Debates of March 8, 2005 (day 51)

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Does committee agree that we entertain witnesses?

Agreed.

Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort in the witnesses. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I was wondering if you could introduce your witnesses for the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have with me today the director of legislation, Mark Aitken; to my immediate right is Mr. Lew Voytilla, secretary to FMB; and, to my immediate left is Ms. Lynn Elkin, assistant deputy minister of corporate human resources. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome to our proceedings this afternoon. I will now move on to general comments on Bill 21 by Members. General comments. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be brief and very supportive of this bill. I have had at least one fairly extensive encounter with a constituent who had a number of difficulties in some staffing appeals and it was quite apparent that the difficulties were within the regulations and the steps that either the appeal process is required to follow or not required to follow and sometimes the interpretation of those really caused some issues. So this is very welcome, certainly from the people who work for us and I would also like to think among the people who are responsible and accountable for the workforce, so we can get a better rulebook in place here. This is very progressive.

As the report indicated, the Minister was quite willing to accept union input into the recommendations that he will make on who the staffing appeals officers will be and to allow access to the process of designing and writing the regulations, which is where much of the success or the complication will be in those regs.

Mr. Chairman, I really had one question to put to the Minister and his staff. That is just how extensively are these appeals processes applied? Certainly there is our main workforce, but then there are boards, agencies, authorities committees, commissions, et cetera. To what extent are these in place for those arm's length organizations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this would apply to all government staff. So all public servants, whether they are on education boards or health boards, the only group that would not apply to is the Power Corporation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That really satisfies my curiosity on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be speaking in favour of this and in these adjustments. As I see it, we are now opening up the appeal process to show transparency by making reports available to the appellant. I think those are good things for the people who do appeal to the process, whereas a decision in the old days up until, of course, the date that this gets changed, is either a yea or nay. It is upheld, and folks will sort of feel left out of the system and try to understand why their appeal wasn’t upheld. I appreciate and I also applaud the efforts to include that transparency.

The other thing that I would also like to express my heartfelt appreciation towards is the fact that this does enable other people to appeal more of a management side of the equation which, previously, they were excluded. As I understand it, this now still excludes ADMs and DMs. However, it does open it up to a broader perspective and allow more people to appeal positions that they feel rightly they should have been selected, or at least had a more serious shot at. That being said, I applaud the move forward in transparency, and I look forward to less phone calls in this area as the system is showing that it is truly being responsive to the needs of the communities. Thank you very much. That is all. I have no question.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Are there further general comments to Bill 21? Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to applaud the Minister of Finance for embarking on this amendment, because I think that it is long overdue and it is something that the public will definitely embrace and probably use the staffing appeal officers quite regularly, I guess. Like my friend was saying, it might lessen the amount of phone calls that we are receiving every day with regard to employment opportunities in the government.

