Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of the Civil Service Commission.
Does the honourable Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission have an opening statement?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission): In introducing the budget Estimates for the Civil Service Commission for 1997-98, I would draw attention to the Supplementary Estimates Information which has been provided and contains a good deal of organizational program and financial information to assist the members with the Estimates review now before us.
The budget Estimates for the Civil Service Commission for 1997-98 remain largely unchanged depicting a decrease of approximately $100,000 from $4,164,100 to $4,063,900. This decrease has been achieved largely through the elimination of two staff positions; one a vacant computer programmer within the Administrative Services division and the other, a seconded administrative officer from the Human Resources Programs Branch.
For the coming fiscal year, collective bargaining will be a major priority within the Civil Service Commission as collective agreements with the MGEU and other bargaining groups expired on March 28, 1997. Negotiations with the MGEU and other bargaining agents representing provincial government employees are currently underway. The province provided its proposals for renewal of the collective agreement to the MGEU on February 18, 1997, and the MGEU subsequently responded with proposals to government on April 11, 1997. Negotiations are continuing between the parties. As minister responsible I am hopeful that a satisfactory agreement will be achieved consistent with the government's bargaining framework and overall fiscal goals. Other than this general information, while the parties are at the bargaining table I do not believe it would be appropriate to disclose or discuss details of negotiations at this point in time.
I am pleased to highlight the fact that our workforce adjustment process continues to operate with success in reducing the impact of potential layoffs within the civil service. This year's Estimates process identified a reduction of less than 200 staff years with approximately 100 employees being potentially impacted. Through application of our workforce adjustment process, only 45 letters of layoff were required to be issued in March and April of this year. Currently, 36 employees remain on the redeployment list and, of that number, 17 have been re-employed in various positions resulting in nine employees left to be placed at this point in time. Re-employment efforts will continue for these employees for the period that they remain on the re-employment list. Total employment in the civil service stood at 14,373 as of fiscal year end. This is a slight decrease of 122 employees compared with 1996. Of this total, full-time employment is represented by 11,256 employees, with the remaining 3,117 employees being part-time or casual.
Since 1991 the total civil service workforce has been reduced by approximately 3,000 employees, or 15 percent. At the same time that the civil service has become smaller, it is also growing older as the predominant baby boom population moves through our workforce. It is anticipated that, within the next five to 10 years, upwards of 25 percent of our civil service will exercise the right to retire. It is for these reasons that the government, through such measures as the Management Internship Program and recently announced Aboriginal Management Development Project are taking steps to implement new measures for human resource planning and development that will contribute to the renewal of the civil service as these retirements take place over the coming years.
Finally, Mr. Chairperson, as Minister responsible for The Civil Service Act, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and pay tribute to the tremendous effort and dedication that our provincial civil service has displayed over the past several weeks in battling one of the largest disasters in our province's history. It is at times such as these that public servants, working alongside private citizens and volunteers, have the opportunity to showcase the value of their services, their dedication and their professionalism. I think we can all take pride in many unsolicited and well-deserved compliments that have been expressed by the general public and all forms of the media directed at the terrific effort being put forward by our civil servants. Without question, the response of our civil service to this unprecedented state of emergency has been a real tribute to the quality of the civil service we have grown to enjoy within the province of Manitoba.
With these very brief opening remarks, Mr. Chairperson, I would now welcome questions from the members opposite on the Estimates now before us.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), have any opening statements?
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, just a brief comment as well on the role of the civil service in dealing with the flood of 1997. I think it is a shame, actually, though, that it takes something like a natural disaster of this calibre to bring out positive comments about the civil servants of the Province of Manitoba. Over the years that I have been in the Legislature, there have been a number of negative comments put forward by various members of the government about the civil service and about, most particularly, the Manitoba Government Employees' Union.
* (1520)
While I appreciate the comments put on the record at this point in time by the minister, I think it is incumbent upon the government to understand that the civil service operates that way all the time, more or less; that they do the jobs that they are hired to do. Over the last seven or eight years they have been doing them in very stressful situations on an ongoing basis with a 15 percent reduction in the civil service since 1991.
Even though many of those jobs have been reduced through attrition, the process of that attrition has been very stressful on the employees, not knowing who is going to be laid off or who is going to get pink slips, what jobs are going to be eliminated, what is the bumping going to be. All of these situations that happen when layoffs or reductions in the civil service take place lead to an increase in stress and workforce problems, and I do not think over time they have been recognized by the government.
