If you like, Mr. Minister, you can refer the question to the Minister responsible for that information.

That’s okay. Instead of tying up the Human Resources Minister on this, we’ll use that valuable time to make sure we get the full answer from the Minister at that time. I just would hope the Minister would bring it with her at that time.

As well as the details of — some breakouts of where the locums are situated and whatnot…. That being said, I suspect that the Minister of Human Resources…. Did he play a role, not specific to the nurses but territory-wide? When it comes to government employees, does Human Resources track overtime and allocation of hours? Specifically, the reason I raise that is in the context of things like corrections officers where they have to utilize a lot of extra turns and casuals, and sometimes there are a lot of cases of overtime. It’s a similar quagmire when it comes to the nursing field. They’re always calling people in. In regard to trying to find people through the overtime process and whatnot, do they track any of that?

I think the question you’re asking will appear on page 2-82 under Employment Services in regard to overtime and whatnot. If you like, you can hold your question until then, but if the Minister would like to answer it now?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Generally, the overtime is tracked by the departments. We work with the departments to develop policies that would apply across the board so all employees are dealt with consistently and fairly. For example, we have a government-wide policy that restricts the amount of overtime you can carry and also how much you would be paid out. We’ve run into problems in the past with people leaving the government who have carried a lot of overtime with them. We track it on that basis.

I find it interesting that the Minister has, on a number of occasions, highlighted the fact that not just his department but a number of departments don’t fund positions at 100 per cent. That may be an extremely clever accounting process. I recognize that — I think he said earlier — we have a 14.2 per cent turnover. That may be the theoretic approach to not implementing full salary in the department, knowing very well that they’ll never use it. But yet, it does bring in the question about whether that’s a proper formula process.

I know the clock’s ticking now, so I’m going to squeeze two questions together. I know the Minister will take more than a minute to respond, I’m sure. Why don’t we have a policy that says one employee, 100 per cent salary? I think that’s a true articulation of what’s actually happening there. If it’s not used, I’m of the belief it should be returned. The public is demanding a more accountable sense rather than that money is allocated to pay for a warm body in a seat. That’s what it’s intended for, not for who knows what.

Mr. Chairman, my other question really is — although I’m running out of time and I don’t know if anyone’s after me, but I’ll just assume there is…. I’d like to explore this unfunded position a little further. I was highlighting some questions yesterday about who we are paying, who’s really on the books.

Some concerns I have are: what is the policy for unfunded positions? The way I see it, a departments should be declaring every single person in the budget. It’s the way we prove this book called our budget. If it’s not in the budget, it shouldn’t be there.

I’d like to hear the details of the policy, if one exists. If one doesn’t exist — and I’m concerned that we don’t have one, and…. Essentially this House is approving this budget. We account for every single employee, yet you’re able to fund full-time employees, possibly with the benefits. Not just your department; you said, across the board, that they’re throughout the government. Do we really have a grasp on how many unfunded positions are out there, and what’s the policy that drives them?

I guess it all boils down to how much detail the Members want to get into. Generally, the approach that has been taken is we let the managers manage. The expectation is that they come in within budget, and they manage on that basis. To micromanage every department for every single position would be excessive, but certainly what the Member is talking about is essentially a budgeting issue. If that’s the direction the Members want to go, then certainly we would communicate that back to the Financial Management Board, or the Minister responsible for that area, and they could approach it on that basis.

We’re on page 2-63, Management and Recruitment Services, Upgrades, Manager Summaries: $7.341 million. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear any details as to if there’s any policy — whether it exists or not — on unfunded positions, to understand what the clear practice is.

I indicated that was a budgeting issue. This is the direction…. When the call letters go out, the Minister responsible for budgeting could ask every department to identify each position. The general approach is that the departments are free to budget as long as they come in within budget.

Mr. Chairman, if I were to ask the Human Resource Minister, and I probably will…. Let’s assume this is an ask. Does the Human Resource Minister have any grasp on how many unfunded positions there are out there in the government and what it’s costing the government?

Mr. Chair, we know how many positions we have in the government. The expectation and the requirement is that all departments have to come in within budget, so it’s not costing the government incrementally any more than they’ve already budgeted for.

