EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Subsequent ministerial correspondence to the standing committee indicated that no new initiatives in this area have been approved, as a consequence of the Government of Nunavut’s fiscal restraint measures.
The standing committee supports measures to compensate for and encourage the use of the Inuit language in the workplace, especially with respect to frontline positions that directly serve the public.
The standing committee also encourages the department to work towards the design and implementation of objective and standardized tests for evaluating language proficiency within the public service.
Mr. Chairman, the department prepares a quarterly report on employment across the Government of Nunavut entitled Towards a Representative Public Service.
Quarterly reports for June and September of 2007 were not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until  February 26, 2008.
The standing committee urges the minister to table these important reports in a timely fashion.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee notes the department’s focus on the Government of Nunavut’s Inuit Employment Plan. According to the department’s own IEP statistics, 888 beneficiaries were employed by the Government of Nunavut in January of 2000. A total of 1,492 beneficiaries were employed in March 2007, an increase of 68 percent.
Members also note that the government has set a target date of March 31, 2010 for 56 percent or more of all positions across all occupational categories to be filled by beneficiaries.
This is an ambitious goal, given that several hundred new beneficiary employees will need to be hired in order to achieve it and in light of the implications of the Government of Nunavut’s turnover rate of 16 percent in 2006-07, which reflected the departure of 474 employees from the Government of Nunavut during the course of the year.
The standing committee notes that the middle management and professional occupational categories presently have the lowest levels of beneficiary employment.
Mr. Chairman, a revised Priority Hiring Policy was tabled in the House by the Minister of Human Resources on November 28, 2005.
On November 5, 2007, the minister made a statement in the Legislative Assembly to announce the extension of the policy to March of 2010.
The Priority Hiring Policy provides that beneficiaries who meet the qualifications of a given job have priority over all other candidates.
Prior to division, territorial affirmative action policies also gave preferential status to women, long-term residents of the territory and other categories of persons, such as the disabled.
The process provides for the consideration of current Government of Nunavut employees as well as Nunavut residents with a minimum of one calendar year residency before applicants from other jurisdictions.
There is no change to the Priority Hiring Policy that provides first and foremost consideration to qualified beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
During the Legislative Assembly’s scrutiny of the 2007-08 main estimates and departmental business plans, the standing committee noted that, “The Government of Nunavut’s own system of employee recognition provides long-term service awards to public servants who have been with the government for at least five years.
This benchmark would appear to be a better starting point for determining who constitutes a long-term Northerner, rather than just one year of residency.”
The standing committee continues to urge the minister to review this issue.
Members continue to note with concern the persistent gender gap in the public service.
According to the Government of Nunavut’s most recent annual reports on the public service, 304 beneficiary males and 775 beneficiary females were employed by the Government of Nunavut in March of 2004.
In March of 2007, there were 360 beneficiary males and 934 beneficiary females employed by the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee strongly supports the Government of Nunavut’s Summer Student Employment Equity Program. This program provides employment opportunities and valuable work experience in Government of Nunavut departments for Nunavut youth.
Over 1,000 students, approximately 75 percent of whom were beneficiaries, have participated in this program since 2001.
The standing committee noted with concern that the number of students participating in the program decreased from 207 in the summer of 2006 to 172 in the summer of 2007.
This program is critical for mentoring the next generation of Nunavut professionals and leaders, and the standing committee would support the reallocation of resources from other areas of expenditure to ensure the continued success of this program.
The standing committee also supports efforts on the part of the department to work with municipalities to provide summer employment opportunities for students living in smaller communities with a less significant Government of Nunavut presence than the regional centres and decentralized communities.
Mr. Chairman, the issue of workforce morale and well-being is important.
Although the standing committee notes with approval that the Government of Nunavut’s turnover rate decreased from 31 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2006-07, the issue of workplace absenteeism in the Government of Nunavut appears to remain a problem. The committee has noted that the department is working on an attendance management program to address this issue. It is noteworthy that the number of active grievances decreased from 117 as of March 31, 2006 to 91 as of March 31, 2007.
The standing committee also notes that the department’s 2008-09 business plan indicates that its priorities for 2008-09 include implementing Joint Consultation Committees with the Nunavut Employees Union and the Nunavut Teachers’ Association, implementing an alternative dispute resolution process for the Government of Nunavut and developing a process to improve the resolution of new grievances.