So I am glad to see the government recognizing the positive role of the civil service. I hope that they will continue to do so as they negotiate with the MGEU another collective agreement and in their day-to-day activities and comments in the House and with the people of Manitoba.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say the remarks I made are not inconsistent with anything I have put on the record before.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic of the official opposition for her remarks. We invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff present.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to introduce my staff. Paul Hart, sitting next to me, is the civil service commissioner; on his left, Gerry Irving, assistant deputy minister, Labour Relations; and also with us, Bob Pollock, director of Human Resource Programs Branch
Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed to line 17.1. Civil Service Commission (a) Executive Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 20 of the main Estimates book.
Item 17.1.(a)(1) $163,600. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I am wondering if the minister could tell me if there are any current vacancies in this area of the department.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told there is one vacancy, one professional staff vacancy, with no budget dollars attached to it.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I see that. No budget dollars attached to it. It would help if I could read one of these things. So in this Executive Office category there is currently no professional/ technical person under salary?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the salary numbers reflected there are the salary of the commissioner, a support staff, and the stipends that are paid to board members.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister explain why there is a professional/technical line there since there is not an actual person attached to that, or is it just that this is the standard format for the Estimates reporting?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I confess that some of the staffing arrangements across government are still a mystery to me, and I recall being told by a previous deputy that sometimes staff years are more valuable than money. I guess this is a case where a staff year was left in place and there were not dollars attached to it.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I can understand that staff years would be like gold or some other precious metal, particularly with a reduction of 3,000 staff in the civil service as a whole. Is there any concern expressed on the part of other departments that there is this staff year sitting here for at least two years--I am not sure if it goes back any further than that--under Civil Service Commission, when there surely must be other departments that would like to have access to that SY.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that vacant staff years occur in many other departments.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister give me the remuneration rates for the Civil Service Commission, their per diem, if any, and any other rates?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the remuneration for the chair is $140 a day, and for members it is $70 a day.
Ms. Barrett: And is that for a full day or are there some--I recall that there used to be some categories or some boards or commissions that had half-day and full day, so that you could have a full-day meeting and be--
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there is just the one rate in place, that a meeting consists of three and a quarter hours and that there is not a half-day rate.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister tell me when the last time these rates were reviewed or changed, how many years it has been in place?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it was 1981.
Ms. Barrett: How often does the Civil Service Commission meet?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that it is a minimum of once a month. That once-a-month meeting is on administrative matters, and there may be a second meeting to deal with appeals.
Ms. Barrett: So that only if there were an appeal or appeals needing to be dealt with by the commission would there be more than a once-a-month meeting?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
* (1530)
Ms. Barrett: Would this be an appropriate time to ask about the appeals, numbers of appeals, et cetera? [interjection] Okay. I will do so then. I am wondering if I can get the number of appeals currently before the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The annual report that I have before me for '95-96 contains the information. In 1995-96 there were 15 appeals initiated; there were two appeals heard; there was one appeal granted and one appeal denied. Further to that, in '96-97, there were 13 appeals initiated.
Ms. Barrett: I was interested in '96-97 information. When will the '96-97 annual report be available?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it will be available before September 30.
Ms. Barrett: Is this a normal time delay between the end of the fiscal year and the issuance of the report?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there is a statutory--the legislative procedures are that they will be tabled by September 30.
Ms. Barrett: The appeals process--have there been any changes in the procedures that civil servants follow in order to initiate an appeal or to have it heard, or are the processes the same as they have been for the last few years?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told they are standard, that they are referenced in the collective agreement and in The Civil Service Act.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to ask a question under the Expected Results component of the Estimates. It says, "Ongoing review and revision to a strategic plan, role and mission for the Civil Service Commission." I am sorry, I did not check last year's Estimates book to see if this is the traditional statement, or is this a new addition to the expected results column?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the statement is identical to last year, and that, historically, they have reviewed it on an annual basis.
Ms. Barrett: What focus, or what are the components to that review and any revision? Is there a process that is undertaken? Is it a formal process or an informal process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it is the standard strategic planning process that they go through involving senior staff and input from others.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, what others?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The input is gathered from the board, from the client departments and from other staff within the department.
Ms. Barrett: Is there a formal gathering process? Is it initiated by the civil service staff, or does the Civil Service Commission receive input from the board, other departments and staff rather than proactively going out and asking for information?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This is, I am told, information requested by the Civil Service Commission, which, of course, has regular contact with all of their client departments, but there is a process whereby input is requested.
Ms. Barrett: Who does this regular contacting with all the departments?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it is the directors of the various branches within the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 17.1. Civil Service Commission (a) Executive Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $163,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $57,100--pass.
