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?