EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The standing committee publicly suggested to you last year that this period of time be extended to five years, which is the same length of time required for GN employees to be eligible for a Long-Term Service Award.
Why did you ignore the standing committee’s suggestion and do you really believe that people who have only lived here for one year are long-term residents?
The Priority Hiring Policy states who should be considered as priorities when they’re hiring.
He spoke of two issues - one of which is the bilingual bonus of $1,500 per year and in part to his second question, in our policy, it clearly states that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries who meet the qualifications required for positions will be given priority over all applicants in job competitions.
If there are no beneficiaries who meet the qualifications, the long-term northerners will have to be considered.
And, it’s true that it states in our Priority Hiring Policy that there’s a one-year residency requirement to be recognized as a long-term resident. As long as you have a Nunavut Health Care Card, then you would be considered as a resident of Nunavut.
The residency requirement is one year and the third one we consider is that we would consider residents outside of Nunavut.
Statistics Canada has stated that 96 percent of non-beneficiaries are already working and we have not been told, as the Department of Human Resources, via correspondence in any form, or given any information, that Nunavummiut would like to see the residency requirement lengthened. We have not received any requests such as that.
When a non-beneficiary has lived in Nunavut for one year, then they would be considered after beneficiaries for job competitions and that has not changed.
We have not asked the Cabinet to review that and we are still using the same policy that was amended, Mr. Chairman.
The job advertisements for government positions state that people who are not long-term residents of Nunavut and/or non-beneficiaries, especially those who work at headquarters, will work on an indeterminate basis.
I would like to know how often you are using the indeterminate employees because I know that last year in Pond Inlet, a non-beneficiary was given a permanent job.
How do you utilize the indeterminate employees who are non-beneficiaries?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): In order for me to respond adequately, if he can rephrase his question in regard to his comments about the term positions.
Mr. Arvaluk, please rephrase your question so that he can respond.
For example, when non-beneficiaries are hired, they have to train a Nunavut beneficiary in order for the beneficiary to take over the position.
When the beneficiary is capable of filling that position and once the term is up, then the beneficiary would take over that position.
I have been seeing this occur, but the indeterminate employee ends up being hired as a permanent employee.
I was wondering how you are achieving your goal when they’re hired on an indeterminate basis but subsequently become permanent employees.
The different departments make requests for casual employees, especially for teachers or those who work in the hospitals.
We’ve had somebody from Human Resources brief senior officials, or come to the department to give references, or to clarify policies.
We try and give the departmental or regional employees a clear picture of the policies because a lot of them operate independently in each region.
That’s my answer, Mr. Chairman.
Why is that the case where each department has their own policy?
I was told that the whole Government of Nunavut had the same policy and been directed that all Nunavut people, if they cannot hire the Inuk person to the position, then they would be trained by this person who is a non-beneficiary in the term position until they complete their training and that person would eventually leave.
Why does every department do that at their own discretion?
I have given my authority to the Minister of Education for those who are trying to get employees as trainers in the communities.
I have also given my authority to the Minister of Health and Social Services over their hiring policies for doctors and nurses.
So these two departments are in charge of their respective departments and we try to keep them informed on our hiring policies and guidelines to provide consistency and direction.
Whenever other departments open a position for competition, we assist them in the interview process and other areas of support that have a human resource aspect to it. For example, advertising and selecting the applicants who will be interviewed. The Department of Human Resources has always assisted in the process and others like that are directly related to the job and that’s what we have doing.
We try to ensure the departments follow our policies, Mr. Chairman.
Like I said earlier, according to the public service annual reports, there were 421 GN employees who received bilingual bonuses in 2004-05 and I also said that 787 employees received bilingual bonuses in 2006-07.
If they are bilingual, do you test or review them to ensure that they actually do speak both languages with acceptable competencies related to the work required for the positions they hold?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have my deputy answer this question concerning the bilingual bonuses for employees, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Rojas.
Ms. Rojas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For those that are hired by the GN, we review and interview them to ensure they fully understand and write in Inuktitut, but these tests are only conducted if the bilingual component is clearly identified in the job description.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Rojas.
It states that only if they can speak two languages, they can receive a bilingual bonus of $1,500.
We know, particularly in our community, that those who have to be bilingual but do not receive the bilingual bonus are relied upon daily because there are too many government employees who don’t speak Inuktitut.
They are being exploited as they are not receiving the bilingual bonus.
