There were seven in all.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Any further follow-up on these two pages? On active positions? Mr. Abernethy.
I just want to follow up on that question, Mr. Chair. Seven total were proposed; five were accepted? Does that mean two of them were from the regions and they weren’t accepted, or does that mean that seven additional ones were proposed and not accepted?
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Clarification, Minister McLeod.
That were seven additional that were not accepted.
Seven additional positions that were identified and rejected? Were they vacant or filled positions?
Three of the seven were filled positions.
Any further questions on these two pages? I’m hearing none. We’ll move on to our first votable item, on 2-55. Under Human Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary, $705,000, under Directorate. Let me repeat that: under the Directorate, Operations Expenditure Summary, $705,000. Agreed? Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is perhaps the appropriate place to ask some questions, considering the directorate provides leadership and direction to the department and is under the authority of the Minister. Getting back to the notification letters that went out to the affected employees, I want to get a better understanding of what advice the Department of Human Resources gave to the Minister and gave to Cabinet that would see those letters go out. Was the advice to send the letters out or not send the letters out?
I’m not sure what letters the Member’s referring to, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. This question seems to be beyond the estimates, here. Mr. Ramsay?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to keep the question related to the estimates that are before us. The letters are the notification letters that went out to employees.
When we’re talking about the Main Estimates, Mr. Chairman, we’re talking about a reduction in staffing. Fundamental to that was the decision to either send the letters out or not send the letters out. The question I have for the Minister is: what advice did the Department of Human Resources give to the Minister and, in effect, Cabinet to either send the letters out or not send them out? That’s germane to the whole discussion we’ll be having here for the next three and a half weeks.
The department put forward a position that was supported by the union — recognizing that there are 5,800 employees that were concerned about the discussions on budget reductions that we took to Cabinet recommending that we provide early notification.
We’re all interested in this reduction exercise that took place and the notification letters that went out to employees. Between the time the letters went out and Regular Members actually found out exactly which positions were being impacted and affected — it took approximately three weeks to find out. Mr. Chairman, my question for the Minister is: why did it take three weeks? What was happening in that three-week time frame? We were left answering calls and concerns from our constituents in that three-week time frame without any knowledge of what was happening. I’d like to know what was happening during that three-week time frame, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. We are getting into an area that’s probably more appropriately addressed during question period, but I will allow the Minister to respond if he wishes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand the Premier already addressed this and provided a response at a number of meetings with the standing committees. He also talked about it yesterday in question period. I think that would be sufficient.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. I’m not going to decide for anybody what’s sufficient here. But I’d say, and I repeat, it’s probably more appropriate in question period.
I’m not going to challenge your direction, Mr. Chairman; however, if the answers were sufficient, we wouldn’t be asking questions in this forum. It’s your prerogative, and perhaps we will ask those types of questions in question period.
I’ll go to Ms. Bisaro. Again, questions on the Main Estimates here.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to ask a question relative to the Other Expenses item listed for the ’08–09 Main Estimates. There’s a significant jump from the ’07–08 Revised Estimates. It is a similar amount to the Main Estimates from ’07–08. Under the details of the expenses, fees and payments are $302,000. Can I get an explanation of what those fees and payments are used for?
The main change to the Revised Estimates is because of the technical service centre chargeback adjustments. That was the main reason for the change.
I just wonder if I could get the amount of the TSC chargeback, please.
The total amount of the chargeback to HR is $628,000.
Considering the fees and payments total is $302,000, is that referencing the total for the whole of the department or just for the directorate? It kind of doesn’t make sense.
A reasonable question, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. McLeod.
I guess I should have been more specific. The $628,000 is part of HR; $270,000 is the part that’s here in the directory. The remainder is in HR strategy and policy.
I’d like to go to Mr. Abernethy next.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may have answered it, but I just may not have understood or heard it properly. In the 2006–2007 actuals under Fees and Payments you had $545,000. In the Main Estimates for ’07–08 you had $302,000, but your Revised Mains were quite a bit lower than that. They were $117,000. This year you’re coming back with exactly the same amount as the previous year’s Mains under Fees and Payments. Can you tell me the history there? Because I see that it gets high, then goes down, then drops to the Revised Mains, and now you’re putting it back up to where it was next year. Was there a reason that it dipped that year, or is this an area that maybe we can look at for reductions? What were the fees and payments for, and why did they dip last year?
Ms. Woodward.
Mr. Chair, there was $244,000 taken out of the Human Resources Strategy and Policy part of the revising of the TSC chargeback system. When they were originally put together, we didn’t have all of the funding required for the TSC chargeback departmentally. So we’ve been taking that money from different areas. What we have done in this case for the fees and payments is put up that number slightly to better reflect the chargeback that is required for this department, so although there is a total of a $628,000 TSC chargeback overall, we’re paying for part of it out of the directorate. You also see the remaining amount coming out of Human Resources Strategy and Policy.
So the increase is mostly around the TSC chargeback area. It wasn’t growth –– was it –– that increased this area back up to $302,000? You found it from within.
That’s correct, Mr. Chair.
