Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask a few more questions. I have heard the Minister and I have heard the soon-to-be deputy minister of Human Resources talk about some of the issues. I know there are some issues they probably can't even talk about that they

have inherited from various departments. Mr. Chairman, I think what I would like to see is I would like to know where the problems came from. What departments did the problems come from and who can we hold responsible for the new Human Resources having had to inherit problems? Who are they? Where did they come from? What are these problems? Ultimately, we have to go back to the department that sent the problems or didn't do the filing, didn't know what was going on and had no idea when the amalgamation took place that their employees were going over there armed with incomplete files or whatever the case may be. Somebody has to be held accountable. I don't see anybody taking accountability for the problems Human Resources inherited. It's every department. Maybe some are better than others and I think the Minister should let us know where these problems came from and what they are.

Just last year, we went through a one percent reduction exercise across the board and all of a sudden, the Finance Minister opens up a closet and finds $450,000 to pay for a report. The report is needed, don't get me wrong, but somebody has to be accountable here and nobody is taking accountability for this. We just spent $450,000 on a report. I agree the report is probably needed; lots of problems there. Where did they come from and what are they? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the area of human resources has been a problem for the government for many years. That is why it was identified in a number of previous works that were done in looking at the government organization and how it did the work of government.

Based on that, we have made a decision to move forward with this human resource amalgamation. So my task was to take the existing organizations that were out there, bring them together and establish this Human Resources department and start to begin work the way it should be done. I would be glad to sit down with AOC at some point, or Members, and get into a little more of the detail, blow-by-blow scenario, I guess is the way to put it, at some point. But my goal here, and the goal that's been given to the staff who have now come online, is to get the job done, get it done right, and be consistent in how we do the job.

So, yes, we've had to deal with a backlog of files and that's causing us stress in the system as we try to establish this new one. We could get into a blow-by-blow scenario, but I don't think this would be the appropriate venue for that. As I stated earlier, I would be happy to sit down with Members and give much more of a critique on that, but my goal now, as we have been mandated, is to proceed with this new amalgamation and deliver human resources in a more consistent manner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's more of a principle thing here. Like I said, I agree this report has to happen, but just the way that it's been allowed to happen causes me a lot of trouble when I think about it. I know the amalgamation took place and we had a number of departments that contributed employees, files, whatever, to the amalgamation of HR. Somewhere along the line, some departments allowed inactivity of employees, files to be incomplete and troubles to exist, and they just allowed that to fester inside their departments with no accountability and now you have inherited the problems and these guys are off scot-free, their departments are off scot-free in all of this. What other problems exist in the various departments? Who else isn't doing their job? I think that's the root of the problem and I think we have to try to get to the bottom of it. I would like to know who's responsible for the incomplete files in the various departments. Which departments are they? Somebody should be held accountable. You shouldn't have to go and dig up $450,000 to find out what the problems are.

Ultimately, I guess that's where we are at today. We have to spend that money, but something just doesn't add up for me, Mr. Chairman. I think each of the departments should own up to the problem files. Maybe you could have gone back and got the various amounts of that $450,000 from the departments who weren't paying attention to the human resource files inside their department. Maybe that's where the money should have come from, you know? It's a terrible, terrible thing, Mr. Chairman. If this has been allowed to go on inside departments, what else is going on? I really have to ask myself that question. Who is minding the ship? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, the issue we've had to deal with, yes, we have been saddled with some past problems and past backlog that we have had to wade through and look at how that happened. I would be more than happy to go back and prorate amongst the departments where the biggest backlogs came from and draw that money back. That's always an option at some on it to have that go through. So hopefully the other Ministers are paying attention to that.

But ultimately, as we say now, we've established this new department to focus on how we deliver human resources from this point on, not only looking at the people we have in place and where they were, but where they are now and some of the training that's required and the training that's getting done, but also our processes that were established. Why were systems done the way they were? Why were certain programs or how paper was handled set up? Those things have to be re-evaluated. That's why the Hackett Group has come in, as well as why we have customized our system as many times as we did when probably the best thing might have been done in the past was just to adapt our sources or processes to a new system, not adapt a new system to our processes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, it was recognized by the government, members of this government, Members of past assemblies, that disassembling the Department of Personnel in the 13th Assembly was probably not the best thing, even though departments of the day, boards and agencies of the day wanted that to happen because they felt they could make things happen quicker and better in the way they could do their processes. For a season, that seemed to have worked, but as we went down the path and heard more from our own employees about how they're getting dealt with or not getting dealt with, it became obvious that there were problems and problems were growing. So a decision was made that we could not afford to keep going down that path and we had to change direction and that's where we are now.

