BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION MARY RIVER PROJECT

Transcription

BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION
MARY RIVER PROJECT
2014 SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING REPORT
March, 2015
Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation – Mary River Project
BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION
MARY RIVER PROJECT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2.0 - POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................... 4
2.1 PROJECT DATA .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Indicator: Employee Change-Of-Address ......................................................... 5
2.2 COMMUNITY & REGIONAL DATA .................................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Nunavut Population Estimates ......................................................................... 6
2.3 COLLABORATIVE DATA ................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Migration in a broader context .......................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Residency and Housing Survey ....................................................................... 7
SECTION 3.0 - EDUCATION AND SKILLS ..................................................................................... 8
3.1 PROJECT DATA .............................................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Job Skills Training Delivered ............................................................................ 9
3.1.2 Transferable Training Certificates & Licenses .................................................. 9
3.1.3 Apprenticeship Contracts ............................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Literacy and Adult Education Upgrading ........................................................11
3.2 COMMUNITY & REGIONAL DATA ................................................................................ 11
3.2.1 Early Childhood Education ............................................................................. 11
3.2.2 School Attendance.......................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Apprenticeships and Trades ........................................................................... 12
3.3 COLLABORATIVE DATA ............................................................................................... 12
SECTION 4.0 - LIVELIHOOD AND EMPLOYMENT ...................................................................... 13
4.1 PROJECT DATA ............................................................................................................ 14
4.1.1 Project Labour Demand and Supply of Labour ..............................................15
4.1.2 Labour Demand By Occupation ..................................................................... 16
4.1.3 Supply of Labour By Gender .......................................................................... 25
4.1.4 On-the-Job Social Context Experienced By Inuit Women ..............................26
4.1.5 Origin of Mary River Project Employees.........................................................27
4.1.6 Employment Status Prior to Project Engagement ..........................................27
4.1.7 Employment Continuity, 2013 to 2014............................................................ 28
4.1.8 Hours Worked Per Employee ......................................................................... 32
4.1.9 Termination of Employment and Turnover Rates ...........................................35
4.1.10 Gender Analysis of Baffinland Employee Departures....................................37
4.1.11 Reasons For Termination .............................................................................. 38
4.1.12 Absenteeism .................................................................................................. 38
4.1.13 No-Shows ....................................................................................................... 38
4.1.14 Career Path Progression ............................................................................... 38
4.1.15 Location of Work in Nunavut .......................................................................... 38
i
4.2
4.3
4.1.16 Outlook for Inuit Employment......................................................................... 39
COMMUNITY & REGIONAL DATA ................................................................................ 40
COLLABORATIVE DATA ............................................................................................... 40
SECTION 5.0 - TOPICS OF GENERAL RELEVANCE .................................................................. 41
5.1 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY.....................41
5.2 UNANTICIPATED INTERACTIONS AND EFFECTS .....................................................41
5.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT UPDATES .............................................................................. 42
5.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES .............42
SECTION 6.0 - NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................ 43
6.1 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING ..................................................................................... 43
6.2 QUALITATIVE AND “OUTCOME” MONITORING .........................................................44
6.3 SUPPORT FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED PHASE 2 ........................................44
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Monitoring Framework Summary ..................................................................................... 1
Tentative coverage of socio-economic reports ................................................................ 3
Population Demographics FEIS Summary ...................................................................... 4
Population Demographics ERP Amendment Summary .................................................. 5
Education and Training FEIS Summary........................................................................... 8
Education and Training ERP Amendment Summary ....................................................... 8
Training Delivered - 2013 & 2014 .................................................................................. 10
Livelihood and Employment FEIS Summary ................................................................. 13
Livelihood and Employment ERP Amendment Summary .............................................14
Major Mary River job categories classified by their major NOC grouping ...................18
Labour Demand And Supply Profile, By Occupational Group And Skill Level ............21
Mary River Project Labour Force Profile - Beneficiary Status & Gender, 2014 &
2013 ............................................................................................................................ 26
Table 13 Origin of Mary River Project Employees, 2014 ............................................................ 27
Table 14 Hires and Departures in the Baffinland Inuit workforce, 2014 .....................................36
Table 15 Location of Work Carried Out by Mary River Project Personnel ..................................39
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Known Migration of Mary River Employees, 2013 through 2014 ................................... 6
Inuit Training Intensity, 2014 ......................................................................................... 11
Monthly Hours of On-Site Labour Demand and Supply, 2013 & 2014 ........................16
Monthly Demand and Supply, 2013 & 2014 ................................................................. 17
Continuity of Employment by Hours Worked All Inuit, 2013 to 2014 ............................29
Continuity of Employment by Hours Worked By Gender Inuit, 2013 to 2014 ...............30
Continuity of Employment by Hours Worked In Three Job Categories NOC 67,
NOC 75, and NOC 76, 2013 to 2014 .......................................................................... 31
Figure 8 Duration of Employment By Beneficiary Status and Gender, 2014 and 2013 ..............33
Figure 9 Hours of Labour Supplied Per Employee, By Skill Level and Beneficiary Status,
2014 and 2013 ............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 10 Hours Worked Per North Baffin Inuit and Southern Non-Inuit Employees In
Several Common Jobs, 2014 ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 11 Inuit Departures From BIMC Employment, By Seniority Of Employment (2014) ......37
Figure 12 Approach To Evaluating FEIS Predictions .................................................................. 45
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
iv
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
The focus of the Mary River Project in 2014 was on construction of infrastructure required to support
year-round activities. Following receipt mid-year of the amended Project Certificate, activities
encompassed construction of facilities needed to operate the Early Revenue Phase.
