Welcome back, colleagues. Before your point of privilege, I have opening remarks, Mr. Dolynny.
---Laughter
It’s good to be back. Anyway, welcome back as we meet for this final sitting of the 17th Legislative Assembly.
I understand that you have a very busy schedule over the next two weeks and that you are all eager to begin your work. I will do what I can to assist you in my capacity as Speaker and only ask that you continue to work together respectfully, recognizing the dignity of this institution.
Now for one of my favourite duties, I would like to welcome the Pages we will have with us during this sitting. Pages will be joining us from Yellowknife, Mackenzie Delta, Hay River South, Tu Nedhe and Nahendeh. Welcome to the Assembly, one and all, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
When we lose loved ones in our small communities, the loss is felt by all. I would like to send sincere condolences to the following:
Jack and Irene Akhiatak on the loss of their son, Alex Akhiatak;
the Silastiak family and to Derek Panaktalok, Denise Cockney, Melissa Panaktalok and Andrew Avik on the loss of their father, Alvin Silastiak, who will be sadly missed;
Sharon, Scarlett and Natasha Ruben on the loss of their mother, Lynn Ruben;
John Sr., Don and Edna Gruben and family on the loss of their sister Darlene Grace Gruben;
Willie Carpenter and family on the loss of Vernon Carpenter; and
Jack Katayoak and family on the loss of Betty-Anne Kublumik.
God be with you all. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
Finally, colleagues, it is my duty to advise the House that I have received the following message from the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. It reads:
Dear Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I recommend to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories the passage of
Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), 2016-2017;
Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2015-2016; and
Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2015-2016
during the Fifth Session of the 17th Legislative Assembly.
Yours truly, George Tuccaro, Commissioner.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on a point of privilege in response to an event that took place on September 2, 2015, in the Legislative Assembly’s media room. On that date Premier McLeod and Finance Minister Michael Miltenberger called a press conference for which they announced: “The Government of the Northwest Territories will provide the Northwest Territories Power Corporation with up to $29.7 million to prevent an increase to power rates for all NWT residents. This funding was required because of continued low water levels affecting the Snare and Bluefish hydro systems.”
In an accompanying news release, Premier McLeod is also quoted as saying, “Our government doesn’t believe it makes sense to pass these costs on to residents and has decided to cover them instead.”
Mr. Speaker, it is this public announcement of funding that has yet to receive the authorization of the House to which I object. I seek your guidance as to whether the actions of the government in making this announcement constitutes a breach of privilege under Rule 20(1) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly which specifies that individually and as a House, Members are entitled to freedom from obstruction in relation to their duties as elected representatives. I also seek your guidance as to whether this action demonstrates contempt to this House by undermining the legitimate role the Legislative Assembly has in approving spending bills and for the guiding principles of consensus government.
Mr. Speaker, this is our first time back since the House was adjourned for the summer on June 4, 2015. I am raising this point of privilege now as this is the first opportunity I’ve had to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I am raising this point of privilege because I consider it to be a serious issue for all Members of this House. Therefore, I appreciate your patience as I set out the following facts in this matter.
On Monday, August 31, 2015, Members received a notification from the Minister of Finance advising that the GNWT had approved a significant sum of money to offset the increased cost of diesel for NTPC and notifying Members that the government would be bringing forth a request for supplementary appropriation to be considered in the upcoming session. This notification did not indicate that the government had planned for a press release to be held two days later to publicly announce this almost $30 million NTPC funding subsidy.
I believe, as any reasonable person would, that it was intended as a courtesy notification to Members of the upcoming supplementary appropriation bill. Members were given no reason to anticipate that a public announcement of this funding would be made within two days of notice and prior to the consideration of the spending request in this House. As I personally attended the press conference, I want to make one point very clear. Other than a one-line reference written in the Premier’s handout on press day, I wish to assure Members of this House that there was nothing said by either the Premier or Minister in their comments or in the GNWT news release of the fact that this almost $30 million in funding had not yet been appropriated and could only be authorized by the Legislature. It’s apparent the Premier must have forgotten to read that line.
I should note that this is not the first time this Cabinet has used this tactic, having made a surprise announcement on September 26, 2014, of a $20 million subsidy to NTPC that was not included in the 2014-15 Main Estimates and also had not been approved by either special warrant or supplementary appropriation at the time of the announcement.
