Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to welcome the Minister and the department here today. I’m going to start off by saying, I’m just going to quote a passage out of the opening comments here and it says that we are seeing an increase of $688,000, or 2.9 percent, versus last year. Now, just that number alone shows me, are we controlling expenditures? As we heard in the operational budget address, we want to keep our expenditures in line with revenues. Here is another classic example. I’m going to be putting every department on notice on this very concept. If we’re going to do blanket statements about that in the House, then we better support it with numbers.

It’s clear that we’re going 2.9 percent over and our revenue streams are only going up by 0.4 percent this year. If you look at the forecast for the next couple of years with our resource revenues and our resources in general, because of our funding formula, because of our population base not increasing, clearly this department is not in line with the expenditures relationship to revenue. I want to point that out. This is very obvious. If we’re going to continue to use language of “we want to do things in line,” then please, we have to justify that with the numbers. Clearly, this is not going in line with the statement.

Now, I am very pleased that we haven’t seen any more increases since the last time we looked at that, since last fall when we first did the first round of budget deliberations. So I’m pleased with the fact that we’re not seeing any future growth in expenditures since the fall of last year. But that being said, when I see blanket statements like that, it does beg to ask that question. Maybe the Minister may want to comment on that.

That being said, there are actually five areas I would like to cover. A lot of them will probably be captured in details. I just want to bring those five areas up today in a broader scope, if the Minister wants to comment on it. If I don’t hear the proper explanation or thoroughness, I will be bringing them back up in detail for more clarity.

Those five areas, in no particular order, except the last one, the most important, that I will leave for last. Now for the issue of vacancy management. This has been brought up many times in the House by many different Members for many different concerns. We even talked about that here today. What’s very puzzling is that we’re hearing we have to manually calculate some stuff, we’re creating tools and we’re building capacity. We’ve spent millions of dollars on PeopleSoft, millions of dollars. For me to hear we have to do a manual calculation for a simple ask begs the question what did we buy? What value did we get for the millions of

dollars we spent of taxpayers’ money to bring in what was stated and clearly brought to the House as being the epitome of software opportunities? What did we get if we have to manually calculate responses to Members?

I question the reporting tools of vacancy management. Again, as the Minister indicated, we only see this semi-annually, so twice a year. So what kind of transparency program can you offer Members? What transparency program can you offer the people of the Northwest Territories in the management of vacancy? The Department of HR is really the catch-all. It’s the funneling effect of all departments. It sets the tone for every department for vacancy management. So if our tools aren’t there or if our tools aren’t used properly, we are behind the eight ball on that issue. I really think I need some clarity on do we have the right program, do we have the right software and clearly is there more opportunity to provide transparency with that so we can answer those basic questions of what are our vacancies and all the statutes that go around them?

The second area I want to talk about is direct appointments and the policy in general about direct appointments and it’s not talked about in the general comments. To a certain degree, direct appointments are needed. I’m not saying direct appointments should be eliminated. I am saying direct appointments are needed in certain circumstances. In certain parts of our smallest communities direct appointments have value. I want to state that clearly. However, that policy is too broad of a concept to be used as a general panacea for all our government expenditures. When we’re looking at potentially 100 direct appointments per year – and I’m probably not far off with that number – that tells me we have a policy issue. When I read Jim Prentice coming on as Premier of Alberta and in his opening address saying we’re going to look at direct appointments in Alberta and put on a revitalization to lower them and get them in line so the people of Alberta see a transparent government. These are our brothers and sisters south of us who see it as a potential problem.

We, on the other hand, don’t see it at all. We see it as everyday business. I think this is an opportunity that this department, this Minister, has to deal with direct appointments and deal with them in a way that is more transparent. That they can bring more practicality and procedural fairness to our hiring policies so that we’re not shutting out people. How many people may leave the Northwest Territories knowing full well their position is going to be direct appointed? Why would they stay? Why would they? We’re trying to keep people in the Northwest Territories. So let’s think about the competition of jobs as much as possible. Yes, as I said in my earlier comment on this, sometimes it makes

sense, sometimes, but not all the time. That’s all I want to leave you with on that.

It was talked earlier about our Student and Youth Strategy. This is my third point. I’m pleased, I’m extremely pleased and I have to be honest and truthful when I see good stuff. This is some good stuff coming from the department. I have seen the recruiting fairs for our students. I’ve seen students feeling they’ve accomplished something. They have resumes in hand. They are speaking to different departments. They are leaving these fairs with smiles on their faces and they are feeling optimistic when they return back to school to finish their second term. I just saw that during the Christmas break. So, congratulations. You guys hit a home run with that and I encourage you to foster a better environment moving forward by using some of those principles that I saw with the recruiting program.

However, Madam Chair, the issue of whether we are meeting all the needs of all students, I don’t think we are. I think there are lots of students we could be hiring. But because we have a quota – we’re not printing money here, we have to be very careful of the money we spend – how many do we turn away? I think there are opportunities to look at and I’ve said this before. We can look at creations of 0.5 positions, half-time positions within our government, job sharing positions with our students and those students can go back and find jobs within the private workforce and help our private industry. Private industry is saying yes, I like that. So let’s facilitate that. Like I said, talk is cheap, whiskey costs money. We can do this if we put our minds together.

The other thing on my list is overtime policy review and reporting. This has been brought up many, many times about our policies and the standardization of our policies on overtime. The number one controllable expense in business is wage dollars. The number one expense in this government is wage dollars. We don’t talk about that because it’s a taboo subject. I’m not talking about reducing positions; I’m talking about right-sizing our workforce. It’s about looking at standardization over time, looking at how we bank and looking at how we do our payouts. Clearly, we need some direction there. I’d like to get the Minister to talk about it.

Finally, Madam Chair, as I see the clock dwindling here, the number one issue, bar none, is our Occupational Health and Safety Program, or should I say the lack thereof. I have spent a lot of time in this House talking about our safety culture or the lack of a safety culture in the Northwest Territories for our government services. The fact remains that there is no standardization out there. We have no clear, definitive program of a safety culture and clearly this has been backed up by the courts. The

courts have said, “GNWT, wake up.” How many more guilty pleas and cases are we going to have to undertake and paying fines before this government wakes up and says we have to do something? Just having an active or valid WSCC certificate is by no way, shape or form a safety program. It just means you’ve paid your fees. I want to look at that as an opportunity within the boundaries of this department for this next fiscal year. I haven’t seen it thus far and I think there’s huge opportunity.

We have an opportunity to improve upon our safety culture. I’m hoping that it’s not the courts that will decide that in due process. I’m hoping that all department officials listening today, all department officials are going to be going back and reading the transcripts today, hear me. The day of reckoning is coming and it’s coming very close, Madam Chair, that senior people within our government will be held liable and accountable for wrongful issues involving safety and I don’t want to see that happen. I want to see some commitment moving forward.

Madam Chair, those are my five areas of general comments. Thank you.