Any further questions on Operations Expenditure Summary? To recap, under Directorate, Operations Expenditure Summary $705,000. Agreed?
Department of Human Resources, Directorate, Operations Expenditure Summary: $705,000, approved.
Information item. Any questions on the next two pages, Active Positions under Directorate?
Moving on, we’re on page 2-59, Human Resource Strategy and Policy, Operations Expenditure Summary, $4,855,000. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Human Resource Strategy and Policy what policies were used when the government was conducting its reduction exercise and targeting positions government-wide? I'm just wondering what policies were put in place or what policies were used in determining whether or not a position should be reduced.
Mr. Chair, it was up to the individual departments to determine the best approach and identify potential reductions for review at Cabinet level.
Mr. Chairman, in the absence of a comprehensive human resource strategy or plan government-wide, I'm just wondering again how the government could make decisions in the area of staffing without a model to follow and how it is that they could just rely on deputy ministers and departments to come back with possible reduction scenarios. That's got to contravene some type of policy. It contravenes good judgment; I know that. But it's got to ring some alarm bells somewhere when we don't even have a comprehensive human resource plan for the future and we're out there hacking and slashing positions. So, again, I'd like to ask the Minister that.
Mr. Chair, I think it's important for the Member to recognize that the responsibility for management and dealing with human resources is held jointly with the departmental senior managers. The departments have been delegated authority to do all of the hiring and staffing, and the Department of HR provides services to departments. So, as such, the departments have authority to make those kinds of decisions, and we provide services and facilitate the human resource functions.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for that. Under the title "Quality Assurance — Monitors and evaluates human resource services and activities to ensure delivery supports effective human resource management. Provides guidance and feedback on human resource processes and procedures." I'm wondering: how was quality assurance employed when it came to the staffing reductions that the government is embarking upon?
We would ensure that the different aspects of staff retention and layoffs were adhered to, and proper notification and so on.
Did the Department of Human Resources work with each department in the area of quality assurance to ensure that each department was following through on the human resources procedures and processes that are in place to ensure they weren't contravening any policies, Mr. Chairman?
I wouldn't say it was quality assurance that did that. But the HR department did work with senior management of different departments so we could identify potentially affected employees.
Mr. Chairman, some of the stories that Members have heard — and, again, we waited three weeks to actually get any information from the government in terms of the positions that were being impacted. I'm just wondering how that could happen. How could it take three weeks for the government to let Members know which positions were being impacted?
Some of the stories that Members have heard from constituents, where they're put into a situation where it's every man for himself or every woman for herself. There are three positions left in a shop and there are four people there, so somebody…. It's like playing human resources spin-the-bottle or whatever to see who's left standing at the end of the day. To me, that's just not a humane way to go about a reduction exercise. There are a number of these stories out there, Mr. Chairman. Also, there are stories out there where departments, if left to their own devices, are going to go after people they don't like or after people they've had run-ins with in the past. There are examples of that out there.
Again, I'd like to ask the Minister what he has done to ensure that every possible scenario was covered in this so that that type of scenario doesn't play itself out. I know it has played itself out, so obviously we've failed somewhere, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, all of these scenarios that the Member refers to we deal with on the basis of a merit principle. As such, that guides the staffing approach that is taken, and it guides our staff retention and any provisions for layoff. The senior managers of departments have delegated authorities.
If there are specific instances that the Member is aware of where staff weren't dealt with properly or were mistreated, then we certainly would look into it. But I'm not aware of any of those circumstances.
Mr. Chair, this question is going to sound an awfully lot like the last question. In the '07–08 Mains you had a total budget of $716,000 under Contract Services and $458,000 under Other. Under Contract Services your Revised Mains are $116,000 lower, yet this year you've come back to the full amount of $716,000. Under Other you're at $458,000. You dip down to $207,000 by way of the Revised Mains, and now you're back up to $368,000. Granted, we don't have previous years, so we don't see much of a trend here, but why did these numbers dip in the Revised Mains and why are we putting them back up? Is there an opportunity for some cost savings here by way of keeping the contract services and the others lower than you are currently projecting?
Thank you. Ms. Woodward.
Certainly a couple of things are going on, and you are correct in that it is related to the other issues around the TSC chargebacks. We have a requirement departmentally to pay I believe it was $628,000 in TSC chargebacks. Some of them do come out of Human Resources Strategy and Policy, so between the two areas we are trying to get that allocation up so that we can fully pay for our TSC chargebacks. Again, this wasn't a matter of supplementary funding or forced-growth funding. It's us trying to line up what our spending requirements are for things like TSC chargebacks within the budget.
The other area that is changed a bit in here — and that's specifically with the upgrade last year — is that we took $500,000 out of the operating budget of the department and moved it over into capital to pay for some of the costs associated with the upgrades that were not funded otherwise. So that $500,000 is a big part of the dip that you see.
The TSC upgrade is included in this budget line — the contract services?
TSC chargebacks or…? Sorry; I didn't understand the question.
Not the TSC upgrades; I apologize. The HR system upgrade. Are there ongoing costs related to that upgrade, and is that included as part of the $716,000?
