Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other day I had made a few opening comments on this report that the four of us worked on. There was myself as the chairman, Seamus Henry, Michael Miltenberger and Ed Picco, who were a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and of course the Government Operations Committee did accept the report, endorsed it. What I would like to do is provide a short summary of some of the recommendations just to facilitate discussion and so the general public will have some type of an overview of the main recommendations that we made. We did break up the report into different sections so that it is easier to read and so that the recommendations are grouped together in various areas. After each section I will pause so if there are any Members that wish to ask questions on those particular recommendations, the Members can ask questions.

Affirmative Action Recommendation 1 - We recommend that the Premier and his Cabinet issue a public statement, making a commitment to the Affirmative Action Policy.

Since taking office in November 1995, the Members of the 13th Assembly have stressed the need to lead by example. We did this in the deficit management plan by reducing our pensions and eliminating automatic increases to our indemnities.

In the House, Members have repeatedly reminded the Cabinet that we must also lead by example in our senior management hiring. Theoretically, all hiring is subject to the Affirmative Action Policy. In reality, there appears to be some discretion in the hiring process for excluded employees and significant discretion for management, particularly at the deputy minister level. The more senior a position is, the more personal suitability plays a role in the hiring decision. The Members of the working group believe that this discretion results in a continuation of the hiring practices of the past, hiring practices which have not been successful in moving towards a representative workforce.

During the public consultation in 1995, a common concern and perception was that the politicians and senior managers do not buy into affirmative action. The recent senior management hiring from southern Canada seems to send a silent message throughout the organization and to the public about the government's commitment to affirmative action.

The Premier's public statement should include a commitment to promote and develop northerners, from the top of the organization to the bottom. The statement should also be clear about the emphasis the government will place on employment equity. Without a strong public signal of support for the changes recommended in this report, significant change and progress is doubtful.

Affirmative Action Recommendation 2 - We recommend that the GNWT change the name of the Affirmative Action policy to Employment Equity.

The recommendations proposed by the working group represent a shift in philosophy. The proposals are based on changing the corporate culture. Ensuring a representative work force should not be something people have to do but that all managers and Ministers see as something they want to do. We believe strongly that investing in northern employees can only benefit the north. This is their home, they understand the environment and the cultures, and they are working to make things better for their own future.

If the government intends to make a fresh start in addressing the lack of northerners in the workforce, there is a need for a new name, such as employment equity, which will reflect a new attitude and more proactive, positive approach.

This recommendation is closely tied to the other recommendations in this report. A name change is not enough. It must be part of a broader package of changes to the policy.

Affirmative Action Recommendation 3 - We recommend that the following revisions be made to the Affirmative Action Policy:

1. Representation goals by occupational grouping and region should be set.

2. There should be an annual assessment of the hiring priorities. In occupational groups in a region where representation goals have been reached, hiring priority would not apply.

The current Affirmative Action Policy provides blanket hiring priority across the government. There are a number of concerns with this approach:

•This is a policy without focus - it does not have specific goals which could be addressed;

•There is no monitoring to determine when representation has been reached;

•The statistics do not show where representation has been achieved or even exceeded;

•It results in on-going priority where it is no longer needed; and

•Only reporting overall statistics does not show the true picture - a lack of affirmative action employees outside of entry level positions and trades.

The experience of other jurisdictions shows that while specific priority may be necessary to initially reach representation, affirmative action works best when it is done because managers want to rather than because they have to.

There has been some success with the policy. In entry level positions and trades, it appears we have not only reached representation but actually gone beyond. There has also been greater success in some regions than in others. A policy which had goals based on regions and occupational groups would allow the Assembly and the public to see the areas of success as well as those where more work is required.

Maintaining hiring priority where it is not required creates resentment among others interested in applying for work. There should be a way to measure specific occupational groups and determine when representation has been reached. At that point, the policy should no longer apply.

Occupational groupings currently in place could be used:

- management

- professional

- technical

- administrative services

- labour & trades

- program delivery.

Due to the need to have reasonably large populations, the following regional groups should be used:

- Keewatin

- Baffin

- Kitikmeot

- Inuvik

- Fort Smith

- Headquarters.

We have recommended that headquarters' staff should reflect the entire NWT because that is the population they serve. However, staff in Yellowknife who are in positions classified as regional or local should reflect the region they serve, similar to staff in other regions.

We believe that there must be a more focused approach to ensuring a representative workforce. Critical to the success of this recommendation is regular and accurate information. Based on our past experience, we know this will test the adequacy of the GNWT information systems.

