That’s not how it works. The turnover government-wide on an annual basis is about 10 percent. Last year the government turned over roughly 600 positions government-wide. I’ll ask Deputy Minister Haener to help explain why that’s not the case.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Ms. Haener.

Thank you, Ms. Haener. Mr. Hawkins.

Generally, I would agree with I’ll call it the broad observation provided by the deputy minister, and I would say, from my point of view, I hear your point, but the issue of a 10 percent average, as the Minister has highlighted, a 9 percent average as he said earlier specific to the Department of Justice, and this dollar amount adding up to, on a rolling basis, just under $6 million. That tells me that if a position is open, there are dollars not being allocated whatever number of days that it’s not being allocated towards. Now, you don’t pay casuals at 100 percent of the normal cost and they don’t cost the full value of what a full-time employee may have cost, so they’re rolling dollars that are being left, I guess, in the system as positions are being filled and being made vacant. At the same time, I agree that, yes, in some cases it may be short periods of time they’re vacant; however, at the same time there are positions where there are extended vacancies so that’s where we get the rolling average, I would assume.

If there is a rolling average then I would ask this: If the Minister has identified just under $6 million that’s attributed to the approximate 9 percent vacancy in the Department of Justice, out of that just under $6 million, how much money is basically not being spent in the department on human resources? Because this is probably a calculation the department makes every year when they look at rolling the money back as a surplus at the end of the year.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The assumption the Member is making is that the vacant positions are vacant for the entire year.

That, of course, is not the case. That’s not reality, but I’ll go to Ms. Schofield for a further explanation.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Ms. Schofield.

Thank you, Ms. Schofield. Mr. Hawkins.

There must be some of those salary dollars not being specifically allocated to human resources, because when you have the rolling vacancy that means there’s a vacancy. Yes, sometimes it’s 9 percent and sometimes it’s probably down to 4 percent, other times it must be 15 percent. That’s why we pick an average to work off of and that’s why I asked the department about the average. How much of that money isn’t being allocated to human resource dollars and where is that money going?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Ramsay.

It’s being spent on compensation and benefits for the employees that we have at the Department of Justice. We operate 24 hour a day, seven day a week, 365 day a year operations at our facilities and those dollars are spent in the areas that the Members see in the main estimates.

I can take that at face value, but how do you account for 9 percent vacancies and just say that all the money is being used up? I mean, the money must be going somewhere. I mean, when you add up 9 percent, which is just under $6 million, there are vacancies so that position, whatever the vacancy is attributed to specifically, that money has got to go somewhere, and that’s the money I’m asking about. What we’re hearing is it’s just being gobbled up through other human resource needs. That may be the technical fact, but how it gets there is kind of the issue I’m

getting at. I hear that we have just under $6 million left on the table and yet it’s mysteriously being used through human resource things that I’m not seeing the direct connection to. That’s the connection I’m trying to get here, because quite frankly I mean, if a direct…

Quite frankly, what I’m seeing here is that, for example, if a director’s position was empty, I mean, you just don’t fill it with a casual that day. That’s an example, for goodness sakes, so we don’t take that on as an actual. You have the position vacancies. I don’t. The point being is in a director’s salary, I mean, where does it go? Oh, my goodness, you have more time at the jail and more time in the courts and money may be spent in those areas? Probably, but I view it as money that is specifically passed by this Legislature should be going to those particular allocations, and I’m trying to sort of put my finger on some of that.

Mr. Hawkins, was there a question in there?

I’m trying to put my finger on those allocations as to where the money is going. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Member is looking for a connection in the Department of Justice, there isn’t one there. We have the main estimates before us today. The Member talked about a director’s position. We’d look at putting somebody in there in an acting capacity. We’d look at perhaps training somebody. There are transfer assignments. There’s maternity leave, the use of casual, relief workers. The money that we do have is certainly earmarked for compensation and benefits to our employees.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Committee, we’re on 9-10, Justice, information item, active position summary. Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I note a pretty large increase in compensation and benefits under services to government. Could I get a bit of an understanding as to what we are adding here?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was for the legal divisions for support to devolution.