Some Thoughts on Consensus Government in Nunavut by Kevin O'Brien, MLA Nunavut is one of two jurisdictions in Canada (the other being the Northwest 2003 CanLIIDocs 240 Territories) where there are no political parties in the legislature. This article argues that consensus government is a northern variation of the standard Westminster model of responsible government. It describes the theory and practice of consensus government in Canada's newest territory. 1\4 any elements of The spending of public money and the raising of pub- consensus government lic revenue through taxation may only be initiated by are the same as in a cabinet ministers; regular members certainly have the legislature with political parties. power to approve or reject such measures when they We have a Premier, cabinet and come before the legislature but bringing them forward private members; three readings remains a cabinet prerogative. Similarly, control and di- for a bill, Hansard, question rection of the permanent bureaucracy rests firmly in cab- period, a politically neutral inet's hands. Speaker, motions of non- Ministers, both as political heads of individual depart- confidence and so on. Moreover, ments and as members of a unified cabinet, are answer- in terms of constitutional able to the legislature for the policies and decisions of fundamentals, we follow the government; this enables the public service to operate in principles of the British a non-partisan fashion whereby bureaucrats answer to parliamentary model of "responsible government". MLAs through their ministers. The government — premier and cabinet — hold and re- People often wonder how we can truly have a parlia- tain power by maintaining the "confidence" of the ment on the British responsible government model with- House, which in practice means winning the votes in out political parties. Others presume that the absence of which confidence is explicitly at issue. parties is simply a sign of our lack of political "maturity" Once Cabinet reaches a decision, all ministers must and that once we have reached the proper stage of politi- publicly support that decision, whatever their personal cal development we will acquire parties. I note in pass- reservations and whatever arguments they may have ing that no one ever describes Nebraska as politically made behind closed cabinet doors. The principle of "cab- immature, although its legislature has long operated on a inet solidarity" must remain nonpartisan basis. Political parties may indeed emerge in Nunavut some- where down the road, but for the time being our resi- dents think the system works fine without them. Our vision of political maturity is one of controlling our own Kevin O'Brien is Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. affairs and does not necessarily require political parties. This is a revised version of his address ta the 26''' Canadian Regional Seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association held in Igaluit on October 16-19, 2003. 6 CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW /WINTER 2003-04 As for the view that a proper Westminster system in- The premier assigns ministers to portfolios and also cludes parties, I would point out that the key principles shuffles their assignments, but he does not have the of responsible government I have just outlined were power to dismiss them, as a recent episode demon- firmly in place in Britain and Canada well before the dis- strated. In a conflict over a minister's refusal to abide by ciplined political parties we know today emerged in the cabinet solidarity, the Premier was able to discipline the mid and late 19' century. minister by removing his departmental responsibilities, However while the underlying constitutional princi- but could not remove him from cabinet. ples are identical to those in Westminster-style parlia- Some have compared our consensus government to a ments in Canada and elsewhere, the way we put them permanent minority government, for the regular MLAs into practice is quite different. outnumber the cabinet eleven to seven. There is some truth to that view but in other ways it is misleading. Ob- Consensus Government in Operation viously, the regular MLAs can defeat the govemment in a vote at any time, either on a specific policy issue or on a Southerners observing our legislature immediately question of confidence. This means that — as is the case notice two things. First, much of our proceedings take with minority governments — cabinet has to ensure that it place in Inuktitut. Second, debate is civil. MLAs listen to has the voting support of some MLAs and this in turn 2003 CanLIIDocs 240 each other and do not often interrupt. makes cabinet sensitive to the views of the Legislative Nunavut MLAs, like politicians everywhere, get an- Assembly. In keeping with British parliamentary tradi- gry, upset and critical, but for the most part our proceed- tion, the Speaker only votes to break a tie. ings are calm and respectful. Like the frequent use of Since we do not have parties regular members work to- Inuktitut, this reflects Inuit culture, in which direct con- gether and support one another, but are not a formal op- frontation is to be avoided and one listens attentively — position along the lines of those found in southern and does not interrupt — when another is speaking. parliaments: a disciplined group of members, prepared Heated political battles occur behind the scenes but the to — indeed eager to — replace the government. The other norms of civility and respect are powerful. They cer- characteristic of oppositions that is mostly absent in our tainly make the Speaker's job easier in maintaining order House is their relentless fault-finding and finger-point- in the House. ing and their objection to everything government does. All candidates for territorial election, including MLAs Even when they really agree with government they will and ministers standing for re-election, run as independ- usually not admit it and find something to criticise. ents. Some have strong and widely known connections to the national political parties. But while these affilia- Nunavut MLAs certainly are not shy tions likely have some bearing on candidates' attractive- ness to voters, we all run — and are judged by the voters — about voicing criticism of the cabinet, on the basis of our personal views and records. but they do not criticise and oppose In the House, while there are certainly groupings and just for the sake of criticism and alliances among MLAs, there are no hard and fast lines, opposition. enforced by strong party discipline, dividing MLAs, as in the South. Nor, as I will explain in a moment, is there a Our Legislative Assembly simply is not as adversarial traditional "opposition". as party-dominated Houses. An important institution Regular members speak and vote in the House as they which helps all MLAs work together is caucus. This is a think best. Ministers typically speak and vote in unison, term familiar to all Canadian parliamentarians, but again in keeping with the principle of cabinet solidarity, but on its meaning and significance in Nunavut is rather un- matters not directly linked to government policy, they usual. In most other Canadian legislatures, each party too speak and act independently. has its own caucus and only members of that party par- Central to consensus government is the way we choose ticipate. Here in Nunavut all nineteen MLAs — including our cabinet, including the Premier: This is done by secret the Speaker — attend and participate in caucus. ballot of all MLAs. Thus unlike Southern Canadian par- Caucus meets regularly — at least once a week when the liaments, where ministers owe their appointments di- House is sitting and occasionally when the Assembly is rectly to the Premier, Nunavut ministers understand that not sitting — to discuss political issues. As in the south, they were put in office by the MLAs, not the Premier and caucus meetings are not open to the public and caucus that they can be removed from office by the MLAs. confidentiality is an important unwritten rule. WINTER 2003-04 / CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW 7 In caucus we are all aware that the Premier is the Pre- ian. Again, however, there are distinctive twists to the mier and the ministers are ministers, but at the same time operation and influence of our committees. everyone's views are taken seriously and there is genu- First, they are routinely provided by cabinet with con- ine and take among all MLAs. As one MLA has put fidential information that committees in Ottawa and the it: "there is no such thing as ministers everyone is equal provincial capitals could only dream of receiving. This when it cornes to feeling free to speak". includes draft government legislation, departments' Some questions can be decided in caucus, which may draft expenditure budgets and other confidential docu- mean that debate in the House is limited, while on others ments. Cabinet does not share everything with the com- agreement will not be reached and the discussions will mittees, but the practice of providing MLAs with continue in the House and in committees. important policy documents before they are finalized I do not want to leave the impression that caucus is the and made public offers cabinet an opportunity to deter- real decision-making body and that it dictates to cabinet. mine and respond to MLA input and gives MLAs genu- It does not , but the discussions in caucus make it clear Me influence — though by no means the final say — in where everyone stands and facilitate compromises and important government decisions. problem-solving. 2003 CanLIIDocs 240 More traditional in form are our legislative commit- A strength of our committee system tees, though here again, their capacity to influence gov- lies in its capacity to foster a positive ernment decisions is greater than in other Westminster and cooperative relationship between parliaments.