EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
On page 2 in the first paragraph, it talks about training that was provided to senior managers. It further states that “Our goal is to ensure that all management and employees of the Government of Nunavut receive the training.”
I would like to know when the training is going to take place.
Are we going to see it in the report?
When is the training for the public servants going to take place?
I believe that is one of our prepared questions, but if Minister Peterson would like to respond, I give him an opportunity to do so.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. T. Sammurtok for the question.
I’m not quite sure what he is referring to on the page, but if he’s referring to workplace harassment training, it has been underway for quite some time now.
I think we started earlier this year and it’s ongoing. There will be more training this week.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you.
He didn’t respond to my question, but I will ask it when we get to the detailed questions.
We will move on to the tabled document.
I would like to begin with Ms. Angnakak.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing me.
I guess my first question is really about the department of HR itself.
In 2011, a report titled A Framework for Results: Systemic and Structural Reform, Government of Nunavut recommended that “...Labour Relations, collective bargaining, collective agreement administration and management of the Human Resource information system should be transferred to the Department of Finance.”
However, the report also recommended that “The Department of Human Resources would remain as a stand-alone department.”
Why was the department dissolved as a standalone entity?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. As a reminder to the regular members, if you have any questions, please show your hands and we will keep a list.
I’m not sure how to answer that.
Ms. Angnakak, of course, was an executive assistant to the Minister of ED&T at the time and now the Premier, so she will be fully aware of a lot of the decisions.
We follow the cabinet processes handbook. We took that information, our own internal information, and other reports over the years and it was determined that the Department of Human Resources had to be dissolved and its functions absorbed into Inuit employment, training and development, into Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, and then labour relations, staffing and recruiting into the Department of Finance. We went through quite a long process.
As Ms. Angnakak will recall, I made the announcement of restructuring in Budget 2011 and then again in Budget 2012.
During those two years, we met regularly with Full Caucus and we met regularly with cabinet to follow the processes and there was a full and open discussion leading up into the main estimates for 2013-14 where the Department of Human Resources completely dissolved. As of April 1, 2013, we assumed 60 percent of the department. There were internal decisions with a lot of consultations with all the MLAs and ministers at the time, and many government officials who worked very closely with or are very familiar with human resources.
The minister is right, I was an EA, but he was in the cabinet making those decisions.
For the record, I was not involved in this process, so I don’t understand.
I didn’t really hear a real answer why it was dissolved.
I heard that you consulted and you did this and that, but the actual reason of what made that decision to be made to dissolve the standalone department when the Ken Lovely report actually recommended the opposite... .
Why did you think his recommendation was not a good one to follow?
I’m not sure where Ms. Angnakak was back in those days, but I know my executive assistant gives me political advice going into cabinet meetings and Financial Management Board meetings.
All the EAs, all the ministers, and all the MLAs received a copy of the report, so there was no secret or hidden agenda. The Lovely report was simply one report. Consultants can give advice, but they don’t make decisions.
We looked at his advice, the dynamics of the day, other information, for example, the Auditor General of Canada’s report from 2010, other documents, internal information, and a decision was made.
As I said, there was full disclosure that the Department of Human Resources should be dissolved and then the functions would move to Finance and other functions to EIA.
The general feeling of the day was that by doing that, the human resources functions of the Government of Nunavut would be enhanced, more efficient, and more effective in achieving a lot of the goals we have to do as the Government of Nunavut, including Article 23.
I think we have to remember about who had authority and powers to make decisions and who didn’t.
What specific benefits have resulted from separating the management of the government’s human resource functions into two separate departments? What have been the benefits?
Well, it’s pretty straightforward. EIA can concentrate on Inuit employment, training, and development, and then the finance department can focus on staffing and recruiting and also on labour relations.
Did you feel that with the department as a standalone, it couldn’t achieve those goals and they had to be separated?
I was just one of the ministers and one of the political officials of the day.
As I said, there was lots of discussion in Full Caucus and Ms. Angnakak knows how that works.
All the MLAs get the other ministers briefed.
The cabinet briefs the MLAs to explain what we’re doing and gain their support.
We went through the cabinet processes over the period of a couple of years.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, this wasn’t just human resources.
We took the cultural school and put it with Nunavut Arctic College and put sport and recreation with CGS and moved some other divisions around within the government to make them more efficient and more effective.
We also created the Department of Family Services and then moved a whole bunch of divisions from other departments into one department.
