EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If that’s the case, I am wondering why, when the job advertisements for a Kivalliq regional director was advertised, it was advertised down south, nothing in the northern newspapers and nothing on the government website.
Mr. A. Sammurtok and I have had extensive dialogue on that issue and I assured him that that won’t be happening again.
I appreciate him bringing that to our attention.
I’ll ask Mr. D’Arcy to provide some additional details.
For those particular competitions, we used a recruiting firm that did do an extensive search Canada-wide.
However, they did not use our local papers.
That said, there were local individuals who were interested in those positions that we did talk to.
Regardless, we were unaware that the recruiting firm did not use Nunatsiaq News or News/North.
We have since instructed them that for any recruiting that they do on our behalf, they will be using the local papers.
As the minister said, we apologize for that oversight and we will ensure it does not happen again.
We are dealing with tabled documents from the Department of Finance.
Before I ask my questions, let me return to a response. I need clarification on it.
There was a question posed to the minister on how many days it takes to fill an employment opportunity starting from advertisement all the way to actually hiring. How long does the process take?
I believe he said that it was between 90 and 95 days or something close to that figure.
I’m sure that it’s very difficult to respond, but let me ask this question. Do we need to shorten the length of time of trying to fill a position?
What is the shortest minimum requirement of days to have the process be in order to fill the position?
That’s correct. It is 90 to 95 days.
If everything went perfectly, it would still take 70 days.
The job has to be evaluated at the front end, then you have to identify housing, then there has to be adequate advertising, screening, then you have to do the interviews, then you make verbal, email, or written offers, and then depending on how the offer is made, there’s an appeal period. If there are appeals, you have to hear those appeals before you can make a written offer and then start the location.
Being that we’re a government that has unions, we have to follow a defined process and make sure that we stick to all the rules that are outlined for staffing.
Currently, under the Public Service Regulations, you made a new provision to allow nearly all new positions to go through an appeals process.
That is nearly all new positions, which includes union positions and external positions, as the government has the authority to do so.
Does this slow down the already slow process of hiring employees? How many extra days do they have to wait now after you amended the regulations?
Yes, the government made that amendment, I believe, in September of 2013 that non-GN and beneficiary employees can appeal and it has slowed the process down, not in all competitions but where they may have applied and were unsuccessful.
Could you remind me why you had to go through the appeals process or how did you revamp it so that it would become more efficient?
We amended the Public Service Act for excluded employees to appeal.
I’ll ask Mr. D’Arcy to respond to the last question.
Before the change in regulation, as we know, people in the bargaining unit had the right to appeal, but others or people who were excluded employees did not.
That was seen as failing of the Public Service Act and a failing of the regulations because it wasn’t fair to some people who may have thought there was some bias in the recruitment process.
We wanted to ensure that that wasn’t possible and that everybody had a fair chance at getting a job that we compete for in the public service.
We did expand it to include excluded employees. It can add up to 10 days to the recruitment process.
At the same time, in terms of being fair, transparent, and accountable to everybody who is applying to work with the GN, we thought it was a necessary step to make and so did elected officials. We continue to believe that that is the correct way to go.
I was trying to get more information.
As elected members, we are not involved in setting up the regulations.
It is the government that sets up the regulations. We have never been involved in drafting regulations.
I have a question regarding the job advertisements in the decentralized communities.
When a job is to be posted in a community, for example, if the job is going to be based in Pond Inlet, does the potential employee have to live in that community?
Mr. Chairman, unless it is restricted to the community, potential applicants could apply from anywhere.
I do not think you understood the question, so I’ll ask it again.
I am going to use Pond Inlet as an example.
If there is going to be a job advertisement or if the job is going to be in Igloolik, does the employee have to be a permanent resident or living in that particular community?
I will ask Mr. Chown to respond.
If I understand the question correctly, I believe the member is asking if the successful candidate on a competition has to be a permanent resident of the community that the position is in.
If that’s correct, then yes, the employee who is hired into a position based in the community would be expected to be based out of that community.
Although, depending on the position, there may be requirements for significant amounts of travel that may result in them in several different communities over the course of the year.
I’ll continue the same line of questioning regarding a position based in the community. As per your statement, some positions travel continuously.
What length of time does the employee have to spend in the community and what length of travel would be required?
Is it completely up to the employee? For example, the employee may spend a minimal period in the community prior to undertaking duty travel.
What type of regulatory limits are set, as an example, the number of months or days within the calendar year that the employee has to spend in their office in order to have the position listed in that community?