When this occurred last year, Members advised the Premier and Finance Minister of their displeasure over this premature announcement. As a result of discussions Members held with the Premier, I believed, as my colleagues, that Cabinet had understood that they had been a bit too hasty in their announcement. I also believed this was a one-off error in judgment that would not happen again. Clearly, I was wrong.
By publicly announcing unapproved funding as though it were a done deal, the Premier and Minister Miltenberger have led the NWT public to believe that with the government’s simple blessing that funding is approved and in place. This creates a heightened public expectation of government expenditures relative to a sensitive political subject. This action obstructs the House and its Members in relation to their duties as elected representatives, making it especially difficult for Members to consider a supplementary appropriation request on its merits or to vote on it in accordance with their conscience and keeping with what we believe is in the best interest of the constituents.
Mr. Speaker, a supplementary appropriation bill is not a formality. To qualify the supplementary appropriation, a funding request must only be used for unforeseen expenditures and must meet one or more stringent attributes. It is a duty of the elected representatives of this House to ensure that government meets these tests before approving spending bills. This is not a rubber stamp process.
The fact that this Cabinet has seen fit to announce its spending initiative before satisfying those tests under scrutiny of the House demonstrates the contempt these Members have for the authority of the Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I will await your due consideration and thoughtful judgment on this issue that is so integral to the work we do on behalf of all Northerners. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the point of privilege, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to, of course, make the case that there is no point of privilege. What we are dealing with here is the fourth year of a drought. We are dealing with the circumstance of extreme weather that has put enormous potential burden on the people of the Northwest Territories at a time when the Assembly wasn’t in session or wasn’t with committee sitting. Yet, we had indicated clearly in the letter of August 31st that we would be bringing this forward for final decision in this House.
As the government, we are required to act in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. In this case the question was, do we allow the rates to go up because the Public Utilities Board wanted to know what was happening with the charges with low water? Do we let the rates go up 24 percent, or do we intercede to protect the cost of living and protect Northerners from this extreme weather event?
As a government, we acted as a government should, in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. We notified the committee; we honoured our protocols; and the Member, of course, has that final say here in this House in this session. If it’s determined that we do not have the support of the House for that supplementary appropriation, then the money won’t be spent and the rates will go up 24 percent. We’ll have that discussion. We have nothing but the highest regard for the operating of this House, just as we have extreme responsibility as government, as legislators, to respond to critical events in a timely way, in a way that protects their interests and our interests, which is making sure that the cost of living doesn’t go up so high that it makes life in the Northwest Territories unaffordable.
So, there was no impairment of freedom of speech. There was no attempt to obstruct the final decision of this House, which will be to vote on that particular amount of money, and the reason it was brought forward in the interest of the people of the Northwest Territories by the government acting in a timely way at a time when there were no committees sitting, there was no opportunity to wait that long because we had to respond and reply. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I will allow debate on this point of privilege. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, it’s interesting that we are talking about this. It’s not about the power and it’s not about the rate increase. I think this is about the procedural step that Members feel denied. We shouldn’t cloud the issue with whatever goodwill and intent was provided by the Minister and his argument based solely on the fact to shelter constituents would be an argument worth any opportunity to make time and time again.
Are we worried about why we did it or what method it was done by? I think the merits of why it was done perhaps says, yes, we had to find a way to ensure citizens were protected.
The crux of our Assembly is built around process, procedure and how we work together in the context of consensus government. That isn’t necessarily written letter by letter, page by page throughout the Assembly. It’s written in the ethics of how we do our business and how we relate with each other and how Cabinet members document that speaks about relationships.
I would say we should not cause ourselves to get caught up in why the action and the result it delivered. We should be asking ourselves what process was missed and how Members were perceived in that matter.
On that merit, Mr. Dolynny has a case by saying that Members were not informed through proper process. I give the government points for the initiative they were trying to tackle, yes. They deserve credit for that, but at the same time, I think Mr. Dolynny’s argument should withstand any criticizing and look at what was really missed here: the relationship, the opportunity for the two groups to work together properly. Members on this side of the House feel like their rights have been denied. That’s why Mr. Dolynny’s argument should stand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the point of privilege, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise in support of Mr. Dolynny’s point of privilege. For four years we’ve governed ourselves as an Assembly sharing as much information as we can. Having that announcement in the media without prior Member or committee involvement is a huge oversight of the way we’ve been running. I really feel that there was a misapplication of guidelines and procedures that we govern ourselves by in this case.