I want to ask when they will be implementing this bonus for everyone who is competently bilingual, particularly in Inuktitut and English.
As long they’re bilingual, they should receive bilingual bonuses because they’re being exploited at the moment.
What we do have in the policy is when we’re advertising a position, a decision is made to either include a bilingual bonus or not.
This bonus is usually included in positions where there’s regular and constant contact with unilingual Inuit or with employees who are required to speak only in Inuktitut.
As an example, when we put out the advertisement for the positions in Nunatsiaq News or News/North, or other publication, it’s identified in there that they have to speak in Inuktitut to be hired.
However, if it’s in the job description, such as for an interpreter position, applicants know they are going to be interpreters and therefore, they should know Inuktitut and English pretty well.
The interpreters get paid by salary and they don’t receive the bilingual bonus because they’re working as an interpreter/translator.
A decision can be made for eligibility for the bilingual bonus for other positions that do require competency in Inuktitut.
That’s our present policy.
When we’re reviewing the Public Service Act, we can consider extending this policy.
In the meantime, that’s where the bilingual bonus is at, Mr. Chairman.
I’m just asking for clarification now that he just said that they can look at the possibility of granting bilingual bonuses to bilingual people.
My point was that even jobs that do not require a bilingual person to be employed are used anyways.
They are used to explain to customers by the boss who is not bilingual.
Therefore, they give free service on behalf of the government.
Will the minister then tell me if he has actual plans to include all bilingual workers for the government to be given a bonus under that entitlement?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I’ll have my deputy answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Rojas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to clarify, if I may, that there are two programs. One is the bilingual bonus program that we currently have as the Government of Nunavut, as the Department of Human Resources, and that is provided to employees who can speak another official language and it’s identified in the job description that an official language is required and as such, they get $1,500 per year.
There’s also a Language Incentive Program that the Department of Human Resources and other departments have been looking at in terms of providing incentives for people to speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun in the workplace.
Given that, as a government, we have committed to having Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun as working languages within our government. There has been some work on this and the proposed three distinct levels of incentives were depending on: fluency of $1,500 per year; fluency, including reading and writing of $2,500 per year; and a language expert would be given $5,000 per year.
Unfortunately, due to the fiscal constraints at the time, Human Resources estimated it would cost about $1.4 million a year and we have not implemented this at this point. So there are two different programs I think that we’re talking about.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I want to ask the same question as the minister didn’t answer my colleague’s question.
Why can’t you put that into the Five-Year Capital Plan?  Last year, your department asked for some more money, so why can’t you put that into the Five-Year Capital Plan for long-term northerners, whether they’re a nurse, an Inuk, or a non-Inuk?
This is not pertaining to those employees who have not worked in civil service. Some of them have children and grandchildren already and some of them are having a hard time making ends meet.
Is he willing to do that in Human Resources’ policies? It’s not good when you have a stumbling block and I think the problems are easier than they appear.
That’s my question to the minister. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
We are about to review our policies and guidelines further. We had made an extension to March 31, 2010 to do so.
I can say to you that we’re reviewing what you have given us and looking at it further. Our current year is 2008 and in three more years, so the current policies will continue to be in place.
In the meantime, I’m told that non-beneficiaries who are residents of Nunavut have to meet the one-year residency requirement and we have heard about it for the last five years.
So we are looking into that further and reviewing it to see how we can better put the policy together for employees of the government. After we review it, then we submit it to Cabinet, Mr. Chairman.
We hear of all kinds of obstacles from the Government of Canada but someone from the Government of Canada stated that there’s a five-year residency requirement for Inuit for what seems to be an affirmative action program and resident.
I don’t know think there’s a law anywhere in Canada where it requires a one-year residency, so I think we can legislate that.
For that reason, I want this to go forward.
I think that your policies are harder to understand in Inuktitut and easier in English.
When it comes to term jobs, what does it mean?
How does it differ from a casual position?
Can you clarify what the differences are?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I’ll let my deputy respond to that, Mr. Chairman.
The main difference between term employees and casual employees is that the term employee has a set period of time when they will be employed. I’m just going to go back and talk about the difference between the indeterminate employee and a term employee because I think that’s clear for me anyway.
The difference between a term and an indeterminate employee is in benefits. The term employee is not able to have maternity leave; does not have those options.
Instead, they would get leave without pay. In addition to that, indeterminate employees can opt into getting their Nunavut Northern Allowance in a lump sum. Term employees do not have that option.