The impact of the Government of Nunavut’s Staff Housing Policy on employee recruitment and retention across the government must be rigorously evaluated. Past ministerial correspondence to the standing committee revealed that the Government of Nunavut’s exit interview surveys are now addressing this issue.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2008-09 Business Plan indicates that the “NHC has prepared a One-Year Staff Housing Review and will continue to monitor the Staff Housing Policy in consultation with the Department of Human Resources.”
It is important that the government review this issue objectively and report its findings to the Legislative Assembly so that all MLAs may have a clear picture of the situation.
It is also critical that the government evaluate whether or not the policy is actually achieving its stated goal of “addressing Nunavut’s ongoing housing shortage by supporting a strong, private sector led housing market in Nunavut.”
Mr. Chairman, the Government of Nunavut’s collective agreement with the Nunavut Employees Union expired on September 30, 2006. The standing committee has been concerned with the slow pace of negotiations to date.
The standing committee notes that the NEU publicly and frequently communicates its position on the negotiations. It is important that the government also communicate its own position in a clear and candid manner to MLAs, employees and the public.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have ten minutes to speak and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to the matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank Minister Tapardjuk.
Perhaps, if you put on a different hat, I would recognize you because you still look like the Minister of the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. Welcome.
I know that this department is very important to the Inuit and the public. I’m very proud of the fact that you are the minister.
I would also like to be able to read Inuktitut just like you because I envy your ability to read Syllabics.
I know that this Department of Human Resources is very difficult, especially when you are trying to hire people. Lots of people apply for a job when they believe that they are capable of doing that job when there is a job opportunity.
Some people apply just solely to get a job and when they apply for a job, they automatically think that they got the job. I know that there are various ideas going on out in the public.
I know that when the applicants are given some letters, whether they will be interviewed, or whether they will not be interviewed, they don’t understand that they don’t qualify because of their education level.
I spoke about this issue in the past. An individual, an Inuk, when they apply for a job, they automatically think that they got the job. They need qualifications and an education without thinking about the qualifications for that job.
I know that this will eventually be done properly because more and more students are finishing high school.
I believe that, as regular members, we have to work with the constituents when they apply for jobs in Nunavut.
For example, there are a lot of constituents that are quite disappointed even though they applied for a job. When they wait for a long time without a response after they applied for a job they get concerned. They get concerned because they’re not part of the people that will be interviewed.
It’s evident that when you’re educated, you know that if you don’t qualify for that job, that you don’t get that job.
A lot of people tend to think otherwise. I know that it would be easier for the Department of Human Resources if they can provide the policy to the public out there.
If an individual, whoever applied for a job, if they don’t qualify for the job, they should be notified of the fact that they don’t qualify.
Any Inuk or any beneficiary can apply for a job. At least provide a policy to the Inuit out there with the weaknesses and requirements of the competition. These competitions always state what you should be qualified for or what your level of education should be.
You should at least provide that information to the public out there and not just with job opportunities. I believe that they will be more interested in educating themselves or going for higher education.
I believe that this will help the public to seek higher education when they apply for a job and don’t understand why they don’t qualify. They start losing hope and they don’t want to reapply again when there are more job opportunities out there.
With that, I know that we will be going through the main estimates for this department but I wanted to make that general comment. I would also like to welcome you and your officials. If it wasn’t for your department, we would have less staff within the Government of Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Alagalak. (interpretation ends) General comments.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page D-4.
Branch Summary. Directorate. Total Operations and Maintenance.
I have a question on page D-4. When the co-chair delivered his opening comments, he mentioned that they’re working on the code of conduct and it’s also stated in the business plan that the code of conduct will be established for the staff.
So what’s the status of it and when are you going to table the code of conduct in the Legislative Assembly?
The employees of the government need a code of conduct and that’s what we’re talking about. We also want to incorporate the code of conduct into the Public Service Act.
All deputy ministers have reviewed it and they have also looked into how best it would be set up to be used for the public service. For example, if there was a problem at work, how could you resolve the situation?
We have a code of conduct but we need to review it again and it has to be reviewed by the Cabinet. After it gets approval from Cabinet, then we will be able to table it in the House, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I believe that this is going to be a policy and I believe that that is going to help give the policy some teeth.