I don’t know why it is, but it seems to have happened more than once in the last month. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the point of privilege, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of my colleague. I appreciate him bringing this forward and I will speak to this later in the House. Specifically to the point of privilege, this is a one-time benefit, this expenditure of dollars, when what is needed is lasting benefits.
Unfortunately, what we’re dealing with here is a repeat. This was done last year, less than a year ago, and we raised the same issues then. Yet, here it is again. This is robbing the voice of duly elected people who were put in place to speak on behalf of our representatives in major decisions such as this.
Again, there are principles that we have in consensus government that demand that when there is a significant decision to be made, Cabinet or the government will involve all Members of the House. My concerns are, first of all, that it fails the principles of consensus government requiring input into any significant decisions, as I just said. Our fiscal status is indeed tentative, or weakly stable you could say, and sensitive to such large, unplanned expenditure. Therefore, this is a significant expenditure, and under our principles, we should have been consulted.
Secondly, it is inefficient and a poor use of scarce resources. A one-time expenditure benefit with essentially zero lasting benefits such as might come from more useful investments which could be discussed if Members of the House were provided with the opportunity to contribute to that discussion. Finally, it’s a repeat concern, Mr. Speaker.
It’s time to do something about this. The Minister said he was required to work in the best interests of people of the Northwest Territories. What does the Minister think our mandate is? Indeed, it is to work in the best interest of the Northwest Territories. We were prevented from having that opportunity by not being involved in that decision-making.
The Minister said it prevents a 24 percent increase in rates. Well, it might have prevented a 23 percent or 22 percent or a 21 percent with those other 1, 2 or 3 percent or 10 or 15 percent put into actions that would have lasting benefits. Without, again, the opportunity to contribute to the discussions, I think the Minister has failed that test.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the MLAs have put Cabinet on notice less than a year ago that such behaviour without committee input wasn’t acceptable and that we needed to invest such dollars in a way that return much more than a momentary benefit, gone in a puff of global warming smoke.
I think there are many opportunities, solar, which the Minister is well aware and supportive of, where consumers’ capital could have been put to work.
I will leave it at that and say we have the opportunity to provide 25 years of lasting benefits with guaranteed equipment these days. Instead, we’ve provided that much benefit because our voices were restricted from participating in such a debate. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the point of privilege, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am supportive of my colleague’s point of privilege and I would like to thank Mr. Dolynny for bringing it forward.
My colleagues have made some very valid points. This is the second time this has occurred. A year and a half ago we went through the same situation where we were advised after the fact, or basically through the media, that the government intended to spend money. In both instances the way that it was stated, as Mr. Dolynny put it, the government has decided. It was decided well in advance of any money coming to the Assembly floor for verification. That basically removes any involvement of the Regular Members of this House from that decision because it has already been made by Cabinet.
The Minister stated there was no overt attempt to obstruct, but I have to disagree. It may not have been an overt attempt, but certainly the actions and the wording implied that there was an action taken to obstruct Regular Members from having a hand in the decision.
Realistically, when there is a statement made and the headline in the paper screams that the government is going to put $20 million or $30 million into power rates to reduce our cost of living and three months later the amount of money comes to the floor for discussion, what Regular Member is going to vote against that? We’ve been put into a corner. The way that this money was put out to the public without the knowledge of Regular Members backs us into a box and it makes us look like absolute idiots if we’re going to say, “Sure, my residents would be happy to accept a 25 percent increase in electrical rates.”
There was another statement by the Minister that the committee had been notified, and I have to challenge the Minister to provide committee with the documentation that notified us of this decision to spend $30 million on lowering our water rates in advance of the headline that I saw in the paper.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do support the point of privilege and I look forward to your decision. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the point of privilege, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll also be speaking in support of my colleague’s point of privilege.
This is an example of the end justifying the means, and I think we should not get into the detail of why we have had to make a decision about offsetting the cost to ratepayers and addressing the cost of living. I think that’s another whole subject for another day.
