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?
The upgrade which occurred in the last fiscal year…. As part of that funding in the last fiscal year, we were required to fund some of that internally. The entire project is characterized as a capital project, and because we needed to provide some additional funding to that project, we took $500,000 out of our operating funds for this division and moved it over into capital. So that’s the dip that occurred. There is a request that we’ve made to transfer approximately $82,000 that was remaining in terms of capital funding to complete some of the issues related to the upgrade, this fiscal year primarily being the final rollout of e-recruitment.
Thank you, Ms. Woodward. Follow-up, Mr. Abernethy.
I’m actually slightly changing tacks here if that’s all right. I’m looking at your budget. For your compensation and benefits in this section it’s about $2.3 million. There’s been no position change in this area at all, yet when I look at vacant positions under HR Strategy and Policy, I see a business systems analyst that has been vacant for seven months, the manager of human resource information systems which has been vacant for two years and a policy officer which has been vacant for a year. In light of the reductions and finding ways to avoid laying off staff, were any of these three positions considered for layoff or elimination purposes in an effort to decrease the overall budget?
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Just a reminder to people that we’re not supposed to be referring to documents that are not before the House, at least not extensively. Moving on to the response, Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chair, of those three positions that the Member referred to, one was filled by an intern, the other one was used for filling a position through a contract and the third was an unfunded position where there are no resources available for it so that position would disappear.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Nothing further, Mr. Abernethy? Moving on, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chair, my question is in regard to human resources strategy but also on the policy side. This department is now responsible for ensuring that the policies that we do have are implemented but, more importantly, dealing with the Affirmative Action Policy. With these cuts that are taking place, a large number of aboriginal people are being let go, yet as a government we’re somewhere just under 40 per cent of aboriginal employment in this government. I think we have a policy that clearly states that we’re supposed to do what we can to ensure we have a reflective workforce and, more importantly, to try to get more people into the workforce, especially aboriginal people.
In regard to the cuts, two areas where we’ve seen the biggest impact on aboriginal employment are Transportation and Justice. I’d just like to ask the Minister: exactly what does his department do to ensure that we minimize the number of aboriginal employees that are going to be cut so that we don’t decline our numbers into a worse-case scenario than what we are right now? We’re not even coming close to meeting our goals of trying to have a representative workforce and having more aboriginal people in the public service. I’d just like to know: was that policy followed when these cuts took place by way of job cuts?
Mr. Chairman, as a government, the Affirmative Action Policy is still in place. We followed all of the aspects of the Affirmative Action Policy. Of the potentially affected employees, the majority of those were non-aboriginal employees. Conversely, when we were looking to reassign potentially affected employees, we applied Affirmative Action Policy so that if there are two people of equal skills and experience, that position would be offered to a P1 candidate.
In regard to the layoffs themselves, the numbers I came up with…. There are about 60 individuals who are going to be laid off in the two areas that I mentioned, in Justice and in Transportation. There are a few forestry jobs, but most of those are contract positions. I’d just like to know if you have the actual number of aboriginal employees who are going to be eliminated under these job cuts.
Also, how much would that decrease our affirmative action numbers in the workforce? You mentioned the majority of people are not P1 positions, yet 60 people in the public workforce is a lot of people in regard to P1 candidates. Again, especially in the area of Justice and Transportation, a lot of these people probably won’t be able to work themselves back into the public service because of those so-called skills that they follow — in regard to transportation. More of them are dealing with marine operations and also in regard to airports. But the other one dealing with Justice is more on Corrections, and again, those are two areas to fill. In those other positions you are going to have to probably retrain them to put them in another job setting.
Do you have the numbers in regard to individuals we are talking about? Also, what does that do to the percentage of affirmative action candidates in this government?
The affirmative action statistics for the Government of the Northwest Territories has been flat-lined at 31 per cent for probably the past six or seven years. I think that of the potentially affected employees…. You have talked about Justice. There are 46, and they are split evenly between P1s and P2s, so my expectation is that in applying the Affirmative Action Policy, most of the P1s that are mobile I expect would likely be reassigned. The 31 per cent has been pretty…. It hasn’t moved very much, so I expect it would probably remain around that on this, unless we take other steps to increase it.
