Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement today I talked about some of the problems that have been raised to me by constituents with respect to the way these position reductions were gone about. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for Human Resources: can he assure the House today that none of the potentially affected employees were singled out for some reason other than budget reductions on the part of this government?
The honourable Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the process that was followed is that departments made proposals that were reviewed by the Financial Management Board. Those decisions that were made were communicated back to the departments, and the departments wrote up the proposals in final form. The positions that were directed…. It’s my understanding that due diligence was followed and an orderly process was followed in identifying potentially affected employees.
So the Minister is saying the departments received their instructions to go and look for ways to reduce their spending, including positions being cut, and that he is confident those reductions came back in a well thought-out manner, and they did not target employees for any other reason than just the review of the program or the service that was being delivered.
In the instance, though, Mr. Speaker — I’m trying to represent my constituents — where a constituent comes and tells me they have substantial evidence that, in fact, that was the case, what recourse does that constituent have? I don’t know what to do for them. I could give them the Minister’s e-mail address — @email — and ask them if they want to send you an e-mail directly. But what recourse do these people have?
Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the Member knows my e-mail address.
Laughter.
The Department of Human Resources works very closely with all of the departments within the government. In developing the Main Estimates, we worked closely with the departments to ensure the process was followed so that all employees were dealt with fairly, and also, that the merit principle was followed in cases where there was a number of employees who were affected. For example, if there were five people who were eligible for four positions, we would want to make sure all of the employees who were affected were dealt with fairly.
If there are any cases where an employee feels they haven’t been dealt with properly, then I would encourage them to raise it with the Department of Human Resources. There is a process that has been developed with the UNW in which they can file grievances as well. So I think there are some avenues for government employees who feel they have not been dealt with fairly.
In this case that I’m referring to — and I’m not naming names — it’s particularly concerning because someone else within the same organization, with the same credentials, came forward and requested at the same time that they be granted voluntary separation. So theoretically, their application could have been approved and the person who was losing their job could have moved into that position. But the same manager who identified the person whose position was being eliminated denied the other employee from getting voluntary separation. It would seem this would have to go to some independent, outside higher authority for this kind of a situation to be managed. Is the Minister willing to hear from that constituent in which this incident occurred?
I’m quite prepared to hear from that individual. I should also point out that individuals who want to retire or are close to retirement…. We can’t be seen to be coercing them into retirement, because then it becomes a human rights issue. But our existing policies provide for voluntary separation for those individuals who are close to retirement and would like to see themselves replaced by potentially affected employees. Certainly, I would be very pleased to hear about it, because our existing policies do provide for exactly what the Member is telling me.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess what I’m speaking about is fairness and impartial decision making and analysis of some of these situations that have occurred.
To the issue of voluntary early retirement: I understand what the Minister is saying. They cannot be seen to be coercing people who have had many years of service into departing early. I understand that would be a human rights issue.
However, for those — I’m glad this is on the public record today — who would like to leave early, will the government approve that, even in the instance where it may cost some money? Because I think giving some people early retirement is going to cost less than the severance for some other people who’d like to stay.
And with the concurrence and approval of the rest of the Members of this House, I’d like to ask the Minister for the public record today if the government would be willing to expend the kind of money that would be necessary to allow people early retirement without any reduction or damage to their pension benefits, or added adjustment costs.
As I’ve told some of the Members, this is certainly an option we’re prepared to look at for potentially affected employees. And we are seeking some direction from the standing committees, as we briefed them. If we get some direction, we’re quite prepared to look at that.
Thank you, Mr, McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