Mr. Chairman, wherever the job is, that is where the individual would be based. Depending on the nature of their job, they may be required to travel quite extensively in Nunavut.
For example, if you’re an inspector, you may be required to travel to most communities in Nunavut throughout the year.
That individual may be away from their community for a long period of time at any given period throughout the year.
Their home base or residency would be in their community where their job is.
Putting the inspectors aside, what about just regular employees or directors?
What I’m trying to get at is: how can they be based in that community when they are out of town for long periods of time?
If there is a problem with their residency, then who would look into the matter?
I thank Mr. Enook for the question. If the particular department or perhaps another department has a requirement for an individual with certain skill sets to a short-term assignment, they may be assigned to work in another community, what we call an internal transfer assignment, or to use their skills for a period of time.
Typically, that would be arranged between the two departments involved with the employee, and then that would be reviewed by the deputy minister of finance to ensure it’s okay. At the end of that internal transfer agreement, they would have to return to their home community.
I apologize if I’m not getting across.
I’m not talking about internal transfer assignments or anything of that sort.
I know that’s outside of what I’m talking about.
What I’m trying to say is if a job is going to be based in Iqaluit, then I assume that individual would live here in Iqaluit, work in Iqaluit, and if there is a travel requirement, I totally agree with that.
What I’m concerned about is the job is based here in Iqaluit, but this individual is rarely here and comes in occasionally. Is that perfectly fine and it’s not something you’re concerned about? This individual is said to be based in Iqaluit.
Of course, we would be concerned. He seems to have information that I’m unaware of.
As I said earlier, wherever the job is, that’s where the person should be unless, like I said, they’re an inspector or that type of position travelling around Nunavut to inspect construction sites, perhaps, or other facilities or it might be a person who has skills that another department needs or the headquarters needs, then they do the short-term assignments.
If you have knowledge that a person is living here, but they’re not here and they’re not an inspector or a person on an internal transfer assignment, then we certainly would like to hear about it. Again, it’s up to the individual departments, the deputy ministers within the individual departments, and presidents of territorial corporations to ensure that the policies of the Government of Nunavut are followed and adhered to, and no sweet deals or anything like that for employees.
I understand that each department is responsible if the deputy minister always approves anything. The Nunavut government has no regulations where it states that if your job is based in Iqaluit, you have to live here.
They will need ongoing approval from the deputy minister or some department head as this individual never goes to the community except on occasion.
In the 2014-15 annual report on page 32, it indicates that there were 78 active grievances as of March 31, 2015.
Can you indicate how many grievances were filed in 2015-16 to date? Do you have that information?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Enook for that question.
Just going back to his earlier comment, departments are required to come to us if they’re trying to have a person in a community live there and work in another community. We had an example of that recently. Last year, a department was trying to do that and we said no.
If we know about it or if it comes to our attention, we will deal with it.
If you have that information, then let us know.
With respect to the grievances on page 32, I will ask Mr. Chown to respond to that.
With respect to current grievances, as of May of 2016, there are currently 89 active grievances. Those grievances cover several different fiscal years.
Two of them are specifically related to 2016-17, 41 of those are related to 2015-16, and it goes back in time several years from there.
I would like to go back to Minister Peterson’s previous response. I have brought this up in the House and spoken with you about it as well.
Maybe I will remind you if I need to do so. We know there are 12 decentralized communities.
If we have workers that are supposed to be working in our community, we want them to live in our community as residents and not only see them three times a year.
Returning to my previous question, in 2014-15, how many grievances were able to be resolved?
We don’t have that.
All we have are the grievances that are outstanding, not the ones that have been resolved.
With 20 seconds, Mr. Enook.
In particular, if an employee is a member of a union and they have a grievance or they want to disclose something, they can have a union representative. They can have a representative accompany them.
What about people who are not under the union that are in excluded positions? Who represents and protects them if they want to file a grievance?
Under the collective agreement, the union would represent the individual if you’re a union member.
If you’re excluded, then you’re entitled to appointing someone whom you trust to be with you in the hearing.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Shooyook.
My main question has already been asked by my colleague, so I’ll ask something else. Please feel welcome in the House.
With respect to the 85 percent employment target we can’t reach, we keep hearing that Inuit are not educated well enough.
In my constituency, there have been a number of people certified in construction work and cooking through the college.
These people got their certificates, but it’s useless in our community. There are always people from down south who may have more expertise that come up and build houses, and then the people who are certified are not even considered.
Why is Nunavut set up like that?
