EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
This also assumes that the government would not lose any of its existing Inuit employees, which is not a realistic assumption, given that the government’s most recent public service annual report indicates that the annual departure rate for employees leaving the GN is close to 20 percent.
It is also important to note that there are, at present, approximately 1,500 non-beneficiary employees of the government.
In the long term, the achievement of an 85 percent level of Inuit employment in a fully staffed public service would mean that the government would require approximately 900 fewer non-beneficiary employees than it currently has in its workforce.
Mr. Speaker, a related issue concerns the ever-increasing size of the public service itself.
According to the government’s quarterly Inuit employment reports, the number of positions in the GN grew from 2,818 in June of 2001 to 3,910 in June of 2010.
This represents an increase of approximately 40 percent.
During the same period, however, the government’s overall vacancy rate consistently remained between 20 and 25 percent.
It is important to recognize that when the overall number of positions in the bureaucracy increases, so does the gap between the number of beneficiaries currently employed by the government and the number of new beneficiary employees required to achieve a representative public service.
During the standing committee’s hearings, members questioned why the government continues to add new positions when it cannot fill almost a quarter of its existing ones.
Although the responses that members received from the government’s lead witness did not convince them of the wisdom of this practice, members recognize that this is a government-wide issue that the Department of Human Resources cannot address unilaterally.
Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, the report of the Auditor General presented 15 specific recommendations to help the government improve its human resources management and ultimately strengthen its capacity.
A significant number of these recommendations were focused on processes, practices, and procedures.
In some areas, the government’s success in implementing these recommendations will be clearly measurable.
For example, the report of the Auditor General noted that it currently takes approximately 318 days to fill a vacant position through the government’s job competition process.
As a number of members have noted, this causes frustration on the part of constituents who have applied for employment with the government.
As the Auditor General stated during the hearings, “the staffing process has to be much shorter and more responsive.”
Reducing this length of time would be a measurable achievement, as would increasing participation and completion rates for training programs.
The standing committee also notes the importance of considering the differences that exist between processes for hiring positions at the headquarters level and positions in communities.
The standing committee also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that Nunavut beneficiaries who are unsuccessful in applying for positions receive clear information concerning the reasons for why they were unsuccessful.
The standing committee notes that ongoing evaluation of the government’s success in meeting such specific objectives as updating the government’s Priority Hiring Policy, which expired in March 2010, developing a new GN-wide Human Resources Strategy, introducing a new Public Service Act, developing a legislated system of whistle-blower protection, and bringing forward changes to the government’s transfer assignment and direct appointments processes will also occur in the context of the standing committee’s annual consideration of the proposed main estimates and business plan of the Department of Human Resources.
Although the action plan presented to the standing committee by the Department of Human Resources presented a number of planned timelines and activities in response to the recommendations of the Auditor General, members were of the view that many of these timelines are not sufficiently ambitious and many of the activities are not adequately described in a way that will allow for progress to be meaningfully measured.
For example, as I noted earlier, the government no longer appears to have a target date for when it hopes to achieve a fully representative public service.
Although the standing committee recognizes the importance of setting realistic goals, it cannot accept the contention that a new target cannot even be determined until the year 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to note with regret that the standing committee was disappointed with the quality of a number of responses from the government’s lead witness during its hearings.
For example, members noted that although the Government of Nunavut had issued a news release on September 15, 2010, which announced that the cabinet had “agreed to cut down on duplication in the Government of Nunavut, contribute to capacity building, and re-profile vacancies,” witnesses appeared unprepared to fully explain these decisions despite their obvious relevance to the subject matter of the standing committee’s hearings.
The standing committee was also extremely disappointed at the government’s outright refusal to answer questions on a specific matter that emerged during its hearings.
In a recent court filing related to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s lawsuit against the federal government in respect to implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the GN stated that the Government of Canada has “refused to provide to the Government of Nunavut the necessary funding … to allow it to develop and implement the necessary training and other measures required to increase Inuit participation in government employment to a representative level.
To the extent that the Government of Nunavut has been unable to comply with all of its obligations in respect of Article 23, that is a result of Canada’s failure to comply with its funding obligations.”