17.1.(b) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $542,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $280,700--pass.
17.1.(c) Human Resource Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $979,100.
Ms. Barrett: I am sorry. Is it possible to go back to 1.(b)?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Certainly, we can engage in any process the honourable member wants to here.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you. I was distracted.
Mr. Chairperson: I have, I believe, unanimous consent to go back to 1.(b)(1) or (2).
Ms. Barrett: This, I take it, is the Administrative Services and Management Information and Support Services. Am I correct? Thank you.
I am looking at a memo that I received from the previous minister, Minister Toews, last year in response to questions during last year's Estimates stating that there is no specific limit or formula applicable to retained earnings for Organization and Staff Development, i.e., any profits or retained earnings available to the agency at the end of the fiscal year can be used for reinvestment purposes or invested through the Department of Finance on the agency's behalf.
I take it that this means that if OSD runs a surplus that there is no specific directive as to what happens to that surplus; it can either be turned back to the agency or to the Department of Finance. Can the minister give me clarification on this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The question my honourable friend is asking would fall under 1.(e) Organization and Staff Development Agencies, but the member is correct in her interpretation.
Ms. Barrett: I am sorry to have brought it up under the improper grouping. Should I ask questions under it now? Okay.
Well, let us say there is $100,000 profit, just for the sake of discussion. Who makes the determination as to whether that money goes back to OSD or into the general revenue or is targeted back to another department?
* (1540)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am told the director would make that decision in consultation with the advisory board and if there was a surplus in discussion with Treasury Board, when the annual review of the operation of the board is held, a determination could be made there to return to general revenue.
Ms. Barrett: I am tired, but I think I heard the minister say that, one, the director makes the determination as to what to do with those additional revenues, in consultation with the advisory board, which is one answer, and then talked about Treasury Board being involved as well. Can he perhaps clarify that. At what point is the decision final? Does the director have the final determination, or does it have to be passed through Treasury Board?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the director, in consultation with the advisory board, makes that decision. If there is a surplus building that there are no commitments for in the annual reporting to Treasury Board, that money could be returned to general revenue. That is, if they do not have any plans for the money that has built up as a surplus.
Ms. Barrett: So the special operating agency, OSD, it would make sense then for it to have plans for any operating surplus, to ensure that those retained earnings or that money is able to stay in OSD rather than going back into general revenues. Would that be a process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, it is a very small agency with, I believe, expenditures around $750,000. They do keep a contingency fund. If there are plans and a need to have funds as determined by the director in consultation with the advisory board, they have the ability to proceed with those expenditures.
Ms. Barrett: So any retained earnings would be found under the contingency fund part of the budget, or could you have an additional source of revenue? I am trying to get at how much autonomy does the OSD have with regard to the money that it has access to.
Mr. Gilleshammer: They are no different than any other special operating agency where they have a reasonable degree of autonomy, and they have an advisory board to assist in terms of their planning. Again, if they have new initiatives that they want to proceed with, they have that opportunity to, in their planning and in their consultation, put that forward and go in that direction if they wish. The retained earnings, I believe, are separate from the contingency fund. Further to that, there is no separate contingency fund. I guess the point that I should be making is that the board will attempt to have a certain level of retained earnings to cover off things like sick leave or other unexpected expenditures.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, so to my inexperienced and unprofessional--in this kind of context, that to me is the kind of thing that you would use a contingency fund for, even though it is not called that. It is money put aside for the kind of expenditures that you might assume might be coming, but you have not potentially budgeted for.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, the retained earnings can be held at a level that these contingencies can be accommodated, and that is part of the discussion the director would have with the advisory board and, in turn, part of their presentation when they have their annual review.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, so the director in consultation with the advisory board could determine that the retained earnings would be legitimate at X level. Then they have an annual review with Treasury Board. Treasury Board could say, no, no, no; it has to be at X-minus-one level, and then Treasury Board then has the authority to tell OSD, go back and reduce your retained earnings. Is that an accurate assessment of the process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told there is a detailed business plan that is filed and that the activities that are encompassed within that detailed business plan are accommodated within their budget.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I understand that, and I have looked at some of the information about special operating agencies, although not recently. What I am trying to get at is, again, as I said earlier, the level of autonomy that the OSD has. It seems to me that one of the principles of special operating agencies is to act in a businesslike manner and, to that end, to try and work towards total cost recovery to whatever degree is possible in this particular SOA.