Since the Minister touched on steps, one of the issues I hear quite a bit from aboriginal employees who are in the public workforce is they are trying to enhance themselves, go back to school and take training, go to university, you know, get their doctorates, get their different degrees to basically move them up the ladder. But there seems to be a lot of reluctance from people from within the administration to see aboriginal people succeed and be able to be the bosses of their bosses. I think there is a threat out there that people are afraid that by moving these people up the workforce ladder, eventually they might take over their jobs. I hope that’s the intention of this government — that aboriginal people will someday through self-government, through running programs and services, be able to manage programs and services in the field that they are in. I find that in this day and age people almost have to quit their jobs to go to school. We shouldn’t have that.
I’d just like to ask the Minister in regard to the area of developing our human resources: what incentives are there to ensure that those numbers on affirmative action — numbers where you’re saying they’re staying at 31 per cent…. If you look at the bureaucracy as it is structured, there are very few aboriginal people in management positions, senior management positions, and a lot of these positions that we put out in the newspaper in regard to so-called policy specialists are earmarked for university students in the south. They know that they are developing these job descriptions for people that aren’t even here. I think that as a government we have to do a better job in that area.
I know the Minister touched on it. So since he touched on it, I’d just like to ask his response in regard to the question.
Mr. Chair, this is an area that’s, I guess, a difficult one to deal with, because you would expect that, for not only aboriginal people but also for Northerners, they would get educated through the education system and then they would be able to get a job with the government and work their way up through the ranks.
But my experience with the civil service is that if you want to get aboriginal people into senior management or management, you have to take extra steps, because not everybody wants to go into management. If they want to go back to school…. Most of them have families, and so you have to make some arrangements to try to accommodate them. I think that generally you’re looking at trying to accommodate them at 60, 70 per cent of their salary to go to school.
Those are the kinds of arrangements you would have to make, and with the budget situation getting tighter and tighter, it gets more difficult to do that. Then how do you do it so you’re not seen to be playing favourites? Those are the kinds of things that you have to deal with, and you have to have a real commitment to make it happen.
If the Minister can get information on the aboriginal affirmative action statistics in regard to the 31 per cent –– what the implication of that percentage is going to be, and with the number of P1 and P2 layoffs, and exactly where they are. Can he provide us that information before we conclude this department?
We can provide most of that information probably today. We just have to make copies of it.
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Chairman, I want to get back on to questioning the Minister in regard to the role that Human Resources played in the rollout of the staffing reductions.
From what I gathered from the Minister, departments were left pretty much to their own devices. Maybe he could explain to me a little bit better: how exactly was the Department of Human Resources involved in the decisions that departments made in staffing reductions? Were they involved at all? Or were departments, like I said, just left to their own devices to come up with their own reductions, take them to Cabinet? Is that what happened? Or were any of the reductions run by Human Resources?
The Department of Human Resources was involved in the discussions with the other departments. It was not a requirement for HR to give their stamp of approval on any proposed reductions.
If the department is responsible for the legislation and the policies and procedures that govern Human Resources, you know, as a corporate entity, the GNWT, then it would just make sense to me that, you know, whether it’s a stamp of approval or not, the proposed staffing reductions see the experts at Human Resources to make sure they pass some kind of test, whether they pass the procedures and policies that are in place — or the government just rushes out and does what they want.
Again, I think what’s happening, Mr. Chairman, is I’m getting a picture that this reduction exercise wasn’t well thought out. If they didn’t run it past Human Resources, then who did they run it past? Themselves? I think they at least owe it to the employees to run it past Human Resources first.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I’m not sure if there was a question there, but Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The departments have been delegated authority to do staffing and recruitment. So, as such, they have the authority to do that.
That begs the question: why do we even have a Department of Human Resources, then? Maybe we should just have a department of labour relations or something. If it’s all being delegated back to the departments, what are we even doing here, Mr. Chairman?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A somewhat rhetorical question, but Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it’s important for the Member to understand that the Department of HR is a service department. The departments make the decisions on hiring and staffing. We provide service. We give advice and recommendations, and that’s the whole purpose of the Department of HR.
Did the Department of Human Resources give any advice or recommendations to Cabinet prior to Cabinet making the staffing reductions? Mr. Chairman, I think that’s the crux of my question.
In terms of the positions to be reduced, those were put forward by the departments. Of course, HR put forward their own reductions. It was our responsibility to make sure that those affected were dealt with properly.
I didn’t really hear a response there. It’s pretty much a yes-or-no question. Did Human Resources give Cabinet advice and recommendations on the staffing reductions? Yes or no?
The discussion’s in Cabinet.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Anything further, Mr. Ramsay? Nothing further? I had Mr. Abernethy on the list next, but since he had talked and we’re running out of time here, I appreciate his holding off. We’ll go to Mr. Jacobson.
