EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you for coming back. We now have quorum and are now able to proceed.
Does the Minister of Human Resources have opening comments?
Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation ends) I’m sorry.
(interpretation) Your portfolios were changed. I apologize again.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before you and your committee today to present the proposed 2012-13 main estimates and business plan for the Department of Human Resources.
Mr. Chairman, in 2012-13, the Department of Human Resources has been allocated a budget of $24,120,000.
Our main estimates and business plan show a staff complement of 104 person years.
This includes 16 Sivuliqtiksat intern positions that are assigned to a variety of departments.
Our 2012-13 main estimates and business plan build on our public service accomplishments and progress in meeting the goals set forth in Tamapta. Our department priorities also address commitments made in response to the Auditor General of Canada’s 2010 report on human resources capacity in the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, the directorate, which provides leadership and corporate services, including finance, information systems, and human resource policy, has been provided 16 percent of the department’s 2012-13 budget.
The directorate has the lead on the Tamapta priority of developing a GN-wide human resources strategy and continues to focus the department on increasing its efforts to recruit, retain, and develop Inuit in our public service.
Another key initiative being lead by the directorate is the development of a new Public Service Act to reflect the needs of Nunavut.
The Staffing and Recruitment Branch, which provides leadership in recruiting and staffing practices and administers staffing services for Iqaluit, has been provided 29 percent of the department’s 2012-13 budget.
Community operations, which, through three offices in Igloolik, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay, oversees staffing services and training and development programs at the regional level, has been provided 13 percent of the 2012-13 budget.
Our staffing team is working hard on developing and implementing new measures to make the hiring process more [efficient].
In 2011-12, there were 89 of 118 job competitions filled. This represents a 75 percent success rate for filling positions in the GN. The average time taken to staff a position is 131 days, which represents a six-day reduction from the 137 days referred to in the OAG report. Our commitment through our standards of service is 85 days, but limited availability of staff housing continues to impact our turnaround time.
On average, the wait for staff housing can take up to 45 days and longer. We continue to work with departments to encourage the timely staffing of their vacancies.
The Training and Development Branch, which provides a variety of training and development programs and career development opportunities for GN employees, has been provided 30 percent of the department’s 2012-13 budget.
The Employee Relations and Job Evaluation Branch, which provides labour relations advice and support to departments and offers a variety of programs, such as workplace wellness, occupational safety, and employee recognition, has been provided 12 percent of the department’s 2012-13 budget.
The branch foresees an exciting year, including implementation of a number of initiatives, including harassment-free workplace and conflict management training. We will also be introducing a new Code of Values and Ethics for the public service.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration and I welcome questions from the members.
Hon. Fred Schell: Yes, I would.
Minister Schell, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my immediate right is Joe Kunuk, the deputy minister, and to the left is David Kolot. He’s the director of corporate services. On the side of there is Richard Paton.
He’s the ADM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Schell.
Welcome to the witness table, (interpretation ends) Deputy Minister Kunuk (interpretation) and Mr. Kolot.
Mr. Elliott: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Elliott.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the proposed 2012-13 main estimates and 2012-15 business plan of the Department of Human Resources.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2012-13 operations and maintenance budget of $24,120,000 has remained unchanged from its 2011-12 main estimates.
The standing committee notes that although the department’s organizational structure has changed slightly since the introduction of the 2011-12 main estimates, the total number of positions in the department remains stable at 104.0 PYs.
The standing committee applauds the minister for demonstrating restraint in this area given the tendency of other GN departments to increase the number of positions in their organization charts each year, despite their not being able to fill a significant percentage of their existing jobs.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee’s report on its review of the 2010 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on Human Resource Capacity in the Government of Nunavut was presented to the House on March 2, 2011.
The standing committee’s report made a number of observations and recommendations concerning such issues as the government’s hiring process, centralization of the human resources management function, and the government’s Article 23 obligations.
The government’s response to the standing committee’s report was tabled on October 18, 2011.
The government tabled a separate status report on September 28, 2011 concerning its action plan to address the report of the Auditor General.
The themes and issues that emerged from this review continue to be important.
The 2009-2010 Public Service Annual Report was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until June 7, 2011.
As of February 28, 2012, the 2010-11 Public Service Annual Report had not yet been tabled in the Legislative Assembly, even though the fiscal year ended almost 12 months ago.
As of February 28, 2012, the most recent quarterly Inuit employment report to be available on the department’s website was for March 2011.
