Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to Ms. Bassi-Kellett for that. That’s good to hear. I hope it stays down there.
My other question has to do with the duty to accommodate. I believe the department has put a bit of a focus on the accommodation of employees who have been off due to injury or some for disability, but I am referencing generally injury. There will be times when a department makes an offer to an employee who is returning to work to accommodate them in a certain way and the employee disagrees. When there is a problem like that and the two parties can’t reach any kind of an agreement, is there any kind of an appeal mechanism for the employee to appeal somewhere, maybe to the Department of HR, I’m not sure, but is there an appeal mechanism for someone who feels that they have not been accommodated properly? If not, then what avenue is there for an employee who feels that they haven’t been adequately accommodated? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We will go to Minister Beaulieu.
Mr. Chair, we have developed some positions specifically for this. We have two regional duty to accommodate advisors that we have hired to work with the existing advisor to manage the caseload. We have located those two positions in Hay River and Inuvik. There were over 150 active case files underway. As of the 15th of December 2013, it was 64 cases here and with the Tlicho, 50 in the South Slave and 42 in the Beaufort-Delta. We are trying to move to where the greatest volume is.
I’m not sure I quite understood the Minister’s answer. We have 150 people that we are trying to accommodate. I think that is what he told me. I appreciate confirmation to that if that is correct.
If there is someone who simply is not happy with the accommodation that has been offered and there have been negotiations back and forth and they simply cannot come to an agreement between the new department and the individual or the department where the individual is returning to work, I guess I should say, if that happens, is there an appeal mechanism for me as an employee? I don’t like what I’ve been offered, or I have been offered several things and I don’t like any of them, I have valid reasons for not accepting, what can I do at this point? The 150 that the Minister referred to, I hope those are not 150 positions or 150 people who are stuck. I hope these are just people that we’re trying to accommodate. I hope these are not people that we cannot accommodate or where we have a fight on our hands. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, these are active files ongoing, so there would be various duties offered to accommodate individuals that wish to be accommodated by modified duties, hours, looking at worksites and equipment, providing alternate positions and/or bundling existing duties, so trying to find suitable accommodation for individuals. If we have come to a complete impasse, the file at this time is remaining open and we are continuing to attempt to accommodate. I don’t know what other alternatives would be, aside from what we can do to accommodate an individual. At some point we provide all of the accommodations that we can, and if we’re unable to successfully accommodate the person to their satisfaction, then I suppose the only alternative would be for the individuals to maybe consider leaving the government. I really don’t know what else to add other than trying every type of accommodation that we can to try to accommodate our staff.
Thanks to the Minister and I appreciate that the department does everything they can. I think that the department where the employee is returning to work probably also does everything they can, but what I thought I heard the Minister say was, when push comes to shove, if I as an employee can’t be accommodated, then sort of the only thing that’s left is for me to quit my job or to be pushed out of my job. I don’t think that’s the intention of the government, but that’s kind of what I’m hearing.
There must be some avenue, and maybe if it’s even if the Minister says that the person has to go to Human Rights to appeal, but there must be some avenue that the employee and/or the employer can take to try and solve this impasse, even if it’s to go to mediation or arbitration of some sort. So is there something like that when things get really bad? Thank you.
The duties to accommodate would be offers from government in an attempt to accommodate the employee. All of the things I’ve mentioned, such as duties, hours, worksite, other jobs, other positions, bundling existing duties to create a position in an attempt to accommodate. If after that the employee continues to refuse all of the accommodations, then I don’t know what else we can do, but maybe I can ask the deputy minister to see if I have missed anything on anything further that we can do to try to accommodate an employee.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. Bassi-Kellett.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As the Minister said, we go to great lengths when we do have an employee who we wish to accommodate and it’s worth noting that accommodations can range quite extensively. It can be everything from a temporary accommodation for an employee who has broken their leg and they’re in a cast and they need something for the duration of time they’re in a cast, to something that’s quite a lot more substantive and it may indeed even be invisible to the eye, for example, addictions.
