Consensus government in Canada

Consensus government is a non-partisan, democratic system of government in use in two Canadian territories.

This system exists in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, territories. It is also used in Nunatsiavut, an autonomous area within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. A variation on the system, Consensus Government by Committee, is in use in Guernsey in the Channel Islands.

In each jurisdiction the consensus system was implemented at a time when there was a majority of aboriginal electors. The system developed in the Northwest Territories beginning in the 1970s, in parallel with the devolution of authority from Canada, and the institution of direct democracy, and was adopted by Nunavut when it came into existence in 1999.

Origins and Development

In 1905, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved from the much larger Northwest Territories. The Yukon Territory had been created in 1898 to facilitate governance of the Yukon goldfields, and both Ontario and Quebec were granted a healthy slice of northern lands. The remaining lands were considered to be unsettled by Europeans, largely inhabited by Dene, Metis and Inuit, and not requiring much in the way of governance. The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, a functionary reporting to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs in Ottawa, was given plenary governing authority.

A Legislative Council was convened from time to time of worthy notables, learned in matters involving the natives and northern development. The 2nd Council of the Northwest Territories met sporadically, typically in Ottawa, and passed Ordinances for the benefit of the territory. This period of Northwest Territories history is generally regarded by the people of the Northwest Territories as a time of great neglect.

Beginning in the 1950s and 60s some residents of the Territory were appointed or elected to the Council. These elected members were initially non-native, but in growing number, were Dene, Metis and Inuit. Members began to secure positions on the Executive Council, replacing appointed Ottawa bureaucrats, and began to insist on a devolution of authority. In a series of letters, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs gradually curtailed the authority of the Commissioner and affirmed the authority of the Assembly.

The first fully elected Executive Council elected in 1980 was lead by George Braden, and the system of consensus government developed from that date.

Choosing leadership

Members of the legislature are elected as independents from single member districts by simple plurality voting. The legislature selects first the Speaker, then the Premier, and finally the cabinet members from amongst themselves. In each instance the candidate must obtain a majority of the votes cast. This means that multiple ballots may occur before a successful candidate is selected.

The Premier holds three key authorities; she or he 1) names the portfolios held by each Minister and can remove or adjust these, 2) controls the agenda of the Cabinet/Executive Council, and 3) hires, rewards, fires and shuffles the Deputy department heads.

The passage of legislation and the government is dependent on retaining the confidence of the legislature. However due to the absence of political parties there is no formal opposition and instead of party caucuses members regularly participate in a caucus of all members of the legislature.^[1]

Developing a Government Platform

When Ministers have been elected and selected by a consensus system, it is inevitable that no common platform supports the proposed work of the government. This common platform is developed by the Cabinet and Members, and is called a Mandate or Consensus statement, and is typically made public early in the term of a new Assembly.

While consensus models of discourse often require that a true consensus be reached, in consensus government policies advanced by the government are decided upon by majority vote; the government must therefore support policies that please a majority of the entire legislature if it wants them to pass. Notions of party discipline are not relevant to such deliberations.

Consensus Government By Committee - in Guernsey

The States of Guernsey (the island's parliament) last endorsed the system of consensus government by committees in 2002, when it rejected, by a very significant majority, a proposition to replace the system with executive/cabinet-style government. In 2004 Guernsey last made changes to its system of government.

Consensus government by committees in Guernsey is an alternative to party-based and ministerial government. Government departments are run not by individuals with ministerial authority, but by boards or committees of five members elected by the Assembly (parliament) of 47 members.

All major items of policy are taken to the Assembly, where they are approved, amended or rejected. Most items are determined by simple majority voting.

At the most recent general election of people's deputies (members), all candidates stood as independents without affiliation to any party. Political parties have existed from time to time, but with little success.

In 2009, a majority of members of Guernsey's government signed a letter outlining their continuing commitment to consensus government by committees and opposition to executive/cabinet-style government.

At their meeting on 16 July 2009, the States of Deliberation resolved to establish a Tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)(Guernsey) Law, 1949, as amended to inquire into the facts and circumstances leading up to and surrounding the industrial action taken by the Airport Fire Fighters at Guernsey Airport in May 2009, including the circumstances in which the dispute was resolved. The Resolution followed presentation of a Requête dated 29 June 2009 petitioning for a Tribunal of Inquiry to be established, signed by Deputy M M Lowe and seventeen other members of the States shortly after the events under investigation.

The Tribunal of Inquiry's Report ^[2]was published on 23 April 2010 and included the following text: Our terms of reference require us to examine the actions and omissions of Departments and Committees of the States of Guernsey, relevant statutory bodies,other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the dispute. We consider each in turn below in alphabetical order. It would, though, be wrong to focus on any organisation in particular or to consider any specific action or omission in isolation. The failure to deal with the underlying problem, which led to the industrial action by the firefighters, stems from the system of government which does not encourage either a corporate approach or collective responsibility. In our view there was a systemic failure to act in a corporate and strategic manner'.

http://www.gov.gg/downloads/Billet%20D%27Etat%20IX%202010%20Appendix%203%20-%20Tribunal%20of%20Enquiry.pdf

The States of Deliberation will debate the Tribunal of Inquiry's findings later in 2010.