I just want to follow up on that question, Mr. Chair. Seven total were proposed; five were accepted? Does that mean two of them

were from the regions and they weren’t accepted, or does that mean that seven additional ones were proposed and not accepted?

Thank you.My question is similar to the one that Mrs. Groenewegen just asked. Specifically, I am interested, actually, to hear some examples of the types of things you’d try to do to streamline the organization to find some efficiencies. There are large organizations out there with far more staff than the GNWT, and they run their organizations in such a way that staff get paid on time, labour relations are dealt with in a timely manner, and training and development is seen, recognized and delivered. Succession planning’s a reality.

I am not saying those things aren’t a reality with the GNWT, but we have a very large HR unit compared to some of these large international and national corporations. I’m wondering if there’s been any research done into sound business practices on

how best to deliver human resource services and find those efficiencies and increase productivity within the organization itself. This is without necessarily resulting in additional job cuts within the department itself but maybe reorganizing or restructuring a little bit so we’re able to provide services in a timely and effective manner. Specifically, if you can walk us through some of the best practices you guys have been researching in order to find greater efficiencies.

Mr. Chair, in listening to the Minister's statement, I see that he's indicated that there's been a decrease in four positions, which is technically true, but there were actually five positions eliminated as part of the reduction exercise, all in Yellowknife, and then there was one position created in Fort Smith. So, technically, five positions have been eliminated as part of this reduction exercise.

I'm not as upset or as disturbed by the elimination of these five positions, as they were all vacant. I'm more concerned on a territorial level about eliminating positions where there are actually people in them. So as far as getting rid of vacant positions goes, I'm not as concerned.

Areas that I do have some questions about — and I'll be asking some questions later. You've identified five positions you're eliminating, but you've also reduced service levels in a certain number of areas — specifically around Maximizing

Northern

Employment, in areas of program workshops for grads, the Graduate Transition Program, as well as social work and teacher placement. I'm curious, given our strategic plan in supporting Northerners and maximizing northern employment, getting Northerners into northern jobs, whether or not those areas are necessarily the areas we would want to be cutting.

One position you're eliminating does concern me more than the rest, and that's specifically the nurse educator mentor position. In the Premier's budget address he talks about expanding the nurse practitioner training, reducing wait time through a one-time $1.8 million investment, and increasing on-the-job training for the Community Health Nurse Development Program. I'm curious how you can be expanding things like the Community Health Nurse Development Program when another department, Health and Social Services, has indicated they're cutting the pot for the Community Health Nurse Development Program significantly, and the Department of Human Resources, which is responsible for administering the program, is getting rid of the nurse educator mentor. So I just want some clarity on that and to know whether or not the elimination of that nurse educator mentor is going to adversely affect the delivery of the Community Health Nurse Development Program.

As we dig through, there are some other areas that I'd like to ask some questions on, but I'm good for now.

Thank you.

Department of Human Resources

The members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations met with the Minister of Human Resources on April 8, 2008, to review the Draft Main Estimates for 2008–2009.

Committee members made note that the Department of Human Resources is proposing spending $32.264 million in operation expenses in

fiscal year 2008–2009. Overall, the committee felt that the proposed reductions focused too much on position cuts and not enough on improving business practices and streamlining efficiencies.

Regional Human Resource Services

The committee made it clear that position cuts should not disproportionately affect the regions. Members were concerned about the overall human resource capacity of the GNWT to service the regions, especially in the field of recruitment and retention for health, social services and education. The committee stated that the government must provide support to the regions, especially during seasonal hiring requirements; for example, teachers in the spring, community nursing pool, and improved physician recruitment for regional and community health facilities.

Affirmative Action Policy

Members pointed to the importance of ensuring that the public service is representative of the population it serves. The committee urged the government to consider the affirmative action status of incumbents when positions are proposed for elimination. The government needs to apply the Affirmative Action Policy and ensure that layoffs of aboriginal employees do not exceed their proportional representation within the GNWT’s workforce.

Some of the priorities Members look forward to discussing with the Minister of Human Resources include the review of the effectiveness of the existing Affirmative Action Policy and the potential for replacing it with a new employment equity policy. Members were particularly concerned about the underrepresentation of aboriginal people in senior management positions.