I want the minister to respond.
We started talking about this issue last year, so why is it so difficult to set it up?
What’s the real reason why it’s taking it so long?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. This has been reviewed.
They have reviewed not just the code of conduct but also reviewed how to resolve problems with employees, such as conflict of interest and we have to identify the conflict of interest, and also, the money. If this individual is working outside of the government, everything has to be detailed.
We have been accumulating all that information and they have been collecting everything into the Public Service Act.
I think that’s one of the reasons why it is taking so long to prepare this policy and right now, it’s being continually reviewed by the Department of Justice and the Department of Human Resources. While we’re working on the Public Service Act, we have to abide by other legislation.
I would also like to thank the minister. Yes, I see it eventually coming out in the future.
The Integrity Commissioner’s annual report raised the issue of conflict of interest guidelines for senior officials, so I would like to ask another question in that regard.
There doesn’t seem to be conflict of interest guidelines for Cabinet, although the Assembly has guidelines.
We don’t seem to have conflict of interest guidelines for senior officials coming from the Premier’s Office.
It became evident that this was your weakness because we only have the Integrity Commissioner’s conflict of interest guidelines.
Is the Premier’s Office included in this guideline or is this guideline just for senior officials?
We have not had this reviewed by the EIA because it’s been worked on by the EIA. We will definitely have to review this because it also involves the senior secretariat to the highest senior officials. We can ask them if they can give us any ideas or what we should start considering in there through discussion, Mr. Chairman.
When the department was developing the conflict of interest guidelines for the Conflict of Interest Act, can you indicate the different guidelines, such as the guideline for the Hay Plan, or individually? I know that there will be some that stand alone, so if you could speak to this issue.
The reason why I have spoken to this during our review of CGS under committee, as an example, under Technical Services as well as in regard to staff who worked under Transportation, we find that in several cases, as soon as they have left the department, they score a big contract shortly after they leave their position.
Due to these circumstances and others like it, this seems to be an urgent matter since we, as a government, seem to just be pouring funds into consultants’ reports.
It seems like the consultants get big contracts because a lot of money is being used. Once they leave the government, they automatically get into consulting and they’re contracted out.
Will they be treated as individual cases, such as senior and junior employees?
Yes, we are currently reviewing the Public Service Act. There are different contents including a code of conduct for conflict of interest.
We will definitely look at it in different ways through aside from the Public Service Act. We can consider this as a Cabinet and we have try and find out with the different departments, especially EIA, on how we can deal with them. I’m committed to reviewing this, Mr. Chairman.
While you’re working on the Public Service Act, have you considered what the committee members have asked when it comes to the whistle-blower as it became evident that the Crown corporations need whistle-blowers?
We have some different problems and one employee who had worked for only two years had an overtime amounting to over $50,000.
This sort of thing is not right, even though people knew about it. If there’s misconduct, these people are afraid to say anything because there’s no whistle-blower protection.
So I wonder if there have been some improvements in that area, Mr. Chairman.
If somebody suspects or knows that their boss is not doing what he’s supposed to be doing, we have talked about and looked at how the person can go to the upper level to report on any abuse or problems.
We have considered whether we should put it in the Public Service Act and we will be considering if it should be included in there.
Even if that employee is doing well, the supervisor or manager might not be happy with what that employee is doing, so we want them protected and we want that within the guidelines.
I would like to state that this will definitely have to be dealt with by the Cabinet and maybe we can think about how to deal with that problem in the future.
It was mentioned earlier that maybe we should come up with an ombudsman or a mediator if they can’t agree.
Those are the things that we have looked at and we will let our colleagues know as to which way we are progressing, Mr. Chairman.
The other question that I have: do you feel that there will be whistle-blower protection included in those guidelines that are being developed? Will it come about?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, we try and work on this with the public servants.
We’re trying to include Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and how the Inuit dealt with problems as they will also be affected in how they can operate.
We have to deal with the whistle-blower protection, or do we have to look at how the Inuit used to deal with this? We have to review the whistle-blower protection.
Is it best just to leave it alone or do we have to review it? How can we best utilize the Inuit culture if there are complaints? Those are the things that we are looking at, Mr. Chairman.
