Thank you, yes, I've now moved on. Sorry, Minister. You gave me the answer and I accepted that answer and so now I've gone onto purchase services. So I notice that there is a huge decline that's actually more than 50 per cent. Is this historical or is this part of the reduction process? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Minister.

I'm going to go to Michelle on this one for the detail. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is part of the re-allocation of the marketing communications budget from strategic human resources, so the contract services went up to 212 as the Minister indicated, and then we had internal re-allocations for the purchased services budget to move up into the contract services as well. So the answer is both. It is part of historical expenditures, as well as re-aligning some of the funding to re-allocate those services into an area management recruitment services from strategic human resources. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Simpson. Mr. Thompson?

We're good.

Okay, Next we have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to just dig a little deeper into the appeal process. I recognize that the appeal process is appealing procedural errors, but many of the people that actually launch the appeal thing to appeal process is something else, sometimes like perhaps maybe feeling that they weren't being treated fairly or that there is a bias in the process because the individual that just happens to be the casual that comes out to be the best candidate for the job most times which is kind of indicating to us that maybe if you get your foot in the door and you learn a little bit about the job you can probably beat everybody else in the job. So when there's an appeal requested and individuals launch an appeal the officer looks at only the procedure. Usually after this many competitions the government's not making procedural errors, so most times the decision is upheld and individuals lose the appeal. I want to know if there's going to be any system in place moving forward that looks at things other than just the appeal process, I mean, sorry, just the procedural process.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the appeal process is fairly strict and I mean fairly thorough as the Member's indicating and it is based on procedure. I think the Member's talking about something else and I don’t believe at this time we're putting any mechanisms to have that discussion. However, having said that, I'm a strong advocate and I'm encouraging the Members to have their constituents who approach them who have concerns about, you know, their inability to get a job with the Government of Northwest Territories to get in touch with some of the individual client service managers that exist within the Department of Human Resources. These individuals are prepared and ready and willing and able to give advice on interviews and how the interview process works and the Government of the Northwest Territories helps them understand the types of things that they might want to do to be prepared.

They are also available to give some advice and guidance on resume writing, on the types of things that they'll be looking for during the competitions, the staffing officers and the hiring departments were looking for in resumes so that people can be better prepared. Our client service team and managers are happy to meet with people and give that advice. We want to work with Northerners to employ as many, but as far as the appeal process it is a procedural review.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I recognize that that is the role of the appeal officers to look at potential procedural errors. What I'm asking is, is there anything aside from procedural errors that makes the appeal process almost redundant? If you're only looking at procedural errors and you're not looking at anything outside of that, this appeal process is -- you know, as the Minister indicated we may be the only jurisdiction to have that type of process because it's probably not effective because it looks at just procedures. What I want to know is are there any potential or future plans to look at an individual that applies for a job that appears to be a priority one candidate that appears to have all of the qualifications that are laid out in the job ad, and then the individual puts their name in and they lose the job, so they appeal it and they said procedurally everything was fine. But they're not looking at the fact that maybe he was the most qualified person for the job but yet was not considered. That's what I'm asking is there anything outside of just this procedural appeal that could give people an opportunity that should have been getting jobs to get those jobs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, if a P1 candidate applies for the job and is the most qualified and isn't offered the job, it would have to be based on something, either procedural error or the person did not pass a component of the competition. The person would have the appeal rights if they failed the competition or failed the interview. I am not sure what the Member is getting at. We want to be fair. We want to be open. We want to be transparent. We are encouraging people to be ready. We are happy to help them be ready. When it comes to a competition, every individual still has to meet the qualifications, pass the interview, and in turn be offered the job. I am not sure exactly what the Member is getting at. If the Member could maybe be a little bit more clear and help me understand that, it would be great.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Beaulieu.

What I am saying is a qualified priority one candidate goes to interview and does fail the interview, it has nothing to do with the procedure of it. Went through all of the procedure. But the individual is feeling that whether it was the written assignment that, according to the individual, was not given a fair assessment on the written assignment, or that during the interview the individual was not considered to be a good candidate by the people doing the interview and got a failing grade. A person that doesn't have a priority status wins the job over the person. So the person is feeling that that is what the issue is. It has nothing to do with procedures. Where could that individual go to launch any sort of appeal?

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I think I have a better understanding. I think the Member might be talking about systemic barriers or other things that may exist within the system and how we work to address that. We do have an Affirmative Action Policy that all departments are bound to utilize and apply. We do have the appeal process where an individual, if an error in process has occurred, they can appeal. I would suggest that if the Member is aware of situations where somebody is claiming that they were not given the credit that they deserve because they are P1, that is a discussion that I would like to have with the Member. If he has some individuals that he can identify, I would certainly be willing to have that conversation with him.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Beaulieu.

Rather than bringing it up for a political sense and discussing it with the Minister, there is nothing in place, then, to ensure that priority one candidates applying for jobs, who are qualified, are given every opportunity into getting a job. Right now, as I understand it, whether you are a qualified priority one candidate or not, you go through the steps that -- I cannot talk about specific cases here, but I will talk directly to the Minister about the specific cases. If a priority one individual is going to apply for a job where there is actually an individual filling that position as a casual, that is not a priority one candidate, often that person gets the job. I don't want to start drawing upon the numbers of times I have had that happen with me since I became an MLA nine years ago. What I am saying is, is there any way of protecting or is there anything in the system that will allow a priority one candidate to be given preference because this is what this is about. Affirmative action is about preferential hiring.

So is there any way that this type of appeal process would pick up anything that the candidates coming forward feel is unfair treatment, not necessarily procedural error treatment, but unfair treatment, or not, given the full opportunity to present themselves as a good candidate for this job? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. I am going to recognize a reply to that, and the ten minutes is up. Mr. Minister.

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.