It could very well be that OSD does that and they have more money than they budgeted for. I guess what I am asking is, in that case, does Treasury Board have the authority to say, you have not planned for this, you do not have any plans put aside for if you did have some extra money, so we are going to take a portion of that and put it back into general revenue? Do the efficiencies accrue back to the special operating agency or would they go into, potentially could they go into the general revenue, based on the decision of Treasury Board?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the member is asking a hypothetical question. The special operating agency works very well towards its business plan and, by having an accurate plan of activities, they are able to live within their budget.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, so getting not hypothetical but actual, has this special operating agency ever had money taken away from it by the Department of Finance to be invested, as the previous minister said, on the agency's behalf?
* (1550)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer is no.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to talk a little bit, or ask some questions about the Better Methods Initiative that is identified under this 1.(b), the Service First Initiative under activity identification, participate in the Better Methods Initiative. Is this the proper place? Okay.
One of the statements around the Phase I findings is something I would like to ask about. It says, and I quote: Staff who work within these processes and systems will be affected by these dramatic changes. Better Methods is committed to a $5-million government-wide Workforce Adjustment Program, including, but not limited to, retraining, redeployment, and job search training. Choices will be tailored to each individual.
I would like to get some more specific information about that $5-million government-wide Workforce Adjustment Program.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that the question the member is asking is not lodged within the Civil Service expenditures but rather under the Enabling Appropriations located on page 129 of the budget document, Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment, and I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is the individual responsible for that particular budget line.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, then maybe the minister can clarify for me the first statement under activity identification which says, participate in the Better Methods Initiative to implement and integrate a human resource management system and the expected results at the end which is completion of Phase 3 of the Better Methods project, et cetera.
Mr. Gilleshammer: What that indicates, Mr. Chairman, is that we are one of many departments participating in the Better Methods Initiative.
Ms. Barrett: That is exactly what the activity identification says. What I am asking for is an explanation of what that means. How are you participating in it? Can you clarify what specifics are involved in that participation?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our participation in this government-wide initiative is that we are involved in a new human resource information system, and it is part of a corporate-computerized system to deal with human resources.
Ms. Barrett: So the staff in the Department of the Civil Service Commission or that part of government does not participate in the Better Methods Initiative in any other way other than the implementation of the CHRIS system, if that is what you are mentioning?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our major participation is in the development of that system.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, maybe this has a connection. I am not sure, but under the Salaries and Employee Benefits I see that, again, the Professional/Technical column has lost an SY. Then there is a note at the bottom, although it is not connected--oh, yes, there is. I am assuming that that is the computer programmer position that has been lost. Has that position gone to another part of government, or is that part of the staffing reductions in the civil service as a whole?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This was a vacant position within the department and one that the department felt they could eliminate.
Ms. Barrett: Is that the only vacancy in this section?
Mr. Gilleshammer: At the current time, the director's position is vacant.
Ms. Barrett: That is the Managerial category?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Ms. Barrett: How long has the managerial position, the director's position, been vacant, and when do you anticipate filling it?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It has been vacant six or seven weeks, and the department anticipates filling it in the not-too-distant future.
* (1600)
Ms. Barrett: I just am intrigued actually by the fact that under the Executive Office subappropriation the Professional/Technical SY has been vacant for at least two sets of Estimates. I have not gone back to '95-96 to see if it was vacant at that point, and yet it still shows it has not been given up by the Civil Service Commission. Here we have a professional/technical computer programmer position under subappropriation 17.1(b) that has been vacant for, well, I do not know how long, but now is seen to be not necessary.
It seems to me that on the one hand, in the Executive Office, you are holding a vacant SY, and in the Admin Services you are saying we can get along without a computer programmer, at the same time that your participation in the Better Methods Initiative is basically dealing with a computer system, if I am hearing you correctly.
Mr. Gilleshammer: These should be seen as two totally different positions. The one position has no dollars attached to it. The one that was eliminated was a vacant position with dollars attached to it.
Ms. Barrett: I know that, Mr. Minister. That is clear. But why is there such a difference in dealing with these positions? It seems to me this is an indication of how civil servants must feel really discombobulated, if you will, about how you can have a professional technical position in--I am sure it is a--
An Honourable Member: How do you spell it, Harold? Somebody downstairs is running for a dictionary.
Ms. Barrett: I will get a call later, I am sure. How you can hold onto an SY, a professional technical SY, in one area for two years, at least, with no dollars attached to it and still maintain that SY, and in another area, an area that would appear to me to be necessary if you are involved in establishing management systems with computerization, et cetera, the Civil Service Commission feels it can eliminate a staff year in an area that would seem to me to be necessary. I do not understand the Human Resource Management rationale between these two professional technical positions.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have very experienced and dedicated managers within the Civil Service Commission who make staffing decisions that are within their purview that allow them to operate to fulfill what they perceive their needs to be. If I read my honourable friend right, what she is saying is that perhaps we should eliminate the staff year that has no dollar attached to it as well. I am not sure where she is going with that.
