Mr. Speaker, Addendum: Dissenting Opinion of the Honourable Louis Sebert, Minister responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency, MLA for Thebacha.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures was tasked by Motion 718(1), passed by unanimous consent of the House on December 18, 2015, to recommend a process, including terms-of-reference, for a midterm review and report back to the House during the Fall 2016 sitting. The standing committee has not been able to come to unanimous agreement on a report, with Minister Sebert being the sole dissenter. The Clerks have advised Minister Sebert that it is his right as a member of the committee to submit a minority report.
The report of the standing committee includes seven recommendations, the majority of which contradict the direction as set forth by the motion. This minority report will act as a rebuttal and as an argument for adhering to the directions of the House.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that a midterm review be carried out in the fall of 2017 and that it include an assessment of the Executive Council, both collectively and individually.
The motion clearly states "this Legislative Assembly conduct a public midterm accountability review of the adopted mandate of the 18th Legislative Assembly, including the performance of the Executive Council and Standing Committees, to take place in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly prior to the fall 2017 sitting." Recommendation 1 fails to meet the direction of the House for the midterm review to be an assessment of the mandate, which includes the performance of the Executive Council and standing committees in achieving the goals of the mandate.
Recommend that a midterm review be carried out prior to the fall 2017 sitting, to assess the progress on the adopted mandate of the 18th Legislative Assembly, including the performance of the Executive Council and the standing committees, collectively and individually, as directed by Motion 718(1).
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.
Such a process was not included in the mandate and is not directed by the motion. Members of the Executive Council are held to account for their performance in achieving the goals of the mandate and in the management of their respective departments through several means, including appearances before standing committees in business plans, legislative reviews and, at request, on specific issues of concern; oral hearings and written questions; main estimates and review in Committee of the Whole. These are tangible, measurable results that do not require selfassessment. If the House is at any time dissatisfied with the performance of the Executive Council or one of its members, a motion of nonconfidence can be introduced. It is also a duplication of work to require a written assessment be created before then going into a midterm review in the House.
That recommendation 2 be deleted.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that a new MidTerm Review Committee be established specific to that purpose, with designation of multiple chairs to enable all Members, including the Speaker, to participate fully.
This recommendation creates a secondary duplicate committee as the Territorial Leadership Committee already fulfills this function when selecting the Executive Council, as does Caucus when discussing matters of interest to all Members. In the interest of public transparency, efficiency, and openness, the midterm review should be conducted in the House, with the Speaker presiding, given that the midterm review is meant to be reviewing process on the adopted mandate of the Legislative Assembly. This recommendation seems to be directed more at assessing only the performance of Executive Council.
That the midterm review be conducted at the opening of the fall 2017 sitting, with the Speaker presiding, and be open to the public as well as publically broadcast, as directed by Motion 718(1).
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures further recommends that the MidTerm Review Committee conduct its review publicly, in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.
This recommendation is redundant, given the express direction of the motion that the midterm review take place in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly. It is agreed that it should be public.
That Recommendation 4 be deleted.
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 Ministers to raise any performance issues they may have with committees. The meetings should be informal and in camera, with set time limits and strict adherence to openness and fairness.
Notwithstanding that incamera meetings are by default not open, this recommendation goes far beyond the scope of a midterm review and the directions in the motion. It is an unnecessary exercise given that Ministers meet with the Premier to review their progress on mandate commitments and overall performance, and the Premier meets at the request of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning in fireside chats to discuss openly any issues of concern.
Ministers regularly appear before committees in business plans, review of legislation, and, at request, on issues of pressing concern. A midterm review allows for the House to assess the performance of Ministers in achieving the goals of the mandate, and motions of nonconfidence in the House can be introduced at any time against a Minister who is deemed to be underperforming.
That Recommendation 5 be deleted as contradictory to the direction of Motion 718(1) and the established processes of consensus government.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the midterm review not include the performance of standing committees, collectively or individually, and, further, that standing committees complete internal evaluations annually, with informal input from Cabinet, as set out in Recommendation 5.
The House specifically directed that the midterm review include a mechanism to evaluate the performance of standing committees, both collectively and individually. Seeking informal feedback from Ministers annually is not open nor transparent. Members felt that internal accountability is appropriate, practical, and fairly effective. Standing Committees, as noted in the "Consensus Government in the Northwest Territories: Guiding Principles and Process Conventions," have substantial powers, including the power to call public meetings, seek external advice, and subpoena witnesses. It would be reasonable to expect that the public would be interested in hearing how committees both hold themselves accountable and help advance the priorities of the Legislative Assembly as laid out in the mandate.
That the chairs of each standing committee table a report as part of the midterm review on actions taken by their committee on advancing mandate priorities.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories 20162019 be revised, if necessary, by Cabinet (with input from the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning), reviewed in Caucus, and tabled for potential debate, amendment, and adoption in the October 2017 sitting of the House.