This was part of the entire process over two years and we concluded that dissolving human resources and moving them into the two other departments would be more efficient and more effective for the government in achieving Article 23 and just being a more productive workplace.
Can the minister tell us what specific problems have resulted from separating the management of the two government human resource functions into two separate departments?
I thank Ms. Angnakak for the question. She seems to be aware of problems or is concerned about problems. I’m not aware of any problems.
I know and that’s why I’m asking you. What specific problems have resulted from separating the management of the government’s human resource functions into two separate departments?
Mr. Chairman, at the time when we were doing this whole process and going through the various approval steps and then we got into the House, I recall at the time telling the listening public and officials in the government that we’re not going to be looking for overnight success because it’s just the nature of government.
The decisions we make in the government could take one, two, three, or four years to work their way through the system. Ms. Angnakak would understand that. When you’re doing organizational changes, it takes time.
When the restructuring occurred in all the different departments, it was the responsibility of our officials to make things work.
They worked at the Deputy Ministers’ Committee. The Central Accountability Committee meets internally to work out any kinks.
You’re going to hear hiccups and issues, but to me, they’re not problems that can’t be overcome with some solutions.
Perhaps the minister can give us some specific examples of what kinds of challenges they’ve had to overcome because the human resources function was put into two separate departments.
Hon. Keith Peterson: I thank Ms. Angnakak for the question.
She is asking me for a list of challenges, but we’re not aware of any challenges.
If she is looking for any kind of minor issues that we have been dealing with, the day-to-day stuff, I can certainly ask my deputy minister to respond.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. D’Arcy, did you want to respond?
We haven’t noticed any particular difficulties in terms of training and development going over to the Department of Executive to work hand in hand with the Inuit Employment Plan. In fact, we have seen good economies of scale through this division of labour.
The Department of Executive concentrates on Inuit employment and bringing more beneficiaries into the system and, at the same time, is able to identify training and development opportunities and is continuing along doing that.
It’s part of the Human Resource Strategy, as we know.
All of that is coordinated through the Building Capacity Committee that Mr. Chown actually chairs or co-chairs.
On our side, it allowed the Department of Finance to concentrate on staffing of positions, but also assisted us in looking after our regions where staffing and the financial function coexisted in Cambridge Bay, Rankin Inlet, and Igloolik. That allowed us to have better oversight and better continuity with those regions.
Also in headquarters, we tied together staffing and compensation and benefits.
It assisted us with the computer program that we had and it made several economies of scale inside the administration that we think made better processes all the way around.
I know that I haven’t talked about difficulties. There haven’t been any specific difficulties in terms of creating the split, if you like.
We certainly worked very hard to ensure all employees were informed about what’s going on.
We had several meetings and videoconferences. If there were any minor administrative tweaks that had to happen, it happened through Mr. Chown’s Building Capacity Committee.
Just in light of your last comments, when we talk about staffing and employee relations and training, from the government’s perspective, what problems, if any, would result from coming back and combining its training and Inuit employment functions into the same department as its staffing and employee relations functions?
I didn’t understand the question.
Mr. D’Arcy claims that he understood it, so I’ll ask him to answer the question.
On one level, if directed to do so, we will obviously be able to bring the functions all together and create another department or bring them all together under the Department of Finance. We don’t feel at this point in time that that would be necessary.
We think, again, there are good economies of scale that have been developed through allowing people to concentrate on the Inuit Employment Plan, as well as training and development, as well as allowing ourselves to concentrate on the staffing of our public services and also the behind-the-scenes administration of staffing with compensation, benefits, and pay.
Obviously it can be done, but we believe that for now anyway, this is achieving the objectives that we had hoped.
At least within the bureaucracy, we’re not contemplating any changes at this point.
In light of your comments there, we’re talking about different departments. Some of the government’s human resource functions fall under the Department of Finance, like you said, and some of the government human resources functions fall under the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Who is ultimately accountable for the overall management of the government’s human resources? Is it the Minister of Finance or is it the Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs?
Under the Public Service Act, I’m responsible for the overall human resources for the Government of Nunavut.
It could get a little confusing to the public on who is doing what.
A number of Canadian jurisdictions, including the federal and the Yukon governments, have arm’s-length public service commissions.
What considerations have been given to introducing this model of human resource management?
We have looked at all the other provinces and territories to see what models… . Some have public service commissions and some don’t.