What we find, as well, is that we work to the point, as is outlined in our Duty to Accommodate Injury and Disability Policy, to the point of undue hardship and as an employer the size of the GNWT it’s not easy, we go to great lengths before we say we’ve reached undue hardship when it comes to accommodating one employee. So we’ve done things as extensive as looking at opportunities to be able to take work that we were contracting out to see if we could bundle that for employees to make it very workable for them.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, what we want to do is get the employee back to work, get them feeling like they are able to work to the extent that they are physically and mentally able to do, we want them back in the workforce, we want that degree of normalcy for them. We work very hard to find an option that’s going to work for them. If at the end of the day the options that we put forward for accommodation are things that the employee says no, I don’t want that, I don’t think that’s going to work for me – and again, we’re checking with their physician as appropriate, as well, and working with them very closely – if an employee says no, that’s not workable, we do work to exhaust every one of the options that we’ve put before them. If they say no, then we recognize that we’ve done as much as we can and we do look to the employee then to determine what they would like to do for the next steps. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Bassi-Kellett. Committee, we’re on 3-27, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is on the Safe Disclosure Policy. I know there was an intent to move that into some form of whistleblower legislation after sort of vetting it for a year or two. I’m not sure that it’s actually had much experience in the vetting realm, but is the intent still to move that to legislation?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it is.
I’m sure I’ll find out soon when that will be happening.
In the process of reorganizing divisions or departments or sections or whatever, positions sometimes get deleted within the government, and I’m concerned about a situation where an employee in a position might be assured one day that they’re secure and then with an about-face by the government their position is designated as affected shortly thereafter. Are there standards that must be met here, and what recourse does an employee have when their employer goes back on their word such as in such a situation?
Just to let the Member know that we’re planning on introducing safe disclosure legislation in October of 2014. With the Staff Retention Policy, I’ll have the deputy minister provide more detail on the last comment by the Member.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. Bassi-Kellett.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The point the Member raises about the indeterminate nature of work, certainly departments go through exercises, if they must, to be able to look at being as streamlined and as refined and as efficient as possible in meeting the mandate of the department itself. At times that may require a reorganization, but we work very, very hard to minimize the impact on employees. We’re not interested overall in really looking at having adverse effect on employees.
In the event that there is a reorganization that will impact an employee in the position that they’re in, as the Minister mentioned, the Staff Retention Policy kicks in, which is really our commitment to making sure that we will look first of all in that employee’s department and then, secondly, across government overall to find a suitable place for any employee who is impacted, whose position may be impacted and so that we can keep those people within the public service. We value the knowledge that they have, the experience they have, and it’s not something we do as an employer to be looking around to be getting rid of people. When there are organizational design reasons for having to reorganize or re-describe how work is done, it’s very important for us to be able to ensure that we have the Staff Retention Policy to give employees that sense of comfort that there is a transfer and process that will be followed that will really seek to place them elsewhere in the organization. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Bassi-Kellett. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for that response and the additional from the Minister. I’m aware of this Staff Retention Policy and the situation described by the deputy minister. There is, however, some communications that occur before officially deleting positions, and perhaps there needs to be a bit of a clarity with supervisory employees that they should not be saying things that they can’t keep to if the government decides to get rid of positions. So I’ll just leave that as a comment.
My Last Question, I See Expense Here Is Up 30-some Percent Over The Last Couple Of Years, Up A Little Bit Again This Year From Last Year. I’m Wondering: what has engendered this increase in expenditures for this division? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have the deputy minister respond to that.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Bassi-Kellett.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To be very brief about this, the difference between 2014-15 proposed estimates and ’13-14 really is showing an increase in the compensation and benefits for the collective bargaining increases that are across the board for our entire public service. When we go back to the increase, when we look back to the 2012-13 actuals, we had done some internal reorganization at that point in time to move positions that support collective bargaining from our policy shop into labour relations when we established the division of labour relations at that time.
