I appreciate the Member’s comments. As a government we will be making every effort to ensure that coming forward in May/June that we have hopefully an ability to reflect some continued investment, noticeable investment in the area of energy, and our challenge will be to try to get that done.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. ITI, appropriation authority required, $11.909 million.
Agreed.
Next is Environment and Natural Resources, item 13. Environment and Natural Resources, appropriation authority required, $33.142 million.
Agreed.
Municipal and Community Affairs, item 6, appropriation authority required, $31.683 million.
Agreed.
Public Works and Services, item 7, appropriation authority required, $24.001 million.
Agreed.
Department of Justice, item 9, appropriation authority required, $26.877 million.
Agreed.
Human Resources, item 3, appropriation authority required, $13.139 million. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister of this department here, I notice we had a position added there that is in the interim appropriation here and that the added senior department, I could say ADM, why is it in here, then? Rather than go through the normal channels as we usually see it and why is it here in the interim appropriation bill?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the Minister’s intimate knowledge of his department, I’ll defer the question to him.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We put forward the status quo budget. These positions did exist previously. Both positions were actually established in 2008. The ADM position was previously the associate deputy but we’ve had some changes in the department, so we just re-described it as an ADM to make sure that we’re capturing the proper roles that the people will be playing in the organization. The senior policy advisor has been established since 2008 but they weren’t captured in previous reporting of positions. We just wanted to make sure that they were there so that people could see them.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If they were there before and they weren’t being established, so now we want to capture them with the interim appropriation for next year. I think I’m getting a little bit confused here. Maybe if the Minister could clarify this for me again.
The positions were both established in 2008 but they were unfunded positions. They were being funded internally. Nothing is really changed other than the fact that we’re identifying them within the position count so that people can see that they’re there. The associate ADM position has been around since 2008 and the senior policy advisor has been around since 2008 as well.
Thank you, Minister, for the clarification. This then poses another question. If they were there in 2008, today is 2012. Four years later we’re finally capturing them? Shouldn’t they have been captured in 2009-2010 or 2010-2011? I guess that’s why I raise the question. I understand what the Minister is saying. Are we just a little slow in government here in capturing some of these positions? That’s just a comment for the officials in approving budgets like this. For me it seems like we’re slipping it in. That’s my comment here. We’re about four years catching up on some stuff that maybe should have been captured in 2009-2010.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Deputy Minister Aumond.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Abernethy has stated, they were just trying to show the positions in the department at this time. Previously the positions were funded out of other O and M and the reason why it’s being flagged in the interim is because the department is changing the funding source from operations and maintenance or other O and M into compensation and benefits, which is why you would have seen the change from the previous year to this year.
Thank you. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up on my colleague’s concern here. I have similar concerns. This department has a record of a high degree of inefficiency. They have a huge backlog that has never seemed to have been dealt with. They’re costing us millions and millions of dollars in terms of our fines and fees and so on as a result of poor management with respect to our Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission. I want to express a real concern about this department and its burgeoning costs and high level, costly positions without any effective corrections to how we manage. I just hope that nobody associated with the fiasco in the Workmen’s Safety and Compensation Commission that is continuing to cost us millions in fines and so on is put into these senior positions to continue the propagation of that sort of practice. Just a comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The harsh assessment by the Member aside, Human Resources performs a very valuable service. They have a lot of very hardworking people. As the Minister pointed out in his statement in the House today, there are a lot of good things at work. We have over 5,000 employees. We’re doing things like negotiating at four separate bargaining tables. I think the Member’s characterization is overly harsh and it’s not an accurate portrayal of all the good work that is done by the many people in human resources. I’m not sure if the Minister wants to comment himself, but for the record, I’d like to note that.
I think the Minister was actually turning it over to the Minister of Human Resources, but I do want to acknowledge that I recognize that we have a lot of negotiations going on right now and I think this is the sort of time when we have this coincidental overlap of all these re-negotiations of contracts with personnel that we do want to bring on extra members. But I think that’s why they have not been in as permanent a position in the past, so I stand on my points made and my assessment, but I welcome the Minister’s insights, if he’d like to share those as well. Thank you.
Sorry. I was conferring with our clerks here and I didn’t realize that I was going to Mr. Abernethy, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to build upon Minister Miltenberger’s comments. The department does incredibly important work. There are always challenges with any department, but I have confidence that the staff are working hard and doing important things and we will continue to work with the department to make sure that they meet the needs of the Northwest Territories and the public service. I think it’s important to note that we have fantastic staff and they need to be recognized and they’re doing good work. I support the staff of Human Resources. I’ll keep on top of them and make sure the work gets done, but I have a lot of confidence in what they’re doing.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Anything further under Human Resources? I have a question I’d like to ask. Mr. Dolynny, if you would just take the chair for a moment so that I can ask a question on this item before we move on.
Madam Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak to this, pose a question on this. This was, of course, contemplated in the consideration of the supplementary appropriation coming forward. I think we’re missing the point of the question here. We have business plans. We plan. These are two high-level positions within the Department of Human Resources and this is being turned around to make it sound like, you know, we don’t think that Human Resources performs a valid function within the government or that the employees of Human Resources are not doing a good job. There is a norm in terms of a planning process, through business plans, when normally high-level positions such as this in any department would be brought forward. What we’re saying is it’s strange and it’s an anomaly that four years has gone by and these positions have remained unfunded. I think that’s the crux of the question. That’s the question I’ll ask again. Why did these two high-level positions within the department go unfunded and funded from within instead of going through what we understand to be the normal practice of being approved through a process such as business plans? Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were operation requirements. The positions weren’t hidden from view. They were reflected in the org charts. The fact that they were funded from within has now been sorted where they moved money, as Mr. Aumond said, from their operational budget into salary dollars. But the fact is they’ve had some other recent changes of staff, so they’ve re-profiled and re-classified some of the positions to do different things and it’s a normal business of government. It’s being shown here. They’ve moved the dollars out of O and M so that it’s going to be funded and it will be recognized where the money comes from. It will be part of their salary dollar complement. There was no attempt to not be transparent. Thank you.
That is the technical explanation. I just wanted to put it on the record that this being a different way of doing things than normal, these are, in my opinion, valid questions. The Minister has answered it, both the Minister of the department and the Minister of Finance. Thank you for that. But let’s put it on the public record that these questions are not in any way intended to reflect negatively either on the people who hold those positions or the people in the Department of Human Resources, but just a technical question as to why these positions stayed like this. That’s not really a question. It’s a comment. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Human Resources, appropriation authority required, $13.139 million.
Agreed.
Moving on to item 4, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, appropriation authority required, $1.807 million.
Agreed.
Item 2, Executive, appropriation authority required, $5.608 million.
Agreed.
Item 5, Finance, appropriation authority required, $29.416 million.
Agreed.
Item 1, Legislative Assembly, appropriation authority required, $3.771 million.
Agreed.
Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to move that committee report progress. Thank you.
A motion is on the floor to report progress. The motion is in order. It is not debatable.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
I’d like to thank the Minister and if I can get the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses out. Thank you.
