Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next area that we made recommendations on, of course while a lot of these do include affirmative action but we do have them under headings. This one is in the human resource management area.

Human Resource Recommendation 1 - We recommend that the GNWT develop clear accountability measures in the area of human resources management for both Ministers and deputy ministers

As we mentioned earlier, most successful government departments and private corporations support employees from hiring to retirement. Career planning and professional development for staff are important parts of a manager's responsibilities.

The changes resulting from the GNWT's deficit management plan have had a severe impact on the morale of government employees. In order to achieve some sense of stability, to promote northern employees, and to maintain levels of service with fewer staff, it is critical that the GNWT place more emphasis on strong human resource management.

We see the need for greater accountability at two levels. Standing Committees should hold Ministers accountable for the human resource practices within their departments. As well, Ministers should place a greater emphasis on human resource management in evaluating deputy minister performance.

Human Resource Recommendation 1.1 - We recommend that the departmental business plans should include specific human resource management information.

Responsibility for evaluation of the deputy ministers rests with the Ministers and there is no role for Ordinary Members in those evaluations. However, there is a clear role for the standing committees in evaluating the human resource management within each department.

We recommend that the business plans provided by the departments should include a new section addressing human resource management. This section should include elements such as:

- positions by community, pre- and post-budget

- affirmative action statistics

- departmental turnover

- retention rates

- performance evaluation completion rates

- exit interview completion rates

- summary of orientation available for new staff

- staff development opportunities

- number of internships/developmental assignments available to assist entry into professional fields

Departments should also provide interim reports with the same information to standing committees in early March each year.

Human Resource Recommendation 1.2 - We recommend that human resource management should have a much greater emphasis in deputy ministers' evaluations.

There would appear to be three areas that should form the basis of a deputy's evaluation

- How a department's programs operate;

- How the deputy minister manages the budget; and

- How the people in the department are managed.

The Premier has repeatedly stated that deputies will be evaluated, in part, on their success with affirmative action. We agree that human resource management, including affirmative action, should be part of a deputy minister's performance evaluation.

Currently, human resource management would seem to be a small part of the evaluation. We reached this conclusion because, while human resource statistics for departments are either unavailable or reflect a lack of success in developing and promoting our employees, we are lead to believe that the deputy ministers are generally very effective in their work.

Therefore, we recommend that the human resource issues should have a much greater emphasis in a deputy minister's evaluation.

Human Resource Recommendation 2 - We recommend that the current guidelines requiring completion of performance reviews annually should be enforced.

Annual performance evaluations should be a valuable part of the staff development process. A performance evaluation is a concrete tool for staff development and training needs identification. It ensures regular feedback to employees and managers about each person's work. It also provides an opportunity for managers to meet with staff to identify areas where training or other development options would increase the employee's ability to contribute to the organization and achieve professional growth.

Regular evaluations should also provide an opportunity to identify concerns of employees before they reach the point where the employee quits. Given the high rate of turnover, particularly among first year aboriginal employees, these evaluations can be used to catch a problem before it gets out of hand.

Performance Appraisal Completion Rates

1996

Executive

5.4%

FMBS

6.0%

Finance

61.0%

MACA

26.7%

Transportation

9.8%

Public Works & Services

8.0%

Health & Social Services

9.2%

Renewable Resources

4.3%

Justice

68.6%

Economic Development & Tourism

7.0%

Education, Culture & Employment

1.0%

Safety & Public Services

14.3%

Energy, Mines & Petroleum Products

0%

Legislative Assembly

0%

The completion rates may be slightly lower because departments finish the appraisals but do not bother to enter them on the Government's Human Resource System. However, our information would tend to suggest that many employees just do not get reviews.

In reality, many employees view the appraisal process as threatening. It is often used to document performance problems and is seen as part of the disciplinary process rather than as a positive review and plan for growth. This perception is in part because appraisals are the exception rather than the rule for many staff.

The performance development system guidelines in the GNWT Human Resource manual provide for yearly reviews of all employees. There are also requirements for a review when an employee or supervisor leaves a position. These guidelines should be followed by all managers.

Giving all employees regular feedback is important. The completion rates for these reviews should be provided to the standing committees as outlined in Human Resource Recommendation 1. They should also form part of the evaluation of deputy minister performance.

