Masi. Member for Thebacha.
Mr. Speaker.
The Legislative Assembly established the Members’ Conduct Guidelines during the 12th Assembly. Subsequent Assemblies have each formally adopted them (except the 15th). The Members’ Conduct Guidelines were amended in the first days of the 18th Assembly for greater emphasis on effective representation, to reaffirm Members’ duty to arrange their private matters so as to maintain the trust and confidence of the public, and to include a pledge to abide by the laws of the land.
For the first time, Members of the 18th Assembly formally signed copies of the Members’ Conduct Guidelines before the Clerk. These signed copies are publicly available and posted on the Assembly’s website. (See Appendix A)
Despite the high standards set out for Members’ conduct, most are broadly described and aspirational in nature. Some standards could be improved. For example, few would object to the intent of the requirement that:
"I will not act nor condone others to act in ways which exploit, slander, or discriminate against others. I will not act nor condone others to act in ways which are dishonest or which exploit positions of privilege for personal gain."
However, it is unclear what action this provision requires of a Member with respect to misconduct by others. If this aspect of the provision is to remain, it should provide more specific guidance to Members. The committee sees no inherent conflict in a code of conduct containing both aspirational and prescriptive conduct.
Several people at the committee’s public hearings advised that attendance should be specifically addressed in the Members’ Conduct Guidelines or code of conduct; it was suggested that Members should be accountable for their attendance during their terms. Certainly, chronic absence is undesirable and represents an impediment to fully effective consensus government. The current guidelines state:
"To my constituents, I owe my best efforts at effective representation as well as accountability, honesty, fairness, and courtesy. To the legislature, I owe respect as well as dedication to my role in ensuring the integrity of our government."
This standard leaves attendance to each Member’s judgment with respect to its relationship to his/her “best efforts at effective representation” and “dedication”. If the Members’ Conduct Guidelines are revised, amendment of this section could be considered, but with the understanding that specific rules are set out in legislation. The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act regulations require Members’ attendance to be recorded and regularly tabled in the Assembly by the Speaker for the information of constituents and the general public. These records are posted on the Assembly’s website under both Tabled Documents and Members’ Accountability -- Absences. However, there is currently no penalty for absences of any type. The rules respecting Members’ absences are included in the Members’ Handbook, adopted by the Assembly’s Board of Management as its record of official policy. If it is the collective will of Members to change these rules, the matter is best addressed through the Board of Management.
The term Members’ Conduct “Guidelines” implies that the conduct described may be optional. Guidelines also imply a lack of enforceability, which is misleading. The Legislative Assembly has full authority to regulate its internal affairs and discipline Members for misconduct or other inappropriate behaviour. Implementation of Recommendation 3 would also improve the enforceability of the Members’ Conduct Guidelines (or the more appropriately titled Code of Conduct) by adding the duty to follow them to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Members’ Conduct Guidelines serve as the basis for a new Members’ Code of Conduct including more specific and enforceable provisions; and that the new code be presented to the Assembly for consideration and adoption.
In the event of breaches of the current guidelines, a wide range of sanctions and penalties are available, right up to imprisonment and loss of seat in the Assembly. However, it is difficult to enforce a code of conduct without an established system to deal with complaints or a designated body to investigate them. The committee outlined several options in its interim report. Three models of enforcement were considered:
Internal regulation by the Assembly;
External regulation by a judicial body; and,
Creation of an independent commissioner who reports to a parliamentary committee.
The committee considered the likely efficiency, expense, and consequences of these methods in service of our small legislature, where complaints, we trust, will be few in number. It is nevertheless essential that any and all complaints be addressed promptly, fairly, and with integrity. The system of handling complaints must not itself be a barrier to making a complaint, for a Member or a member of the public.
Our current accountability system features an independent Conflict of Interest Commissioner who is a statutory officer of the Legislative Assembly. His/her authority, set out in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, is weighted toward financial matters, contracts, and private interests, though it also covers gifts and favours, nepotism, and outside activities. In addition, the Act establishes an overarching requirement for a Member to “perform his or her duties of office and arrange his or her private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the member.” Thus the Conflict of Interest Commissioner already has authority related to some provisions of the current Members’ Conduct Guidelines.
The qualifications and skills required of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner are very much akin to those of an ethics commissioner, who could be tasked with oversight of a Members’ Code of Conduct or even our current Members’ Conduct Guidelines. Notably, investigation of alleged conflict-of-interest by Members is currently triggered by complaints, which may be made by a Member or any other person. The committee notes that other provincial assemblies have statutory officers whose duties include oversight of both conflict-of-interest matters and their code of conduct. Newfoundland and Labrador’s Commissioner of Legislative Standards is one such example.
