That’s okay. Instead of tying up the Human Resources Minister on this, we’ll use that valuable time to make sure we get the full answer from the Minister at that time. I just would hope the Minister would bring it with her at that time.
As well as the details of — some breakouts of where the locums are situated and whatnot…. That being said, I suspect that the Minister of Human Resources…. Did he play a role, not specific to the nurses but territory-wide? When it comes to government employees, does Human Resources track overtime and allocation of hours? Specifically, the reason I raise that is in the context of things like corrections officers where they have to utilize a lot of extra turns and casuals, and sometimes there are a lot of cases of overtime. It’s a similar quagmire when it comes to the nursing field. They’re always calling people in. In regard to trying to find people through the overtime process and whatnot, do they track any of that?
I think the question you’re asking will appear on page 2-82 under Employment Services in regard to overtime and whatnot. If you like, you can hold your question until then, but if the Minister would like to answer it now?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Generally, the overtime is tracked by the departments. We work with the departments to develop policies that would apply across the board so all employees are dealt with consistently and fairly. For example, we have a government-wide policy that restricts the amount of overtime you can carry and also how much you would be paid out. We’ve run into problems in the past with people leaving the government who have carried a lot of overtime with them. We track it on that basis.
I find it interesting that the Minister has, on a number of occasions, highlighted the fact that not just his department but a number of departments don’t fund positions at 100 per cent. That may be an extremely clever accounting process. I recognize that — I think he said earlier — we have a 14.2 per cent turnover. That may be the theoretic approach to not implementing full salary in the department, knowing very well that they’ll never use it. But yet, it does bring in the question about whether that’s a proper formula process.
I know the clock’s ticking now, so I’m going to squeeze two questions together. I know the Minister will take more than a minute to respond, I’m sure. Why don’t we have a policy that says one employee, 100 per cent salary? I think that’s a true articulation of what’s actually happening there. If it’s not used, I’m of the belief it should be returned. The public is demanding a more accountable sense rather than that money is allocated to pay for a warm body in a seat. That’s what it’s intended for, not for who knows what.
Mr. Chairman, my other question really is — although I’m running out of time and I don’t know if anyone’s after me, but I’ll just assume there is…. I’d like to explore this unfunded position a little further. I was highlighting some questions yesterday about who we are paying, who’s really on the books. Some concerns I have are: what is the policy for unfunded positions? The way I see it, a departments should be declaring every single person in the budget. It’s the way we prove this book called our budget. If it’s not in the budget, it shouldn’t be there.
I’d like to hear the details of the policy, if one exists. If one doesn’t exist — and I’m concerned that we don’t have one, and…. Essentially this House is approving this budget. We account for every single employee, yet you’re able to fund full-time employees, possibly with the benefits. Not just your department; you said, across the board, that they’re throughout the government. Do we really have a grasp on how many unfunded positions are out there, and what’s the policy that drives them?
I guess it all boils down to how much detail the Members want to get into. Generally, the approach that has been taken is we let the managers manage. The expectation is that they come in within budget, and they manage on that basis. To micromanage every department for every single position would be excessive, but certainly what the Member is talking about is essentially a budgeting issue. If that’s the direction the Members want to go, then certainly we would communicate that back to the Financial Management Board, or the Minister responsible for that area, and they could approach it on that basis.
We’re on page 2-63, Management and Recruitment Services, Upgrades, Manager Summaries: $7.341 million. Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear any details as to if there’s any policy — whether it exists or not — on unfunded positions, to understand what the clear practice is.
I indicated that was a budgeting issue. This is the direction…. When the call letters go out, the Minister responsible for budgeting could ask every department to identify each position. The general approach is that the departments are free to budget as long as they come in within budget.
Mr. Chairman, if I were to ask the Human Resource Minister, and I probably will…. Let’s assume this is an ask. Does the Human Resource Minister have any grasp on how many unfunded positions there are out there in the government and what it’s costing the government?
Mr. Chair, we know how many positions we have in the government. The expectation and the requirement is that all departments have to come in within budget, so it’s not costing the government incrementally any more than they’ve already budgeted for.
Mr. Chairman, could I assume that “know” in the context of anywhere but this Minister’s department, whereas he does not know how many unfunded positions are out there.... Can I understand that he’s not aware of what that costs the government?