Yes, as I stated earlier, I would be more than happy to go back to my Cabinet colleagues and give them a synopsis of some of the things that have happened. On that basis, even go back to them, I can go back to them and say because this workload has come from you, you should have to pay for this portion of it. There may be some rules of our budgeting that we have to go through, but I would be more than happy to go back to my colleagues with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I do know that the corporate human resources kind of takes over whatever the corporate human resources services was doing in the past. Just one note, I guess, I want to point out and probably bring forward a motion to make a change in the activity description of this. In the corporate human resources services, the unit also develops and monitors the government's recruitment policy, affirmative action policy and other government-wide human resource policies, and everything else in the corporate human resources services activity description is pretty much summed up in the activity description of the new corporate human resources with the staff retention, employee recognition, the MAP program, the Summer Student Employment Program, everything but no mention of any affirmative action policy or no employment equity policy. I want to know why the department decided to not include that policy or the monitoring and the development of that policy in this new activity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can include it, for example, where we give examples of the policies that we are involved with and procedures we've put in place like staff retention, employment recognition, management program. We can incorporate that into there. One of the things we are going to have to do as well is we bring forward to Members a discussion paper about where we go with this. Is it affirmative action or is it employment equity? That will have to be incorporated as we proceed into the business plan stage. We can incorporate that into there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Minister's quick response on that. I don't know if I still need a formal motion to make sure that happens, but I don't think I do. I trust that the Minister would follow up with that.

I am just wondering, just to take it a little further, if the whole affirmative action policy that the government has drafted up had included an affirmative action advisory committee to be established to oversee that the affirmative action policy was being adhered to consistently and appropriately in all departments. I am just wondering if that is still on the radar screen with the corporate Human Resources department. Is there something in the department structure that is going to allow for an advisory committee to be able to help them develop and work with the GNWT independent advisory committee, I am hoping, to work with the GNWT Human Resources department to develop, monitor and implement employment equity policies and affirmative action policies consistently across the board? Would that be included in this new amendment? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in fact, in the affirmative action policy that is in place today, there is a provision for an Affirmative Action Advisory Committee. That was in place about 14 years ago and it didn't prove to be very successful or helpful in trying to deliver the program. What we've done now is as we develop policies, the deputies are working together. Instead of working in silos, one department taking care of one issue and not dealing with others, it's more across the board now informing other deputies so that there are buy-in to this.

What we have found in governments is if there is no buy-in to a certain program or policy established, the development or the implementation of that can ultimately

fail, I guess, because there is no buy-in. But I would suggest that as we get into this new discussion of where we need to go with our employment equity piece, that we can have this discussion included in there as well of is this the most appropriate means. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand where the Minister is coming from with the policy, that it wasn't as really as effective as it was intended to be. If the advisory committee is still going to be an integral component of overseeing the development and implementation of the employment equity policies and affirmative action policies, how are we going to try to ensure that, yes, the advisory committee is very effective in their development and in the communication that they have with the government to ensure that we could make this affirmative action policy work, and there is work being done on the affirmative action policy, and the employment equity policy that's being developed? If it wasn't working in the past, 14 years ago, when it was established, why wasn't it working in the past? Was there representation on the committee that actually represented affirmative action groups, and interest groups, and other NGOs, along with government personnel, to ensure that, as a watchdog advisory committee, they could be effective and, therefore, we wouldn't have been in the affirmative action situation we are in today if we did have some kind of an action advisory committee that was effective in what they wanted to accomplish and how they were going to develop and refine the whole affirmative action policy and the new equity employment policy that's going to be coming out?

So before an official policy of employment equity actually rolls out that we know that there has been some committee that kind of speaks on behalf of the representative population of the NWT to ensure that the policy could work for all sectors of the economy and population. Could we do that first before rolling out this employment equity policy or the replacement to the affirmative action policy, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Before the Minister responds, I would just like to welcome the people in the gallery really quickly. There are quite a few up there, so thank you.

---Applause

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, the affirmative action committee as in the policy hasn't been used for 14 years. At this point, we have just bounced and brought issues to the table with the deputy ministers across the board to get buy-in at that point.

I guess the idea of having an outside group then tell a government or department, no, you need to do it this way, would be much like if we, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, tried to step into the band council situation and say, no, you need to do it this way. Buy-in is going to be ultimate in a sense of getting things done. What I would propose to do is, when we sit down to have our discussion about where things should flow or go, I think that would be the time we can have our discussions on the pros and cons of doing this and how we can best make sure our policies are fully implemented. Ultimately, it comes down to this forum here where we have Members of the House holding government accountable for a lack of implementation or for not following the rules. I think that this is the sounding board we use in what Members say is happening in their communities and constituencies, and if the policy is being fully implemented. There is recognition that we need to do some work in these areas. As we laid out sort of the broad plan of corporate human resources, was the areas of not just corporate human resources but human resources across the board with the Government of the Northwest Territories was areas like our management side, our training programs, how we are or how we are not having employees move up the ladder, so to speak, and have those that started entry level positions end up being managers and directors at some point. We recognize that and we know we need to do work in that area. I think that is where, hopefully, once we get this portion of this first major backlog dealt with, then we can now go back, re-emphasize work in that area and start bringing back the discussion papers to see if we are, in fact, going down the right path with members. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.