What I understand from public service commissions is that they totally remove pretty much any control of human resources from the government whereas if they’re with the government itself, if the human resources functions are within the government, then there is more control.
There are pros and cons to every model, as Ms. Angnakak said earlier. Our model is the model that we put in place on April 1, 2012.
Perhaps it’s a good thing to think of. Maybe trying something different might achieve some good results, even at arm’s length from the government.
The 2011 report titled A Framework for Results: Systemic and Structural Reform, Government of Nunavut recommended that “Full staffing authority should be delegated immediately to the major departments of Justice, Finance, Health, Education and CGS.”
To what extent has the government acted on this recommendation?
Before you answer that question, when we talk about full staffing authority, can you just provide a definition of that for everybody listening today?
Under my authority, I can delegate authorities to different departments and to corporations.
For example, in the Department of Education, we have delegated authority to hire teachers. To the Department of Health, for example, we have delegated authority to hire nurses and, more recently, delegated authority to dismiss nurses.
Over at the Qulliq Energy Corporation, they have all their own HR functions.
When it comes to employment opportunities for either Inuit with or without private homes, it is difficult to decipher which one will succeed.
We have raised questions about the percentage. I don’t know the equivalent wordage in Inuktitut. If our government of Nunavut is going to attain the 85 percentile hiring of Inuit beneficiaries, then that means 698 of the workforce positions would be non-Nunavut residents in the public service.
Now, if that percentile was to be realized, then this (interpretation ends) ethics officer (interpretation) position would no longer be required.
In deliberating on this issue, I want it clarified and thus the reason for my question, Mr. Chairman.
The ethics officer is an independent officer under the Public Service Act.
That’s the way I understood the role of the ethics officer, but maybe I misunderstood it.
Once the employee is put in place, will they have staff in the communities?
I’ll have my deputy minister explain the role of the ethics officer.
I’m going to start with an apology.
I’ve got a bit of a cough, so I now have a cough candy in my mouth, so I hope that the people will understand me.
The ethics officer, much like the Integrity Commissioner, is a separate and distinct independent officer of the government as per the appropriate section of the Public Service Act.
He doesn’t have staff.
However, our employee relations staff provide administrative assistance only to the ethics officer.
The ethics officer himself either works through our Employee Relations Division or he goes directly to the deputy minister that is responsible for whatever file he may be working on at the time.
He does not have staff and we will not be creating staff for the ethics officer.
Due to that, he will not be staffing positions in communities.
That said, if a person would like to contact the ethics officer and they don’t know how, they can certainly approach any government employee, the government liaison officers in communities, and of course any of our finance staff.
I thank you for being able to respond to my question.
Another question I have is: once this is in place and the ethics officer is working, how many times a year would he be visiting the communities?
That’s my question, if it makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, the ethics officer travels as and when needed.
He doesn’t visit communities as a regular thing.
It would depend on the nature of the investigation. A determination is made case by case.
I would like clarification. It will be an independent officer outside of government. There are different employees in the communities, for example, the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the hamlets, the Co-Op, Northern stores, or the HTOs within the communities.
Will they be looking at all of those aspects? Will they be identified by the ethics officer?
That will be my last question for now.
The ethics officer only deals with Government of Nunavut employees.
If any government employee or public servant has an issue of wrongdoing, they can contact him by his toll-free number, email, and/or in writing and he will respond to them.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wish to extend a welcome to the Minister of Finance and his officials from the department.
I wish to direct a few questions related to what I read.
On page 7 of the 2014-15 Public Service Annual Report, it states that only 11.7 percent of the government’s positions were filled by male beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as of March 31, 2015. Approximately two-thirds of the government’s positions were filled by female beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
What consideration is the government currently giving to providing additional preferential hiring consideration for male beneficiary applicants?
I recall when I was an MLA that we had similar questions back in the Second Assembly.
There seemed to be a high number... . The issue there where male beneficiaries versus male non-beneficiaries are being hired, especially here in Iqaluit, there are a lot of vacancies.
What we hope to do through the tabling and implementation of the 2014-18 Human Resource Strategy, which all government departments and territorial corporations agreed to, is implement training and employment plans through those organizations and, as I said earlier, set reasonable targets.
The Government of Nunavut is committed to Article 23. We want to recruit people and train them, get them in and train them along the way so that they can move up into the higher level positions and then open up positions below so that more people can come in. That’s what the strategy is intended to do.
It’s into the third year now.
