Anawak and Thompson should quit cabinet

Rankin Inlet’s two cabinet ministers, Jack Anawak and Manitok Thompson, are getting away with something that would not be tolerated in any other government in Canada.

They’re publicly opposing a decision made by the cabinet to which they belong. They have clearly said, in public, that they’re opposed to moving the Nunavut government’s petroleum products division from Rankin Inlet to Baker Lake.

In an interview with Nunatsiaq News published Nov. 22, 2002, Thompson, the minister of community government and transportation, said, “I will oppose this to the end,” when stating her position on the issue. There is no evidence that her position has changed since that time.

Last week, in an interview broadcast on CBC North, Anawak said that the deputy minister of public works — who, like all deputy ministers, acts and speaks on behalf of cabinet — was “irresponsible” for comments he made to the group of public works employees in Rankin whose jobs will move to Baker Lake. There is no evidence that his position has changed since that time.

These public statements violate a cardinal principle of parliamentary government — cabinet solidarity.

In all legislatures based on the British or “Westminster” model, cabinet ministers are bound by cabinet solidarity. This means all decisions of cabinet are regarded as collective decisions. Once cabinet has made a decision, all cabinet ministers are expected to support it. It is the duty of all cabinet ministers to explain and defend those decisions.

Cabinet solidarity is linked to another important principle — cabinet secrecy. All ministers must swear an oath saying they will not reveal the content of cabinet discussions. This, among other things, allows ministers to exercise freedom of speech during cabinet discussions. Inside cabinet, away from the eyes and ears of the public, ministers may oppose any government proposal as aggressively as they wish.

But once cabinet makes a decision, it’s the duty of all ministers to support and defend that decision in public.

If a minister cannot in good conscience support or defend a cabinet decision, then he or she is expected to resign. If a minister publicly opposes a cabinet decision later on, then he or she is also expected to resign — that is, if they’re not fired by the premier or prime minister.

So why are Anawak and Thompson still in cabinet?

It’s because the so-called consensus system used in the Nunavut and Northwest Territories legislative assemblies gives the premier little or no power to enforce cabinet solidarity. Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik did not choose his cabinet. The legislature did. Only the legislature, as a whole, can formally discipline or remove cabinet ministers, through motions of censure or motions of non-confidence.

In our system, the premier enjoys great prestige, but limited political power, and there are only two methods that the premier can use to control ministers.

One, he can use his power to assign portfolios. He can punish errant ministers by giving them low-status jobs and reward productive ministers by putting them in charge of large, high-status departments. It’s theoretically possible for Okalik to punish and humiliate Anawak and Thompson by stripping them of their departmental responsibilities and making them ministers without portfolio. But it’s uncertain — perhaps unlikely — that MLAs would support this.

Two, through his office, and through the department of the executive, the premier can control the appointment and assignment of deputy ministers. Theoretically, the premier can use this power to ensure that government polices are executed by civil servants loyal to him, even if some elected cabinet ministers are in active disagreement with those policies. But that’s not the same thing as the power to dismiss ministers, which he doesn’t have.

There are some who will point out that — on the PPD transfer issue — Thompson and Anawak were speaking in their capacity “as regular MLAs” and not in their capacity as cabinet ministers. This is an empty argument. Cabinet membership is not something you can turn off and on like a light-switch. You’re either in, or you’re out. It’s hypocritical for Anawak and Thompson to enjoy the prestige and high salaries that come with their cabinet jobs, while at the same time refusing to explain and defend a decision endorsed by their other cabinet colleagues.

There are others who might ask this question: Isn’t Nunavut supposed to be “different?” Why should we follow imported British rules that may not be useful to us? Besides, the principle of cabinet solidarity isn’t a law. It’s a tradition. The Constitution Act doesn’t contain the word “cabinet.” It’s an unwritten convention, originating about 250 years ago within the British parliament in Westminster, coming down to us by way of its sister parliaments in Ottawa and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Shouldn’t the Nunavut legislature and government evolve its own traditions?

In this case, though, we would be wise to insist that Nunavut keep the tradition of cabinet solidarity — even if we have yet to develop an effective method that would allow the premier to enforce it.

First, it’s because the Nunavut cabinet must retain the ability to develop and carry out policies on behalf of all regions and communities in the territory. The narrow complaints of one community can’t be allowed to block decisions made for the greater good of the entire territory.

Such is the question of whether 14 Nunavut government positions should move from Rankin Inlet to Baker Lake. Because of the prolonged carp-and-whine campaign organized by some Rankin residents, you’d think the government of Nunavut was proposing to load their friends and neighbours onto cattle cars bound for a concentration camp. In reality, it’s a minor administrative decision made by a government that has transferred hundreds of jobs from one place to another over the past three years.

Second, it weakens the credibility of the entire Nunavut government, in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of other governments. Who speaks for the Nunavut government? The premier? Minister X? Minister Y? And it creates an opportunity for outside interests — such as the federal government — to weaken the Nunavut government through the use of divide-and-conquer tactics.

If Thompson and Anawak honestly believe that the demands of their constituents in Rankin Inlet — and their own prospects for re-election — are more important than a decision made by cabinet, there is only one course open to them. As regular members outside of cabinet, they would be free to make their case against the PPD transfer as honestly and as vociferously as they wish.

Jack Anawak and Manitok Thompson ought to know what they need to do to preserve the integrity of the government and their own honour. They must now resign from cabinet.

JB