Did the Department of Human Resources give any advice or recommendations to Cabinet prior to Cabinet making the staffing reductions? Mr. Chairman, I think that’s the crux of my question.

In terms of the positions to be

reduced, those were put forward by the departments. Of course, HR put forward their own reductions. It was our responsibility to make sure that those affected were dealt with properly.

I didn’t really hear a response there. It’s pretty much a yes-or-no question. Did Human Resources give Cabinet advice and recommendations on the staffing reductions? Yes or no?

The discussion’s in Cabinet.

Thank you, Mr.

McLeod. Anything further, Mr. Ramsay? Nothing further? I had Mr. Abernethy on the list next, but since he had talked and we’re running out of time here, I appreciate his holding off. We’ll go to Mr. Jacobson.

Mr.

Chair, getting back to my

colleague Mr. Krutko’s questions in regard to being reassigned, in the smaller communities what choice will they have in trying to keep their job available? Or would they be given another chance elsewhere?

Our experience with the staff retention policy is that if there’s no suitable job for an individual in their home community, they could look at jobs in other locations if they’re mobile and willing to move.

I just really want to stress that the job cuts in the smaller communities…. Families are not always willing to move and are unable to. It just really puts them…. A really pretty bitter taste, I guess, in the GNWT workforce in the communities if they’re just cut like that. But I’d like to see this

affirmative action. If the Minister could just make sure that the smaller communities that are being affected — that the opportunities are given to them.

We have the Staff Retention Policy. The whole reason for having that is to try to keep affected employees with the government, and the Affirmative Action Policy applies to that as well. So we’ll take every step to try to keep those employees and reassign them.

Thank you, Mr.

McLeod. Nothing further, Mr. Jacobson? We’ll move on to Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. My

question is for the Minister of Human Resources. It’s linked back to his opening remarks, but it’s only a reference to put relevance around it, because I want the exact wording when I ask my question.

The Department of Human Resources’ Main Estimates includes funding for 167 positions. Mr. Chairman, I need to reference that, because it’s clear as to how many positions they fund. For my clarity, or maybe the Assembly’s clarity, how many positions are there in total that are on the books or not on the books? How many funded positions are there in total within the Department of Human Resources, including the unfunded on-the-books positions?

There would be 167 funded positions.

I’ve been led to believe that a number of unfunded positions exist. Their titles may not be before me, if I could describe them as temporary positions, floating positions, you know, of that type of nature. I’ve been led to understand that some of the positions being kept unfilled; in other words, funded positions that are left vacant are being left on the books in order to fill those positions. Could the Minister provide some guidance and light on that observation?

Right now, as of March 31, the department had 153 indeterminate employees, nine term employees and 19 casual employees for a total of 180 employees. We’ve hired casuals to help us address a number of long-term problems for the department. Specifically, we’ve formed a backlog team to work on reducing the backlog within the department and also to fill in for employees who are on various forms of leave, be it maternity, paternity or otherwise.

My first question in this area, just to be clear, is: we have 167 positions, as cited by the Minister, but it sounds like we’re actually running 180 positions, if I understood that. How is he funding the over-and-above 167 positions that get us to the 180 number? Just to be clear, that’s approximately 13 positions.

We are funded for 167 positions. So at various times, people that are on leave without pay or what have you — we have to fill in behind them. So that’s how we would do it. We are expected to come in under budget or within budget.

I’ve been led to believe that a number of these positions have been left vacant for quite some time, as this is a funding principle or practice of this department. Could the Minister speak to that and offer some clarity?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can speculate — because I wasn’t there. As the Member may be aware…. I think he was he was around when the Department of Personnel was blown up and the people from the department were hired off to the different departments. Their budgets were reduced by 25 per cent and the departments were told, “Well, you guys can be more efficient, so you don’t need as much money.” It came back to haunt the formation of the Department of HR, because none of the departments were willing to give any more than they had received from the centre. As such, with the amount of resources that were available, a lot of the positions were funded at 75 per cent levels. So that was part of the issue. A number of positions were eliminated, because it was felt the department wasn’t adequately funded.

Mr.

Chairman, following this

example and formula I would say it’s obvious that Human Resources must be the shining example of government if they’re able to fund a heck of a lot fewer positions than they have. Maybe other departments need to take note of this formula, for some odd reason, because if you can be funded for 167 but still employ 180, there seems to be something really interesting going on. I’d like to know why all 180 aren’t on the books, first of all.

Secondly, I’ve looked over a list of filled and vacant positions, and I was sure I saw more vacancies than 15, as the Minister had suggested. I think he said there were 152 positions filled, with some terms and whatnot.

So, again, I just want to see further clarity on this, because it seems odd. Why don’t we have them all on the books if they’re needed, and how do we keep funding them? It’s of my mind that when people are migrated into a central department, many of them who were managers — who are no longer managers — would have been red-circled at their existing pay level.

I just don’t see how they can afford to pay people properly if this is as it is. I’m not a detective, but I can see that something’s missing here, and we’re missing some real detail.

Part of the explanation is that when HR was amalgamated, HR wasn’t allowed to lay anybody off. So, as such, we had more people.

I think the Member has to understand that just because you have positions, it doesn’t mean that those positions are funded. We are funded for 167 positions, and there are 37 vacant, unfunded positions, so there are positions on the books, but there’s no money or resources attached to them.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Anything further, Mr. Hawkins?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I only speak for myself in a context that's hypothetical, but I know that if I were the Minister of Human Resources, I would fight to get them on the books.

I would find it odd. I think we’re challenged, as Regular Members on this side, when we hear that you’re funding unestablished positions — in the formal context, when I call it that — and we’re not funding them properly. One could then beg to argue, “Well, if you can get by at a certain percentage short, why can’t everyone else get by?”

I just find it odd that these positions aren’t on the books, and I’d like to know why. For us to get the real picture of what’s happening over there, I think it also starts with the fact that we should know how many people are truly in that department, and then it falls out as to how are we paying them.

As I said — more tongue in cheek — this is a shining example. It seems to be an example that we’re shuffling resources in order to pay people that aren’t on the books. I don’t think that’s right. That’s not a good practice of showing our true accounting.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Would the Minister like to respond?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I explained, I’m not saying it’s right, either. I’m just saying that when positions were transferred into the amalgamated Department of HR, they weren’t fully funded. A lot of them were funded at 50 per cent; a lot of them were funded at 75 per cent. In order to fund some of the positions that were at the top of their pay level, we couldn’t afford to fill some of these positions, so they’re vacant positions with no funding attached to them.