Medical Travel Assistance and Dental Program Benefits for GNWT Employees

Members were very concerned about the steady increase in expenses for medical travel assistance and dental programs that are part of the benefits of GNWT employees. The committee recognizes that these expenditures are the biggest cost driver of the Department of Human Resources’ budget. An analysis of cost drivers would be the first step. Members look forward to discussing the review undertaken collaboratively between the departments of Human Resources and Health and Social Services with the Minister.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the government look at alternative and more cost-efficient means to provide medical travel assistance and a dental program as a benefit to GNWT employees.

Maximizing Northern Employment Programs

Committee members were concerned about several reductions to Maximizing Northern Employment programs — in particular, cuts to graduate and summer student programs, the Graduate Transition Program, the Social Work and Teacher Graduate Programs.

Members fear that these reductions will have a disproportionate impact on smaller communities and the regions. The committee questions how the government will succeed in attracting young Northerners in the public service if programs with proven track records of success are being cancelled or reduced.

Given the demographics of the GNWT’s workforce, succession planning and the development of a younger northern workforce are crucial steps toward future sustainability of the GNWT public service.

Capacity and Mandate of the Department of Human Resources

Members also expressed concerns regarding the department’s capacity to fulfill its mandate and functions at the present time. The inherent backlog since the amalgamation of the human resource services of the GNWT is still not completely dealt with, and issues with the implementation of the Human Resource Information System took their toll on staff morale of the department and the overall confidence of GNWT employees.

The committee urges the government to look at ways to improve the everyday operation of the department and its financial and business planning and looks forward to discussing future improvements with the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the committee’s Chair to continue. Thank you.

I was wondering if I can get from the Minister some sort of commitment as to when something might actually happen with these houses. The longer they sit vacant, the more they cost us. At a time of fiscal restraint it seems like a bit of a poor use of our public funds. Can I get some commitment or a timeline on when we might see those assets disposed of in some way?

Once again to the Minister Responsible for the Housing Corp. Clearly, in this case there were no eligible candidates. I’d be curious, first, why they were actually built in that community.

Secondly, now that we know there are no candidates and the houses have sat vacant for two years, I’m wondering what the Housing Corp. is planning to do and whether they’re planning to work with, say, Education, Culture and Employment to find alternative uses for those houses. Every day that we leave those houses vacant and we have to pay for heat, it costs the government. So what are the plans, and how does the Housing Corp. plan to dispose of this asset, whether through selling it or giving it to another department to use it another way?

My questions today are to the Minister Responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation and relate specifically to the houses that were constructed in Fort Res that now sit vacant. It’s my understanding that at least three of these homes were built by the Housing Corp. through the home ownership program and that, once constructed, there were no eligible candidates to actually take over those houses. So they’ve been sitting vacant for two years.

My question to the Minister is: what criteria are used in determining which community these homes are built in, in anticipation that they will be purchased through the home ownership program?

I’d like to recognize Blake Lyons, the president of the Yellowknife Seniors’ Society, an ex-city councillor and a constituent.

In a time of fiscal restraint it's important that the government is responsible with the money and that every dollar spent is spent well and for maximum benefit. I'd like to talk to you right now about an example of where I found government funds are not necessarily being spent in the most logical or responsible way.

On April 28 I was in Fort Res with the Standing Committee on Social Programs doing some public hearings. Prior to our public hearing we went on a tour of the community. As we were walking down the street from the band office to the school, we passed three really nice, brand-new homes — well built, well constructed, nice lots, nice property — all three of them completely vacant.

We went around the corner and we found another house, a nice little house. Apparently it was built by

students from the school as part of a trades development program — also vacant. In talking to the people from the community, it became obvious that these houses were actually built by the NWT Housing Corporation as part of the home ownership program. Unfortunately, upon completion of building these houses, the Housing Corp found that there was nobody eligible to purchase the homes. So for two years those homes have been sitting vacant in Fort Res, unused, getting older, and the government continues to maintain them, continues to heat them, continues to make sure that there's water. To me, this isn’t necessarily a logical way to spend our money.

I understand the value of housing. I think housing is important and we need to make sure that there’s available housing. But if there are no eligible candidates in the community, I’m not sure why we would build the houses themselves. It would probably have been a lot better to actually go to the community, find out if there are eligible candidates, and if there are eligible candidates, work with those candidates to construct homes. Once again, I believe this is a poor use of funds. I think we need to solve this problem. We need to find some way to use those houses in that community to the maximum benefit of the people in Fort Res.

Later today I’ll be asking the Minister Responsible for the Housing Corp. some questions concerning these houses and the government’s program with respect to home ownership and how they decide where they’re going to build houses and when. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.