EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If my memory serves me correct, and I can be corrected if I’m wrong, please, I think the final position of the government, as far as the compensation end of things goes, was like a one percent, plus one percent, or something like that.
I’m just wondering if they can say: what was the government’s final offer and what was the union’s final asking?
If I could just get an idea of how far apart they were.
The government’s stand was a one percent increase starting October 1, 2006 for all staff members and there would be another one percent increase at the signing of the agreement.
There would be a two percent increase on April 1, 2008; a 2.25 percent increase on October 1, 2008; a 2.25 percent increase on April 1, 2009; a 2.5 percent on October 1, 2009; and a 2.75 percent increase on April 1, 2010.
However, the union’s stand was a six percent increase for Category 1 employees and 8.87 percent increase for Category 25 employees.
So that is where we had our disagreements, Mr. Chairman.
The minister had indicated that if it was agreed to, the one percent would take affect on October 1, 2006.
Is that when the last collective agreement expired?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): September 30, 2006 was the expiry date of the collective agreement, Mr. Chairman.
I also noted, throughout the time of the negotiations, I think the initial position of the government was to have no retroactivity.
I’m just wondering if he could explain why he would even put something like that in there.
I mean, the employees had been working without a contract since way back in 2006.
Why would he even put a no retroactivity clause in there so that, all that time between then and now, they’re out of luck?
A contract is a contract and it should start and finish, and the next one should start when the other one finishes, not when it’s ratified.
So I’m just wondering if we could get a rationale as to why the government chose to put that there.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): The contract expired on September 30, 2006 and we had informed the union that there would be a one percent increase the very next day on October 1.
We offered them a one percent increase to be retroactive to the expiry date of the last agreement.
At the signing date, there would be an additional one percent.
That was the offer of the government, Mr. Chairman.
For the additional one percent, you’re saying there was no retroactivity for that one.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): The one percent was offered by the government and that would become effective the day after the expiration of the agreement.
On the signing date, there would be an additional one percent, Mr. Chairman.
Am I correct in assuming then that for the other one percent, there was no retroactivity; it was just from the date it was signed, if it was signed?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): There would be a one percent increase at the signing of the agreement and there would be another one percent increase that would be retroactive from October 1, 2006 to the date of the signing.
At the signing, there would be an additional one percent increase.
That is what we offered to the union.
Maybe then I would like to just ask the minister a simple question that he can answer yes or no. I understand what you’re saying but my interpretation of that is that the one percent was retroactive and the second one percent wasn’t retroactive.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, the one percent would be retroactive from October 1, 2006 and that would be retroactive the day after the expiration of the agreement, then at the signing of the agreement, there would be an additional one percent increase for government employees.
There would be an additional one percent increase. For example, if an employee of the government resigned before we came to an agreement, that one percent wouldn’t apply for those people.
It’s twofold; on the signing date, the people who signed would get that one percent increase and it would be retroactive to October 1, 2006, and an additional one percent would be added at the signing of the agreement for permanent employees, Mr. Chairman.
So what you’re saying is that even though someone left the day before it was ratified, or quit the day before, or the month before, but still worked for a year and a half, would be out of luck for that additional one percent, even though they did the same work as those that stayed.
Is that basically what you’re saying, “If you’re gone, too bad, but if you stay there, we’ll give you an extra one percent,” even though those employees that had left still did the work?
We are still in the mediation process because there are a number of things that we cannot agree on.
We cannot come to an agreement on certain issues and we are going through the mediation process to find out which issues should apply.
When we get their report and once we get all of the issues laid out, we will then decide on how we’re going to settle the matters that are still outstanding.
So there’s not much we can do until we get the mediator’s report, Mr. Chairman.
I realize that but I just wonder if that type of mentality for government that says, “We value our employees,” it seems like you’re saying one thing but you’re doing something else.
Right in your business plan here, it says and I’ll quote, “Factors that affect recruitment rates include competition from other employers, cost of living in Nunavut, availability of affordable housing, and shortage of available, qualified beneficiary applicants.” So it seems like the cost of living is a big factor there and under Critical Issues is “The GN’s ability to attract, recruit and retain qualified employees.”
It seems like, “If we drove you out because you couldn’t afford to stay here, then you’re out of luck, even though you did the work.”
What kind of message is that sending the employees?
“That’s how much we’re valued but they don’t care.”