It is agreed that the Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019 be revised, if necessary, by Cabinet (with input from the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning), reviewed in Caucus, and tabled for potential debate, amendment, and adoption in the October 2017 session of the House.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Mid-Term Review Committee provide that:
Each Minister, starting with the Premier and subsequently in alphabetical order, speak for up to five minutes on his or her performance and leadership of his or her departments. Each Member will be permitted up to two questions or no longer than two minutes each. Responses will be no longer than two minutes each.
The Premier speak for up to ten minutes on his overall leadership and performance, and the collective performance of Cabinet. Each Member will be permitted up to two questions or no longer than two minutes each. Responses will be no longer than two minutes each.
Rules for the proceedings prohibit signs of approval or disapproval, such as table banging and comments such as shame or hear hear, during speeches and questions.
A confidence vote be conducted on the overall progress of Cabinet in meeting its mandate, in an open forum by secret ballot.
Confidence motions will be conducted on the overall performance of each Minister, in an open forum by secret ballot; and
Overall results will be announced by the Chair on conclusion of the process.
There is a duplication of process, as noted previously, in having a mid-term review committee conduct this work. It needs to be noted that motions of non-confidence are only binding when passed by the House, not a committee. Therefore, any vote by secret ballot conducted by the Mid-Term Review Committee will need to be repeated in the House, which are not secret votes.
Therefore, the recommendation proposed here can be interpreted as one meant to embarrass or shame a Minister into resigning without having the knowledge of which of their colleagues lack faith in their abilities -- an issue that does not occur when the vote is by motion of the House. Therefore, any motions of non-confidence, in the interest of timeliness, fairness, and transparency should be through the established process in the House, by recorded vote.
Specifically to each point:
It is agreed in principle that the Premier speak for a set amount of time on the overall progress of the government in fulfilling mandate priorities, and each Minister on their overall progress in meeting mandate priorities and fulfilling their mandate letter objectives; however, as noted previously, asking someone to evaluate their own leadership is unnecessary.
Members of the Executive Council should be evaluated on their performance, which includes leadership of their respective departments; however this does not require self-reflection. A record of actions taken, initiatives advanced, mandate priorities fulfilled is more than sufficient to evaluate performance. Any lingering questions should be able to be answered through Members asking for details as part of the questioning envisioned in this recommendation.
It is agreed that each Member shall be entitled to ask two questions of no more than two minutes in length; however, to limit Ministers in their reply to the same amount of time does not enable Ministers to provide Members and the public with a full and comprehensive response. It is agreed with the principle of efficient debate, and to that end, recommend that questions should not be open-ended, overly long, nor on more than one topic.
It is agreed in principle that the Premier speak for a set amount of time on the overall progress of the government on fulfilling mandate priorities. It is agreed that each Member shall be entitled to ask two questions of the Premier, of no more than two minutes in length, with answers being no more than two minutes in length. The same objections to evaluating Minister's own leadership listed above apply here.
It is agreed that rules for the proceeding prohibit signs of approval or disapproval, such as table-banging and comments such as shame or hear hear, during speeches and questions.
It is agreed in principle that a vote of confidence be conducted on the overall progress of Cabinet in meeting the priorities of the mandate. However, this should be done by motion in the House, by recorded vote, as directed by Motion 7-18(1).
The direction of the House, as laid out in Motion 7-18(1) is that the mid-term review is to evaluate the performance of Executive Council and standing committees in the context of the mandate. This direction is fulfilled by questioning the Premier and Ministers on their individual actions in advancing the priorities, and by conducting a motion in the House on whether the House retains confidence in the Executive Council to continue. As motions of non-confidence in Ministers can be introduced at any time, if the actions of a particular Minister or Ministers are deemed to be contrary to the will of the House, a motion can then be introduced to remove them from Executive Council.
As it is the minority opinion that any confidence vote be conducted by motion of the House, there is no need to have results announced at the conclusion, as the votes are public from the start.
It is recommended that the Mid-Term Review consist of the following parts:
The chairs of each standing committee table a report detailing their committee's actions in advancing the priorities of the Legislative Assembly as laid out in the mandate.
Each Minister, starting in alphabetical order, speak to up to five minutes on his or her progress in advancing the priorities of the Legislative Assembly as laid out in the mandate and mandate letters from the Premier. Each Member will be permitted up to two questions, with each question being no more than two minutes in length on one topic, and each reply being as complete and concise as possible.
The Premier speak for ten minutes on the overall progress of the Executive Council in advancing the priorities of the Legislative Assembly as laid out in the mandate. Each Member will be permitted up to two questions to the Premier, with each question being no more than two minutes in length on one topic, and each reply being as complete and concise as possible.
Rules for the proceedings prohibit signs of approval or disapproval, such as table-banging and comments such as shame or hear hear during speeches and questions.
A motion of confidence be conducted at the conclusion of the questions, waiving the 48-hour notice period by unanimous consent, on the overall progress of the Executive Council on meeting the priorities of the Legislative Assembly as laid out in the mandate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There has been a request for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh.
Masi. All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand. All those in favour, 17; opposed, zero; abstentions, zero. The motion is carried.
---Carried