Ms. Barrett: No, the minister continues to not read the honourable member for Wellington correctly. I am not for a moment suggesting that you eliminate the executive office professional technical staff year with no dollars attached. In effect, you have eliminated it. What you have done, it seems to me, is by keeping it as a staff year but not putting any money attached to it, you can say you are not eliminating it, but, in effect, it is not being filled.
It would seem to me that if I were someone from another department, I would say why are you keeping this SY here when we have eliminated, streamlined and are looking to streamline and make lean and mean, effective and efficient, our civil service? You are sitting here with an SY, a professional technical SY, with no money attached to it when I, in the Department of Labour, Department of Family Services, the Department of Culture, could certainly use that SY. Why are you keeping that one vacant with no money attached to it and for whom perhaps is another question?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is an opportunity for all departments to plan to achieve whatever staff levels they feel are required for the running of their department, and I am not aware that other departments have not dealt with this in a professional manner as well. These decisions were made two years ago, or that decision was. Again, within government things change from time to time, and the managers of the Civil Service Commission have made staffing decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the performance of the Civil Service Commission.
Ms. Barrett: Who makes the decision that the Executive Office, Professional/Technical position will not be filled, but the SY will remain under the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The department annually reviews their needs and comes up with the plan for the upcoming year that they ultimately have budget resources for.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister can tell me, or get the information to me if he does not have it available right now, what that position was when it was filled.? Does the Civil Service Commission anticipate filling that position at some time in the future and that is the reason they are keeping the SY?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that this was a support staff to the appeal's process within the commission, and if my honourable friend looks at the Civil Service Commission Annual Report, the number of appeals has been declining over the years. In 1991-92 and 1992-93 there were over twice as many appeals initiated. So the workload at the Appeals Commission has declined and, as a result, they are able to manage with one fewer staff in that area.
Ms. Barrett: Well, if that is the case, why does the Civil Service Commission not just eliminate that SY from their department and redeploy it to someone else's department? Why keep that vacant when you have under Admin Services what sounds to me like exactly the same situation, that you can deal effectively with one fewer computer programmer, so you reduce the SYs? Do you anticipate, perhaps, an increase in the appeal process at some time in the near future?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we are optimistic that the trend with the appeals will continue to decline, but the staff year was left there in case there is more activity at the Appeals Commission. If those appeals start to increase again and there is more work there, then they have the ability, in terms of that staff year, to add that staff back in.
This is not unique to this particular department. There are other departments across government with vacancies, and departments, of course, require funding if they are going to fill vacancies and sometimes that is a bit of a problem.
* (1610)
Ms. Barrett: Not to belabour the point, and I will try not to, but precisely the point I am trying to make in the Admin Services, under the Managerial category, there currently is a vacancy, although it is showing that it is intended to be filled very shortly for a whole year. I do not understand why. Well, it does not seem to me to be logical that you leave the SY in there with no money attached if you think there is a possibility that you may need it. If you give the SY away, yes, then you may have more difficulty in getting it back from another department. But to have the SY with no money, if you find that you need it, you are going to have to come back with an additional appropriation or a change in the budget to begin with. I guess what you are saying is that you want to hold that staff year in reserve in case the appeals do increase.
It would be interesting, and I think what I will do is maybe look at other departments and see how many situations like this there are, where there is a staff year with no money attached. But I will leave that particular area, and go on. I am prepared to pass 1.(b) as well.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I think the member has got it. That is the correct interpretation of that particular staff year. I am sure that the senior staff here will review her concerns. If they are deemed to be appropriate, we will certainly examine whether that is possible.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 17.1.(b) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $542,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $280,700--pass.
17.1.(c) Human Resource Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $979,100.
Ms. Barrett: Are we at 1.(c) Human Resource programs, right?
Mr. Chairperson: Human Resource Management Services.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I am not going by the budget book, but by the Estimates.
Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry.
Ms. Barrett: That is okay. The same question as I have asked before, are there any vacancies in this area other than the reduction in administrative support of one staff year, any other vacancies that are currently in this category?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told we have one person on long-term disability.
Ms. Barrett: In what category is that person?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it is professional.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you. The previous minister sent to me, May 14 of last year actually, or it was prepared on May 14 of 1996, the Affirmative Action Indicators Distribution: Government Employees By Occupation as of March 31, 1996. I am wondering if the minister has the updated 1997.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we do.