The department’s draft 2012-15 business plan indicates that two of its priorities in 2012-13 are to “develop an extensive government-wide Human Resources Strategy” and to “Develop a comprehensive and multi-year GN-wide Inuit Employment Plan, in collaboration with all GN departments.”
It is important to acknowledge the progress that has been made in increasing Inuit employment in the government.
According to the government’s own quarterly employment reports, a total of 943 beneficiaries were employed by the GN in March of 2001.
By March of 2011, that number had increased to 1,480. This constituted an increase of almost 60 percent over the course of a decade.
On average, the government added approximately 53 new Inuit employees each year.
It is important for the government to develop aggressive, realistic, and achievable timetables for achieving full representation across all occupational categories in the government, which is commonly understood to mean a public service that is composed of 85 percent beneficiary employees.
This is a significant challenge.
The government’s employment statistics from its March 2011 quarterly report, which is the most recent report to be available on the department’s website, indicate that there were a total of 3,808 positions across the government’s departments and Crown agencies. 2,903 of these positions were filled, of which 1,480 were filed by beneficiaries.
Assuming that the government could fill all of its positions, it would need to hire 1,755 new beneficiary employees to achieve full representation.
Every business plan produced by the department since the 2003-04 fiscal year has noted this as a priority.
The department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its priorities for 2012-13 is to “Continue with Public Service Act renewal…” The standing committee looks forward to substantive progress being made on this issue and hopes to see the new legislation introduced in the House during the life of this Assembly. The standing committee looks forward to the legislation, including provisions that address the issue of whistle-blower protection for employees who report wrongdoing in the workplace.
The standing committee also encourages the minister to consider the idea of providing for binding arbitration in the collective bargaining process.
The 2009-2010 Public Service Annual Report indicated that a total of 64 employees utilized the government’s Employee and Family Assistance Program during the fiscal year.
Eighty employees utilized the program in 2008-09.
The standing committee urges the Department of Human Resources to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Services to ensure that employees can access out-of-territory services when required.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee continues to strongly support the GN’s Summer Student Employment Equity Program, which provides valuable work experience for Nunavut youth.
Approximately 15,000 students, 75 percent of whom were beneficiaries, have participated in this program since 2001.
In recognition of the fact that many of Nunavut’s smaller communities do not have a significant GN presence, the standing committee continues to urge the minister to consider such ideas as providing wage subsidies to municipalities and other employers to hire summer students in smaller communities that do not have a large GN presence.
The standing committee notes that section 17 of the Inuit Language Protection Act provides that the Inuit Language Authority “may develop, review, recommend or administer surveys or tests that evaluate Inuit Language proficiency…”
The standing committee encourages the department to continue to work with the Nunavut Housing Corporation on this issue and notes that one of the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s priorities for the 2012-13 fiscal year is to “Conduct an internal review of the Staff Housing Policy.”
Before I open the floor for general comments, I would like to ask Mr. Elliott a question. On page 3 of his opening comments, just above the last paragraph, he stated, (interpretation ends) “approximately 15,000 students,” (interpretation) but in the paper, it’s just 1,500 students. For the record, did you state that incorrectly?
Mr. Elliott: Yes, in my opening comments, it’s approximately 1,500 students.
I would like to remind you that we’re on page D-4.
If you haven’t turned to that page, that’s what we will be reviewing, but the floor is now open to general comments before we start with the page-by-page review.
I would like to acknowledge the hard work performed by the hon. minister’s office. I would like to speak to a certain particular branch from the hon. minister’s speaking notes.
With the particular branch I wanted to speak to, I have a follow-up question and I’ll be brief with this.
The Employee Relations and Job Evaluation Branch, as what the minister has stated, I believe there are a variety of programs under this branch and one in particular is workplace wellness and that’s what I would like to speak to and ask questions.
I think we all acknowledge that it has been an exciting year for the office of Human Resources.
In his statement, on the last page in the final paragraph, the minister talks about implementation of a number of initiatives, including a harassment-free workplace and conflict management training. This is where I would like to ask.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister: have there been any complaints at all since you have taken over the office of Human Resources or even before, if you’ve had information brought forward to you by the office of the former Minister of Human Resources, any complaint at all by any of your employees that there have been, in fact, harassment taking place in this government?
If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, what progress have you made to try and eradicate this kind of behaviour in the workplace?
If there is no progress at all, why not?
I appreciate Mr. Ningark for that question.
In regard to workplace harassment and conflicts, there have been a total of four formal harassment complaints since April 1, 2011. Three complaints have led to an investigation and the fourth one didn’t meet the definition of harassment.
