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.
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.