In his briefing here, there are three positions for staffing review officers that are going to be considered, based on their experience with the workload and reviewing the number of appellants in each region, they will kind of move around the workload a little bit. I was just wondering with those positions, are those positions all going to be located here in Yellowknife, or are they going to be in the regional offices?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the three positions will not all be located in Yellowknife. One of them will be in the north and one will be in the south part of the territory. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is good to know that people will not have to phone or write Yellowknife in order to get their appeal heard or considered for review. Earlier, we were talking about some of the inquiries we get with respect to hiring practices by the government…you know, aboriginal people that are applying for government positions are being screened because the affirmative action policy is something that is kind of not strictly adhered to nowadays. Is an appeal legitimate, based on a concern by an employee who is not given an opportunity for a position, because of the lack of consideration for the affirmative action policy? Is that going to be included in staffing review guidelines for employment consideration? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as anybody who would apply on a government position would be aware, through the form to apply, they would make the selection if they were an aboriginal person in the Northwest Territories and therefore considered P1. So if they felt they weren’t considered a P1 or a P2 in the existing categories in place, then any policy we have could be appealed if they felt that it wasn’t adhered to. It is pretty straightforward on that section of it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my concern is if a P1 appeals to a review officer and the review officer doesn’t…It is clearly stated that they are not in a position to authorize the appointment of any individuals to any positions, but I am just curious. If you have a P1 that is qualified in his eyes, and he applies to the staffing review officer to review his lack of an appointment to the position because of…If they followed all the rules and did the process according to what is stipulated in the competition and whatnot, how much consideration would…because the final decision rests in the hand of the employer. It is stated right there for any staffing appeals process. So how much weight would the affirmative action policy carry in having an appeal revisited?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the process, as laid out, is with our policies that are in place. Each applicant would be put through that. They would be followed. If the rules are followed, then there is no ground for appealing if that is the basis of the concern. So as we go forward from here, as we have stated, to clarify where we are going and to make this a more transparent process, going with the independent staffing appeals officers, it is our goal to limit the concern that people are not being given a fair opportunity for the jobs that are in place. As we have it, the rules are there. They are to be followed. If the rules are followed and applied, then it should be fairly straightforward. But that is one of the reasons we are going the way we are, is to try to create a little bit more independence on how the process goes. Hopefully, at the end of the day, people would agree with that. As stated earlier, there will be individuals at the end of the day that still will not be happy with the decision because they would not be successful. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question on the question of the independence of the staffing review officers. I guess I am understanding that they are going to be government employees. I don’t know how arm's length they are going to be from the government, because they are going to be ministerial appointments, I guess. How is the Department of Finance going to ensure that the staffing review officers are totally independent, unbiased and objective when it comes to reviewing any kind of staffing appeals process? What kind of reassurance can the public get to just having any confidence in the review officers that are going to be put in place?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as we are laying this out, the process is we would put out a request for individuals who have interest in taking up those positions. They would not be allowed to be government personnel. So a government employee would not qualify for one of these positions. They will be contracted positions. Once they are selected and will have the experience to fit the criteria, they would be in there for a three-year term. The only reason they could be removed would be for not following the rules, not going in accordance to the act.

So the Minister-of-the-day cannot go back for one year into a term of a staffing review officer’s position and decide to make a change. It’s pretty well guaranteed tenure for three years, unless there is cause or incapacity. So if an individual becomes ill, that would be the other reason we would try to find a new position. As the act comes into place and change happens, selection is made and three years is what the individual would be put in for and could only be removed for incapacity or not following the rules. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Any further general comments? Clause by clause?

Agreed.

Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act, clause 1.

Agreed.

Clause 2.

Agreed.

Clause 3.

Agreed.

Clause 4.

Agreed.

Clause 5.

Agreed.

Clause 6.

Agreed.

Bill as a whole?

Agreed.

Does committee agree that Bill 21 is ready for third reading?

Agreed.

Thank you. Bill 21 is now ready for third reading. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, witnesses.

---Applause

We will now move on to Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to provide his opening comments on his departmental estimates. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to present the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs' 2005-2006 Main Estimates for the committee's consideration.

The proposed operational budget for the ministry is $8.198 million. This is a $265,000, or 3.1 percent, net decrease from the 2004-2005 Main Estimates due to the following factors:

$297,000 in budget reductions, primarily in the areas of travel and contract services, as well as a reduction of one position;

a $30,000 net increase in term funding to resource devolution negotiations; and

a $2,000 increase from Public Works and Services to assist with increase TSC chargebacks.

The resources will be used in support of the ministry's primary objective which is to represent our government and protect the interests of all residents of the NWT in the negotiations of lands, resources and self-government agreements, as well as devolution and resource revenue sharing agreements. Furthermore, the ministry is tasked with maintaining mutually beneficial working relationships with aboriginal governments.

The ministry is currently involved in the nine negotiation tables: Beaufort-Delta, formally known as the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit; Deline; Tulita; Deh Cho; Akaitcho; Northwest Territory Metis Nation; Saskatchewan Denesuline; Manitoba Denesuline; and devolution and resource revenue sharing. Once negotiations are concluded, the ministry is also responsible for coordinating and overseeing the GNWT-wide implementation of the settled agreements.

These negotiations are usually tripartite in nature and vary in complexity. For instance, the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit are working towards a regional style of self-government, the first ever in Canada, and the communities of Deline and Tulita are aspiring for a community-style self-government. A combined lands, resources and self-government agreement will result in four public community governments and a Tlicho regional government in the Tlicho settlement area.