Mr. Chair, getting back to my colleague Mr. Krutko’s questions in regard to being reassigned, in the smaller communities what choice will they have in trying to keep their job available? Or would they be given another chance elsewhere?
Our experience with the staff retention policy is that if there’s no suitable job for an individual in their home community, they could look at jobs in other locations if they’re mobile and willing to move.
I just really want to stress that the job cuts in the smaller communities…. Families are not always willing to move and are unable to. It just really puts them…. A really pretty bitter taste, I guess, in the GNWT workforce in the communities if they’re just cut like that. But I’d like to see this affirmative action. If the Minister could just make sure that the smaller communities that are being affected — that the opportunities are given to them.
We have the Staff Retention Policy. The whole reason for having that is to try to keep affected employees with the government, and the Affirmative Action Policy applies to that as well. So we’ll take every step to try to keep those employees and reassign them.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Nothing further, Mr. Jacobson? We’ll move on to Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources. It’s linked back to his opening remarks, but it’s only a reference to put relevance around it, because I want the exact wording when I ask my question.
The Department of Human Resources’ Main Estimates includes funding for 167 positions. Mr. Chairman, I need to reference that, because it’s clear as to how many positions they fund. For my clarity, or maybe the Assembly’s clarity, how many positions are there in total that are on the books or not on the books? How many funded positions are there in total within the Department of Human Resources, including the unfunded on-the-books positions?
There would be 167 funded positions.
I’ve been led to believe that a number of unfunded positions exist. Their titles may not be before me, if I could describe them as temporary positions, floating positions, you know, of that type of nature. I’ve been led to understand that some of the positions being kept unfilled; in other words, funded positions that are left vacant are being left on the books in order to fill those positions. Could the Minister provide some guidance and light on that observation?
Right now, as of March 31, the department had 153 indeterminate employees, nine term employees and 19 casual employees for a total of 180 employees. We’ve hired casuals to help us address a number of long-term problems for the department. Specifically, we’ve formed a backlog team to work on reducing the backlog within the department and also to fill in for employees who are on various forms of leave, be it maternity, paternity or otherwise.
My first question in this area, just to be clear, is: we have 167 positions, as cited by the Minister, but it sounds like we’re actually running 180 positions, if I understood that. How is he funding the over-and-above 167 positions that get us to the 180 number? Just to be clear, that’s approximately 13 positions.
We are funded for 167 positions. So at various times, people that are on leave without pay or what have you — we have to fill in behind them. So that’s how we would do it. We are expected to come in under budget or within budget.
I’ve been led to believe that a number of these positions have been left vacant for quite some time, as this is a funding principle or practice of this department. Could the Minister speak to that and offer some clarity?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can speculate — because I wasn’t there. As the Member may be aware…. I think he was he was around when the Department of Personnel was blown up and the people from the department were hired off to the different departments. Their budgets were reduced by 25 per cent and the departments were told, “Well, you guys can be more efficient, so you don’t need as much money.” It came back to haunt the formation of the Department of HR, because none of the departments were willing to give any more than they had received from the centre. As such, with the amount of resources that were available, a lot of the positions were funded at 75 per cent levels. So that was part of the issue. A number of positions were eliminated, because it was felt the department wasn’t adequately funded.
Mr. Chairman, following this example and formula I would say it’s obvious that Human Resources must be the shining example of government if they’re able to fund a heck of a lot fewer positions than they have. Maybe other departments need to take note of this formula, for some odd reason, because if you can be funded for 167 but still employ 180, there seems to be something really interesting going on. I’d like to know why all 180 aren’t on the books, first of all.
Secondly, I’ve looked over a list of filled and vacant positions, and I was sure I saw more vacancies than 15, as the Minister had suggested. I think he said there were 152 positions filled, with some terms and whatnot.
So, again, I just want to see further clarity on this, because it seems odd. Why don’t we have them all on the books if they’re needed, and how do we keep funding them? It’s of my mind that when people are migrated into a central department, many of them who were managers — who are no longer managers — would have been red-circled at their existing pay level.
I just don’t see how they can afford to pay people properly if this is as it is. I’m not a detective, but I can see that something’s missing here, and we’re missing some real detail.
Part of the explanation is that when HR was amalgamated, HR wasn’t allowed to lay anybody off. So, as such, we had more people.
I think the Member has to understand that just because you have positions, it doesn’t mean that those positions are funded. We are funded for 167 positions, and there are 37 vacant, unfunded positions, so there are positions on the books, but there’s no money or resources attached to them.