That’s the main difference.
Yes, I understand that now.
Seeing the difference in these, do we know, in those two categories, are there more indeterminate than term positions?
These two categories appear to be often used to fill positions by Inuit.
Is that request for Inuit to fill them done by the department or by the Human Resources?
The different departments request whether it’s going to be a term, casual, or part-time position. It’s up to the appropriate department, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) For my understanding, if a particular department requests for a term employee, does that department ask Human Resources whether it will be a six-month term, or is it a one-time occurrence? I’m not sure how long a term job is. Is it usually for a year or two?
Exactly how is it set? Does it apply for six or ten months?
I would like clarification on that. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
The departments identify how long they want a casual employee or if there’s a need for a replacement while the employee is on training, sometimes that’s the case. If it’s going to be for more than a year, then they have to submit a request to Human Resources. They have to make a full explanation on why they require a term position for over a year.
We don’t want to keep them on an indeterminate basis.
We have to give them an approval if the term is for over a year. The departments are usually more in charge of that, Mr. Chairman.
When I first became a member, I was told that the reason for term positions is due to the lack of comptrollers and finance personnel. I believe quite a number of them were hired for over a year and that there was more than one department in that situation. There may be circumstances where this is still the case.
As an example, if they work under contract for a few months or a ten-month period, then they go on a two-month holiday.
Due to the proximity of their point of hire, they return prior to the six-month contract. This is a wonderful work opportunity.
It is really convenient for them. It has happened where there were no qualified staff members, especially for the finance comptroller position.
As this occurs, the government then has to pay for hotel rooms.
Due to this and other matters, that’s why the minister states that we have to plan for a five-year period until they can be qualified for permanent term positions. Since quite a number of people in this category are not interested in a full-time position, they can just come up for the time being, especially in the summer, during the warm months.
I believe that we can overcome this problem if it was reviewed by your department and whether this is an issue that can be revamped or revisited.
Yes, we can definitely consider how we can improve it, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask the minister not to just consider it, but will they improve it?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): After we review it, we will consider it and if we feel that we need improvements, we have to know which way we are going as a government.
We will give it consideration and then we will make improvements, Mr. Chairman.
Is the Bilingual Bonus program geared toward Inuktitut only or does it also apply to the French language?
If so, are there more people receiving this bonus for French or Inuktitut?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): The French also receive the bilingual bonus but it’s mainly Inuit who receive the bonus.
I would just like to tell you that if a position requires that you have to be able to speak French and English, because a lot of it is funded through the federal government, more Inuit receive bilingual bonuses than the very few French employees, Mr. Chairman.
I am raising this question again to the minister in regard to staff positions.
As a sitting minister, when we’re sitting on this side, it’s very hard to understand. We do not have any pertinent legislation in regard to this.
I don’t think we have a policy either that they have to learn to speak Inuktitut if they are GN employees.
That seems to be the case and you touched on this a bit, but is this an approved policy or just a direction you received from the Premier?
I can’t recall any policy that the senior civil servants have to learn to speak Inuktitut, I can’t recall any policy other than public comments by our Premier that senior civil servants have to be able to speak and understand Inuktitut.
With that being the case, is it in the Public Service Agreement under the union?
I would like to know where it’s stated. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
It really isn’t a policy, it’s mainly a directive.
There’s a policy from Pinasuaqtavut which states that by the year 2020, all government employees will have to speak Inuktitut and that the whole government will have Inuktitut as the working language.
That was one the goals of the First Assembly in 1999.
That policy has been in place so that all government employees will have to speak Inuktitut when we reach that year. We don’t have a specified policy for the government departments that will require them to be able to speak in Inuktitut only.
Although that’s the case, we provide language training for our employees who wish to learn Inuktitut through CLEY and Arctic College. Human Resources looks after that so that we can train or teach senior officials to be able to speak Inuktitut.
That’s our direction, but we don’t have a policy along those lines, Mr Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) As the minister stated earlier, he said the strategies are important.
We can have goals and strategies as the Government House Leader mentioned.
In my view, when there’s no language policy, it’s scary.
There can be political interference, like saying this employee has to be taught in Inuktitut, but there are no policies or guidelines.
For that reason, I wonder, as the minister, can you inform your colleagues to put a stop to this until we have a Language Policy, or guidelines, or policies?
It’s better when there’s a policy in place.
