Considering the fees and payments total is $302,000, is that referencing the total for the whole of the department or just for the directorate? It kind of doesn’t make sense.

A reasonable question, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. McLeod.

I guess I should have been more specific. The $628,000 is part of HR; $270,000 is the part that’s here in the directory. The remainder is in HR strategy and policy.

I’d like to go to Mr. Abernethy next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may have answered it, but I just may not have understood or heard it properly. In the 2006–2007 actuals under Fees and Payments you had $545,000. In the Main Estimates for ’07–08 you had $302,000, but your Revised Mains were quite a bit lower than that. They were $117,000. This year you’re coming back with exactly the same amount as the previous year’s Mains under Fees and Payments. Can you tell me the history there? Because I see that it gets high, then goes down, then drops to the Revised Mains, and now you’re putting it back up to where it was next year. Was there a reason that it dipped that year, or is this an area that maybe we can look at for reductions? What were the fees and payments for, and why did they dip last year?

Ms. Woodward.

So the increase is mostly around the TSC chargeback area. It wasn’t growth –– was it –– that increased this area back up to $302,000? You found it from within.

That’s correct, Mr. Chair.

Any further questions on Operations Expenditure Summary? To recap, under Directorate, Operations Expenditure Summary $705,000. Agreed?

Department of Human Resources, Directorate,

Operations Expenditure Summary: $705,000, approved.

Information item. Any questions on the next two pages, Active Positions under Directorate?

Moving on, we’re on page 2-59, Human Resource Strategy and Policy, Operations Expenditure Summary, $4,855,000. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Human Resource Strategy and Policy what policies were used when the government was conducting its reduction exercise and targeting positions government-wide? I'm just wondering what policies were put in place or what policies were used in determining whether or not a position should be reduced.

Mr. Chair, it was up to the individual departments to determine the best approach and identify potential reductions for review at Cabinet level.

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of a comprehensive human resource strategy or plan government-wide, I'm just wondering again how the government could make decisions in the area of staffing without a model to follow and how it is that they could just rely on deputy ministers and departments to come back with possible reduction scenarios. That's got to contravene some type of policy. It contravenes good judgment; I know that. But it's got to ring some alarm bells somewhere when we don't even have a comprehensive human resource plan for the future and we're out there hacking and slashing positions. So, again, I'd like to ask the Minister that.

Mr. Chair, I think it's important for the Member to recognize that the responsibility for management and dealing with human resources is held jointly with the departmental senior managers. The departments have been delegated authority to do all of the hiring and staffing, and the Department of HR provides services to departments. So, as such, the departments have authority to make those kinds of decisions, and we provide services and facilitate the human resource functions.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for that. Under the title "Quality Assurance — Monitors and evaluates human resource services and activities to ensure delivery supports effective human resource management. Provides guidance and feedback on human resource processes and procedures." I'm wondering: how was quality assurance employed when it came to the staffing reductions that the government is embarking upon?

We would ensure that the different aspects of staff retention and layoffs were adhered to, and proper notification and so on.

Did the Department of Human Resources work with each department in the area of quality assurance to ensure that each department was following through on the human resources procedures and processes that are in place to ensure they weren't contravening any policies, Mr. Chairman?

I wouldn't say it was quality assurance that did that. But the HR department did work with senior management of different departments so we could identify potentially affected employees.

Mr. Chairman, some of the stories that Members have heard — and, again, we waited three weeks to actually get any information from the government in terms of the positions that were being impacted. I'm just wondering how that could happen. How could it take three weeks for the government to let Members know which positions were being impacted?

Some of the stories that Members have heard from constituents, where they're put into a situation where it's every man for himself or every woman for herself. There are three positions left in a shop and there are four people there, so somebody…. It's like playing human resources spin-the-bottle or whatever to see who's left standing at the end of the day. To me, that's just not a humane way to go about a reduction exercise. There are a number of these stories out there, Mr. Chairman. Also, there are stories out there where departments, if left to their own devices, are going to go after people they don't like or after people they've had run-ins with in the past. There are examples of that out there.

Again, I'd like to ask the Minister what he has done to ensure that every possible scenario was covered in this so that that type of scenario doesn't play itself out. I know it has played itself out, so obviously we've failed somewhere, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, all of these scenarios that the Member refers to we deal with on the basis of a merit principle. As such, that guides the staffing approach that is taken, and it guides our staff retention and any provisions for layoff. The senior managers of departments have delegated authorities.

If there are specific instances that the Member is aware of where staff weren't dealt with properly or were mistreated, then we certainly would look into it. But I'm not aware of any of those circumstances.

Mr. Chair, this question is going to sound an awfully lot like the last question. In the '07–08 Mains you had a total budget of $716,000

under Contract Services and $458,000 under Other. Under Contract Services your Revised Mains are $116,000 lower, yet this year you've come back to the full amount of $716,000. Under Other you're at $458,000. You dip down to $207,000 by way of the Revised Mains, and now you're back up to $368,000. Granted, we don't have previous years, so we don't see much of a trend here, but why did these numbers dip in the Revised Mains and why are we putting them back up? Is there an opportunity for some cost savings here by way of keeping the contract services and the others lower than you are currently projecting?

Thank you. Ms.

Woodward.