This is the second annual monitoring report on socio-economic effects of the Mary River mining
project, prepared by Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIMC, or “Baffinland”) in collaboration with
the Mary River Socio-Economic Monitoring Working Group (MRSEMWG, or the “Working Group”),
as set out in the terms of reference prepared in 2012 by the Working Group. As with the first report,
these terms of reference are once again attached as Appendix A to this report. This report is
presented to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for review and is a public report.
As established in its terms of reference, the Working Group partners agreed that understanding the
complex interactions between the human environment and the Mary River Project requires
collaboration. Baffinland is best able to collect and provide data on direct outputs such as
employment and contracting. Government of Nunavut and Government of Canada are best able to
report on the broad range of socio-economic indicators describing outcomes of the Project in the
broader context of factors affecting households, communities, and the territory as a whole. Qikiqtani
Inuit Association is best able to provide information related to Inuit land use and culture at the
community and regional level.
Contribution of the Socio-economic Report to FEIS Monitoring Framework
FEIS Section 15, Volume 4 set out a framework for socio-economic monitoring that encompasses
all of the areas considered during the environmental assessment process. This framework
identified six monitoring functions (numbers 1 to 6 in Table 1, below). To these have been added
two additional functions—surveillance to identify interactions not anticipated during the EIA
process, and updates to the FEIS should data arise through the monitoring program that warrants
reconsideration of FEIS impact assessment determinations. The socio-economic report will be the
forum where five of these eight functions will be addressed as appropriate.
Table 1
Monitoring Framework Summary
Monitoring Function
Where This Function Is Addressed
1. Monitor Inuit participation and IIBA implementation
IIBA Report
2. Provide data on indicators that affect Project performance
Socio-economic Monitoring Report
3. Support community, regional and territorial monitoring initiatives
4. Contribute to understanding of socio-economic processes
5. Support planning of government initiatives and Baffinland
adaptive management activities
Socio-Economic Working Group
Meetings
6. Support compliance monitoring
Archaeology Report
7. Surveillance to identify interactions not anticipated during EIA
8. Update the FEIS as new data arises through monitoring
Brubacher Development Strategies Inc.
1
INTRODUCTION
Focus of the 2014 Mary River socio-economic monitoring report
The focus of this second report follows the structure and content of the first report. Emphasis is
again on the “direct outputs” of the Project—numbers of people hired, training provided, and
employees who have relocated.
With two years of data now available, this report introduces a comparative dimension, particularly
in relation to employment. Several tables from 2013 are reproduced here to support comparison.
A new section on “continuity of employment” has been added.
The aim in considering 2014 data in relation to 2013 is to identify any “below-the-surface”
developments in the Project labour force that may express later as changes in the “headline”
indicators. For example, as will be seen in the headline employment indicators, the Inuit labour
force contributed 20% of the hours worked in both 2013 and 2014. This may not, however, mean
that labour force characteristics are the same in 2014 as they were in 2013. The exploration of data
from both years presented in these sections is intended to draw some insight into the labour force
dynamics going on below the surface. In this context we are seeking to determine whether the Inuit
labour force is moving toward a stable or volatile state with respect to provision of labour to the
Project.
Future reports
It is expected that outcomes from direct project outputs such as training and employment will soon
begin to emerge. For example, has the employment of 300 individuals from North Baffin
communities had any tangible effects on individual well-being, on families, on community life, or on
the local economy of these communities? Planning to initiate outcome monitoring is addressed in
the “Next Steps” section toward the end of the report. The earliest integrated effects / outcome data
is anticipated be incorporated into the 2015 report. Subsequent report topics will be identified as
needed.
Table 2, sets out the expectation for the focus of future socio-economic reporting, as proposed in
the 2013 report. This scheduling will evolve as the Working Group considers each report as it is
delivered. The tentative schedule, nonetheless, illustrates how BIMC’s reporting of direct project
effects on five valued socio-economic components (VSECs) will be supplemented with
collaborative data from Working Group partners in order to address the more complex VSECs.
Organisation of this report
This report is organised into six sections. Following this Section 1 Introduction, Sections 2, 3, and
4 present data related to three VSECs—Population Demographics; Education and Skills; and,
Livelihood and Employment. The indicators presented within these sections encompass,
respectively: migration of employees; training; and, employment.
Each of these “VSEC sections” is structured to accommodate data from three sources. The first
sub-section presents project-generated data related specifically to the Mary River Project. This is
followed by a “community and regional data” sub-section where data from government partners
can be presented to provide context to the project-specific data. As noted earlier, for these first
reports there is little of this contextual data available. Nonetheless, the structure is introduced here
in order to support future reporting. Should such data not be considered necessary by Working
Group partners, this section may be omitted from future reports.
2
INTRODUCTION
Table 2
Tentative coverage of socio-economic reports
VSEC
2013
Report
2014
Report
2015 to 2017
Reports
2018+
Reports
(primary source of data)
Population Demographics
BIMC
BIMC
Collaborative
as needed
Education and Skills
BIMC
BIMC
Collaborative
as needed
Livelihood and Employment
BIMC
BIMC
Collaborative
as needed
Economic Development and Self-Reliance
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Human Health and Well-Being
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Community Infrastructure and Public Services
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Contracting and Business Opportunities
--
--
BIMC
as needed
Cultural
Resources 1
BIMC
BIMC
BIMC
BIMC
Resources and Land-Use
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Cultural Well-Being
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Benefits, Royalty, and Taxation
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Government and Leadership
--
--
Collaborative
as needed
Source: As proposed in the 2013 Monitoring Report.
A third sub-section, “collaborative data” is also included, again mostly for future use. Where
appropriate, reference is made in these sub-sections to indicators and data that may be particularly
useful in understanding the relevance and meaning of the project-specific data. These
commentaries are intended not only to alert readers to the shortcomings of the picture generated
by project-specific data but also, and more importantly, to provide guidance as to where data
available from Working Group partners such as the territorial government might be most useful.