Mr. Speaker, if it is the Government of Nunavut’s position that its capacity problems are caused by a lack of federal funding, it is incumbent on the government to be candid with Members of the Legislative Assembly concerning its position on what those funding levels should actually be.
Mr. Speaker, a number of themes and issues emerged from the standing committee’s review of the Auditor General’s report.
Accordingly, the standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut address the following critical areas for action:
The importance of providing ongoing, formal reports to the Legislative Assembly on what specific actions are being taken to improve the human resource capacity of the government and an accounting of how their effectiveness is being measured.
The standing committee recommends that the next report on the status of the government’s action plan in response to the recommendations in the report of the Auditor General be tabled in the Legislative Assembly on the first day of the fall 2011 sitting of the House.
The standing committee further recommends that this report, wherever possible, present clear measures of progress in achieving such goals as reducing the length of time required to fill vacant positions.
The standing committee further recommends that this report account for what specific collaborative initiatives have been taken by the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Education, and Nunavut Arctic College.
The standing committee notes that the government’s success in achieving measurable progress will help guide future deliberations concerning the question of whether the government’s current model of centralized human resources management continues to be appropriate.
The standing committee further notes that the results of the government’s current functional review of decentralization, which are anticipated to be provided in mid-2011, will also benefit the consideration of this issue.
The importance of accelerating the Government of Nunavut’s timetable for the setting of a new target date for achieving a fully representative level of Inuit employment across all occupational categories in its departments, Crown corporations and agencies.
The importance of reviewing the long-term sustainability of annual increases in the number of positions in the territorial public service.
The importance of timely tabling in the Legislative Assembly of key departmental documents, including the government’s public service annual report and its quarterly Inuit employment reports.
As of February 25, 2011, the 2009-2010 Public Service Annual Report had not yet been tabled although the fiscal year had ended 11 months earlier.
As of February 25, 2011, the most recent publicly-available quarterly Inuit employment report was for June 2010.
The information in these documents is essential for ensuring that Members of the Legislative Assembly and the public are kept informed of the government’s actions and outcomes in the area of human resource management.
The importance of clarifying in its response to this report the Government of Nunavut’s position concerning federal funding levels in relation to the territorial government’s obligations under Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by noting that the standing committee, pursuant to Rule 91(5), formally requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days.
I would also like to take this opportunity to note that the standing committee looks forward to considering the Auditor General’s 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly on Nunavut Child, Youth and Family Programs and Services.
The member moves that the report of the standing committee be received by the House.
Speaker (interpretation): They have agreed. Thank you.
The report has been received by the House.
Going to our orders of the day. (interpretation ends) Item 14. (interpretation) Tabling of Documents.
Tabled Document 011 – 3(3): Baker Lake HTO’s Comments on the Revised Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for Areva Resources Canada Incorporated’s Kiggavik Project (Aupaluktuq)
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) For the benefit of the permanent public record and the interest of all Members of this House, I am honoured to table a copy of the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization’s comments on the revised draft guidelines for the preparation of an environmental impact statement for Areva Resources Canada Incorporated’s Kiggavik project.
I encourage all of my colleagues to review this document with care. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister for Economic Development and Transportation.
Tabled Document 012 – 3(3): The NNI Review Committee’s Summary of the 2008-2009 Comprehensive Review Report (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the NNI Review Committee’s summary of 2008-09 comprehensive review report produced by Nunavummi Namminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti Secretariat and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
Tabled Document 013 – 3(3): Resolute Bay Retailer Grocery List for Nutrition North Review Project Website (Elliott)
Further to my Member’s Statement yesterday, I wish to table a copy of the prices of the items on the grocery list from the Nutrition North review website for the retail outlet in Resolute Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Hanna Wolff of Resolute Bay for sending me this information.
I would note that she made the same comments as I did yesterday in regard to the availability of certain nutritious food items, the variety of certain nutritious food items, the quality of certain nutritious food items, and the choice of certain nutritious food items which are provided by the retailer to the consumers.
I encourage all members to review this list.
Tabled Document 014 – 3(3): Responses to Ministerial Directive No. 1 dated April 15, 2010 for Nunavut Housing Corporation (Curley)
Tabled Document 015 – 3(3): Responses to Ministerial Directive No. 1 dated April 17, 2010 for Nunavut Housing Corporation (Curley)
Tabled Document 016 – 3(3): Responses to the Reporting Obligations for Territorial Corporations, 2010-2011 for Nunavut Housing Corporation (Curley)
I’ll be putting on my other portfolio hat, specifically as the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation.