Ms. Barrett: May I have a copy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We would be pleased to arrange that.
Ms. Barrett: May I have a copy now?
Mr. Chairperson: This is the copy of?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we are tabling the Employment Equity Indicators. Do you want one, Daryl? Do you need one? No.
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate getting this from the minister, and I will try before the end of Estimates to be able to take a look at it and see if there are some questions that I might want to ask.
In this category, Human Resource programs, I am wondering if this a place where I could talk about the individual who is on secondment from the Department of Justice to Labour for training, that the critic for Labour mentioned to the Minister of Labour in the previous Estimates.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The staff from the Civil Service Commission I do not believe have any details on the individual, if that is what the member is asking?
Ms. Barrett: No, it was not a specific. It was as I--[interjection] The process, yes.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we can deal with the process.
Ms. Barrett: I guess what I am asking was, from my listening to the exchange that took place earlier in the Department of Labour Estimates, it seemed to me that a secondment for training is an unusual procedure. I may be incorrect in this, but it does seem to me that the secondments that I have heard of before have been where the person being seconded has skills and expertise in areas that are required in the department to which he/she is being seconded. This would appear to be a reversal of that, that the person being seconded is getting training rather than providing expertise. The first question: Am I stating the situation in this case correctly; and, secondly, am I accurate in saying that this is an unusual process to be undertaken in the secondment procedure?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that this is not an unusual secondment. It is an employment opportunity where an individual probably comes to the job with some interest and skills and enables them to participate in what could be termed a developmental assignment, and with employment opportunities across the civil service varying from time to time, this is an opportunity that someone can take advantage of.
Ms. Barrett: So it would appear to me that the seconding department, in this case Justice, says we have got enough staff, we can afford to have this person go to another department for training. I would assume then that the Department of Justice anticipates the return of this person at some point.
Mr. Gilleshammer: This probably should be seen as an employment opportunity to expand one's horizons, to come to a new position with some skills and an opportunity to develop some new skills, so that if they should go back or when they go back to the sending department they go back with further skills. I am led to believe that this is not an unusual way of getting further training. I am given a page from The Civil Service Commission Act here where under personnel selection it says: The commission shall whenever possible and in the public interest fill vacancies in the civil service by promotion within the civil service and, further to that, take such action and measures as it may deem necessary to anticipate and meet the need for well-qualified personnel at higher levels in the civil service.
* (1620)
So, again, I am not just sure what the member is asking, but this is an opportunity within the civil service for a person in one department to achieve some additional expertise and training in another department. It is a way of, I suppose, gaining that on a secondment basis.
Ms. Barrett: Oh, I have no doubt that it is an opportunity to get training and experience in another department. That is clearly going to happen. It seems to me, though, that if you are seconded for training, or if you are a staff person who is in this position, then potentially you have a leg up, as it were, should a permanent job be open in the seconding department, in this case it would be Labour. Training for what I guess--is this person who is seconded for training in the Worker Advisor department then not going to be able to step into a worker advisor position, have a better shot at that potential position than other members of the civil service? Is this not preferential treatment? Is this not grooming, if you will, someone for another position?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I guess I am trying to explain the reality of how the civil service and departments interrelate with one another. If I am reading the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) correctly, she is opposed to anyone from one department going to another department and is opposed to providing that sort of opportunity that people would have to move from one department and learn additional skills within another department, because it gives them some advantage.
I guess I have never thought of it in that way. I am told that people move from one department to another from time to time, and it is an opportunity to gain experience and skills, and, perhaps, to apply for other positions across the civil service. So I do not think we are breaking new ground here, that this is very standard management action across government. I think it has been a practice of long standing, not something that came into effect in recent years, but a practice that is in vogue in other provinces and this province for some time.
I am told there are all sorts of examples where this is happening and has happened in government in the past.
Ms. Barrett: Normally, I would assume the secondment for expertise, if I could say it that way, a requesting department asking for a secondment of a person who has a particular skill or area of expertise that the requesting department would like to take advantage of, that that is the process, that the seconding department asks for this person or a person with these particular skills.
In the case of secondment for training, what is the process? Does the individual ask to be seconded? Would this individual, for example, have asked to be seconded from Justice to Labour to be trained in a particular category? Is this secondment for training open to all civil servants? Is there a process whereby any civil servant can access this secondment process, and could the minister undertake in the future to provide me with a list of the number of people who are seconded for training from department to department?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that the secondment can be initiated by the employee, that numbers of employees indicate that they would like a new work experience. It can be initiated by management. That secondment has been used across government by all departments or virtually all departments, and it is not an unusual practice. It offers opportunities to try out a new experience and a new department. I am not totally familiar with the process that was followed in this case, but I think when we discussed this yesterday--I think if this is the same individual we are discussing--this was a person who was a lawyer and a nurse, and there was an opportunity to move from one department to another and expand one's horizons by taking on a new challenge.