Mr. Chairman, could I assume that “know” in the context of anywhere but this Minister’s

department, whereas he does not know how many unfunded positions are out there.... Can I understand that he’s not aware of what that costs the government?

Just a clarification on the question that’s being asked. Under page 2-52 we have Active Positions, but I don’t think we have a page that talks about inactive positions or positions that aren’t there. Again, it more falls in line with that section, but the Minister could answer the question.

As we know, Mr. Chair, how many positions are out there with regard to which are funded and unfunded is a question best posed to individual departments.

I just want to get to the sense of one thing the Minister had mentioned about the micromanagement process. I wouldn’t want to think that I’ve got time, or I would hope that every Minister doesn’t have time, to micromanage every single position. But money’s funded for positions. The way you make it sound is that we reward them if they find a way to cleverly come in, whether it’s the fact that they haven’t filled a position on purpose or the fact that they haven’t been able to fill a position because no one has wanted it. But the fact is that any money left over shouldn’t be seen as a reward, giving carte blanche to a way to spend it, in that by just saying, “As long as they spend within their budget,” that’s fine.

I’m of the belief that when we approve Human Resource money, it should be allocated to Human Resource money. In this particular case, if their budget isn’t allocated, I think it creates that flexibility to do those things that maybe the Minister is alluding to.

What I’m trying to stress here is the fact that, as well, we have unfunded positions. I’m not saying I’m against them, though it may sound like it. I wouldn’t want to give you that sort of taste in your mouth, that that’s my position. It’s not necessarily that; it’s the fact they’re not on the books that causes me concern. When we talk about not funding positions properly, that causes me concern, and that also causes me concern from a management point of view. When you’re budgeting these things, have you budgeted them properly? That, I think, comes into question.

So, Mr. Chairman, there’s no question to this; whether the Minister wants to comment or not would be his choice. But, that said, my issue with it is that we fully account for positions that we employ people for and they get recognized. My fear is that positions that may or may not be left vacant are there, and that money is being used outside of what I would describe as the human resource process, which I think it should be allocated for.

I would just want to point out again that under each department there’s a list

that says Active Positions, but I think both of you are right. I think the question has to be put to the appropriate department as we go through each activity under Active Positions. Each one has a determinate full-time position, determinate part-time, and then you have seasonal positions. I think the question — that question you’re asking for — is not in the purview of the Minister; it’s in the purview of each department. I think it’s important that that question be asked of every department as we go through this process.

For the Department of Human Resources, we provided all the Members with a complete breakdown of every position that was funded or unfunded or vacant or filled. With regard to how positions are costed: when positions are filled, people are paid at different step levels. How you cost them for budgeting exercises is within the purview of individual managers. If it’s felt that every position should be budgeted at 100 per cent of the pay scale, well, then, you have people, new hires, who are generally hired at, I don’t know, 65 per cent, 70 per cent.

So all those things have to be taken into consideration when you’re budgeting for your salaries.

We’re on page 2-63, Activity Summary, Management and Recruitment Services, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.341 million.

Department of Human Resources,

Management and Recruitment Services, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.341 million, approved.

The next two pages are in regard to Management and Recruitment Services, Active Positions, information item, pages 2-64 and 2-65. Agreed?

Department of Human Resources,

Management and Recruitment Services, Active Positions, information item, approved.

Page 2-66, Corporate Human Resources, Activity Summary, Corporate Human Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $7.689 million. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 2-66, under Employer of Choice, we see detail that breaks out quite a bit further, which is fine. My question really is about staff retention. I’d like to know what the employer of choice, in the section about staff retention…. What do they produce, or what do they propose to maintain — or I should say retain? — staff?

Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We administer a staff retention policy, which is a policy

whereby we try to keep all of our staff who are in an affected position.

But what does it produce? I’m trying to understand. I mean, is it a think tank of people who sit there and come up with ideas? I’m trying to get some detail as to what this function really is. Is it a policy that just says we like people and we want them to keep working for us? Or is it something where they sit around; it’s a think tank where they try to find a process to make sure employees are happy in their workforce and feel their contributions are recognized, and they strive to make sure that employees feel they’re part of something bigger but not forgotten?