Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair there are a couple of things I would like to talk to. There is the allegation that some departments are utilizing casuals. I may be not paraphrasing this exactly right. If I don't nail it, I apologize. It sounds like the Member is suggesting that casual hires are being used to train individuals who then get jobs, as opposed to the other candidates who might be applying, which may not be fair. I have heard similar things. It is anecdotal.
What I will commit to do is have the department do a bit of a review over the past year or two. Going back further than that might be difficult, identifying how many casuals in turn ended up directly in positions, through the competition process, that they had been occupying as casual. That will start giving us some numbers and start maybe taking this from anecdote to reality, at which point we can have a more fulsome discussion.
I apologize if I missed it, but I think what the Member is talking about to some degree is about some of the systemic barriers that may exist within our system. Individuals may in fact meet the criteria on paper, but they may then result in not passing a competition, not passing a written assignment, not passing the oral portion of an interview. It may be based on systemic barriers. We are currently reviewing job descriptions and how we write job descriptions to try to remove some of the systemic barriers that have been inadvertently placed within our job descriptions to make them a little bit easier to understand and assess. The catch is interviews are based on what is in job descriptions. So if we start removing some of those barriers that we put in, it should make it more competitive and fair for individuals who are applying on jobs who might have language barriers or other challenges they are being faced with.
We are also constantly looking for ways to improve our interview process to recognize some of these systemic barriers, language being one of them, that sometimes can be an impediment to passing an interview. As a territory that supports eleven official languages, that is not something that we want to accept or tolerate. We are looking for ways to improve our interview process. At the end of the day, individuals have to be assessed on something. The resumes that are submitted are just one tool. They have to be interviewed. They have to, in some cases, do written assignments. People do have to pass it. If they are not passing, we need to understand why. We are trying to break down some of those systemic barriers that we may have inadvertently created over time.
As far as the appeal process, it also has to be based on something. It can't be based on opinion. It has to be based on something that is structured, which is why the appeal process itself is based on procedures. I am happy to work with committee to try to find ways to break down some of these systemic barriers we may have inadvertently created. I am not sure that an opinion portion of an appeal mechanism makes any sense as far as the structure.