Section 5, presents a discussion of several topics that are relevant to any or all of the VSECfocused monitoring initiatives. These topics include how effects are distributed and accumulated
socially, spatially, and temporally; a reporting of any interactions that were not anticipated in the
FEIS or ERP Amendment; any updates to the impact assessment findings that new data may
require; and, finally, any examples of how management responses have adapted to the effects
highlighted in the monitoring program.
A final section, Section 6, presents suggestions to the Working Group related to data collection and
focus for the next monitoring report.
1
Cultural Resources are reported through Baffinland’s archaeology reports, not in the Socio-Economic Report.
3
POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
SECTION 2.0 - POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
Headline: Numbers of movement and migration events remain low and in-line with assessment
predictions. Early in the project, movement and migration direction is “out from” rather than “in
to” North Baffin. Iqaluit experienced modest in-migration from North Baffin and modest outmigration to, and in-migration from the south.
The main focus of the impact assessment with regard to Project effects on demographics was to
address the question, “Will demographic changes brought about by the Project be large enough to
affect the fabric of LSA communities?” 2 Anticipated effects on North Baffin communities were
assessed, with further discussion of effects on Iqaluit and implications for housing considered as
Subjects Of Note.
The following tables summarise the assessment conclusions from the FEIS and ERP Amendment.
For the purpose of this report, data is presented for movements of employees engaged at Mary
River. Overall migration trends between North Baffin, Iqaluit, and other parts of Canada require
collaborative data from sources outside Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation are not addressed for
2014.
Table 3
Population Demographics FEIS Summary
VSEC
Key
Indicator(s)
Potential Effect(s)
In-migration of a small
number of workers from
south will have effect on
the demographic makeup of communities
Population
demographics
Demographic
stability
Migration of non-Inuit
Project employees into
the North Baffin LSA
Migration of non-Inuit
into North Baffin for
indirect jobs
Inter-community Inuit
migration
Mitigation Measures
Designation of North Baffin
communities as “Point of Hire”
(Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Hall
Beach, Igloolik, and Pond Inlet)
Iqaluit and a southern hub are
also designated “Point of Hire”
Free transportation from “Point of
Hire” to Mine Site
Residual Effect(s)
Significance
Rating
In-migration of a
small number of
workers from south or
other Nunavut
communities will
have effect on the
demographic makeup of communities
Not
significant
Out-migration from the
North Baffin
2
Section 2.3, Volume 4, FEIS. “LSA” refers to the Local Study Area—in this context the LSA encompasses the five North
Baffin communities of Hall Beach, Igloolik, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet and Clyde River plus Iqaluit.
4
Table 4
Population Demographics ERP Amendment Summary
Valued
SocioEconomic
Component
Population
demographics
Key Indicator(s)
Demographic
stability
Changes to
Project
Interaction(s)
Changes to Residual Effect(s)
In-migration effects may be
modestly increased with increased
scale of operations employment.
No change
Change in
Environmental
Assessment
No change
Significance Rating
(bold if changed
from FEIS)
Not significant
Out-migration from the LSA is not
expected to change since the level
of local employment is unchanged.
2.1
PROJECT DATA
2.1.1
Indicator: Employee Change-Of-Address
The FEIS predicted that “the magnitude of out-migration from the North Baffin is expected to be of
moderate magnitude, occurring at intermittent frequency throughout the life of the Project.” For
outmigration from North Baffin, 5% of a community’s population was suggested as the threshold
between “medium magnitude” and “high magnitude” effects. This would equate to between 35 and
70 individuals depending on the size of the community. Movement of more than 300 individuals
across the North Baffin would be required to reach this threshold. For a small community the 5%
threshold might be achieved by as few as five (5) individuals moving away if they had larger
families.
Potential movers were identified by looking at changes of “final destination” from the Baffinland
travel management system 3, combined with anecdotal data provided by Baffinland sources. This
data is presented in Figure 1 and includes the cumulative movements of employees from Project
initiation in 2013 to the end of 2014.
During the first two years, more than five and fewer than ten individuals engaged in the Mary River
Project moved from North Baffin communities to Iqaluit. A smaller number moved from Iqaluit to
North Baffin communities. Moves between Iqaluit and Ottawa and Iqaluit and other Canadian
communities did occur but were inconsequential in terms of demographic effect—fewer than five
in each instances.
In addition to the inter-regional movements identified below, a small number of intra-regional moves
also occurred. Movements from community-to-community within the North Baffin region are of
potential interest, given the constraints that housing has on labour force mobility. To date however,
these movements have been limited—involving fewer than five individuals.
3
The travel management system (TMS) is used to coordinate travel and accommodation for all individuals coming and
going from the site. As such it encompasses everyone passing through at any time during the year.
5
Figure 1
Known Migration of Mary River Employees, 2013 through 2014
Source: Baffinland administrative data and key person sources compiled by Doug Brubacher, January 2015. Numbers
indicate employee moves. Other family members moving with the employee would add to the total migrants. Note the
levels of “<5” is set to provide confidentiality while maintaining adequate sensitivity to provide insight into demographic
effects.
2.2
COMMUNITY & REGIONAL DATA
2.2.1
Nunavut Population Estimates
Population numbers presented by the Government of Nunavut (GN) during the May 2014 QiSEMC
meeting show a five-year population growth rate (2007 to 2012) across the Baffin Region that is
similar to growth rates of other regions of the territory. Growth in the non-Inuit population over this
period was highest in the Kitikmeot Region, with Baffin Region non-Inuit population growth being
similar to the territorial level. 4
4
Population data is available from the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics web page and also in the QiSEMC report Appendix C,
at http://ftp.nirb.ca/03-MONITORING/REGIONAL%20SEMC/QIKIQTANI/140526-Qikitaaluk%20Fall%20Stats-IA1E.pdf
6
2.3
COLLABORATIVE DATA
2.3.1
Migration in a broader context
As noted in the first socio-economic monitoring report, project-specific migration data in isolation
from the broader migration picture does not provide for understanding how the Project is influencing
migration in the region. It is not known if the small numbers of out-migrants noted are higher than
they would be without the Project or if, in fact, they are lower than they would be without the project.