We probably would have come to the same end decision. It’s only about process, that’s my concern. I mean, nobody can stand up here as a Regular Member of this Legislature and say that we would support a 24 percent hit on the ratepayers of the Northwest Territories. That certainly was something to be mitigated and something to be avoided. I mean, $30 million is a very substantial amount of money in the work that we do around this table.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would support it and say that we would have probably come to the same conclusion, but the process was flawed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of privilege, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will support this point of privilege. I think the debate is not whether we are helping our residents and not seeing a 25 percent increase; I think it was how it was done and how it was rolled out, and communication has been broken down in our consensus government and this is just one example of it.
As Regular Members, we’re finding out information after the fact. We’re finding out information that’s being discussed by Cabinet, by that side of the House, without communicating with us. The whole concept behind consensus government is that we’re included in that information. If they’re concerned about leakage of information, date stamp “confidential” on it. If we have issues with that then we have to get to that, but for us to find out this information through a press release is not appropriate.
Mr. Speaker there has to be communication from both sides and it does affect how this House works. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the point of privilege, the honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to state that this is not a point of privilege. Several Members have pointed to the lack of communication; there’s notification. I have a copy of a letter that was sent August 31, 2015, advising committee of exactly that. The MLA for Range Lake referenced that in his notes, and a fundamental issue is how does government react in an emergency situation? We’ve known that we’ve been in drought conditions for four years, and everybody refers to how we did it last year. Well, the drought is still there, so the expectation is that we use the same process.
Now there are others saying you’re backed into a corner. Well, I look at the fire program. We know that fires can be a problem every year, and now I guess we can put water in the same category.
We, as a government, felt it was very important that we had to respond to the PUB. We had two extensions and we were facing a third extension where we had to make a decision one way or another. One way would be to have everybody in the Northwest Territories pay an extra 25 percent over a two-year period, including subsidizing the diesel consumption in Yellowknife, and we felt we gave notice to committee on August 31st and recognizing that it would be voted on here in this Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, we feel there is no point of privilege here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. To the point of privilege. I will allow Mr. Dolynny to have closing remarks. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank my colleagues and Cabinet for adding their remarks for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that it may be of some use to you in considering this matter if I advise the House of other precedents that may apply to the situation at hand, especially with respect to government announcements or advertising initiatives which by being announced prematurely cause prejudice of future proceedings of the House and diminish the role of the Legislative Assembly in the eyes of its Members and the public we all serve.
For example, on October 10, 1989, Speaker John Fraser of the House of Commons rendered a decision regarding the Government of Canada’s advertising with respect to the implementation of GST, which may have some relevance. The Speaker found there was strong argument that suggested the government actually tended to diminish the respect due to the House. This ruling also triggered a number of related rulings grappling with issues of government advertising and contempt of Parliament in the Quebec National Assembly. As well, the findings of Speaker Chris Stockwell of the Ontario Legislative Assembly on January 22, 1997, offer some interesting insights, particularly the finding of the government’s unqualified claims, “convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the Assembly and the Legislature had an inferior role in the legislative and law-making process.”
As you ponder this question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give consideration to one aspect of governance in the Northwest Territories which distinguishes our Legislative Assembly from most other Canadian jurisdictions. This is the guiding principles and process conventions of consensus government. These were adopted by the Members of the Assembly and signed by our Premier and by the chair of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning.
Now, allow me to conclude as I reflect in particular on the principle which has been egregiously undermined by the actions of the Premier and Finance Minister: “Except under extraordinary circumstances, Members of the Legislative Assembly should be made aware of and have the opportunity to discuss significant announcements, changes, consultations or initiatives before they are released to the public or introduced in the Legislative Assembly. The use of the element of surprise is inconsistent with consensus government.”
Given that the Premier and Finance Minister have known for more than a year of the drought conditions, and in fact we heard today they’ve known for four years that these conditions have precipitated the impending request for supplementary funding, it is difficult to argue that this is an “extraordinary circumstance”. If this does not amount to contempt of our consensus system of government, then I do not know what does.
I bow to your wisdom in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I await your response. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Colleagues, I’ll take it under advisement and I’ll get back to you later next week.