Thank you, Ms. Bassi-Kellett. Mr. Bromley.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That certainly explains it. I recall now. Thanks for that reminder. I see we’re nearing the end here. Was there a plan to move some of the department’s staff and programs to the Department of Finance this year or am I thinking of another department? My memory is stretching. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Beaulieu.
Yes, financial shared services position of 78 positions were moved from Human Resources to Finance for the new financial shared services, and the main estimates here are reflected in a way that in 2013-14, 2012, even though those positions had actually sat there, it would show a tremendous drop in the positions, so those positions are taken off right across the board, and so this shows a true reflection of what we’re discussing, but yes, 78 positions were moved to financial shared services.
Thanks for that explanation. That was my impression, and I was perplexed as to why I wasn’t seeing that drop here, and I wonder whether I’ll see an increase in Finance or whether they will just assume that it’s always been there as well. As long as we have some clarity at some point here on the shifts that are happening, but perhaps that’s a Department of Finance question. That’s all I had.
Finance will be doing the same thing. To show a true reflection of what the shift is, they will be putting the positions in previous years, so it wouldn’t show a sharp increase in positions there as well.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu, for clarifying. Committee, we are on 3-27, activity summary. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the Minister’s clarification there. Again, I don’t know, but it just seems like it would be a good thing to have that built in somewhere in here, and maybe it is at some point, but I think that sort of clarity would be good. Although we hear about it in other forums, it might be good even in a narrative sense at the beginning of the department in the budget document here just to have that clarity. Just a suggestion there.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I know the Minister has noted that comment. Committee, 3-27, activity summary, labour relations, operations expenditure summary, $2.818 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Committee, 3-28, information item, labour relations, active positions. Any questions? Seeing none, I’d like to have you return to the department summary on 3-7. Human Resources, department summary. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion. I move that this committee defer consideration of the Department of Human Resources at this time.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We will just allow a moment for the motion to circulate.
The motion I have before us here is in order and is not debatable. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Committee, 3-7, Human Resources, department summary, operations expenditure summary, $23.636 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that consideration of the Department of HR has been concluded?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I’d like to thank the Minister here today. I’d like to thank our witnesses, Ms. Bassi-Kellett and Ms. Beard, for joining us today. Sergeant-at-Arms, if I can get you to escort the witnesses out of the House. Thank you.
As agreed upon by committee, we are going to continue discussions today with Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. With that, I’ll turn the floor over to Premier McLeod to see if he has any opening comments.
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Please proceed, Premier.
I am pleased to present the 2014-2015 Main Estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations.
The department’s main estimates propose an operations expenditures budget of $9.195 million, an increase of 5 percent from the 2013-2014 Main Estimates. This increase is largely attributed to $131,000 in forced growth for collective bargaining adjustments and $277,000 in investments to support the increased workload that will result from devolution. This includes assuming a lead role in lands negotiations at all Aboriginal rights negotiations in the Northwest Territories and coordinating the activities of the Intergovernmental Council on Land and Resource Management.
The department’s 2014-2015 Main Estimates also include the restatement of resources to reflect the transfer of the women’s advisory unit from the Department of Executive and the Aboriginal consultation unit from the Department of Justice.
The decision was made to transfer the senior advisor for the Status of Women position to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, as this position liaises with both the Northwest Territories and national Native Women’s Association and with the Northwest Territories and federal and provincial Status of Women councils. The senior advisor will also have the added benefit of working alongside experienced colleagues who are engaged in intergovernmental meeting preparation and planning.
The decision to transfer the Aboriginal consultation unit was made to better align with the department’s expertise in the area of Aboriginal rights and to coordinate the Government of the Northwest Territories duty to consult efforts with its cooperation and partnership-building efforts with Aboriginal governments. Although undeniably rooted in law, fulfilling the duty to consult is a key tool for building relationships between Aboriginal governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories.
That concludes my opening remarks. I look forward to the committee’s comments and questions.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Premier McLeod, do you have witnesses that you’d like to bring into the House today?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Premier, if you could introduce your witnesses to the Chamber, please.