Ms. Barrett: Again, I ask the minister if he would be able to provide me at some future point--I know he probably does not have the information now--but if he could undertake to provide me with a list of the training secondments and the departments from which they are coming to which they are going as separate from requests for secondments to fill a need of the requesting department. Is it possible to do that?
Secondly, the minister is saying there are currently nine people still on the redeployment list. Have they been given access to this request for training? It seems to me that this might be a way for them to be able to find a new niche for themselves in the civil service. Are they being given access to this training-secondment process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, my honourable friend has asked for some information on secondments across government. We can certainly report on the Civil Service Commission.
We have people, I understand, who have been seconded from departments and people from the Civil Service Commission who are serving in other departments at the present time. I notice that the member puts a lot of emphasis on the word "training." Virtually all of the secondments have a training component to them in that what is happening is that somebody is going from one position to another position or one department to another department.
I suppose it would be realistic to believe that some people would fit in on Day One, because they have a certain knowledge and expertise that would suit them for that particular position. In other cases, it may take some time longer for the person to adjust to the new environment and adjust to a new position. But we would be happy to provide as quickly as possible information that we have on secondments, and if the member wanted it right across government, we would have to be in contact with other government departments to get an accurate snapshot of what is happening within those departments.
Ms. Barrett: I put the emphasis on training because it seems to me, from my experience with the Estimates process and hearing about secondments, that this is the first I have heard of a secondment for training. Anytime you make a job change or move to a different office you have a certain learning curve, but it seems to me that many secondments, and certainly I would assume that the traditional, the normal definition of secondment is that the secondment is initiated by a department who needs a certain level of expertise that is not available in their department or division and they are asking another department or division to second a person who has those requirements that they need on a short-term or a long-term basis. That is one kind of secondment.
* (1630)
It seems to me that what we are talking about here is another kind of secondment where the action is not initiated by a department, but is initiated by--well, it could be initiated by a department I suppose. It could be initiated by Justice in this case, who says, here is an individual that we want to have more training, and we are going to ask Labour if they will accept this secondment of this person to give her more training. That is a different kind of secondment, and that is the one I am interested in.
How many times does a civil servant--I am assuming a civil servant could request that same kind of secondment. Either a civil servant or a department could say, I want or we want myself or this person to have training, and we think the kind of training that this person can get or I can get is best in this particular department. So you contact that department and say, do you have a spot for this person or myself?
It seems to me there are two very distinct kinds of secondment here, and I am looking at how widely utilized is this second kind of secondment, which has as its major component a training component, and are all civil servants aware of this? Is there a specific process they would go through to be able to access this training component, or is it sort of an ad hoc, informal process where it is initiated either by your department or by yourself as the need arises?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, as my honourable friend knows, I have just been with the Civil Service Commission for a matter of a few months, and I am told by senior staff that this is very much normal business within the civil service. I am sure they are right and I accept their version of it.
I am told there are all sorts of examples where, for instance, people in Justice have been seconded for training purposes to the Civil Service Commission to understand human relations and collective bargaining and that sort of thing.
I accept the advice I am getting from senior staff that this type of secondment is normal business, that these opportunities are there for individuals right across the civil service. It can be initiated at the individual level, someone seeking new opportunities, or it can be initiated within the department, that there are all sorts of opportunities to indicate a desire for a different worksite, a different workplace, a different department, and these are accommodated to whatever degree that the staffing will allow those to be accommodated. So it is normal business. There is on-the-job training; there is structured training; there is experiential training. This is part and parcel of the work that the Civil Service Commission does and occurs within our provincial civil service.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering, again, if it is possible to get a list of those secondments across the civil service. I know that it would take a while. I am not expecting it right now.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I thought I had already indicated--and if I did not, I apologize--that we would provide that from within our department, and we would also survey other departments to gauge the degree of secondments that are occurring within the provincial civil service.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to move on to the subappropriation under 1.(c) Employee Assistance Program. I think that is still the same section, is it not, Mr. Chair?
May I ask questions under Employee Assistance Program without having passed the other part?
Mr. Chairperson: Is there unanimous consent--
Ms. Barrett: No, no, I am prepared to pass--it is part of 1.(c).