I am pleased to table these three documents.
The first document relates to Responses to Ministerial Directive No. 1 dated April 15, 2010 for Nunavut Housing Corporation. The second document, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to table is the Responses to Ministerial Directive No. 1 dated April 17, 2010 for Nunavut Housing Corporation.
And lastly, I am pleased to table the Responses to the Reporting Obligations for Territorial Corporations, 2010-2011 for Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Going to (interpretation ends) Item 15 (interpretation) in our Orders of the Day.
Notices of Motions. (interpretation ends) Item 16. (interpretation) Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills. (interpretation ends) Item 17. (interpretation) Motions. (interpretation ends) Item 18. (interpretation) First Reading of Bills.
Bill 02 – An Act to Amend the Scientists Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the hon. member from Rankin Inlet North, that Bill 2, An Act to Amend the Scientists Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 03 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 04 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, be read for the first time.
Bill 05 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, No. 2 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, No. 2, be read for the first time.
(interpretation ends) Item 19. (interpretation) Second Reading of Bills. (interpretation ends) Item 20. (interpretation) Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.
Bill 1 with Mr. Schell in the Chair.
For your information, you will immediately proceed to Committee of the Whole.
Chairman (Mr. Schell): The Committee of the Whole will come to order.
In the Committee of the Whole today, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 1, Appropriation (O&M) Act, 2011-2012.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 1 and the Department of Health and Social Services, followed by the Department of Education.
Chairman: Are we agreed to continue with the O&M budget for the Department of Health and Social Services?
Chairman: Are we in agreement that Minister Curley and his staff can go to the witness table?
Chairman: Will the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the minister and witnesses to the witness table.
Minister Curley, please introduce your staff.
To my right is the Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Alex Campbell, and to my left is our Executive Director of Corporate Services, Debora Voth.
Yesterday, we were on page H-4. I’m taking questions on H-4. Any questions?
As Members of the Legislative Assembly, we get a lot of requests for assistance from our constituents. This is especially true for medical issues.
Under page 129 in your business plan, it states that for 2011-12, you will be putting together a confidentiality policy and security protocol for computer databases, and in English it states, (interpretation ends) privacy and security policies for electronic and non-electronic health information.
(interpretation) With respect to these policies that you want to develop, will they be able to assist the members?
For example, if a constituent wanted assistance to deal with an issue and the case is confidential, how can the individual be fully protected, Mr. Chairman?
I think you’re asking about the electronic health information for patients who leave for medical appointments or who visit the community health centres.
It can take quite a while, especially when someone moves to another community and their medical records have to be sent. In some cases, it caused problems for patients, especially when the records had to be mailed out.
We will try to ensure that we prioritize the issues related to this matter, especially where it states that we have to implement privacy and security policies related to confidentiality.
These policies that govern both electronic and non-electronic health information have good administrators who enforce the policies and protect personal information. That is how we want to ensure we protect them.
It’s currently being implemented, and we discussed the issue very briefly.
It’s being worked on in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and we will be going to the Kitikmeot, specifically to Cambridge Bay.
The larger communities were going to be dealt with first.
I am very happy that I can raise questions because I’m part of the committee now.
In your business plan, one of the priorities for 2011-12… .
I’m wondering if the services are being provided. Well, the health department is trying to do this for developing an evaluation framework to monitor and assess the quality of departmental programs and services.
Will that be handled by your department or will that be contracted out to do the evaluation framework?
First of all, let me provide some details about this digital database.
Not only Canada but the entire western world now uses the digital computer database where electronic health records are being kept.
Data is entered into the central database, which is supported by the federal government fiscally.
This is a highly complex and technical matter requiring specialized skills. Therefore, its development is under contract.
Furthermore, our territorial informatics technicians under CGS are involved. This is also overseen by a technical working committee from the department. This is quite complex to detail, but our IT personnel are dealing with it.