It’s very hard to understand, and you are the Minister of Human Resources, and for those of us who are bilingual, it doesn’t even apply. It’s mind-boggling how it is.
I wonder if you can make this your first priority and make improvements in the Language Policy while we await the legislation.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, we can take that into consideration, but after the Language Bills become law, then that’s the only bullet that we can have.
As we are the government when they become the law, we will have to use those two pieces of legislation to make sure that there’s protection for the Inuit language.
And what he just mentioned, yes, we will take your comments into consideration.
Only after the two pieces of language legislation are enacted would we be able to use those before there’s any progression. I can agree with the recommendation and in regard to any issue of languages, Mr Chairman
I’m sure that will become the case, but in regard to languages, you stated that we have a policy for bilingual assistance where there’s a bonus, but there’s no policy.
There are certain government employees who need to take Inuktitut classes and if we don’t have a policy, not only in the headquarters but also in other communities, it’s hard to get anything done unless it’s approved by the minister.
So it’s very important that we set up a policy. Is it possible for you to urge your Cabinet colleagues?
Yes, we have been discussing this and we have received support and assistance from the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Committee in the effort to make the policies more directed towards Inuit. As these policies take shape and go into force, I have no doubt that staff will also have to learn Inuktitut.
Through the Inuit Language Protection Act, we can then act to strengthen our position.
It would become even more so if the legislation passes this spring, then we would have a Minister responsible for Language who would, no doubt, start making plans.
Once Taiguusiliuqtiit gets started, we can then get on with language policies and terminology. I can make commitments once the legislation is in place to use the powers provided from that Act to pursue the member’s wishes. That will make our planning workload a lot lighter, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Curley. Thank you, Mr. Alagalak.
(interpretation) Thank you for coming back.
Members, please look around to see if we have a quorum so that we can continue with our session. (interpretation ends) D-4. Branch Summary.
Mr. Alagalak: Okay, that’s where we are?
I wanted to ask you because the presenter has been talking about Staffing, so I thought we were at D-5.
I have a question on D-5, but I guess we would pass D-4 first. That’s what’s been going is we have been talking about Staffing instead of Directorate.
So I just want you to make it clear where we are.
Thank you. I’ll have my hands up for D-5.
Yes, we’re on D-4.
We didn’t finish that yesterday, so we’re on D-4.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $2,243,000. Does this committee agree?
D-5.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions since I didn’t quite understand that. Although there are a lot of jobs and there are a lot of people who are willing to work in Nunavut, it seems like the same number of men would also like to work but possibly don’t qualify for the positions that are open… there are a lot less men for the 2007 fiscal year.
There were 934 women who were working, which is 35 percent, and there were 360 men, which is 13 percent.
Could the minister inform this House why there are a lot less men working within the government departments, or are government workers mostly all female? We’re not quite sure what the problem is. Is it because they don’t qualify, or are most of the jobs related to women?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): This question has been asked quite a number of times why there are fewer men working within the government if you compare the Inuit.
It’s like that all over, even in the schools. There are students who are graduating and looking at them, there are more females graduating from high school. They’re better in math and working within a facility.
I’m not exactly sure how we can equalize the numbers between men and women.
If we look at the conservation officers in Nunavut, they’re mostly male and maybe one female. These positions are more geared for men.
Within the government departments, it’s likely because they work inside which seems to be one of the reasons why there are more women. If you look at the fisheries and so on, it’s mostly males who have those outdoor jobs. There are the others, such as carpenters and drivers, which are dominated by men.
Within government departments, it’s mostly indoors and there seems to be more qualified women working in those fields than men, but we are looking at how we can improve the system, Mr. Chairman.
It seems like the people in Nunavut have ignored this issue.
There was one time I heard that the jobs within the government departments were open to both men and women, meaning that men can also be secretaries. We even have a male receptionist in this House. There’s no difference whether the receptionist is either a male or female.
This government has been in existence for a number of years, so we have seen quite a number of high school graduates and I think they should pay more attention to our government. Jobs in the departments, even when they look like they’re more related to women’s fields, men are still capable of doing those same tasks.
The Nunavut Government needs to make sure that those career opportunities are promoted more.
We see more and more women who are providing for their households - providing the food and providing the clothing for their children. The men are staying at home and earn no income.
Could the minister give out that information to Nunavummiut, possibly through the media like the radio, making public service announcements, or something along those lines to try and increase the number of men working within the Nunavut Government?
Is it possible for the minister to do so?