Plausible explanations could account for either scenario. Contextual data on out-migration and inmigration between North Baffin, Iqaluit, and the rest of Canada would be needed to support
interpretation.
Broader insight into migration flows can be derived by government from administrative data such
as annual tax files, should the need to better understand migration arise. While such analysis has
not been presented to the Working Group, it would support understanding of the Project migration
data in the broader context of demographic changes taking place across the Baffin Region.
2.3.2
Residency and Housing Survey
It is noted once more that Baffinland has designed an on-line “residency and housing” survey,
presented to the Working Group in the spring of 2013. This survey has not been implemented by
the collaborative monitoring partners. It would require a broad sample of respondents from multiple
employment situations in order to generate meaningful results.
7
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
SECTION 3.0 - EDUCATION AND SKILLS
Headline: Following the early 2013 focus on work-readiness training across the North Baffin labour
force, training in the later part of 2013 and throughout 2014 focused on job-specific requirements,
general induction, certification, and assessment components.
The impact assessment focused on Project effects on two key indicators: lifeskills; and, education
and skills. The assessment questions were, respectively, Will the Project lead to a noticeable
change in the life skills of a substantial number of individuals?, and, Will the Project substantially
increase or decrease education and skill levels of residents of the LSA? The following tables
summarize the assessment conclusions from the FEIS and ERP Amendment.
Table 5
VSEC
Education and Training FEIS Summary
Key
Indicator(s)
Potential Effect(s)
Mitigation Measures
Residual Effect(s)
Significance
Rating
Work readiness training
Life skills
Improved life skills
amongst young adults
Supportive work environment
Employee and family
assistance program
Improved life skills
amongst many LSA
residents
Significant positive
“No drug, no alcohol” policy
Minimum age of 18 yrs for
Project employment
Education and
training
Education and
Skills
Incentives related to
school attendance and
success
Opportunities to gain
skills
Career planning
Priority hiring for Inuit
Upgrading opportunities
Summer experience
Incentives related to
school attendance
and success
Opportunities to gain
skills
Career counselling
Training
Table 6
Valued
SocioEconomic
Component
Education and Training ERP Amendment Summary
Key Indicator(s)
Life skills
Changes to
Project
Interaction(s)
No change
Education
and training
Education and
Skills
No change
Negligible change to effects since
the level of local employment (the
source of interactions with life skills)
is unchanged.
Effects on education will be the
same. Training program will be
similar, with likely addition of haul
truck training.
Change in
Environmental
Assessment
Significance Rating
(bold if changed
from FEIS)
No change
Significant - positive
No change
Significant – positive
8
The assessment questions imply effects that will become evident over time and that are complex
by their nature. At this point, only “output” data can be presented—types of training provided,
numbers of people trained, and so forth. Data collected through community & regional monitoring
and through collaborative monitoring efforts will eventually be needed in order to address the
outcomes of these initiatives and the broader effects of the Project on lifeskills, education, and skills
across the LSA population.
3.1
PROJECT DATA
3.1.1
Job Skills Training Delivered
Job skills training was initiated during the fourth quarter, 2013 and was delivered on-site at the
Mary River Project. A summary of these training activities is provided in Table 7, below. In addition
to cultural awareness training, a two-hour orientation and induction program was mandatory for all
employees working on site. Other training was job-specific, as described in the tables.
In order to provide some sense of the focus of the training program, the various training activities
have been grouped into several broad categories and the average hours per trainee calculated.
These are presented as the “pie chart” in Figure 2, following the table of raw data.
Since different positions call for different training packages, the presentation is not representative
of the training that any particular individual will have received. For example, only one individual
received the 24-hour Supervisory Training program, while everyone on site received Induction /
Compliance training. The presentation may, though, be helpful in visualising the relative importance
of various components of the training program.
It is apparent from this chart that an emphasis has been placed on Health & Safety training and
adherence to various Operational Procedures. Not every individual receives all the programs within
these categories, so the average “hours-per-trainee” here are notional only. For the seven
individuals involved, Spill Response also received substantial training investment of time, at 24
hours per trainee.
Training to enhance job-specific skills in comparatively modest. An average of three hours of
training in the operation of mobile equipment was provided for 36 Inuit. Another 135 Inuit
experienced equipment operators and tractor-trailer drivers received an average of 6.5 hours of
assessment and training.
3.1.2
Transferable Training Certificates & Licenses
Standard First Aid with CPR Level “C” certificates, valid for three years, were issued to participants
who successfully completed the sixteen (16) hour standard first aid / CPR course. A total of 28 Inuit
were amongst those receiving this training in 2014. Combined with 2013 training this program will
have provided a total of 45 Inuit with this certification.
9
Table 7
Training Delivered - 2013 & 2014
Source: Data provided by Baffinland (Robert Barnett), February 2, 2015.
Note: Addresses Project Certificate T&C 132.
10
Figure 2
Inuit Training Intensity, 2014
Source: Derived from training data presented above.
3.1.3
Apprenticeship Contracts
Steps to set up an apprenticeship program have been taken in 2014. No apprenticeship contracts
with Nunavut residents were initiated by the end of 2014, however.
3.1.4
Literacy and Adult Education Upgrading
Adult education upgrading / literacy was not initiated in 2013 or 2014.
3.2
3.2.1
Early Childhood Education
The socio-economic baseline prepared to support assessment of the Mary River project included
data showing early childhood education programs across North Baffin communities. This indicator
has not been adopted by the GN in its presentations to the Working Group or to the QiSEMC.