We have a concern about departments falling back to old habits. If departments are not forced to hire northerners, will they? The policy should require regular reassessment. This would be the safeguard, ensuring that priority would be applied again as soon as employment levels of affirmative action candidates fell below the level of representation.

We discussed the concept of representation and whether it should be based on the general population or the labour force. There were good arguments for either approach. The majority of members believe that the GNWT staff should be representative of the people they serve. They argue that representation goals should be based on the general population which is the people the government serves.

The government will need to set representation goals. Those representation goals should take into account the need for a strong pool of candidates at each level for promotion to the next level within the organization. In a Human Rights case from the NWT, it was ruled that GNWT representation goals beyond representation based on population was acceptable because there was a need for a larger pool of potential affirmative action candidates. For example, representation may be 35 percent but the representation goal could be 40, 45 or even 50 percent. For many of the occupational groups, representation goals should be set higher than actual representation rates to ensure sufficient candidates for promotion.

Affirmative Action Recommendation 4 - We recommend that the definition of long-term northerner be revised to include anyone who has been a resident of the NWT for at least ten continuous years, immediately prior to applying under this priority.

The current policy provides hiring priority for long term northerners. It identifies a long term northerner as someone who was born in the NWT or who has lived more than half their life here. When the definition of long term northerner was added to the policy in 1989, this definition was, in part, an attempt to address young people who had grown up side by side with each other, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. By including long term northerners in the policy, it recognizes the inherent value to the government in hiring people who have made a commitment to living in the NWT, regardless of cultural background.

One of the difficulties with the current definition is that it amounts to a form of discrimination against people who moved to the north as an adult. Although they make a commitment to the north and their communities, they are often at the end of their career before they qualify as a long term northerner.

We looked carefully at how to revise the definition to address this concern. We wanted to stick with the intent of giving priority to people who had made the north their home. There is no way to determine when someone moves to the north how long they will stay. However, looking at GNWT employment statistics, the greatest drop-off is between five and ten years of service. With this in mind, we decided that someone who has stayed for at least ten years is probably going to stick around.

While many jurisdictions give local hiring preference, this priority category has always been open to possible challenge under the charter of rights and freedoms. While the government can clearly demonstrate the need for specific hiring priorities for aboriginal people to address past disadvantage, demonstrating this disadvantage for long term northerners is more difficult. By greatly expanding this priority group, this may become more of an issue.

The title of this priority group should be changed from "indigenous non-aboriginal" to "long-term northerner".

Affirmative Action Recommendation 5 - We recommend that the definition of indigenous aboriginal person be revised to more clearly address southern aboriginal people.

Priority One should become "northern aboriginal person". We recommend that the definition of northern aboriginal person should be changed to be an aboriginal person who was born in the NWT or who has spent at least ten years in the NWT immediately prior to applying for priority.

We believe this is more consistent with the policy's objective.

In applying this definition, there should be a degree of flexibility. The definition could include some aboriginal northerners who were born outside the NWT because their parents were attending school or had short term employment elsewhere in Canada.

Affirmative Action Recommendation 6 - We recommend that the GNWT back up the philosophy of affirmative action/employment equity with dollars to support training and other initiatives.

We have not recommended any new initiatives which would involve one-time new money. However, we have suggested areas where there is a need for funds to provide an on-going base. When departments had to reduce their budgets in the past two years, one of the areas affected was staff training and development. If we are committed to a representative workforce, we have to recognize that sound human resources practices are necessary and there is a cost associated with developing our staff.

For every manager dedicated to developing and supporting staff, there are times when they will need money to provide opportunities. If affirmative action is really going to work, there must be a reasonable allocation of funds for human resource management.

Those are the six recommendations particularly in the affirmative action area. If there are any further comments from the committee Members, they could mention them now. Are there any questions by any Members on these six recommendations?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, only to say that we did receive the report. We appreciate the efforts being made by those involved in this delicate issue of employment and who gets what, and we will be analyzing that from an FMBS perspective. We will be reporting back to the committee as quickly as we can. Thank you.

Just general comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to go back to some of the things that Mr. Ootes mentioned earlier. Although it is not a perfect document, I think that you have to look at the recommendations and the work that actually went into the report. I think a goal without a strategy is just a slogan and I think that we put goals and strategic plans within these recommendations to make it work. What we need from this report is the commitment from the government and the

Ministers to make sure that the recommendations are followed through. That is the type of commitment I would be looking forward to hearing from the Premier and his officials.