The people of Nunavut expect to be hired for jobs or to start to be given jobs.
Why is the situation like this?
Is there a law that says that even though a person is certified, it’s just something for them to keep and not use for work?
Is that one of the reasons why we can’t reach that 85 percent?
If I understand it correctly, he made some comments about people who are trained as cooks and that they can’t get hired as construction workers. I would take that to mean that would be non-GN type of work.
Under Article 24 and the new NNI, that is something that would be addressed. Contractors would certainly have to look at the qualifications of people. If they need carpenters or electricians, then they would be required to look at them.
Again, if it’s GN, as I indicated earlier, Article 23 gives priority to Inuit beneficiaries who are applying on jobs.
In combination with initiatives like the GN Human Resources Development Strategy, the new training program with NTI, directives that we have issued and approved, and the restricted competition directive, we are hopeful that we will be able to get to the 85 percent.
I’m not going to put a year there, but we’re putting mechanisms in place, training programs in place within the GN, and taking into account all the initiatives I just mentioned. At some point, hopefully we will get there.
I have to stress to Mr. Shooyook that it’s very important that we encourage our younger people to stay in school, graduate with a grade 12 degree so that they can move on to college, university, or trade school and get additional training because we’re going to require a lot of skilled Nunavummiut over the next 10 to 20 years.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for that clarification.
It’s frustrating. When a new job opens, we always hear that in Nunavut, beneficiaries will be given first priority.
Even though we hear that, the actual people who live in Nunavut are still waiting. As I said, people who are certified are still waiting for jobs, but then we see cooks being hired from the south.
I find this illogical and that’s why I’m asking about it.
Legislation in Nunavut notwithstanding, even when it is quoted, it is not enforced.
Officially, the person has to be able to speak in Inuktitut and English. However, that requirement is not enforced even today.
That is why I am asking about it, especially for those who are certified and eligible. I get the impression that this particular requirement is ignored and therefore rendered meaningless.
There must be some way to remedy this situation.
Can you explain how you square that with the legislation?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Shooyook for his question and concerns.
Of course, one would expect that an individual took training in an area that they’re interested in. I’ll take the example he used, a cook.
The opportunities would probably be in a hotel or a facility such as a college or correctional facility, for example, where they do need cooks.
In the private sector, restaurants and construction companies would likely need cooks; mine camps would need cooks.
For example, typically a mine would negotiate an Inuit impact and benefit agreement under Article 26 where they would be required to again hire a certain level of Inuit.
If there’s a Nunavut-based company that has a camp catering contract, they would probably try to make a good effort to hire that individual because they have to report to the regional Inuit association with their employment numbers as well.
If people are having those difficulties getting jobs with construction companies or mining camps, then they should bring those concerns to their local MLA or to their mayor or to their regional Inuit association.
I was reading the annual report, page 10 of 47, just going down the highlights of Nunavut public service benefits.
One of the areas listed as a benefit is severance pay. It had a little over $200 million, I believe, in that. Oh, $2.3 million.
That would have been a lot. I am wondering if you could tell me the number of times, perhaps in the fiscal year of 2014-15, that you would have to pay out severance.
We don’t have a specific track of severance pay that has been paid out other than this total number.
It is paid out based on people who have 10 years or more service.
To specifically answer the question, we would have to get back to the member on how many people did receive severance pay during the year to add up to that amount.
Yes, we would like to have that information.
Anybody who has ten years decides to resign from their job automatically get severance pay?
I’ll ask Mr. D’Arcy to answer the question.
Excluded employees with over ten years of services, yes, and there may be some NEU employees who are very long term, I believe 1994, but it might even be before then, when the severance amounts changed.
Basically, in the current time, it would be excluded employees and everyone with more than 10 years of service would get severance.
Has the GN paid severance pay in lieu of going to court because you’ve had a disagreement, you have terminated an employee, and then you pay them?
Severance pay for us is considered a benefit to an employee. It’s a benefit based on years of service.
I believe what the member is referring to here would be a settlement in lieu of going to court.
We would call that a settlement as opposed to severance.
We do pay settlements out from time to time throughout the year. I don’t have specific stats on the dollar amounts of settlements from the year.
You’re absolutely right.
I meant settlements in that question.
Could we get the breakdown of that as well, please? How much has the GN paid out in settlements for disputes?
If Ms. Angnakak can clarify, is it just for one fiscal year or is it for multiple fiscal years? If she can clarify it.
Perhaps over the last five years up until now, if you can have a breakdown of that.
