I’ll take that as some sort of commitment. I appreciate that. I wonder if the Minister would consider bringing a draft forward at some point during this session so we could have some input into that and start that process. It’s one of those things that the earlier we start it, the bigger the returns we could realize. I just want to emphasize that the employees have expressed an interest in that sort of thing through their regular MLAs and possibly through Members of Cabinet as well.
We’ll look at our budget for employee recognition, and we’ll work with the Department of Environment to see whether we can develop this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the Minister. Obviously, this is something every department could be engaged in and enjoy the fruitful returns of, I’m sure.
That would be something I’m sure all departments are interested in.
Next on my list I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have two questions. This section includes Organizational Development. The information we received indicates there will be a reduction of a competency officer.
I will back up. In the information we received today that lists Employees and Vacant Positions and so on, I see a listing for an organization design officer, and the telephone listing for the department lists two employees in the organizational department, one of which is the manager and one of which is a succession and workforce planning consultant. I’m just wondering if I could get clarification on whether our information is wrong — that there is nobody called a competency officer — or if I could get some indication from the department of just exactly which position has been earmarked for reduction.
Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s a competency position. It’s been vacant for some time, and that’s probably why you couldn’t find it in the phonebook. It’s a position that’s been eliminated. We still have the remaining organization design officer who will continue this work. I think that developing proper competencies is something that is very important to make sure jobs are classified properly and evaluated properly. It makes a significant difference in our ability to hire and staff positions so we have the right competencies.
I guess I’d like to know where it is in the document we got today, “DHR Vacant Positions April 21, 2008, Funded.” I don’t see a competency officer. Maybe the department could direct me to the particular page where I would find it.
It’s not on that list, because it’s been inactivated and been removed.
Okay. Thank you. That brings me to another question. If it’s been inactivated and removed, has the funding not also been removed? Does this mean we’re reducing $100,000 for a position that really hasn’t been funded?
For the purposes of this budget it has been removed.
I’ll try another question. In a document we received today as well, called Status of Potentially Affected Employees, the second item on that list has: Justice relief employees added in Inuvik, plus-4. I’d like to ask the department what those employees are, what their work is. What work do they do? Which employees are those?
Those are four relief employees who had been notified they were potentially affected or impacted but had not been included on the list or had been missed on being included on the list. So that’s why they’ve been added.
Can the Minister please advise me where these employees work?
My understanding is that these four relief workers worked at the Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s all I have.
Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I haven’t been here the whole time, so forgive me if this question has already been asked. What’s the status of the new whistleblower legislation that could be in the works or contemplated, with the idea that whistleblower legislation might allow people in the public service to report areas that could be interpreted as wastefulness or practices that are not conducive to value for money? I’d like to ask the Minister: what is the status of whistleblower legislation in our government?
Minister McLeod.
The previous government had directed that the Department of Human Resources consult other employees and employee representatives on the feasibility of whistleblower protection. We received 69 responses. Of the 69, 59 were generally in favour and 8 did not indicate support. We are still reviewing the information we have and trying to determine whether it’s an area we want to proceed with. We haven’t included it in any deliberations, but with business planning coming up for 2009– 2010, this is something we could look at.
As the Member may know, there are a number of issues we would have to resolve if whistleblower protection is to be provided. How would we deal with anonymous complaints? If people are not willing to identify themselves, how would we deal with that? There are also multiple complaint venues. Currently people can file complaints in a number of areas: grievances, Workers’ Compensation, human rights, et cetera. So there are already a significant number of venues for employees to complain or report wrongdoing. We’d need to analyze whether another venue would be appropriate or required.
Over the years, I’ve known of situations that existed. They were fairly well known. It didn’t seem like the government could get a handle on them or document them or do anything about them. And the people who worked in those divisions didn’t really want to say anything.
I think there’s a contradiction there. To say you could have whistleblower protection for people to make complaints anonymously or identify situations anonymously — well, if they can do it anonymously, you don’t need whistleblower protection because nobody would know who did it, right? I think the idea is to let people feel they could step forward — they could bring something to the government’s attention, to the department’s attention — and they would not suffer reprisal as a result. I think that’s the gist of whistleblower protection. I wouldn’t get hung up on whether it’s anonymous or not. It’s just an avenue that needs to be there, whether people choose to take it or not. I guess they would weigh their options.
I think the more opportunities we have for people to feel like they’re engaged in the process…. Sometimes when there’s some wrongdoing going on, say even at the management level, it kind of demoralises the whole organization that’s underneath that. Sometimes, even, it sets a standard. Let’s use an example: a manager is — I don’t know — using a government facility like a shop or something in a community to service their own vehicles, maybe their friends’ and their family’s. And they say, Well, I’m doing it; if you don’t say anything about it, then you can use it too. Then you sort of get buy-in and everybody starts getting into questionable practices with government resources. It tends to have a bit of a domino effect. We’ve all heard of situations like that.