3.2.2
School Attendance
During the most recent meeting of the QiSEMC in May 2014, the GN presented a ten-year timeline
showing high school attendance rates and numbers of graduates for each community across
Nunavut. Attendance rates indicate the proportion of all enrolled individuals who actually go to
school. The indicator is a ratio of those who are “present” plus those who are “late” or who “leave
early” divided by the total number of students enrolled in school.
11
Attendance in Baffin Region schools appears to have declined somewhat over this ten-year
period—from nearly 75% over the 2001/02 school year to 69% in 2010/11 school year. There is,
however, considerable variation across communities and from year-to-year. 5 School attendance
across the North Baffin appears to be slightly lower than the territory overall.
Expected trend: The FEIS predicted that the Mary River Project will increase the “opportunity cost”
of dropping out of school, thereby creating an incentive for youth to complete high school. It is a
reasonable expectation that an increased valuing of education generally would be reflected in
higher attendance rates. This effect would be expected to emerge over a medium time frame.
Future socio-economic reports may detect trends to support or refute this expectation.
3.2.3
Apprenticeships and Trades
As presented in the following chapter, one-third (36%) of all work performed at Mary River in 2014
fell into the construction and maintenance trades areas. Only 2% of this work was performed by
Nunavummiut.
Several indicators related to development of trades capacity will be of value in understanding how
Nunavut residents may be positioning themselves to access jobs at Mary River:
3.3
•
Number writing and number passing trades entrance exams, by trade;
•
Number of individuals registered in construction / industrial trades apprenticeship positions;
•
Number of qualified tradespeople registered in communities.
COLLABORATIVE DATA
Understanding the contribution of job-readiness training, on-the-job skills training, literacy and adult
education to development of labour force capacity across North Baffin communities will benefit from
reporting of similar indicators by other major employers such as the Government of Nunavut.
5
Education data is available from the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics web page and also in the QiSEMC report Appendix C,
at http://ftp.nirb.ca/03-MONITORING/REGIONAL%20SEMC/QIKIQTANI/140526-Qikitaaluk%20Fall%20Stats-IA1E.pdf
The GN notes that these rates are estimates and should be “used with caution.”
12
LIVELIHOOD AND EMPLOYMENT
SECTION 4.0 - LIVELIHOOD AND EMPLOYMENT
Headline: As labour demand at the Project doubled in 2014, Nunavummiut stepped up to double their
hours of labour. Once again this component accounted for 20% of total work performed over the year.
A year-over-year turnover rate of 37% was experienced within the Inuit component of the Mary River
Project workforce. Turnover was much lower amongst equipment operators than amongst those
engaged in lower-skilled positions.
Hours worked per employee fall well short of full-year employment for most employees. For at least
the lower one-quarter of these workers this short fall seems to be independent of Project labour
demand. For these employees work availability appears not to be the critical factor limiting
employment.
The 2014 monitoring program continues the 2013 focus on descriptive employment characteristics:
“How much work was done at the project and who did it?;” “What sorts of occupations were drawn
upon and what occupations did Inuit fill?;” and, “How consistently are Inuit employees maintaining
their engagement with the Project?” In addition, the 2014 report begins to touch on the issue of
Inuit labour force capacity and capacity development by looking at early data related to career
progression.
This monitoring focus relates to the impact assessment considerations of the three key indicators
of job creation; local employment; and career path (see tables below).
Table 8
Livelihood and Employment FEIS Summary
VSEC
Key
Indicator(s)
Wage
Employment
Potential Effect(s)
Mitigation Measures
Residual Effect(s)
Significance
Rating
Creation of jobs in the
LSA
Employment of LSA
residents
LSA points of hire
Recruitment strategy
Inuit hiring policy
Management commitment
Creation of jobs in
the LSA
Employment of LSA
residents
New career paths
Individual career support
Inuit hiring / promotions policy
Management commitment
Expanded
employment and
career development
options
Significant,
positive
Livelihood and
Employment
Job
Progression
and Career
Advancement
13
Table 9
Livelihood and Employment ERP Amendment Summary
Valued
SocioEconomic
Component
Livelihood
and
Employment
Key Indicator(s)
Change in
Environmental
Assessment
Significance Rating
(bold if changed
from FEIS)
Job creation
Addition of ore
haulage and Milne
Port operations
positions
More jobs will be created but the
level of job creation will still be of
high magnitude relative to the LSA
labour market baseline
No change
Significant - positive
Local
employment
No change since
there will still be
more demand than
the local labour
force can supply
No change since available jobs are
expected to exceed local supply
capacity
No change
Addition of ore
haulage as an
option and a step
in career path
A slight increase in the diversity of
career paths will occur with
addition of road haul jobs.
However, this is only a minor
increase in what was already a
major expansion in career paths
introduced to the local labour
market.
No change
Career path
4.1
Changes to
Project
Interaction(s)
PROJECT DATA
Employment Data Summary (2013 to 2014)
2013
•
•
•
•
•
863,177 hours of labour performed by 1,593
individuals. 291 Inuit supplied 174,365 hours.
Peak of 452 employees on-site.
Peak Inuit fly-in/fly-out labour of 31,500 hours
per month performed by a peak of 99 Inuit.
More than half of all work carried out in 2013
involved Skill Level B occupations, largely in
the construction trades, maintenance trades,
and technical & professional areas. Skill Level
C occupations, particularly equipment
operation, accounted for one-quarter of all
work. Only 12% of work involved Skill Level D
labour.
Inuit provided 82% of Skill Level D labour and
one-third of Skill Level C. Less than 10% of
project demand for Level B and higher skills
was filled by Inuit.
•
•
2014
•
•
•
•
•
1,867,882 hours of labour performed by 2,432
individuals. 414 Inuit supplied 379,606 hours.