So I have to question: how sincere is the government in how it feels and treats its employees if they have things like that in offers?
Like that one percent; I think the cost of living has gone up a lot more than that one percent over the last couple of years.
I think you indicated six percent was theirs and yours was one percent.
If you really did value your employees and you know the factors are you can’t keep them here because they can’t afford to live here for all kinds of reasons, how sincere is the government in trying to rectify that problem if they are seemingly way off, five percent off, on their negotiations?
I can understand; I know how negotiations work. We start off low and the other guys start off high, and then you kind of go down.
If this government was really sincere about trying to address its recruitment and retention problems, they would be a little more accommodating in recognizing some of the realities of why our public servants are leaving.
So if I could just maybe get the minister to comment on that.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I believe the House Leader would like to respond to that question.
I think the member has raised some really good questions but we shouldn’t try to negotiate the collective agreement in this House and in this forum.
The government or the union did not agree to fishbowl bargaining; they haven’t come out and laid out all their asks, as it were, in a public forum, and I think Minister Tapardjuk has given a good explanation of where we are with bargaining.
Bargaining, as the member lightly said, is negotiation between two groups. In this case, we know that the negotiations have come to a small impasse and then you bring in the next step, which is a mediator. The mediator then will review the settlement conditions that have been put forth by both parties.
That’s not to be debated in here why an offer has been put forward or so on.
Those opportunities can come at a different date, but we haven’t signed an agreement with the union to bring forward a lot of that information.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in this forum, that we are not in a position to negotiate the collective agreement and reasons why different proposals that may have been put forward by the union or put forward by the government; those are at the bargaining table. They’re not at the Legislative Assembly table in this forum.
The member asked questions and the minister responded. Questioning can continue unless the minister refuses to respond.
I want to clarify for my colleague across the floor over there that I’m not trying to negotiate anything.
I’m just trying to find out; it’s public and their position is out there, why did they choose that?
I’m not asking about negotiations.
I’m just saying that this government has been on the record saying over and over again how much it values its employees. So saying that, how can they justify putting forward what they did?
That’s what I would just like to hear.
Are they really sincere in what they say?
By their actions, it doesn’t look like it. So how could they justify that?
I’m not looking for negotiating anything.
And, the minister is the Minister responsible for Human Resources, he is also the Minister of Finance, the Chair of the FMB, and is the only minister dealing with the negotiations, so he should be able to answer that.
If you would like to respond, Minister Tapardjuk.
Yes, it’s true that we value our employees and we want to retain them.
We want to have harmony and understanding between the employer and the employees.
We know that it’s supposed to be that way, but it’s quite a challenge.
One thing that must be understood is that we do want to offer them a huge amount, but one thing you should know is that the funding that has been allocated to us by FMB and Cabinet are limited, and there’s also a deadline for the negotiations.
We’re at the mediation stage where we are going through that process with the mediator on whether the union or the Government of Nunavut’s offer could be reduced or increased either way.
That’s being reviewed at this time and after that, if we went over the budget, we will have to go back to FMB and the Cabinet to get it approved in order to increase the already agreed to amount.
For that reason, we have to live by the amount that was given to us, even though we want to give them an unlimited amount of money. However, we have limited finances and we don’t have the discretion to spend all of the money.
Therefore, that’s the offer and we will stand by our offer until the mediator makes his report to us. After we get his report, we will know which direction we should be going, Mr. Chairman.
I know the minister indicated that there is some unknown dollar amount and I know he can’t declare what it is until after things have been set aside in the contingencies for this contract.
I seriously would like you and all of your colleagues to hear what people are saying out there, that it’s nowhere near enough; people are leaving.
Look at the numbers in your reports; people are leaving because they can’t afford to live here.
I was talking to three nurses just last night that are leaving because they can’t afford it.
I know in other areas in the government, the same thing is happening.
It’s pretty sad when you have government employees on income support, which you do have, because they can’t afford to get by just on their jobs.
I think that if this government really wants to change that, they need to take a hard look at the numbers.
Pretty soon, we’re going to have nobody left.
If you look at some of the examples of problems, they do relate partially to compensation and benefits. Look at the whole NBCC fiasco.
They had a position there and this is what the pay was, but they couldn’t get anyone to go in there and do it; they had good people that turned it down.