I think it would be good to pursue it and keep the issue alive, keep proceeding down that path.
We’ll continue to work in that direction.
We’re under Corporate Human Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.689 million. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to go back to the position of competency officer. I’m not understanding how we are saving $100,000 if the position has been deactivated and removed from the list, which I think were the words of the Minister. If it’s no longer part of the department staffing list, how are we saving $100,000?
The budget has been reduced by $100,000.
I understand that, Mr. Minister, but I don’t understand…. You’re reducing the budget by $100,000, which presumably you don’t have because the position is already gone. I fail to understand the explanation, Mr. Chair.
Well, that’s why we have funded positions. If you have 100 positions and you have a million dollars — each position’s worth $10,000 or whatever — if you reduce by one position on the POI side, you reduce the money side by an appropriate amount. You eliminate one PY on the one side. So if the competency officer costs $100,000 or his salary is $100,000, then you would reduce the salary dollars by $100,000.
I guess I need to ask if I can see a list of funded positions for the Human Resources Department for ’07-08.
We can do that on the same basis as we provided this list.
Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you. I think I see where Wendy’s going with this question. I want to try and re-ask the question in a slightly different way.
You’ve identified a competency officer to be eliminated. The budget hasn’t been approved. We’re in the process of reviewing the budget. Yet you’ve already taken the steps to eliminate it from your organization, which suggests to me that you have already cut the position. Given that the budget isn’t approved, why are you eliminating the position from your system already?
Minister McLeod.
Because it was a vacant position. To me it’s a moot point, but if it’s important that it be activated, we can reactivate it.
I think it’s less important that it’s activated. I think it’s more interesting that you’ve taken the steps to move beyond the budget process and begin implementing things that haven’t been approved by this House. Just a comment, but I think it might have been a bit premature and approaching the inappropriate.
I appreciate that from the Member. I agree it was probably inappropriate, and we’ll reactivate it and get it back to the list.
Corporate Human Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.689 million.
Department Of Human Resources, Corporate Human Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.689 million, approved.
Information item, Corporate Human Resources, Program Delivery Details. Agreed?
Page 2-70. Corporate Human Resources, Active Positions, information item.
Department of Human Resources, Corporate Human Resources, Active Positions, information item, (page 2-70) approved.
Corporate Human Resources, Active Positions, information item.
Department of Human Resources, Corporate Human Resources, Active Positions, information item, (page 2-71) approved.
Client Services, Operations Expenditure Summary, information item.
Department of Human Resources, Client Services, Operations Expenditure Summary information item, approved.
Client Services, Program Delivery Details, information item.
Department of Human Resources, Client Services, Program Delivery Details, information item, approved.
Page 2-76, Client Services, Active Positions, information item, page 2-77.
Department of Human Resources, Client Services, Active Positions, information item, approved.
Page 2-78, Employee Relations, information item. Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Chairman, I’m just wondering if the department’s done any analysis on what I would consider a growing problem, and that is stress leave and extended medical leave by employees, and whether you can trace some of this stress leave or extended medical leave back to departments. If we can correlate the use of stress leave and medical leave back to some departments, I think we need to examine the root causes of employees needing extended periods of time away from work.
I find this type of leave being more and more necessary, and employees having to go to doctors and get doctors’ certificates for extended periods of absences from work. I’m just wondering if the department’s done any kind of analysis on where the stress leave is happening and the extended medical leave so fingers can be pointed at the departments that are guilty of their employees needing to take time away from work like that. I can think of one department specifically, and that’s Justice. We’ll have the Minister of Justice here before too long, but maybe the Minister can answer that.
Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chair, we do keep track of employee leave, and we do use it as a management tool to, in some cases, detect problem employees. Also, I don’t think we’ve done an analysis of stress leave, but we could do that. We do have a review of people who are on stress leave for extended periods to determine whether they need a change in venue or whether we’ll have a medical doctor review their situation. But in terms of doing an analysis of the areas or departments that have the most stress, I don’t think we’ve necessarily done that yet.
Mr. Chairman, just because an employee accesses stress leave or other leave doesn’t necessarily make them a bad employee, and I wouldn’t want anybody to think that. I think in many cases it’s bad management, and it’s the employee feeling victimized in the workplace or harassed or intimidated or whatever you want. There are many reasons employees seek stress leave and extended medical leave.
I also wanted to ask the Minister…. If that type of analysis hasn’t been done, I think that’d be something worth providing to Members of this House — which departments have more employees who have accessed stress leave and medical leave — and break it down and show us, as a percentage, which departments are getting more employees requesting stress leave and medical leave. I think that’s important for us to know as legislators. This side of the House acts as the oversight accountability committee, and we really need to have this type of information so we can start directing questions at the Ministers who are managing the departments to try to figure out what’s going on.
I don’t think we break out leave according to stress leave; it’s usually sick leave or extended leave. I think we can do an analysis by going through and reviewing the documentation for extended leave or sick leave.