The current performance evaluation process requires the use of a generic form. Some managers ignore the forms and use letters or a checklist, some have trouble with the compatibility of the electronic version of the form, and most do not complete the appraisals at all. We discussed this at length and believe there should be some consistency in evaluation format. However, there should be flexibility to allow departments to work with the FMBS to develop alternate evaluation forms where there is a specific need.

Human Resource Recommendation 3 - We recommend that managers work closely with staff to provide career development for all employees.

Staff development and training is the key to creating a highly skilled and effective workforce. It provides employees with personal and professional growth so they have a chance to progress through the organization. It also provides the organization with employees better able to cope with changing demands and increased workload.

Career development is not a one-way street. Both the employee and employer have a responsibility to identify development opportunities. We need to ensure the government's corporate culture allows everyone to fulfil that responsibility.

In implementing the Affirmative Action Policy, the GNWT has concentrated on hiring. At the present time, once the government has hired someone, opportunities for staff development seem to be hit and miss. If affirmative action is to be successful, it is also necessary to support the professional development of staff. This needs to be done in a planned way, with the employee and manager jointly setting a course of action.

As the most recent statistics show, the government has not been successful in moving affirmative action employees up in the organization beyond entry level positions. There is a perception that these employees have less access to staff training and development. This may be because they are less likely to be direct in asking for it. The corporate culture may support the "squeaky wheel" over those who are less forward.

While it is important to provide staff development to support affirmative action, these opportunities must also be available to all staff. A good employee is one who is growing and learning on the job. Sharing these opportunities with all employees makes good business sense.

Managers and employees should be aware of and support the importance of career development. They should be reminded that it is much broader than training courses. It can include elements such as acting appointments, special assignments, lateral transfers, mentor arrangements, and on-the-job training.

Human Resource Recommendation 4 - We recommend departments develop on-the-job training positions in areas where there is currently a low rate of affirmative action representation.

The government has a history of on-the-job training programs. The most recent is the Public Service Career Training Program. However, the success rate has not been good for a number of reasons: -Candidates were selected through an elaborate central process ;

-People were expected to train themselves out of a job;

-They were run as open competitions rather than being used for a specific individual in a department where the manager wanted to develop potential;

-Some people just were not good trainers, no matter how many train-the-trainer courses they took;

-The need for a balance between practical experience and formal education was not always adequately outlined; and

-Employees were occasionally required to complete parts of the program outside work hours.

On-the-job training is one of the only ways mature individuals will be able to enter the more senior levels of government without a strong post-secondary background. Until there is a generation who have post-secondary education supplemented by work experience, practical on-the-job training may provide the best opportunity to promote affirmative action candidates into professional and managerial positions.

On-the-job training needs to be one of the tools used by departments in developing staff potential. Each department should have a small number of positions available for on-the-job training. Sometimes departments should develop training positions in areas where there is currently a low rate of affirmative action representation. Other times, they should be created to provide a developmental assignment for a high potential staff member.

The GNWT has offered different forms of training positions in the past and can build on the lessons learned. The most important lesson is that these positions should be developed and driven by departments, rather than through a central authority.

We recognize that this recommendation may take slightly longer to develop and implement.

That was the last recommendation in that particular area and the rest of the recommendations are for the future. Those were the only ones I wanted to outline at this particular time. I would urge everyone to read the report. As Ed had said, it is a very good report that makes for good reading. At this time I would ask if there are any further questions on this particular area?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously it has to be applied throughout the government. Every department should attain their goals. What we are talking about is representative government. If a government is representative of the population that it serves, then that means that every department should try to attain the goal which would be set for that particular region. That means from top to bottom. From secretaries to deputy minsters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in closing, I wanted to indicate that the recommendations build on each other. We would not want to see just a few recommendations implemented in isolation of the others. For instance, setting goals for occupational occupations and regions. It would not do just to put that into place without these other recommendations that we are making because, as I say, they are meant to complement each other. With that, we are looking forward to receiving the government's reply. I have a motion that I would like to move, unless there are questions or comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Erasmus opened his remarks by stating that all Members endorsed this report. There will be many members of the public who will not take the time to pick up this particular report, so I would like to advise him that there is in fact a minority report at the end of this particular document. I believe, in this House I have stated my position on the Affirmative Action Policy and it is on record in this House. I have also stated that it has been, and I think still continues to be, one of the most divisive products that this government has put in place.