What we have done is we have put a policy in place and we work through a committee with members, including the HR Employee Relations, Planning and Strategic Priorities Division, and with the NEU, developing a revised harassment prevention policy and a directive in addition to a workplace conflict management directive and guidebook explaining the use of it all. All of these new resources and materials created incorporated best practice principles.
All of these materials have been approved by the cabinet.
Now, the answer leads to the introduction by the minister about Code of Values and Ethics for the public service.
Where are you and where are we in this initiative?
We were reviewing the Code of Values and Ethics and of course, we cannot implement any of that because that’s part of the Public Service Act and we can’t implement any of that until the union negotiations are complete.
Directorate. Branch Summary. Human Resources.
D-4. $3,935,000.
I would like to get further clarification on what percentage level is for the targets under a particular article under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that was mentioned earlier. I don’t have those figures here. I just want to know what percentage we’re at now and it would be appreciated if that information could be tabled, but for the time being, it could be provided verbally.
I’m sure the minister has the information on the number of civil service jobs and how many Inuit work for the government, and it would be good to hear that.
Well, there are two formulas we’re using here, unfortunately, but it’s actually at 51 percent now.
They’re using two different methods.
One is to do the actual percentage of the actual jobs that are profiled, which works out to 48 percent. If you actually look at the jobs that are filled, then it works out to 51 percent.
That is clear enough. When would the Inuit employment report be tabled?
Can you elaborate further on when the report for the previous year would be completed?
It’s going to cabinet in March and it will be tabled in the next session.
Continuing with the issue of the Inuit Employment Plan, it usually reports on every position and which positions will be the priority, particularly as it pertains to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries.
If there are open positions located in the communities, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to have a local hire preference policy.
Some local applicants are ignored all too often whenever there is an open position. When Inuit applicants are not qualified, non-local applicants are hired instead.
Can this be made flexible to enable more local hiring?
I agree with the member there.
We have re-profiled some of the jobs there to make sure that we put it to the minimum requirements so that more Inuit can apply for these positions. Like I say, we do have the Priority Hiring Policy, which is, first, we look at the beneficiaries and, if they meet the criteria there, then they are the first ones to be interviewed. That is our target because we want to increase Inuit employment in the GN. Of course, if there’s any possibility of any direct appointments, they are basically done to beneficiaries.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I understand his response, but maybe the minister can clarify the issue further. He stated that they put in minimum requirements for some jobs so that more Inuit can apply.
Why is there a need to reduce requirements just for Inuit?
Well, the first thing we do look for is beneficiaries. Of course, if we have someone locally in the community who qualifies, we look at that because it would save us in moving, etcetera.
I’m going to speak in English.
When the minister indicated that they would lower the qualifications and everything else, probably as well as the job descriptions to a bare minimum, in my opinion, my understanding is so that Inuit can qualify.
I don’t think we need to lower the standards so low that only then will Inuit apply.
That inference, in my language, is one I object to.
Could you be a little bit more, at least, respectful to our culture, those of us who are trained in old fashioned Inuit ways, that in some cases, we may be more qualified than someone who hasn’t lived up here?
That’s not what I meant. What I meant is some of the jobs had such a high qualification that wasn’t required for that job, so it has been the bare minimum that is needed for that job.
For some of the applications, you pretty well had to be a doctor in order to apply and it didn’t mean whether Inuit or anybody else was applying. We just re-profiled it to make it suitable for that job description.
I was actually quoting you because I heard you say, “so that beneficiaries and Inuit can qualify.”
I’m glad you clarified that. That is really quite important.
How do the bilingual bonuses for local communities actually work?
What are the criteria for qualifying for a bilingual bonus?
I’ll let the deputy minister answer that one.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Deputy Kunuk.
Presently the process that we follow in determining who qualifies for the bilingual bonus allowance is the employing department’s deputy minister writes a letter to me recommending that the employee receive the bilingual bonus allowance, at which time we review the information and if it’s approved, the department then needs to identify that Inuktitut is a requirement in the job description, including skills and abilities in the job description that is written.
So the deputies of each department will write to my office and recommend approval and if it’s approved, the employee starts receiving their allowance. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Deputy Kunuk.
So do I understand correctly then that not all positions qualify for a bilingual bonus provision?
Mr. Curley: Even if, for instance, I get a job in the public service as a bilingual individual, I would not necessarily get a bilingual bonus allowance. Would that be correct?