The committee was urged to recommend broad new powers for a combined Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner, including the ability to conduct “regular, unannounced audits of the activities of the people under his/her jurisdiction. This would include audits of bank accounts including during post-office-holding cooling-off periods, to track suspicious transactions.” This degree of Commissioner-as-police-investigator is not necessary, represents a serious challenge to his/her neutrality, and is not what the committee envisions.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act be amended to expand the duties of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to include oversight of the Members’ Conduct Guidelines or Code of Conduct; that the Commissioner be empowered to receive and investigate complaints from a Member or any other person respecting breaches of prescribed conduct, and to recommend sanctions or penalties, as appropriate, to the Speaker; and, that the newly-constituted commissioner be known as the Ethics Commissioner.
An effective system of regulating Members’ conduct encourages integrity at all levels. If another Member knows of an alleged breach of conduct, he/she has a duty to raise the matter, in an official complaint if necessary. Similarly, members of the public with reason to suspect misconduct have a civic duty to register an official complaint that could trigger investigation.
The committee believes that adoption of its recommendations would represent positive steps toward fostering a culture of ethical conduct. Committee members plan to promote understanding of the contents of this report through conventional and social media, and in the Assembly itself. Discussion of this report is a valuable first step.
These will be recurring opportunities if the committee’s recommendations are adopted, as changes to both the Elections and Plebiscites Act and the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act would be necessary. The Assembly’s public review of a proposed new and improved Code of Conduct is also likely to attract wide interest.
If and when the changes outlined in this report are adopted, the committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly promote them in the media and ensure that information is easily located on its website, with useful links under the “Members’ Accountability” section. These should include a link to the description of Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s (or the recommended Ethics Commissioner’s) duties, now under “Statutory Officers.” Clear instructions should be provided on how to register a complaint about a conflict of interest or a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct, or Conduct Guidelines, as the case may be.
Members now review their circumstances and statutory declarations annually with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. These meetings also serve as an annual reminder of each Member’s obligations. If the proposed Ethics Commissioner is created, annual meetings will afford an opportunity to reinforce understanding of the Members’ Code of Conduct, and to discuss any questions a Member might have.
It is vital that all Members set high standards for themselves, act in accordance with the high standards we adopt, and act as role models for both our colleagues and successors. A culture is built on strong practice and repetition; we must lead by example. Our words must be consistent with our deeds. As the title of our report states, “you are standing for your people.”
Mr. Speaker, I will now hand this over to the honourable Member for Nahendeh. Thank you.
Masi. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A number of public submissions were received about conflict of interest, including extensive recommendations for amending provisions pertaining to Cabinet Ministers, Cabinet staff, and senior government officials. The latter three categories lie well beyond Members’ conduct as referred to this committee, and would require changes to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act as well as other legislation and policy.
It was also suggested that the wording should be strengthened in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act (and the Members’ Conduct Guidelines) respecting Members’ duty to “arrange (emphasis added) his or her private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Member.”
The committee is persuaded that there is merit in a public review of current conflict-of-interest provisions, particularly given new powers vested in our government as a result of devolution.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that conflict-of-interest provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act and other relevant legislation and policy be the subject of a public review before the end of the 18th Assembly.
Several people urged the committee to recommend recall legislation that would provide for on-going accountability to the electorate during a Member’s entire term. Typically, such legislation requires a very strongly-endorsed petition that a sitting Member has lost support of his/her constituents, at which time the seat would be declared vacant and subject to a by-election.
Since it was adopted in British Columbia in 1995, no other province or territory has passed recall legislation. The hurdle to unseat an elected Member is necessarily high, and no recall petition can be submitted in the first 18 months of a BC Member’s term. Since 1995, 26 recall petitions have been approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, but none succeeded. In one instance, the Member resigned.
A private Member’s bill providing for a system of recall was attempted in our Legislative Assembly in 1995, prior to division of the territory. The bill was defeated on second reading.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures believes that recall legislation may increase accountability of Members, but it is a significant undertaking outside the scope of Members’ conduct as outlined in the referral motion to the committee. Members thank all those who raised this issue, which underscored their messages that standards of conduct for candidates and Members’ must be very high.
The committee heard multiple suggestions that candidates for MLA should be residents of their ridings, and/or that they should live in their riding once elected. As noted earlier, restrictions on candidacy must be consistent with rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee believes that residency is a matter for the electorate to consider before casting their ballots; however, this question is outside the scope of the committee’s mandate to review the Members’ Conduct Guidelines and associated legislation.
The committee appreciates the comments we received about an improved record of lobbying of Cabinet members. This is timely as Cabinet is consulting with communities on accountability and transparency. Committee members note this recommendation for an informative lobbyist registry to put it firmly on the public record, but this topic is again outside the committee’s mandate with respect to Members’ conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I will hand this back to the honourable Member for Frame Lake to read the conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President.