Within Public Service Act, I want you to know that we want to incorporate Inuit culture and how it can be incorporated in there. We have a goal of 85 percent Inuit employment, so we are trying to decide how it would be best to deal with this and we are working hard on this, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. I have a question on a different topic. There hasn’t been an agreement with the union due to financial reasons.
For that reason, can something such as binding arbitration be included in there if the negotiations are not successful and you had to select a mediator?
I wonder if that could be included in the Public Service Act, and if not, why not?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I wonder how I can respond to that.
I don’t particularly want to put it in there because I feel that we have to study or review it to see what the best way is in dealing with disagreements between the government and the union.
So we are reviewing to see if that should be included in the Public Service Act.
At this time, we are on mediation. When the union is this way and the government is that way, the mediator could say to the union, “What you’re asking for is too much,” or say to the government, “You’re not providing enough.”
We are waiting for our mediator to do that and after they review it, then we will be able to decide which way we want to go.
We will look at the binding arbitration under the Public Service Act, but we are trying to look at other ways of how it can be best dealt with - if we want to try different ways that haven’t been used before, or if we feel that some things will definitely have to go ahead.
Those are things that we want to consider, but at this time, I can’t say exactly what the decision will be, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things that have been raised during Committee of the Whole under HR is I believe the negotiations have been going on for over a year and they haven’t had a contract for about a year. It’s not acceptable that they can’t come to an agreement because they don’t have much time.
They should have more time to come up with an agreement and agree with what they’re asking.
This is just the path. We’re not saying to go their way right now but when the public service doesn’t have a contract, it’s not right. Housing allowances are not adequate.
If they go on strike, it could be for a long time and that wouldn’t be acceptable. For that reason, we have to possibly use binding arbitration because then the government would be more believable if there’s no other way.
I don’t find it acceptable that there hasn’t been an agreement on the contract negotiations for over a year.
What other alternatives do you have?
I don’t think there’s much but you have to consider this very seriously, Mr. Minister, and if you don’t want to put that in there, why not?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, it’s taking a long time to come up with an agreement.
What we wanted to do was that if we had come up with an agreement, then we were going to start negotiating for it.
The reason we’re a little hesitant for a binding arbitration is that you have to go this way and you can’t go any other way. Whether we agree with it or not, we would have to go along with it.
The arbitrator might not go with what the employees union is seeking and that can create some conflict on both sides.
So that’s one of the reasons why we are kind of hesitant to go through that route. There might be a better way, so we’re trying to look at other ways.
I would like to say that, Mr. Chairman, within the department, we will definitely try and come up with an agreement with the union, Mr. Chairman.
Maybe if I ask you this question: can you indicate to this House why the union and the GN cannot agree with anything to date?
I think I’ll get an adequate response if I make it short. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We still are quite a bit apart with our negotiations.
We have not received a response from the union with respect to housing allowances, obviously an important issue.
After the government made an announcement on housing subsidies on January 1, 2008 and the subsidy for employees who own their own homes of $400, we still haven’t heard from the union on what their response is on that issue.
In financial terms, it’s perhaps the most important issue the union is not able to agree on. For example, if you work for an X number of years, you could become eligible for a bonus of an X amount.
This issue is one of the most important reasons why we have not been able to reach an agreement with the union, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) We want to make it clear since we have to be as fair as we can to our employees here in Nunavut - our teachers, nurses and elsewhere in the public service within the GN. They work very hard and so we need to come to an agreement with them to show that we support them.
Personally, I believe the $400 subsidy for employees housing is too low. I would actually increase it, maybe for the second year, and increase it a little bit more if they’re going to be here for another year or so.
That’s just a comment for the reason that… if I were to say it in English, don’t make the agreement so that (interpretation ends) the only tool you have is to hold your breath until your face turns completely blue and then one of you would finally give up and burst, or implode, for all that matter. That appears to be the only tool available for the government right now.
I think that it’s important that you come to an agreement and the sooner the better. Otherwise, the senior public service will start leaving, exodus, and find jobs somewhere else.
Many are probably doing that right now. I ask the minister to try and work as hard as he can, be reasonable and come to an agreement while the Assembly is sitting.
A mediator will be assisting us in determining when we can announce a new agreement.
We don’t know when that will be because it depends on what the union is willing to accept and what the government is willing to offer. Once the mediator hears from both sides, he will then submit his report.