Peak of 605 employees on-site.
Peak Inuit fly-in/fly-out labour of 38,360 hours
per month performed by a peak of 112 Inuit.
Allocation of Project labour in 2014 was very
similar to that of 2013, though a slightly higher
proportion of total labour fell into Skill Level C
(29%, up from 25% in 2013) and a slightly
lower proportion was allocated Level B
positions. Skill Level A and D positions
continued to account for roughly 10% each of
total jobs.
Inuit supplied 87% of Skill Level D labour and
one-third of Skill Level C. Less than 10% of
Project demand for Level B and higher skill
positions was met by the Inuit labour force.
522 Inuit have worked at the Project since 2013, with 186 working during both years. 228 Inuit
recruited in 2014 had not worked at the Project in 2013.
Substantial differences in continuity of Inuit employment can be seen between different
occupational categories.
14
Source: Labour force data for BIMC and Contractors was derived by Doug Brubacher from daily site roster “Actual
Master” file provided by Site Administration on September 10, 2014 and January 5, 2015. Numbers in this summary were
extracted from a working version of the data set on March 7th, 2015.
The following data provides a description of the amount of work performed, types of occupations
involved and, at a very high level, the skill levels typically associated with these occupations. In the
absence of the broader picture that economy-wide data provides, Project specific data does not
provide insight into the scale of project employment in relation to the local economy. FEIS
predictions of labour market effects used baseline data from the FEIS Appendix 4A SocioEconomic Baseline Report, 2010.
4.1.1
Project Labour Demand and Supply of Labour
•
•
•
The Inuit labour force demonstrated a capacity to double its supply of labour to the
Project in response to increased demand. Most of this increased supply is attributable
to improved consistency in demand month-over-month—i.e. although annual supply
doubled, the peak hours supplied by Inuit increased by only 22%.
Actual demonstrated annual labour supply by Inuit was 379,606 hours, of which
281,679 hours was provided by Inuit residents of North Baffin. The FEIS supply
potential, based on earlier bulk sample peak Inuit employment, was estimated to be
342,000 hours, with 230,000 hours from North Baffin.
If the 2014 demonstrated peak monthly supply of labour were to be sustained over a
full year, the Inuit labour force would be capable of delivering 460,000 hours to the
Project—surpassing the FEIS estimate by one-third.
With its first full year of construction activity Project demand for labour in Nunavut doubled from
0.86 million hours in 2013 to 1.87 million hours this year. Over the year, Inuit provided a total of
379,606 hours of labour, roughly double the 174,365 hours supplied by Inuit in 2013. Most of this
labour was performed on-site, with only 15,933 hours located in Nunavut communities. This section
focuses on the fly-in/fly-out component of Project labour requirements, or “on-site labour.”
Project demand for on-site, fly-in/fly-out labour in 2014 was more consistent month-over-month
than in the previous year (see Figure 3 below). During 2013, monthly labour demand on-site ranged
from a low of 4,296 hours to a high of 155,940 hours. Labour demand in 2014 ranged from 118,885
to 196,021 hours. This pattern is also reflected in fly-in/fly-out labour supplied by Inuit. During 2013,
Inuit on-site labour ranged from zero hours to 31,500 hours. The range in 2014 was between 14,892
and 38,360 hours.
The theoretical maximum Inuit labour supply level of 378,000 6 hours calculated from 2013 labour
force performance data is based on demonstrated peak labour supply levels during that year. In
2014, the total on-site labour provided by Inuit from Baffin communities—346,698 hours—was
within this estimated upper range.
6
A maximum supply level of 410,000 hours was used in the 2013 monitoring report. That number used segregated peak
values for North Baffin and Iqaluit and also included Inuit labour provided in Nunavut communities. For the purpose of
estimating maximum labour contributions, the 2014 report does not segregate peak values for different regions and
includes on-site labour supply and demand only. Other 2013 “peak labour” data have also been re-estimated.
15
This year, a peak demand of 196,021 hours of on-site labour was reached in September 2014. This
is 26% higher than the November 2013 peak on-site demand of 155,940 hours. A peak level of
38,360 hours of on-site labour supplied by Inuit was achieved in August 2014. This represents a
22% increase from 2013 peak Inuit labour force contributions to Project labour needs on-site. The
maximum labour contribution from North Baffin Inuit of 28,880 hours was also achieved in August.
This is an increase of 22% from the 2013 peak North Baffin Inuit supply of 23,712 hours.
Revised Inuit Labour Force Capacity Estimate
If the 2014 peak supply levels were sustained over a full year, the Inuit labour force would be
capable of supplying 460,320 hours of labour on-site, 27% higher than the 363,673 hours actually
provided on-site during the year. The maximum contribution from the North Baffin Inuit labour force
would reach nearly 346,560 hours if its peak contribution were to be sustained over a full year.
Figure 3
Monthly Hours of On-Site Labour Demand and Supply, 2013 & 2014
Source: Labour force data including both Baffinland and Contractor employees was derived by Doug Brubacher from daily
site roster “Actual Master” file. Data for 2014 was accessed in January, 2015 and integrated with data for 2013 that had
previously been accessed to support 2013 monitoring. Analysis was performed in February and March 2015.
4.1.2
Labour Demand By Occupation
This section makes reference to skill level categories that make up part of the National
Occupational Classification System (NOCs). Under this system, Skill Level A refers to occupations
that typically require university degrees; Skill Level B positions usually require apprenticeship
training or college education. Skill Level C occupations usually require secondary school and/or
occupation-specific training, while Skill Level D jobs are those where on-the-job training is usually
provided.