One of the things that kept coming up during the review of the Affirmative Action Policy was the accountability of middle managers and senior managers in the process, and it seemed that the hammer, as it were, was not being used to make sure that affirmative action candidates were indeed getting proper procedural hiring in different occupations and classifications. I think the report is trying to address that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just for clarification purposes, my understanding was that the committee was going to table the report, we were going to be given the appropriate time to respond to it and I do not really want to get into it unless of course, Mr. Picco is out there on his own. The process, my understanding is, well either we get an agreement on the process or we do not and my understanding is you were going to table the report, indicate what some of the key recommendations were, give this government time to review it in a careful and concise way, not in some ad hoc knee jerk way, and respond accordingly. If that is what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, we are parties to the issue. If we are going to have a debate about what we have done and what we have not done, then I think it is inappropriate. That is all I am saying, nothing else. Due process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the point I was trying to get at, Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to circumvent the process and the protocol that was in place. I was just commenting on some comments I heard earlier and was making reference to the recommendations and the summary of recommendations as outlined by Mr. Erasmus. So I beg to differ with my fellow colleague, Mr. Todd, on this issue and hopefully now he is clear on my earlier comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While Mr. Miltenberger indicated that it is dangerous to put hypotheticals out and try to answer them, I will address this particular question. Actually, I have not reached that particular area that he was talking about concerning promoting people, but the intent of promoting people within this report is to bring people into areas where the affirmative action representation is low. So obviously a person who does not qualify as an affirmative action candidate would not be promoted in this area because they are simply not an affirmative action person so they would have no opportunity to be promoted. The whole intent of that particular thing is, where there is an area where only two percent of the staff are affirmative action candidates, whether they are aboriginal or longterm northerners, then we could promote someone from lower down who has qualifications and the rest of that, to promote them up. That is the short and sweet of it.

What I had hoped to do is perhaps get the general comments at the end, after each section if someone has a question on the recommendations that I have just finished, then someone ask a question, but do not go ahead of where I am.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next section of the report discusses the hiring process.

Hiring Process Recommendation 1- We recommend that, every time a position is to be filled, the position description be reviewed to ensure the education and experience required accurately reflect the demands of the job.

Across the NWT, people said employees should be hired on merit. We believe that is happening now. Merit means deserving consideration or to be worthy. Anyone who has the required qualifications and is successful in the interview process has merit and is worthy of being considered for the job.

To be eligible for a position, a person needs to be qualified and suitable. Qualifications are determined during the screening process. A frequent comment about affirmative action applicants is that they are minimally qualified. There is no such things as minimally qualified. All applicants who meet the education and experience requirements are considered qualified.

Suitability is determined through the interview process. A person is suitable if they appear able to deliver the skills necessary in the workplace.

Through the Affirmative Action policy, the GNWT also applies priority to the hiring process. However, merit is always the key factor in determining which of the priority candidates should get the job.

There are some occupations where a specific degree or professional designation is necessary. For example, certain projects require an engineer to sign off or a journeyman to verify the qualify of work. Some documents must be signed by a lawyer.

However, there is also a strong element of credentialism in the education requirements of some positions. Requiring extensive educational background has been defended by some as necessary to preserve professional standards. Others see this as a way of using inflated educational requirements to prevent northerners from accessing positions in particular fields.

We need a balance. We need to ensure people are qualified for the positions they occupy. At the same time, we need to ensure that job descriptions are fair and accurate summaries of the job requirements. A good time to review job descriptions is just prior to staffing a position. Having accurate, up-to-date job descriptions should continue to be part of the staffing process.

Hiring Process Recommendation 2 - We recommend that at least three qualified candidates be interviewed for every job competition.

Members of the working group are aware of competitions where only one person was interviewed for a position. We were concerned with this for a couple of reasons.

When only one interview is done, there is often a perception that the successful candidate was pre-determined and the staffing competition was only a facade. Not only does this bring the staffing process into question, it can also lead to questions about the successful applicant's qualifications.

We are also concerned about time management. Staffing is a lengthy process. If only one person is interviewed, it is possible that they will not accept the job, they will do poorly on the interview, or there will be a problem with references. If this happens, the interview process begins again.

Limiting the interview process to only one person places too much weight on the applicants' resumes. A resume only gives a snapshot of a person's background. It does not tell you how they will deal with other people or how they react on the job.