To date, the Beaufort-Delta and Deline have signed agreements-in-principle and are working on their final self-government agreements. As we all know, the Tlicho Final Agreement recently received Royal Assent. All parties have also now agreed upon an effective date of August 4, 2005.

Progress is also being made on other lands, resources and self-government tables. The Northwest Territory Metis Nation expects to have a draft agreement-in-principle this summer. The Akaitcho Dene First Nations look forward to signing a principles document during Minister Andy Scott's visit this summer. The GNWT fully supports these objectives and is working with Canada, and the Northwest Territory Metis Nation and Akaitcho to achieve them.

Through discussions on the Northern Strategy, the Prime Minister agreed that devolution is a priority and has targeted an agreement-in-principle for this spring and a final agreement in 2006.

In addition to the operational budget, the ministry receives $313,000 from the Government of Canada to fund three positions to coordinate and manage GNWT implementation activities flowing from the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in and Sahtu land claim agreements.

With respect to the Sahtu Final Agreement, the ministry, the Government of Canada and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated successfully negotiated a new 10-year Sahtu implementation plan. In recognizing the increased level of activity in the Sahtu settlement area, the new plan includes a substantial increase in operational funding for the various Sahtu land claim boards, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated and the renewable resources councils;

With respect to the Gwich'in Final Agreement, the ministry is working with the Gwich'in Tribal Council, Canada and a contractor to produce an educational CD-ROM for school-age children in the Gwich'in settlement area. The CD-ROM highlights the history and content of the Gwich'in Land Claim Agreement;

The ministry is working closely with GNWT departments, the Tlicho and Canada to ensure that all pre-implementation activities are completed prior to the August 4, 2005, effective date; and

In follow-up to the Auditor General's recommendations, the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in and Sahtu implementation committees agreed that their respective annual reports should be more results-based. Historically, the annual reports have only reported on activities and accomplishments of the previous year. Results-based reporting will strengthen the reporting process by helping the parties to define clear objectives and measurable indicators. With measurable indicators, the parties will be able to determine success over time with respect to implementing land claim activities and obligations. The ministry is working with each of the implementation committees to overhaul the format of the annual reports, consistent with recommendations put forward by the Auditor General.

This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have Mr. Menicoche, as chairperson of AOC, for committee’s comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight has noted with concern that there is a substantial degree of duplication and/or overlap between certain mandates and activities of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and those in the Executive, in particular the Intergovernmental Relations and Strategic Planning office, IGRASP. Some Members are of the opinion that this has led to a waste of valuable human and fiscal resources. Others point to the overlap of responsibilities and accountability of certain high-level GNWT officials.

An important part of the work undertaken by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and by IGRASP relates to devolution and resource revenue sharing negotiations. This work falls under the ministry because of the nature of the tripartite negotiations with the federal government and the Aboriginal Summit, whereas the IGRASP office is involved because of its responsibility for GNWT participation in intergovernmental activities.

Members also note that the incumbent secretary to Cabinet, to whom the IGRASP office reports, also assumes the position of deputy minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Furthermore, a new associate deputy minister position has now been created within the Executive, to work closely with the secretary to Cabinet and deputy minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This position has been filled by an individual who will continue to occupy the position of assistant deputy minister for IGRASP, as well as assuming new duties as associate deputy minister. Given this level of overlap, the committee does not see a convincing rationale to continue to operate two separate units.

The standing committee has brought the issue of duplication to the attention of the Premier on several previous occasions and the Premier has responded favourably to consolidation, however, it has been brushed off as a project for a later date. The committee is of the opinion that it is well past time to bring these two separate entities together in one unit for the sake of clarity of mandate as well as streamlining efficiencies with the aim of cost reduction.

Finally, Members have pointed out on several occasions that there is a disconnect between the title ‘Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs’ and the important work that is done on behalf of all northerners in the area of devolution and resource revenue sharing. Consideration for a name that more accurately reflects the business of the ministry could also be looked into at this time.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that the Premier come forward to the committee, prior to the review of the 2006-2009 Business Plans, with options to re-profile the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and IGRASP.

The committee further recommends that the proposed options address the existing problem of duplication of responsibilities and identify possible cost reductions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.