Labour performed at site and in Nunavut communities was classified into one of the thirty-one major
groups of the 2011 National Occupational Classification (NOC) system. 7 This provides a basis to
7
A total of 1,767,777 hours of labour, including 378,081 hours supplied by Inuit, was able to be classified based on job
title and other information accessed from the site roster and from BIMC HR records. There was insufficient detail to
support classification of the remaining 5.4% of hours. Some job title classifications may be revised in future reports.
16
understanding the overall “labour demand profile” of the project, and how Inuit are engaged in
helping to meet this demand.
Figure 4 below illustrates hours demanded and supplied for three categories that engaged a
substantial component of the Project workforce. These are NOC 67 (dishwashers, housekeepers,
janitors), NOC 75 (truck and heavy equipment operators), and NOC 72 (industrial, electrical, and
construction trades). These charts illustrate reasonable consistency in demand for categories of
labour of importance to Inuit workers at the site once the Project was geared up midway through
2013. A slight dip in NOC 67 demand seems to occur over the winter months. Demand for trades
also shows some seasonal variability, with peak activities appearing to occur during September
through November—possibly related to sealift delivery of material needed for construction.
Figure 4
Monthly Demand and Supply, 2013 & 2014
NOC 67 Occupations: Dishwashers, housekeepers, janitors
NOC 75 Occupations: Haul truck and heavy equipment operation
17
NOC 72 Occupations: Industrial, electrical, and construction trades
Source: see Figure 3, above.
Table 10, below, shows how the most common jobs at the project in 2014 are represented in the
NOC coding system. While the project engaged employees in a wide diversity of occupations, these
“typical jobs” account for a large majority of the overall project labour force, as well as most of the
Inuit component of the labour force.
Table 10
Major Mary River job categories classified by their major NOC grouping
NOC 2-Digit Code
Typical Jobs At Mary River
01, 02, 06, 07, 08, 09: Middle management occupations
(Skill Level A)
Superintendents
21: Professional occupations in natural and applied
sciences (Skill Level A)
Engineers
22: Technical occupations related to natural and applied
sciences (Skill Level B)
Health & Safety / Environmental Officers
Managers
Geologists
Air Crew - pilots and officers
Surveyors
Electronics technicians
Computers and IT technicians
63: Service supervisors and specialized service
occupations (Skill Level B)
65: Service representatives and other customer and
personal services occupations (Skill Level C)
Kitchen and camp supervisors
Cooks, Bakers
Travel coordinators
Security guards
Bear monitors
67: Service Support and other service occupations (Skill
Level D)
Dishwashers
Housekeepers
Janitors
72: Industrial, electrical and construction trades (Skill
Level B)
Supervisors, Foremen
Assemblers & installers
Boiler maker
Welders
Electricians
Pipefitters, plumbers
Carpenters
73: Maintenance and equipment operation trades (Skill
Level B)
Maintenance supervisors
Mechanics - mobile equipment, drills, crusher
18
Maintenance technicians
Crane operators & riggers
Drillers
Blasters
75: Transport and heavy equipment operation and
related maintenance occupations (Skill Level C)
Heavy Equipment Operators
Tire technicians
Haul truck operator
Wench truck driver
Water / Vac truck drivers
Fuel / lube services
76: Trades helpers, construction labourers and related
occupations (Skill Level D)
General labourers
Trades helpers
Source: A NOC job “quick search” utility can be found at the Employment and Skills Development Canada
website: http://www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2011/Welcome.aspx.
Table 11 presents the full range of work performed by all employees and by Inuit employees,
respectively, presented by major occupational grouping. Data from 2013 is presented following the
2014 data, for comparative purposes. These tables include work done both by direct Baffinland
employees as well as for the various contractors.
In 2014, three major occupational categories—NOC groups 72, 73, and 75—account for 1,011,135
hours, or 57%, of the total classified labour demand of the project. These categories, with the
demand hours, are:
•
72 – Industrial, electrical and construction trades, accounting for 393,549 hours (22%) of
total labour demand. Project labour demand in this area more than doubled (up 140%)
from the previous year.
•
73 - Maintenance and equipment operation trades, accounting for 227,092 hours (13%) of
labour demand. This represents a 124% increase in demand from 2013.
•
75 - Transport and heavy equipment operation and related maintenance occupations,
accounting for 390,494 hours, or 22%, of total labour demand. Demand in this area was
159% higher than in 2013, increasing by 239,438 hours.
Other occupations of particular relevance to participation by Nunavummiut include NOC categories
67 and 76. Project demand for labour in these areas also expanded substantially between 2013
and 2014, with increases of 115% and 125% respectively.
Supply of labour by Inuit
As the Project expanded, so too did Inuit involvement in on-site employment. Most of this labour
was carried out in just a few occupational categories. Three quarters of all Inuit labour falls within
three major occupational categories:
•
Nearly one-third (31%) of all Inuit labour, a total of 116,275 hours, was performed in the
area of service support and other service occupations (NOC 67). This includes dish
washers and housekeepers as major job titles. This level of labour supply accounts for
nearly all (97%) of Project demand in this occupational category. Project needs in this area
increased by 63,954 hours (115% higher than 2013). The Inuit labour force was almost
able to meet this increased demand, with Inuit workers supplying an additional 60,847
hours over the level provided in 2013 (110% more Inuit hours than in 2013).
19
•
One-third (32%) of all Inuit labour involved jobs in transport and heavy equipment
operation… (NOC 75). Project demand in this category more than doubled (159%
increase) from the 151,056 hours needed in 2013. Inuit provided 119,900 hours of the
390,494 hours required in 2014. This represents an increase in Inuit supply in this category
from 21% to 31% of total need.
•
The category of trades helpers, construction labourers and related occupations (76)
accounted for 13% of Inuit labour, or 49,575 hours, a 89% increase from the 2013 level of
26,292 hours. This level of supply was enough to meet 70% of the total project requirement
of 70,645 hours for this type of work (refer to Table 11).