I think that the minister should take this message to his colleagues. I think it’s time this government woke up and started realizing what’s happening here.
I think if they’re really serious about addressing this issue, they should come forward a little bit more sincerely than they are.
Will the minister commit to bringing that forward as the Minister of Human Resources and the minister responsible for negotiations and staffing for the government - just take a look at the numbers; something’s got to be done - and convey that message to his colleagues?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, I will be more than willing to discuss numbers after I receive the mediation report. At that particular time, after the mediator has issued his report on the negotiation process, we will be in a better position as to how we are going to proceed with the unresolved issues.
Once I have received the report, there are a number of issues that still require mediation as we are at some distance on some of the issues.
Once I get the report, obviously, it will become necessary to discuss this matter with my colleagues of the Cabinet, and if necessary, then we will take whatever action is required to resolve this issue.
At this point in time, we have made our offer to the government-union employees and the employees have counter-offered. We’re in a stall situation on our negotiations and that’s why we brought in the mediator.
At that particular time, the mediator will report to me and we will discuss the issues on hand, and hopefully, by that time, we will be able to resolve some of these issues. If not, then we will definitely keep the members informed as to the process.
We do have a process in place and we’re going to maintain that process in our negotiations. We want to negotiate in good faith and discussing issues outside the negotiating table can be seen as negotiating in bad faith, and we would like to stay away from that.
So, Mr. Chairman, we will wait for the mediator’s report and at that particular time, we will take corrective action if necessary. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We’re on D-5. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Staffing.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $4,982,000.
D-6.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $2,804,000.
Page D-7.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $806,000.
I know that this is something that I have brought up year after year. Since January of 2000, the number of executive and management positions within the government has grown by 62 percent. However, the number of positions classified as the administrative support has actually decreased by almost 15 percent.
I think there are over 600 executive, senior management, and middle management positions within the government.
In 2000, there were less than 400 positions like that.
I’m just wondering if he could explain: why is the government increasing the number of management positions by such a large amount in this time?
Does the department consider this a good trend for the government’s overall organizational design?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We are aware that since March 2000, the number of GN employees has drastically increased. As of September 30, 2007, there were 3,741 employees, which was an increase of 1,040, or 28 percent.
There was an increased demand in programs and services at the time in 2000 when our government was still very new.
Everything has been changing since then and everything has been settling down.
The classified job descriptions and the funding for Human Resources are increasing annually due to more employees.
The management has increased by 210, or 48 percent, in the past seven years. This has increased drastically.
However, as the departments grow, the number of positions required to deliver the programs and services increases.
There have been new positions that have been created since Nunavut’s inception, along with management positions and administrative supports.
To date, the executive directors did not increase too much, compared to other positions.
For example, there has been an increase of eight percent since the year 2000. If we look at the overall statistics, the number of positions has increased and the programs that were not delivered are being initiated that require executive management.
With that in mind, we have to also consider these to look at the other positions when we have to look at the figures, Mr. Chairman.
I think that my question never got answered. I’m just wondering if this seemingly growth at the top end of the bureaucracy that’s been going on since 2000, and I know that we were just new when we started… but my question was: does the Department of Human Resources consider that trend to be a good one for the government’s overall organizational design?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): My deputy will respond to that question.
The minister has just gone through the history since 2000 of how the increases have occurred. Given that history, the position of the Department of Human Resources would be that the senior management and management positions were increased as necessary to provide programs and services effectively.
I think they said that there’s an increase in programs and services, and usually, it’s not middle or senior management that’s delivering those programs and services; it’s usually the administrative support people that are doing that.
If there are more programs and services out there, why has there been a decrease in administrative support positions?
Are they being eliminated to make room for more senior managers, or are they just being reclassified into higher positions?
The positions have been reviewed and we have also audited them.
The job descriptions for the positions have been reviewed as well.
Looking at it from our point of view, we are trying to rearrange and reclassify the positions.
For example, the rank of the position would be raised to management.
There are many reasons management positions have increased and it’s not the support staff positions that are decreasing, it’s that GN is increasing and the jobs are increasing within the government.
The vacant positions that have to be filled that were identified have been reviewed and rectified, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) D-7.
On November 28, 2005, the minister had stated that the government’s goal was to have 56 percent beneficiary employment by 2010.
He had also stated on November 5, 2007 that this was still the goal, the exact same goal.