Just a clarification on the question that’s being asked. Under page 2-52 we have Active Positions, but I don’t think we have a page that talks about inactive positions or positions that aren’t there. Again, it more falls in line with that section, but the Minister could answer the question.
As we know, Mr. Chair, how many positions are out there with regard to which are funded and unfunded is a question best posed to individual departments.
I just want to get to the sense of one thing the Minister had mentioned about the micromanagement process. I wouldn’t want to think that I’ve got time, or I would hope that every Minister doesn’t have time, to micromanage every single position. But money’s funded for positions. The way you make it sound is that we reward them if they find a way to cleverly come in, whether it’s the fact that they haven’t filled a position on purpose or the fact that they haven’t been able to fill a position because no one has wanted it. But the fact is that any money left over shouldn’t be seen as a reward, giving carte blanche to a way to spend it, in that by just saying, “As long as they spend within their budget,” that’s fine.
I’m of the belief that when we approve Human Resource money, it should be allocated to Human Resource money. In this particular case, if their budget isn’t allocated, I think it creates that flexibility to do those things that maybe the Minister is alluding to.
What I’m trying to stress here is the fact that, as well, we have unfunded positions. I’m not saying I’m against them, though it may sound like it. I wouldn’t want to give you that sort of taste in your mouth, that that’s my position. It’s not necessarily that; it’s the fact they’re not on the books that causes me concern. When we talk about not funding positions properly, that causes me concern, and that also causes me concern from a management point of view. When you’re budgeting these things, have you budgeted them properly? That, I think, comes into question.
So, Mr. Chairman, there’s no question to this; whether the Minister wants to comment or not would be his choice. But, that said, my issue with it is that we fully account for positions that we employ people for and they get recognized. My fear is that positions that may or may not be left vacant are there, and that money is being used outside of what I would describe as the human resource process, which I think it should be allocated for.
I would just want to point out again that under each department there’s a list that says Active Positions, but I think both of you are right. I think the question has to be put to the appropriate department as we go through each activity under Active Positions. Each one has a determinate full-time position, determinate part-time, and then you have seasonal positions. I think the question — that question you’re asking for — is not in the purview of the Minister; it’s in the purview of each department. I think it’s important that that question be asked of every department as we go through this process.
For the Department of Human Resources, we provided all the Members with a complete breakdown of every position that was funded or unfunded or vacant or filled. With regard to how positions are costed: when positions are filled, people are paid at different step levels. How you cost them for budgeting exercises is within the purview of individual managers. If it’s felt that every position should be budgeted at 100 per cent of the pay scale, well, then, you have people, new hires, who are generally hired at, I don’t know, 65 per cent, 70 per cent.
So all those things have to be taken into consideration when you’re budgeting for your salaries.
We’re on page 2-63, Activity Summary, Management and Recruitment Services, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.341 million.
Department of Human Resources, Management and Recruitment Services, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.341 million, approved.
The next two pages are in regard to Management and Recruitment Services, Active Positions, information item, pages 2-64 and 2-65. Agreed?
Department of Human Resources, Management and Recruitment Services, Active Positions, information item, approved.
Page 2-66, Corporate Human Resources, Activity Summary, Corporate Human Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.689 million. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 2-66, under Employer of Choice, we see detail that breaks out quite a bit further, which is fine. My question really is about staff retention. I’d like to know what the employer of choice, in the section about staff retention…. What do they produce, or what do they propose to maintain — or I should say retain? — staff?
Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We administer a staff retention policy, which is a policy whereby we try to keep all of our staff who are in an affected position.
But what does it produce? I’m trying to understand. I mean, is it a think tank of people who sit there and come up with ideas? I’m trying to get some detail as to what this function really is. Is it a policy that just says we like people and we want them to keep working for us? Or is it something where they sit around; it’s a think tank where they try to find a process to make sure employees are happy in their workforce and feel their contributions are recognized, and they strive to make sure that employees feel they’re part of something bigger but not forgotten?
Mr. Chair, we have people who work with individuals who are affected. They contact them. They meet with them in the department. They work with them to develop their skills for interviews, resumé writing and so on. They also try to match affected people with jobs and with departments.
Thank you. Would this also be a section that works on strategies to come up with new ways to reinvigorate our public service under the theme of Employer of Choice?