Applicants called to an interview usually make an effort to prepare. Knowing this, we looked at the argument that, if there is only one affirmative action candidate, it is a waste of time to interview the other candidates. On the other hand, people applying on government jobs are aware of the affirmative action policy and can expect that final decisions may be made based on the policy.

We recognize that, on rare occasion, there may be competitions where there are only one or two qualified applicants. However, we also recognize that determining qualified candidates with equivalencies is not an exact science. In these cases, the staffing panel should use their discretion in determining who to interview. As a general rule, we believe a full slate of interviews is appropriate in all cases.

Hiring Process Recommendation 3 - We recommend that an appeals process be established for management and excluded positions.

Staffing is very difficult. For every vacant position, there are many people competing for the position but only one winner. It is, therefore, important that applicants can be assured that the staffing was handled according to the GNWT guidelines and in a fair manner.

For GNWT positions included in the UNW bargaining unit, people who apply and have a concern with the results of the competition can appeal the staffing decision. This process is a joint effort between the government and the Union of Northern Workers. It is one of the tools necessary to ensure that competitions are carried out fairly.

For excluded and management positions, there is no appeal mechanism. This leaves managers with far more flexibility in how they follow the staffing guidelines. It also leaves applicants with uncertainty about whether their application received equitable consideration. We felt that there should be consistency from the top to the bottom of the organization.

Appeals add time when staffing a position. However, having a staffing process which is as objective as possible is important and worth the slight inconvenience of a delay in filling the position.

An appeals process for management and excluded positions does not have to be identical to the process for bargaining unit positions. However, we believe there should be some remedy for applicants, to ensure that the staffing guidelines are followed at all levels of the organization.

Within the GNWT, there is a personnel secretariat which is responsible for establishing staffing policy and monitoring staffing practices. This secretariat is lead by an assistant deputy minister. We would like to suggest that appeals of excluded and management positions should be handled by the assistant deputy minister, personnel secretariat or one of his senior staff. This individual would interview the applicant and the staffing panel and review the competition file. They could provide similar remedies as available under the union appeal process.

Hiring Process Recommendation 4 - We recommend the use of directed hiring practices to increase representation in the workforce.

At the present time, staffing competitions are supposed to be open to any applicants and advertised publicly. One of the benefits of this approach is that the general public should be aware of all job openings. It is also intended to reduce the potential for favouritism and nepotism in the hiring process.

There are a few drawbacks to having positions filled through open competition. It limits the opportunity to promote promising affirmative action candidates. It is also a drawback in career planning. Sometimes, a manager will have an excellent employee who they would like to promote, knowing the employee would do the job well. However, the employee's education or experience may not be at the level required when the job is advertised.

In order to use the hiring process to increase representation, we recommend that two approaches be used for specific positions:

1. Advertising some positions as only open to all affirmative action candidates; and

2. Using the direct appointment mechanism to promote or give priority to affirmative action candidates for positions in occupational groups where representation has not been attained.

Other jurisdictions use restricted (closed) competitions to promote individuals from a designated group. The use of these competitions is successful, particularly where the department recognizes a need to encourage affirmative action candidates in a specific occupation. Restricted competitions are often used for positions which are designed as training opportunities for affirmative action candidates.

There are positions which are filled without being advertised, through direct appointments and contracts. For example, some of the recent senior management appointments were done this way. While there is some concern about the use of direct appointments, this can be a valuable tool for promoting affirmative action employees who are ready for advancement. The GNWT hiring guidelines already suggest direct appointments can be used to support affirmative action. Managers should consider this as one option in career planning for their staff.

This recommendation is closely linked to Affirmative Action Recommendation 3. It provides one possible mechanism for achieving the representation goals.

Hiring Process Recommendation 5 - We recommend that a student employment office be established in each region, operated where possible by students.

In previous years, there was a student employment office run by students in Yellowknife and some of the other regional centres. This provided a central source of information for departments. It also made it easier for students, who only had to provide their application to one government location.

With the decentralization of personnel functions to departments, students must apply at a number of locations. They do not have a single person who can help them assess the availability of possible jobs. It also makes it more difficult for departments to know who is still available and who is employed.

Students have a very short time to find employment. They cannot afford to miss even one possible job because they did not get their resume to every location. A central registry of student applications would make things easier for both students and departments.

It is important to note that while this recommendation addresses student employment, these concerns apply to all casual hiring.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will see if there are any Members that wish to ask questions in this particular area. The clock is ticking.