It has become evident that if 56 percent is still your goal, you will have to hire about 676 Inuit employees by 2010 and there are only two years left.
This means that you have to retain the same number of Inuit currently employed and that’s the only way you can attain that goal.
So perhaps the minister can inform us how he will rectify this situation.
In respect to whether we can increase the number of Inuit hires, is that what you mean by resolution?
I appreciate this question as, indeed, our goal is to attain 56 percent representative level in our employee numbers by 2010, but I believe that this includes further review of all the issues.
What actions do we need to plan in order to reach this 56 percent goal?
To date, we stand at 51 percent Inuit employment within the government.
It was at 49 percent for about two years and we are currently sitting at 51 percent, and our goal is to increase that to 56 percent.
We will have a better idea of where we stand by 2010.
However, I believe that this is still an achievable goal with our schools churning out a record number of graduates. There are individuals who are being trained to become nurses and teachers for the Government of Nunavut and the Sivuliqtiksat Internship Program is going to start again pretty soon.
Looking at it overall, we believe qualified Inuit will be increasing in the near future.
Looking at our target, we’re thinking it’s going to be pretty close.
If we can’t reach it by 2010, we will know how we can do other things to reach that number, that percentage.
This is our target and we’re going to be working really hard on how we can reach the 56 percent. We’re sort of looking at what we’re trying to do to increase the number of Inuit within the government.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) What you’re talking about in your target is for that percentage.
Will you be able to bring them in a document form to the House as information?
I’m going to have to really look at that number carefully.
I said earlier that 676 could be the target for Inuit who can be employed. If they are going to start working until 2010, they will have to not lose any one Inuk employee presently on payroll.
The Nunavut Government and the union are in discussions in regard to the jobs within the government.
These 676 positions that are not filled by Inuit, are they all going to have to quit before 2010 so that the positions can be filled with Inuit instead if your target is going to be 56 percent?
Looking at the target, it’s a good one to reach for Inuit employment.
I understand my colleague’s question. I think it’s a very good target to have that amount of employees. We will work harder here at the Human Resources Department
However, I would like to say to you as well that right now, we want to see new directives given to all the employees, not just Inuit but for all that work for the GN. We are working on the number of Inuit employees.
What we’re trying to produce are new policies for Inuit employment, how we could fill all those positions.
How are we going to reach that 56 percent target by 2010? We are trying to improve on how we could work on that better to reach that target, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with the minister totally that we want to see those on paper.
I wanted to get a clear picture as to how you are going to reach that target because it’s just two years from now.
If you bring that out at the spring session, then you’re going to have to work really hard to reach that target.
Our communities are not increasing Inuit employment within the decentralized departments. You are going to have to look at that and review them. You can’t just hire people that aren’t beneficiaries who come in and out.
We’re going to be watching this and we will be looking at it carefully before 2010. We would like to see something on paper in your preparations to reach that target.
Are we going to wait for the next session in the spring?
Can you give us the numbers this month?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I don’t think I can answer you any further as I already gave you an answer earlier.
We are working on the final numbers of the employees of Inuit within the government, what the exact figures are.
We will identify the numbers and how we are going to reach 56 percent by 2010.
After we have exact figures, we will have something on paper as to how we can reach that target. We can possibly produce something on paper by the next session, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to add to Mr. Arvaluk’s comments.
You have discussed the same thing for almost two years now.
It was mentioned that Inuit employment is increasing and I don’t think it’s at 56 percent anymore.
Can you tell me what the percentage is to date?
Is under the target?
As you mentioned earlier and as Mr. Picco indicated, if you don’t have a strategy, you can’t go anywhere.
What percentage do you think it is as we’re getting close to 2010?
Two years have passed, so has the number of Inuit employees hired reached 56 percent?
The target was 676 Inuit employees and there are two years left to fill those positions, so have you reached that target?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, according to the statistics as of September 2007, there was 51 percent Inuit employment across the government and it was at 48 percent last year, so it increased by three percent within a few months.
Regional departments all have different employees and some of the positions need good qualifications.
We will have to review and update the numbers as well.
Also, which departments will we have to really work on?
Maybe it could be the one with the least number of Inuit employees.
We need to review them carefully and we would like to produce another plan, Mr. Chairman.
I fully support him and it’s very encouraging to hear that.
The person next to you was asking: do you think that we will reach or go over that percentage?