Minister of Human Resources. Assistant Deputy Minister Sharilyn Alexander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this unit does look at ways we can work with employees, look at ways we can, as an organization, retain employees. We do a number of things — look at trends, look at what’s happening in other jurisdictions — while trying to come up with innovative ways we can work in that area.
Thank you for that answer. That’s what I’m looking for.
What are the trends or innovative ways the shop has been looking at under this section of Employer of Choice — that one would define as trends or innovative ways in other jurisdictions, whether they’re large employers or just other regions outside the GNWT that are having an impact so the employer is perceived as the employer of choice?
Mr. Chair, I guess the biggest trend we’re noticing is that our workforce is aging, and within ten years I think about 40 per cent of our workforce will be retiring. What we’re noticing in the demographics is that the younger workforce is much different from the workforce we’ve been dealing with. They’re younger, they’re more focused on a work-balanced approach, and they also are looking for challenging work. They’re more focused on jobs that are best for them as individuals. It’s a trend that we think is going to impact our whole approach to staffing.
With regard to Employer of Choice, we’ve said on many occasions that the GNWT is not the preferred place for a lot of people to work. I guess that was something intentional, that the government wanted to make sure happened, because there were always complaints that government paid too much and took employees away from other sectors.
Mr. Chairman, I take the Minister’s numbers when he cited that in ten years we’ll have 40 per cent of our workforce retire. That’s approximately 1,920 employees. That causes you to wonder if we need to do 135 layoffs, although I know that the number is being significantly reduced through drives. Of course, I’ll recognize that. That was my issue earlier, which I never really got an answer to. I wanted to know how they’ve identified how many people are retiring in that bracket. So that said, it’s odd we can come up with a number now but couldn’t earlier.
Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to get a sense of how they’re implementing any of these initiatives and where they’re bringing them forward. As well, I have some questions on the details. Under this section as well we have summer employment programs for students. I’m wondering how many new programs have led to hiring this summer and how’s that changed — what’s it changed by versus previous years.
Mr. Chair, with regard to the number of employees and potential retirement, that was based on the analysis of employees and pension information. We’re assuming that most people will retire when they reach a certain age.
With regard to summer students, 205 summer students have been hired. Our numbers are probably a little lower than in previous years. I think a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that this year we have an interim supply, where the money runs out at the end of June. So our expectation is that if we put on a full-scale direction to departments, we’ll get more summer students hired. In an average year we hire about 325 summer students. Last year was one of our better years. We hired 353 summer students.
Mr. Chairman, although I don’t see the word “survey,” I suspect this is the same area. It’s not under Employer of Choice. I assume it’s under this Corporate Human Resources section, which is what probably conducts the survey specific to the employee satisfaction survey.
Now, I do see in the detail where it talks about surveys and interest surveys, but recently there was a survey done — I think in February — and, oddly enough, it seemed to have coincided with the release of that 135-person lay-off notice as well as, of course ironically, with the $135 million reduction. I was just wondering when I had a chance to briefly go through the survey and I noticed that…. Well, I didn’t see too many people happy. It looked like a lot of people felt they were not being appreciated in the system. It looked like a lot of people didn’t understand how they fit in the system or were recognized throughout the system.
I’m just wondering what the Minister is doing with that survey, because I thought it was quite a shocking thing to see how many unhappy people we had in the public service. Yes, there were some happy people, as you could see from the survey remarks, but in large part it wasn’t a positive look. What’s the plan to turn that around? I mean, there must be some strategy.
The survey the Member is referring to is an employee satisfaction survey, and this is something that is conducted across Canada in all the provinces and territories. We’ve all agreed we would do surveys every two years. The first survey was done in 2006, and also it was done again this year, 2008.
I’m pleased to note that the respondents have increased by about 10 per cent. Perhaps it was the UNW advertising that caused more people to complete the survey. My reading of the survey results — and we are still doing additional analysis, and the letter I wrote to the Members was circulated in the surveys — was that we would be doing more analysis to try and interpret some of the findings and also to compare our jurisdiction to other jurisdictions. In many areas the results have improved, so we’re quite pleased to see that. Certainly there are areas where we can improve, and this is something we will be focussing on as we move along.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Next on my list I have the Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yesterday, when I first started talking about the Department of Human Resources, I pointed out that the Premier indicated that Community Health Nurse Development Program is going to be increasing. However, when I look at the Main Estimates for the Department of Human Resources, I see they’re eliminating one of their vacant nurse educator mentor positions. I’m wondering if they can help me understand how eliminating the positions that support the Community Health Nurse Development Program are in fact enhancing the Community Health Nurse Program, also keeping in mind that as we move forward through this binder and see the Department of Health and Social Services, we’ll see there is a cut to the Community Health Nurse Development Program within the Department of Health and Social Services. As you are the administrator of the program, I’d like some clarity on how the program is being enhanced if, in fact, it is being cut.