As far as I know from what I have been told by my officials, the departments and territorial corporations are working hard to implement the recommendations.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for clarifying the issue.
I have a concern that our livelihood and culture is more a western society today compared to the past.
I am quite concerned when men and women were treated differently, particularly females.
Are you going have things established where, for example, females will be placed higher in employment opportunities in perpetuity?
Did I understand that the male beneficiaries will be given opportunities to be put in higher managerial positions?
I thank Mr. Shooyook for his question and astute observations.
If I could go back several years, probably even pre-Nunavut, there was recognition that if you form a new government, you will require public servants at all levels to deliver the programs and services to Nunavummiut.
There probably should have been a very large investment at the time into training and development and encouraging kids to stay in school.
When Nunavut was established, it was fairly easy, I think, in the first few years to staff positions. You can see in the report the lower level administrative type positions were available and they were quite easily filled, and then the government struggled to fill the mid-management, semi-professional, and professional positions and have struggled pretty much since 1999 to do that.
In fact, the Berger report in 2006 identified Article 23. As Mr. Berger said, Article 23 remains a priority.
To achieve the 85 percent target, there is going to have to be a very serious investment in training within the government and Nunavut.
We encourage all our kids to stay in grade 12 and then go on to college, university, or trade school.
We want to move people up into those higher level positions.
In fact, in the Office of the Auditor General report in 2010, paragraphs 8 and 9, she identified that again as a problem.
The low levels of graduation in the high schools was an issue because the kids weren’t getting to grade 12 and then graduating and going onto college and university, so then you weren’t being able to fill those professional, semi-professional, and senior management ranks.
It was very fortuitous for the Government of Nunavut when NTI and the Government of Canada settled last year on an out-of-court settlement.
There’s a commitment by NTI and the Government of Nunavut to working together now to prepare plans for some significant investment in training for Inuit so that they can qualify for the higher level positions in the Government of Nunavut.
That’s an ongoing process.
I know it’s a long answer, but if I go back in time, I think there should have been more effort and investment in human resources and training and education at all levels to prepare people for the jobs.
The fact that we keep adding jobs and adding more jobs every year that people can’t fill is not helping the situation.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the Minister of Finance for clarifying that.
I still have a concern in regard to employment and traditional knowledge and practices.
As Inuit, we learn everything by observation.
It is from hands-on experience, whether it is fixing snowmobiles and automobiles. It is just pure observation without using the written word that they master trade skills.
Can higher level on-the-job training be done through traditional learning without having to go through academic school?
It would save a lot of money and enable Inuit to learn higher level jobs. They can learn how to maintain an engine. It’s likewise with a job position for managerial and higher level positions.
Can you commit to consider incorporating traditional knowledge of Inuit? Even though a beneficiary does not go through academic school, they can be trained on the job in the workforce. Is one of your goals to train beneficiaries on the job following traditional knowledge?
Inuit learn best by watching. I would like nothing better than to see the government achieve this so that we can place beneficiaries in managerial positions. It may be how we can finally increase the number of beneficiaries at the managerial and higher level positions.
I agree with him that on-the-job training is very valuable.
In any organization, you can learn if you have a mentor/teacher that can show you how to do the work and get some positive feedback; you can learn a lot.
Through the Human Resource Strategy, EIA and Finance are working on on-the-job training and will under-fill positions. For example, you might not be fully qualified for a position and will under-fill a position and then they train you to fulfill all the duties of the job.
There’s another program called co-op programs where the departments will take people in and they will train you on the job to give you experience.
We also actively encourage the Summer Student Employment Equity Program where we will get summer students from grades 10, 11, and 12, university students, and college students to gain summer… .
They will come back and work from two months to four months in the summer and gain experience so that when they do graduate from grade 12 or college or university or trade school, they will have experience to qualify for jobs.
EIA is working on a management development program to train people to be managers.
Work is underway and we’re very committed to what Mr. Shooyook is suggesting.
Thank you for providing a very interesting response.
I know some Inuit are very capable of taking on these positions.
I have seen some Inuit who are very capable, but I see those who are less capable get the higher level jobs.
We need to pay close attention to ensure that Inuit are promoted based on their skills.
Some Inuit can be qualified to take on a higher level position after some training.
As a government, we need to pay attention to ensure that job promotion in Nunavut for Inuit beneficiaries does take place.
This is why I am in full support in assisting my fellow Inuit.