That would be correct if it wasn’t part of the job description.
Would it be possible to review that policy? I think it is being used as a confusing policy, that you call it a bilingual bonus provision, but I don’t think it’s a bilingual initiative whatsoever in my opinion.
We are reviewing it at the present time with CLEY.
Is the bilingual policy, if any, working within HR?
Presently, as the Department of Human Resources, we administer the bilingual bonus allowance.
Like our minister just said, we are reviewing it and it’s one of our priorities for the upcoming year. (interpretation) Thank you.
What I’m trying to get at is if we believe that we should have a bilingual public service, I don’t think the bilingual bonus provisions have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I think the government, at least HR, should be leading in the development of a bilingual public service in Nunavut at all levels of government, whether it would be directors, managers, or senior managers. Why isn’t HR taking leadership in promoting a bilingual Inuktitut and English public service within our government?
That’s why we are and that’s why we’re reviewing it with CLEY.
I don’t know why CLEY would have anything to do with that provision.
What I’m trying to get at is even the deputy ministers, in my view, should be bilingual.
It is all part of the ability to communicate with Nunavutmiut and I think bilingualism is exactly that with Inuktitut and English.
Why not accept and promote policies that a bilingual public service is important and essential, not only with the translation services area but throughout the whole public service?
Would you not agree?
That’s why we’re promoting Inuit employment in the GN and hopefully by 2020, we will have 85 percent Inuit employment.
I do agree with his analysis there and that’s why we’re reviewing the policies.
With respect to those who qualify for the bonus part of the provision, who actually determines that the position qualifies for a bonus allowance within that job?
That’s done by all the departments when they do their job description.
I understand that. I think all the departments do that, but at what level is it signed off that the bilingual requirement is not needed, let alone just trying to decide whether it should be a bilingual position?
It’s signed off by the DM of the department and the DM of HR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When studying positions whether they should eventually become bilingual in all aspects, at what level and whatnot, is there also a higher level discussion with respect to senior managers and the fact that they should eventually be bilingual or is it completely stopped at lower level clerical positions and some essential services within the public service?
Not yet and that’s another thing that we’re working with CLEY on.
I appreciate the minister indicating to the committee that the bilingual policy is being studied.
Could you give the committee at least some understanding of when that could or will be done?
Hopefully by September of this year.
My last question is: which departments do you know, if you do, require most of the bilingual positions in the public service?
It would be the hospital.
I would have thought that Education as well would probably require bilingual services.
That’s why I asked the question which department.
I don’t think it’s a single department in my view.
You’re right. Education is the next one. I was just looking at the amount of employees.
That’s why I said Health, but definitely Education is also.
I also thank the people of Pond Inlet. Good afternoon.
I want to speak about this, Mr. Chairman, on the same page where it talks about the bilingual language bonuses for employees. This past winter, we reviewed this as a committee where we heard that it would be dealt with and I take pride in this initiative.
Furthermore, the department, CLEY… . I keep forgetting the Inuktitut name for the department, Illiqqusilirijikkut. Anyway, we heard they were being consulted.
It is laudable to hear that the department is being consulted and involved in this process.
Mr. Minister, if I could urge you further, in my opinion, it would be much better if you were able to consult with all of the departments while you are researching this issue.
We have future expectations of our government that every position is bilingual and we want employees to speak Inuktitut eventually.
I strongly urge the minister to consult every department during this review so that when it is completed, it will not need future revisions later on.
Now I have expectations that we can see the report, as we heard it may be complete and ready for review possibly by this fall.
The question I wanted to ask, Mr. Minister: currently, is it clear… ? Hold on. Based on reports in March 2011, at that time, 1,480 Inuit worked for the government full time.
In comparison with today, has this number changed?
For March, which is the latest that we have, we have a total of 3,808 positions and 1,480 hired beneficiaries.
Mr. Enook: Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I don’t think I heard the numbers. Can he repeat them, please?
Could you repeat the numbers, please, Minister Schell.
There are 3,808 positions and of that, 1,480 are beneficiaries.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): In March 2011, it states that there were 1,480 beneficiary employees.
So the number hasn’t change at all for 2012?
I am quoting you from March 31, 2011. The new one is going to cabinet in March and it will be coming out in the next session.
If I could raise a question on the same page and Mr. Chairman, you may correct me if I raise a question that is not relevant to this page.
I had read this before and now that I’m in a hurry, I probably won’t find it.
The legislation or policy related to employees being able to make complaints about their workplace, I believe, was going to be included.