I think the reduction of one-half of the nurse educator mentor will affect our ability to provide hands-on services to the authorities. We recognize it will reduce our ability to do that, but we will be focusing our efforts entirely on supporting new nursing graduates. Our expectation is that over the next few years the number of graduate nurses will be reduced. For example, next year with the intake of the program the expectation is that there will be seven graduates as opposed to the 15 or 20 this year.
That’s great. That helps me understand the nurse educator mentor with respect to the students, but it doesn’t answer the question even remotely with respect to the Community Health Nurse Development Program. My question was specific to the Community Health Nurse Development Program.
My understanding is the funding is more closely aligned with the uptake of the program now.
The Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You’re saying it is being reduced and the program is being cut even though the Premier did indicate in his statement that it was in fact being enhanced?
Ms. Alexander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do still have nurse educator mentors who are dedicated to the Community Health Nurse Development Program, and they will still continue to focus on that program. Where that reduction will be impacted is the nurse educator mentors who are focussing on the support for the northern graduate students.
Related to this area but not specifically the nurse educator mentors anymore: on the next page — it’s related to this page as well — it indicates that maximizing northern employment is being reduced by $800,000-ish. Can you tell me what kind of review or program evaluation was done to identify areas in which maximizing northern employment could be cut, given the strategic plan of this Legislature, which is to support youth and maximize northern employment?
The reductions were in the Graduate Transition Program. This was an internship program for private industry. Rather than cutting some of the programs that directly impact the public service, a decision was made to eliminate the program that supports the private sector for interns. This was offered through ECE but was funded by Human Resources. Also, the reduction in the graduate placement program for teachers and social workers will now bring the program funding in line with the historical uptake. We also would reduce the number of graduate workshops. We would reduce the in-person component of it, and we would focus on having these workshops but delivering them electronically. We also recognize that it would reduce the number of students who can be subsidized, but it’s not a significant reduction.
Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister about the Employee Recognition Program. This government is supposed to be about prevention and engaging our employees. I hear a lot of frustration about wasted energy, wasted resources, inefficiencies in programs. A lot of employees have individual observations and experiences to offer that aren’t necessarily part of their job descriptions. When we started the reductions exercise, I think it was recognized as a valuable source of information. We put out a call, and in fact we got a lot of good suggestions from employees in our public service. It seems like there should be opportunities for that in the Employee Recognition Program.
Perhaps there is a specific program on that, but I think our priorities this term have been set at lowering costs and reducing climate change — that is, greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption — and increasing the effectiveness of government. I’m wondering: has the department made recommendations on this government-wide and, of course, within their own department — a specific Employee Recognition Program that would focus on recognition in some way or another, financially or status, some sort of status, or whatever. I’m sure HR knows better how to recognize employees in the area of achieving our goals of lower cost and improved effectiveness.
Minister McLeod.
This is certainly something we could consider. I know that in the past energy conservation was a goal that was expected of all deputies, and it was part of their performance measurement. We also had a program where employees could submit ideas for reducing costs and they would get monetary rewards based on how much money they saved the government. That program was eliminated about five years ago because they weren’t getting any suggestions after awhile. I think initially it was well received. We do have the Arctic Energy Alliance environmental awards, but I think it would be worthwhile to look at developing something for energy conservation awards. It could be a subset of the Premier’s Awards for Excellence perhaps. This is something we could take forward for next year.
Thank you for those remarks, Minister. Of course, the City of Yellowknife has really enjoyed quite a few savings through such a program, savings that are ongoing. Just to be clear, such a program was not on the plate as part of the opportunities for reductions and efficiencies in the exercise that got us to this budget. Is that correct?
It could still be considered as part of the strategic initiatives and as part of the business planning process for next year.