Mr. Chairman, in 1989, the Government of the NWT implemented a policy to have a public service that is representative of the population it serves. This policy is known as the Affirmative Action Policy. In 1994/95, the previous government commissioned a review of this policy. FMBS personnel conducted this work. This review was to provide data, review results, and recommend options for the future. A report was compiled in June of 1996 listing 25 recommendations for change. When this report was presented to the Standing Committee on Government Operations, it was rejected and sent back to the department. A second report was prepared, but the committee still did not like its contents, so Government Operations struck a sub-committee to do its own review of the Affirmative Action Policy and prepare its own report. The May 1997 report, entitled Report of the Working Group on Affirmative Action and Human Resource Management, forms the recommendation of that working group.

Mr. Chairman, the sad thing about the Affirmative Action Policy is the difference of opinion that exists between ordinary Members and Cabinet Members. These two groups are not united in the fundamental philosophy and purpose of the Affirmative Action Policy. We have witnessed a hiring of senior officials who were not hired using affirmative action criteria, but on hiring the best person for the job. We have empowered the present government to run our territory. On a number of occasions they have asked us not to tie their hands. I can sympathize with that request. As an employer, I could not care less what colour or gender an individual is. I just want to ensure that they can do the job and provide the best service to my customers. Mr. Steen talked yesterday about a number of heavy equipment operators trained in the north. When we have these employees, why do employers like Robinsons Trucking go south for their employee needs? We must ask the hard questions. Why are employers who know the people, who can save money by not having to provide accommodation, relocation costs, go south to hire employees? We have to find the answer to the root of this. I suspect that one reason is that northern employees are not knocking down the doors of the employers looking for work. This and many more questions have to be explored and answered.

Our senior government bureaucracy has been referred to as an old boys' club. I look forward to finding out what name will be given to businesses who cannot attract and hire northerners. These so called southern workers referred to by Mr. Steen have learned to do what we in the north still have to learn, get up in the morning, get to the employer's door and tell them you are ready and willing to provide a decent day's work for a decent day's pay, not only today but everyday.

The Honourable Ms. Thompson, Minister of MACA, is a champion of women's rights. She publicly denounced gender parity for Nunavut and stood her ground on not filling elected positions based on gender. This same honourable Minister has filled senior personnel positions in her department from the south and by her action has denounced the government's policy of affirmative action. I remember Ms. Thompson telling me in this House that she hired the best person for the job based on their abilities and qualifications. I commend this Minister and others for hiring the most qualified people to do the work within this government. We need and deserve and want the best person for the job. Taxpayers deserve and demand that they get the best value for the dollars spent.

This government is charged by us to run this territory. There has been a great deal of time spent on the Affirmative Action Policy. Two revised reports have been prepared. Mr. Chairman, this government has recognized the dividing factors of the Affirmative Action Policy and would prefer not to have to deal with them. Until we deal with the fundamental root of the matter, we will never agree. Mr. Chairman, the only term cure by a bureaucracy which is committed to putting all our energies and resources into ensuring a healthy society will resolve the problems the Affirmative Action Policy was supposed to resolve. We must ensure a population for the future of the NWT which is producing healthy children who are nurtured and educated, who in turn will secure their own place in the workforce. Until we can do this, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to have a hiring policy which will forever plague us with problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. General comments. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. General comments. I have Mr. Krutko, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Steen. Mr. Krutko.

Hear, hear.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I have Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Steen. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I would like to congratulate the Members of the working group that offered this report. I strongly believe that it is a worthwhile report and I am sure it will show the benefits to the people in my region down the road. In particular, there are three recommendations that were made by the report:

1. representation goals by occupational grouping and regions should be set;

2. there should be an annual assessment of hiring priorities and occupational groups in a region where representation goals have been reached, hiring priority would not apply; and, 3. representation for headquarters should reflect the entire NWT. I think that is a key area.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I believe the report is an excellent one and I think the Members did a great job. Thank you.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Steen.