I would also like to ask about a gag order, kind of like, “We pay you, so you are not allowed about anything.” Does the GN do that to employees that have received a settlement?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Ms. Angnakak for clarifying that.
We will have to be very careful with specific amounts, perhaps an aggregate amount, so that we do not identify specific settlements.
As Ms. Angnakak mentioned, with respect to gag orders, there are no gag orders. It’s just lawyers on both sides negotiate agreements for the two parties and they agree that for the settlement, nobody talks about the issue. It is quite common.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for committing to coming back to us with that information.
When you talk about grievances, when my colleague, Mr. Enook, was asking about the number of grievances, you said that some of them go way back.
Can you talk about that a little bit? Why would ones go way back? Why are they not being dealt with?
Why are they being carried over year to year to year?
It would seem like the issues are not being dealt with at all.
Mr. Chown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the Department of Finance first took over the human resource responsibilities, we did note that there were quite a few old grievances still on the books. We have been working quite hard with the unions to try to settle those grievances and bring them up to date.
In fact, with the exception of one from 2003-04, all grievances now are from 2009-2010 forward and the majority of them are within the last three to four years.
Various reasons could cause a grievance to take this long.
There is often back and forth with unions. Sometimes we have to go to arbitration and sometimes arbitrations can take as much as two years to schedule depending on the availability of arbitrators.
Matters like that can cause grievances to take time. Sometimes we go back to the union and then we are waiting for responses from the unions.
For whatever reason due to their capacity, a particular case may sit for some time before we hear back from them.
How many grievances that are going from year to year do you think you’re going to be able to actually close this fiscal year?
Mr. Chown indicated that there is a number of variables that come into play as to whether a grievance is settled or not settled or drags on for six months or longer.
We cannot predict how many will be settled this year.
Can the minister tell us if there are dedicated staff towards working on these grievances? Whose job is it?
We have dedicated staff in Employee Relations working on these. The Government of Nunavut has dedicated employees.
I can assure Ms. Angnakak of that.
Do these employees have other duties as well?
As Ms. Angnakak knows well, most people have more than one duty in the Government of Nunavut.
They are generalists, but they work on those grievances specific to employee relations.
Can the minister tell us if there is a certain amount of time that they are told to allocate towards resolving a lot of these grievances?
How does that work? If I have my job and I go to work, am I doing HR stuff or am I working with grievances or what?
How is that determined and what percentage?
Mr. Chairman, again, as we say, Employee Relations has people working on these types of issues.
We have NEU and we have NTA. They have their officials as well.
It takes two sides or parties to move things forward.
Perhaps the minister can clarify if the two parties are working well in order to move these grievances forward or if that is the reason why we have so many grievances that have not been addressed.
Mr. Chairman, we have regular monthly meetings with the union.
If we were to simply agree with everything they asked for, then we would probably have these grievances resolved tomorrow, but I don’t think that is in the best interests of the Government of Nunavut or anyone else.
Is the minister saying then that the reason why there are so many grievances from years ago is that the union is putting demands on the government that the government can’t agree to?
Not having been in charge of HR until April 1, 2013, I don’t know what was going on before that.
As Mr. Chown has indicated, we have quite a backlog of outstanding grievances.
We are working towards cleaning up the grievances since 2009-2010, so we are slowly getting there.
Again, as I said, in the process of negotiations and agreement, arbitration is involved; people going back and forth and people have to be available.
It’s not simply sitting down and boom, you have an agreement. It doesn’t work that way.
In my mind, people put grievances because they feel a wrong has been done to them, and then I get a little concerned when it takes years and years to really look at what is going in that file.
It does concern me and I know you have said that you have done the best you can and that you are going forward, but I just think it’s a concern if we’re still dealing with cases from 2009. Maybe we’ve got to look at doing something else.
I would like to talk a little bit about workplace harassment. Over the past two years, which department has had the highest number of alleged incidents of workplace harassment or bullying?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Minister of Finance, Mr. Peterson.
I’m just going back to Ms. Angnakak’s earlier question and her comments.
I worked for the Government of the Northwest Territories for a number of years and at one point, I was the president of the local union for two years.
I was also a shop steward for a few years, so I know full well how these processes work.
I got involved in quite a few grievances on behalf of employees and very few of them ever settled right away.
Again, it’s a give and take. You have lawyers involved, you have arbitrators involved, and you have to get all the facts, all the figures, and all the information together. You have to have agreement to settle.
It could take two weeks or it could take two years or longer.