renewed confidence, as well as possible non-confidence. Moreover, declining to provide an option for evaluating individual performance is counter to the Assembly’s direction to this committee.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that a mid-term review be carried out in the fall of 2017, and that it include a public accountability review of the mandate, and assessment of the performance of the Executive Council, both collectively and individually

Recommendation 2

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Cabinet formally assess its own performance, that the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning produce its own independent assessment of Cabinet’s collective performance, and that both reports be public and tabled in the House.

Public review and potential amendment of the government’s mandate is properly in the hands of Caucus, Cabinet, and the House, as set out in the Assembly’s process convention. But as noted above, the committee determined that regular House proceedings are not best-suited to a review of the individual performance of Cabinet Ministers.

In the two previous Assemblies that conducted a mid-term review, the forum was the Territorial Leadership Committee, or TLC, also the venue for speeches and selection of the Premier and Cabinet by secret-ballot vote. Members of the current Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures judged that the TLC is not an appropriate venue for the new mid-term review, given the consensus government principle that “Regular Members are not a Cabinet in waiting.” A new forum is needed in which all Members are substantially equal. The committee proposes a new Mid-Term Review Committee allowing full participation of all Members (including the Speaker), enabled by the selection of multiple rotating chairs, and secret-ballot voting so all Members may vote according to their beliefs and conscience.

Recommendation 3

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that a new Mid-Term Review Committee be established, specific to that purpose, with designation of multiple chairs to enable all Members, including the Speaker, to participate fully.

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures further recommends that the Mid-Term Review Committee conduct its review publicly, in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.

I'd now like to turn to my colleague Mr. Shane Thompson to continue this report.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in August of this year changes came into effect for the Income Assistance Regulations administered by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. The department changed the amount of both the food and the clothing allowances available to low-income families. Mr. Speaker, the Department refers to the number of people in a household as units. Until the end of July a household included each member in the family counted as a unit for the purpose of food and clothing calculations.

At the beginning of August the new Regulations counted only adults and mature children as units, and left children under 18 out. Take the example of a single-parent family living in Yellowknife with one child; only the parent now qualifies for the food and clothing allowance. That means the amount of money the family as a whole receives from Income Assistance has gone down. The amount of money the parent gets for food has been reduced by $137 a month and for clothing, $37 a month. In this booklet of exemplars provided by ECE, living in Tulita a single parent with two children over six and one under six, her food allowance has gone from $1,286 to $643. For two parents and three children living in Fort Providence, their food allowance has gone from $1,006 to $744. I'll table this document so that Members may see additional detail.

So, no matter the example, the end result is the same, the family is getting less money for food and clothing because income assistance doesn't count children anymore. Mr. Speaker, how are low-income families supposed to get by? Why does the department think children are fed and clothed at no cost? Families have to turn to the federal government for help. Families with income under $80,000 are eligible for the federal government's Child Tax Benefit, paid on a sliding scale. Coincidentally, the federal tax benefit came into effect in July, just a month before the changes to the income assistance regulations. The Minister had made much of the fact that the federal benefit would not be clawed back as income. In reality, the GNWT has offloaded the responsibility for feeding and clothing children onto the federal government. So what, you may ask. May I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement? Thank you.

---Unanimous consent granted

MS. GREEN: Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. So what? Well, first almost a quarter of NWT children live in poverty, 22 per cent. The Canada Child Tax Benefit is supposed to alleviate poverty for these children and low income families, but NWT families on income assistance are being shortchanged. The federal government has given with one hand, and the GNWT has taken away with the other. Poor families are the ones out of pocket. I will have questions. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister tell us, then, whether the media report of the centre selling for $880,000 is accurate and why and how it came to be sold for that price? Thank you.

Right around the time we were elected, so in other words when the Minister was not yet the Minister, the treatment centre sold for almost double the price of the appraisal, which I take to be $880,000. Does the Minister have any idea how the building suddenly gained all that value?

How did the NWT Housing Corporation arrive at a price for that land and building?

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Today I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation about the sale of the treatment centre on the Dettah Road. My first question is: does the sale include both the land and the building? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you to the Minister for that answer. I think one of the major issues here is that I needed the help of the research department to understand exactly what was going on in the administration of these benefits. I stand by the remarks that I made, that every example shows a decrease in both food and clothing allowances. So I understand the Minister doesn't believe that this is the case, but that's what my research shows. So maybe -- and this is going to turn into a comment rather than a question. I'll follow up with written questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The information I'm drawing on is information that the Minister provided. We're talking about the amount of money that's paid to income assistance recipients. In every example that the Minister provided, the amount of money paid for clothing and for food has gone down. While the bottom line for most people is better, it's not as good as it could be because the overall effect of the Canada Child Tax Benefit has been diminished. So my question again is: how can the Minister justify not enabling families to collect the whole amount that they are eligible for?

I appreciate that the Minister has now enabled income assistance recipients to keep a wider range of income than was previously the case. However, the amount of money paid for both food and clothing has been reduced for income assistance recipients. How can the Minister justify reducing these assistance amounts when they are meant to alleviate poverty for the people who are most in need?