Mr. Chairperson: That is the part that we are on, so just proceed.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, any vacancies in the Employee Assistance Program?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No.
Ms. Barrett: In the minister's opening statement or in an answer he talked about the civil service currently being, I think, 14,673 or approximately that, a decrease of 122. Is that the current civil service component?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The figures that I read into the record were as of the end of the fiscal year.
Ms. Barrett: Again, this may not be accessible to the minister at this point, but is it possible to get figures for adding up the actual numbers in the various departmental Estimates to get a sense of what the estimated number of civil servants will be in this fiscal year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, these were the numbers at the end of March 1997. We can indicate the number of employees, but not the number of staff years.
Ms. Barrett: I would be interested in the number of employees, not staff years.
Yes, I would like to now briefly talk about the Employment Equity Indicators or affirmative--h'm, interesting. The head of it last year was Affirmative Action Indicators; the head of it this year is Employment Equity Indicators. Just after a quick perusal of it, and I thank my honourable colleague the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for this, the total number of government employees has increased year over year by 2,200 from 13,107 in 1996 to 15,359 in 1997. Can the minister explain this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am wondering if my honourable friend could clarify what she is comparing this document to.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I would be delighted to clarify it. I asked last year's Estimates and received shortly after last year's Estimates, from the then minister, the affirmative action indicators, which is the categories of employees and the numbers of employees; the male, female, aboriginal, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. I am comparing that summary with the summary which the minister just provided me this afternoon.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think we are, perhaps, comparing charts that are not doing exactly the same thing. My staff indicate that a possible explanation could be that the seasonal employees are added in here, but there is no reason for there to be that variance. So I do not think we have got exactly the same list that we are comparing here. I am told that the number on this year's list, in a direct comparison to last year, it would have been 15,674 as of March 31, '96; and at the end of the fiscal year as of March 31, 1997, it is 15,359.
* (1640)
Ms. Barrett: Okay, so since we are not comparing the same information year over year, the other questions I have on this may be, as well, skewed by what the definition is of total government. Does the minister have access, or may I have access, to a comparable chart as at March 31, 1996?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can table another chart which I guess compares apples to apples and, perhaps, would be of assistance. So I will table that.
Ms. Barrett: Well, maybe I will wait to ask questions on that until I get that other chart. Does it talk about--does it have the same headings? No.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It has the total representation of each of the designated groups.
Ms. Barrett: But it is not broken down. So it has the total male, female, aboriginal, disabilities, and visible minorities.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is right.
Ms. Barrett: What does it not have, the occupation groups? Oh, and it goes down instead of across.
An Honourable Member: They are really confusing us.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I want to assure the member that this was not done to mislead members of the opposition.
Ms. Barrett: Okay. All right, I guess the question I have is, the chart that I was given last year did not include seasonal employees. Is that the difference? Is that the major distinction?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think I have to say that the honourable critic of the NDP has sort of stumped my staff on this, but that is their best estimate of why there is a discrepancy. But they will check the numbers and see if that is the answer to the question the member is asking.
Ms. Barrett: Not that I would not like to take responsibility for that, but I do believe it is probably the former minister who has stumped the staff, because it was his chart that I was given. It looks identical in the layout and the categories.
I think what I will do then, rather than using time here to try and put all of this together, is wait until I get a response to see what the difference is between these two charts, and then perhaps ask the minister in writing, or contact the minister, to see if there are questions that I have. But I think it is important to make sure they are apples to apples, if you will.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that would certainly be fine. We do not have to wait another year for Estimates to roll around. You can ask those questions any time, and we will be happy to provide the answers.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 17.1.(c) Human Resource Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $979,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $616,200--pass.
17.1.(d) Labour Relations Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,150,100--pass. (2) Other Expenditures $274,800.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister can tell me if there are any vacancies in the Compensation and Classification Services.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have one position that has been vacant since the end of March, and we anticipate filling it shortly.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 17.1.(d) Labour Relations Services (2) Other Expenditures.
Ms. Barrett: Under 1.(d), and I do not know if it is (1), (2) or whatever, but Negotiation Services, again, vacancies?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told we have none.
Ms. Barrett: Any vacancies under Benefits Administration?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that was the one I referenced in my previous answer.
Ms. Barrett: No further questions.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 17.1.(d) Labour Relations Services (2) Other Expenditures $274,800--pass.
17.1.(e) Organization and Staff Development Agency--no funds, I assume--pass.
Resolution 17.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,063,900 for the Civil Service Commission for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
This completes the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission.
The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Employee Benefits and Other Payments on page 42.