The committee thanks everyone who contributed their time and effort to our review of the Members’ Conduct Guidelines and associated legislation. Your feedback was of great help in our deliberations. Your specific advice as well as the spirit and intent behind it is much appreciated. Members thank Mr. Lawrence Norbert for suggesting the title of this report, which is derived from his original in Gwich’in.
Members of the committee carefully studied all submissions and the relevant experience of other jurisdictions before making the recommendations in this report. These were not easy deliberations, but all members conducted them with open minds and the best interests of the NWT at heart.
The committee believes that the Assembly’s consideration of the recommendations in this report will be a very important moment in the history of our consensus government. We recognize that many of the issues in this report are challenging, a fact that should not frighten us as legislators. This is what we were elected to do.
The work the committee has done responds to the very first motion of referral to a Standing Committee by the 18th Legislative Assembly. These issues were top-of-mind following our election. The thoughtful and constructive advice we received from the public helps to illustrate why this was the case. The committee thus felt some urgency to complete its task in sufficient time for the Assembly to implement any necessary changes during our term in office, in time for the election of the 19th Assembly. At the same time, there was a real need to enable meaningful discussion of some very complex issues. In response, the committee presented its interim report before public hearings were held and released a discussion paper featuring some key questions.
With this report, the committee has fulfilled the duty it was assigned and turns to the full Assembly to take the next steps we believe are necessary. We are asking all Members to support changes that will strengthen our consensus system of governance. We are asking all Members to break new ground in Canadian legislation to meet the needs of our northern society and legislature.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I do have a motion following the committee report.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that Committee Report 718(2), Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures Report on the Review of Members' Conduct Guidelines, be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further discussion. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to recognize Jim Antoine, the youngest oldtimer of this last weekend, for standing here today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [English translation not provided.] I just wanted to acknowledge the presence of Jim Antoine, former chief, MLA, Minister, and Premier of the GNWT. Mahsi.
Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Item 7, acknowledgements. Colleagues, before we proceed with item number 8, oral questions, the chair is going to call for a short break.
SHORT RECESS
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about federal's Cabinet-appointed Ministers working with Indigenous peoples, and my first question to the Minister is: how does a federal review of laws and policies relate to Indigenous peoples? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Honourable Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member noted, the Prime Minister has announced a review of laws and policies related to Indigenous peoples by a working group of federal Ministers. My understanding is that this working group of Ministers will be responsible for the review and will examine relevant federal laws, policies, and operational practices to help ensure the federal Crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to Aboriginal and treaty rights; adhering to the International Human Rights standards, including UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and also supporting the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner's Calls to Action. It is also likely that there will be a focus on the Indian Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the response. My second question is: how is the department monitoring the working group's progress?
Our government has reached out to the Privy Council Office to ask if the Northwest Territories could play a role in this ministerial working group. Although it is very important for Canada to get its own house in order, we feel we have many best practices that we could share with Canada around reconciliation and working with Indigenous people.
I appreciate the response; that answered my third question. My final question for the Premier is: the Northwest Territories has successfully implemented a collaborative process for developing policy on legislation that involves input from our Aboriginal governments early on; how has this model been shared with Canada and Canadian jurisdictions?
We have certainly identified for Canada and our provincial and territorial colleagues on many innovative approaches in working collaboratively with Indigenous people in our Northwest Territories. I was recently the chair of the Aboriginal Affairs working group for two years, which involved the five national Aboriginal governments and also every province and territory, the Aboriginal Affairs ministers, which included at least eight premiers, and we certainly took advantage of that opportunity to highlight many of the leading practices that we have here in the Northwest Territories and also to speak about the positive outcomes. Because as a government I'd say, in every instant, we are way ahead of the game when providing for Aboriginal and treaty rights and certainly in legislation, when you look at the Species at Risk and the Wildlife Act, for examples, when Aboriginal governments held the pen in doing these types of legislation.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I spoke about a vision for the North and, in particular, a strategy for the North and the importance of that, and it seems that since the change in federal government a northern strategy or a vision isn't as apparent. I'd like to ask the Premier what our territorial government has done or is doing to promote a northern vision that's inclusive of the three territories? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The Honourable Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was certainly a concern of ours with the new government, the fact that there was little emphasis on a northern strategy. In a lot of cases we felt we were being treated as a stakeholder rather than as a government in our right. So the three northern territories got together, the three Premiers. We wrote a letter to the Prime Minister inviting him to meet with the three northern Premiers and to indicate that we were the true representatives of Canada's territories and that we wanted to develop a vision for the North. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the Premier for his reply. I guess the next natural question would be then: what kind of response have we received from Ottawa or the Prime Minister with regard to meeting on this initiative and developing this vision and strategy?