Further, the federal government provides a substantial amount of funding towards the digitization of health records. This is especially true of people who go to the hospital for appointments and the data is entered into their own individual files. For example, here in Iqaluit, it has been running for some time and if you had to go for an appointment, all the medical personnel has to do is click on your file and not have to go rummaging for paper records.
Once your health number is entered, your entire health record pops up, with information on who you are, any past visits to the doctor or nurse, any blood work or tests that were performed, and all of this is available to the doctor.
If you were to move elsewhere in Canada, that record would be available as well.
As an example, it immediately allows any treating doctor to know what your medical history is and it’s extremely helpful for any tests that are required.
Some people are fearful that this database may be abused, but it facilitates the treatment of sick people. It may even allow faster treatment and less costs to treat people as the sickness will be immediately known and wouldn’t require further testing.
Mr. Chairman, I believe Alex can provide more details about this digital record keeping.
However, with respect to some of the concerns, that can be dealt with through the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
We welcome all concerns as it relates to confidentiality and our security, but our goal is to complete this by March 31. We are aiming for this date, but we will update the members if we can’t meet it.
Thanks to the member for that question. Just a couple of points just to add to the minister’s responses.
The evaluation itself, the framework that is going to be developed this coming fiscal year, will be developed within the Policy Division in the department. The Corporate Services Division looks after the electronic health records when it comes to that.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): I would like to get more clarification on the evaluation.
Will you be using your own employee or will the evaluation of the process be contracted out?
Yes, we are proposing to do that in-house. As I said earlier, the division of policy will be spearheading that project and will be developing those frameworks.
Currently we don’t have a very accurate way of assessing how these programs are being managed and administered at the local level, so we need some kind of reporting mechanism and evaluation framework for some of the programs and policies that we do have in the department.
So that’s a key instrument that needs to be developed, and yes, it’s not going to be contracted out; the Policy Division will be doing that.
On page 129 as well in the business plan, under the priorities for 2011-12, the first priority there is to establish a certified practical program with Nunavut Arctic College to certify community health nurses in advanced practical skills.
I was wondering if you could just expand on that and tell us what types of skills and if this is going to be affiliated with another, like Memorial University, or if it’s specifically Nunavut Arctic College based.
Thanks to the member for that question.
The proposal is for the Arctic College to deliver that program.
We’re trying to develop an enhanced program at the community level to allow the CHRs to have a more broad range of responsibilities at the community level and to assist the nurse in charge and the other clinical staff in the community.
We are working in partnership with Nunavut Arctic College in collaboration and developing what’s called a laddering program in the college where people can start off at a certain course, and then they can redirect some of their course work to other professions if they want. It’s something that Arctic College will be developing in Nunavut.
In regard to some of the questions from the MLA from Amittuq with these electronic health records, I know that there was a newspaper article about the Qikiqtani Hospital and having electronic records and they ran into a few problems and concerns with the rolling out of that.
I’m sure that with any new program or the way of handling different things, you learn from your mistakes. Is there an update that we could get on that?
Actually we had very few glitches with the roll out at the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
We did have some initial issues with some parts of the software that had been corrected since.
So I don’t believe it matters how much time you can test it out in a non-live environment. Those kinds of issues will show up when you go live, and they were handled very quickly. I think, overall, from the feedback that I have been getting, the implementation was very smooth.
One of the concerns that the committee had and other MLAs have with having constituents bring us issues is the fact that their private medical information is being kept confidential.
Just for clarification, now that the program is done and all of the kinks are worked out of it and it is working smoothly, will it be specifically medical staff who are inputting the information or are consultants involved in this process in any way?
You had mentioned CGS, which is a totally separate department, which could have access or see private and confidential information from patients across the territory.
I know that has been an issue in regular members dealing with patient issues as well, so I know it’s something that you guys are aware of. Who actually has access to seeing that information?
In the electronic health records system, there is actually a multi-layered security system. For example, you would have a clerk or a receptionist at the front entrance that would have access to information, such as address, etcetera.
However, they would not have access to blood reports or x-ray information, etcetera.
As you go up the chain of your security level, the more information you would have access to. You would actually have to be the doctor in charge of the patient to actually see the full medical record, unless it’s been released to you.
So there are actually multi-security levels.
No one at CGS would be able to have access to that medical information. We do rely on CGS for the core business network that e-health system transmits the data through. So we do rely on that.