I had a very close look at the mandate over the weekend and tried to follow its development from the first draft to the third draft, and have a number of observations I'd like to offer today. I recognize this is a new process for everyone and that it was really intended to improve consensus government and build stronger accountability. I think it may be a bit scary to some to develop specific measurable commitments and deliverables for which you would be held accountable, but I guess that's what I had expected to see in the document. I want to start with some positive comments and thoughts, then move to what should be changed, in my opinion, and then some reflections on what should happen next time around, and then some conclusions at the end. The concept of a mandate document that builds from an agreed upon set of priorities is a sound one and the Process Convention on Priority Setting and Reporting from the previous Assembly, I think, was a commendable initiative to help improve consensus government, but the devil is in the details. I think our staff did a great job to document our individual priorities and recommend a process to reach a collective set of principles, which went very well in my view, although we ended up with too many priorities without a sense of what was really important. To be fair to Cabinet, there were some changes and improvements made to the proposed mandate during its review. Some of the most important for me were a clear commitment to completion of land use plans for all regions; adding in co-operatives and condominiums as eligible partners in energy efficiency programs; revitalization of the fisheries as part of building food security and lowering the cost of living; work that should be undertaken with Yukon and Nunavut on the Northern Residents Tax Deduction and Nutrition North; some specifics on what the open government policy might achieve; and a detailed section on reporting.

I want to move on to some areas where I think there needs to be some improvements. In terms of the process, Regular Members generally receive drafts of the mandate with not a lot of time to review them and, at least in one case, with as little as 36 hours to review it. In my opinion, that's not enough time given our busy schedules and I don't believe that's even in keeping with the process convention on communications. I spent many hours preparing detailed comments on the second draft. These comments varied from fixing typos and grammar to questions to seek clarification and recommended language for additions with some rationale. About 25 per cent of the basic grammar and typo comments were incorporated; the rest of my comments were apparently ignored. I believe I deserved at least some sort of an explanation, but never really got one. It's not clear to me whether my comments were even considered by Cabinet. The proposed mandate sets out, in my view, a set of vague and often unmeasurable objectives rather than specific actions, targets, or end points. For example, “capture opportunities” appears in several places in the proposed mandate. How does one measure progress or success on such a statement? The document still contains errors or information that is outdated or not relevant. For example, the correct figure on the reduction in Territorial Formula Financing funding is no longer $33 million, but $9 million, as we understand it. The correct name of the Education Renewal and Innovation Framework should have been used. It's not clear why compliance with the new Financial Administration Act should even appear in the mandate, as this government should just follow its own laws. The language in the document should have been plainer or a plain language summary should have been included so our residents can better understand what we've actually agreed to do together. No public input or comments have been sought on the proposed mandate other than through the efforts of individual Regular Members.

A few reflections on the process, if I may: I think if this is to be done next time around, spend some time setting out the expectations for the mandate, including the form and precision of the document, and how Regular Members can have input and how Cabinet will respond, preferably with some reasons. Work jointly on an outline of the mandate and perhaps even one section to get a sense of what it should start to look like. Craft the mandate in such a way that there are measurable commitments, targets, initiatives, and actions. Reporting can provide reasons as to why specifics were achieved or not, but to prepare a mandate that is vague and without clear end points is not helpful for establishing accountability and not supportive of consensus government. Developing the mandate in an iterative fashion, trading drafts back and forth with Cabinet holding the pen on its own report card is a bit of a bizarre process. This document should be a product of Caucus with all the Members agreeing on the report card that will be used to evaluate the success of the government.

I'd just like to move on to some conclusions, Mr. Chair.

I carefully compared the mandate to the commitments I made during the fall election and the priorities I identified and set out on December 14, 2015 in this Chamber. I'll focus on the matters from my priorities that have, in my view, not been adequately reflected in the proposed mandate:

Specific commitments to expand or increase access to energy efficiency programs, including empowering local governments to create revolving funds;

Re-orientation of the NWT Power Corporation towards renewables and community energy self-sufficiency;

A public review of resource revenues to ensure there's a fair return to the public purse;

Array

An independent regulator for oil and gas resources;

A coherent financial security system to prevent further public liabilities on contaminated sites;

A public review of the Heritage Fund to ensure a defined revenue stream and stronger public governance; and

A clear commitment for ombudsman legislation and an ombudsman office.

I made efforts in good faith to try to improve the proposed mandate through discussion in caucus and in detailed written comments, but cannot support the document tabled by Cabinet.

I look forward to working with Regular Members in Committee of the Whole to make the necessary improvements that will allow me, and perhaps others, to support a mandate that achieves a greater degree of consensus and purpose as we move forward together. Thank you, Mr. Chair.