We were very pleased with the Prime Minister's positive response. He was very eager to meet with us and we are looking to meet in the early part of 2017. Each of our three Premiers who have been to Ottawa quite a few times have reinforced that message. When the Prime Minister was here a couple of weeks ago, he reconfirmed his availability, and we're very much looking forward to working with him in this area.
That's all positive news, so thank you to the Premier for that. I guess if we are going to go forward as a territory and be a part of this pan-territorial discussion, can the Premier advise what initiatives will be taken or what steps we will be taking to make sure that the five regions of our territory are inclusive of our NWT vision, that the piece of what we're going to put into the call it pan-territorial vision that we'll be bringing to Ottawa?
Can the Premier maybe explain a little bit about what we're doing to make sure that the five regions are inclusive in that discussion or in that vision?
We are still developing our framework of engagement with the federal government, and certainly we will reach out to our Aboriginal partners and also to the Members of this Assembly.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Yesterday, the Minister released a set of recommendations aimed at a critical incident that took place last year in which the family alleged there had been a cultural bias toward the treatment. So my first question is: to what extent are the recommendations unique to Aklavik and to what extent will the rest of them be applied to the NWT? Thank you.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the critical incident investigation, 16 recommendations were provided to me. Of those recommendations, two of them are specific to Aklavik; the remainder are more systemic or system-based. The two recommendations that do reference Aklavik specifically in my mind also are for the whole territory, not just for Aklavik, but clearly we have some work to do in the Northwest Territories to improve care for all residents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the Minister for that response. How soon will the community's specific recommendations be implemented?
There are two recommendations that were specific to the community, and, as I said, I feel that those recommendations, although they reference the community, are still a territorial recommendation. The first one, recommendation number 3, was to review first responder training in Aklavik. Mr. Speaker, we have provided training around the Northwest Territories. Now, we are just reviewing. The last round was delivered in Aklavik so that we could deliver it. We are looking at enhancing and ensuring that training gets out to all communities in the Northwest Territories. We are currently looking at a pilot study in Tsiigehtchic to provide this type of services on a more fulsome basis.
The second recommendation was the medical and transport and ambulance recommendation. Mr. Speaker, we are not moving forward with a territorial ambulance services. We aren't going to be putting an ambulance in Aklavik. I did make a commitment when I met with leadership in the community, as well as the residents, that we would work with the community to find some solutions that work for the community. In the interim, we are looking at the stretchers and other equipment that we have in our health centre to make sure that it is the best equipment and the most suitable equipment for the community. We are doing that work right now.
I wonder if the Minister can assure us that an incident like this is unlikely once these recommendations are implemented to be avoided elsewhere in the NWT, and how soon is full implementation likely to occur?
A critical incident investigation of this sort is intended to do just that, provide us with recommendations and thoughts on how we can improve our system for all people of the Northwest Territories. There are 16 recommendations. Some of them, I think, are easier than others, and we are moving on all of the recommendations with the exception of two. Those two recommendations that we are not doing, as outlined, we are doing portions of. Specifically, like I say, we are not going to move forward with the territorial ambulance service. The other recommendation we are not moving forward is the creation of a stroke centre here in Yellowknife. There is work we are doing on those, just not as outlined in the recommendations. Mr. Speaker, these are important recommendations. Some of them, I think, are foundational. We have made commitments to move on all of them, but I don't have timelines.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that this case came to public notice because it was reported by the media. My question is whether the method of taking and responding to complaints of this kind has been improved so that there is a more direct mechanism for the department to respond to complaints. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, both prior to going to a single authority and after going to a single authority, we have implemented and put in place quality assurance mechanisms within the Health and Social Services system. This is an office of individuals that can be engaged by residents of the Northwest Territories who have concerns of the healthcare or the social services provided. What has become clear, both with my meeting with the family on Friday and my meeting with leadership in the community, is that, although these positions exist, people don't know that they exist. People do not know that this mechanism is available to them. I made a commitment to the leadership, to the family, and I am making a commitment here to the Members to do more to get that information out to the public.
Early in the life of this Assembly I provided all of that information to the MLAs. The problem is we have to go beyond notifying the MLAs of this information. We have to get it into the health centres. We have to get the nurses and doctors and other healthcare providers talking about the quality assurance mechanism. We need to encourage people to use it, because it is input from our residents who are having difficulty or concerns that will actually help us improve this system. I have made a commitment to finding better ways, more effective ways to get this information out to all residents of the Northwest Territories.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as we are going through this budgeting process, I have noticed a number of people coming to me and saying there are unfunded positions within the government. It is fitting that the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs is coming up today here. Will the Minister tell us: how many unfunded positions does the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs have? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs has nine unfunded positions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for her answer. Can the Minister tell us how the department comes up with a job description and a pay range for these positions?