20
Table 11
Labour Demand And Supply Profile, By Occupational Group And Skill Level
2014 – Total Labour Demand (Hours Worked In Nunavut)
Skill Level
National Occupational Classification
A
Major Groups
B
C
D
% of
total labour
demand
Administrative Services Managers
011
5,772
<1%
Managers in financial and business services
012
4,196
<1%
Managers in engineering, architecture, science and information systems
021
7,107
<1%
Managers in food service and accommodation
063
11,843
1%
Managers in construction and facility operations and maintenance
071
35,211
2%
Managers in transportation
073
15,379
1%
Managers in natural resources production and fishing
081
2,940
<1%
22,540
1%
Professional occupations in business and finance
11
Administrative and financial supervisors and administrative occupations
12
Office support occupations
14
40,316
2%
Distribution, tracking and scheduling co-ordination occupations
15
27,630
2%
Professional occupations in natural and applied sciences
21
Technical occupations related to natural and applied sciences
22
126,716
7%
Technical occupations in health
32
15,920
1%
Professional occupations in education services
40
14,809
1%
Professional occupations in law and social, community and government services
41
7,152
<1%
Retail sales supervisors and specialized sales occupations
62
6,960
Service supervisors and specialized service occupations
63
92,458
Service representatives and other customer and personal services occupations
65
Service Support and other service occupations
1%
17,445
2%
43,228
<1%
5%
3%
46,801
67
119,526
7%
Industrial, electrical and construction trades
72
393,549
22%
Maintenance and equipment operation trades
73
227,092
13%
Other installers, repairers and servicers and material handlers
74
2,432
<1%
Transport and heavy equipment operation and related maintenance occupations
75
390,494
22%
Trades helpers, construction labourers and related occupations
76
Supervisors and technical occupations in natural resources... and related production
82
10,111
5,161
Processing, manufacturing and utilities supervisors and central control operators
92
Processing and manufacturing machine operators and related production workers
94
Labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities
96
Total Hours Coded by Sk ill Level
Sk ill Level As A Percentage of Total Project Labour Demand
70,645
4%
1%
<1%
<1%
3,168
1,176
<1%
1,767,777
170,178
895,411
510,841
191,347
10%
51%
29%
11%
Source: Labour force data for Baffinland and Contractors was derived by Doug Brubacher from the daily site roster
compiled Mar 4th, 2015. Hours worked in Nunavut communities were obtained from additional Baffinland HR records.
NOC Codes are assigned based on job titles as indicated in site roster and other sources.
Note: A total of 100,105 hours of labour are spread across numerous other NOC codes or had insufficient information
related to occupation to enable classification into this matrix. When added to coded hours, this brings the “total hours
worked in Nunavut” to 1,867,882 hours.
21
2014 – Supply Of Labour By Inuit
Skill Level
A
Major Groups
011
012
021
063
071
073
081
B
C
D
% of NOC group
supplied by
Inuit
4,160
99%
1,619
7%
11
12
14
18,916
47%
15
10,704
39%
21
22
Professional occupations in health (except nursing)
31
32
40
41
62
63
65
8,019
6%
3,813
53%
11,750
13%
23,010
67
49%
116,275
8,184
2%
2,142
1%
73
74
75
76
Supervisors and technical occupations in natural resources,... and related production
82
92
94
96
119,900
31%
49,575
9,605
30,095
172,530
Percentage of Total Inuit Hours Falling in this Sk ill Level
3%
8%
46%
44%
6%
3%
34%
87%
160,573
865,316
338,311
70%
165,850
Percentage of Coded Project Hours Supplied by Inuit, by Sk ill Level Category
Hours in this Sk ill Level Not Work ed By Inuit
97%
72
Total Inuit Hours Coded By Sk ill Level
13
378,081
25,497
Source: See above Table.
Note: A total of 1,525 hours of labour had insufficient information related to occupation to enable classification into this
matrix. When added to coded hours, this brings the “total hours worked by Inuit” to 379,606 hours.
22
2013 – Total Labour Demand (Nunavut)
Skill Level
A
Major Groups
B
C
% of
total labour
demand
D
011
5,772
1%
012
2,691
<1%
021
10,920
1%
063
11,700
1%
071
14,700
2%
073
6,120
1%
081
732
<1%
Managers in manfacturing and utilities
091
3,648
<1%
11
8,580
1%
12
14
21,452
3%
15
14,028
2%
21
22
31
32
40
41
62
3,180
<1%
63
53,820
6%
65
1%
9,912
2%
20,580
12%
100,452
<1%
2,712
1%
11,412
8,484
1%
<1%
2,592
3%
25,344
67
55,572
7%
72
163,680
19%
73
101,292
12%
74
60
<1%
75
151,056
18%
76
Supervisors and technical occupations in natural resources... and related production
82
2,316
<1%
92
4,944
1%
94
96
Total Hours
Percentage of Total Project Labour Demand
31,440
<1%
1,512
3,828
90,747
451,008
213,452
99,324
11%
53%
25%
12%
Source: Labour force data for BIMC and Contractors was derived by Doug Brubacher from daily site roster “Actual
Master” file provided by Site Administration on September 10, 2014. NOC Codes assigned based on supplied job titles by
Brubacher and Michelle Goddard. Numbers in this summary were extracted by Doug Brubacher from a working version of
the data set on October 2, 2014.
4%
23
<1%
854,531
100%
2013 – Supply Of Labour By Inuit
% of NOC
group
supplied by
Inuit
Skill Level
A
Major Groups
011
012
021
063
071
073
081
Managers in manfacturing and utilities
091
B
C
D
100.0%
2,691
1%
11
12
14
14,504
68%
15
3,288
23%
21
22
31
32
40
41
62
63
65
96
5,052
5%
10,212
19%
54%
13,680
67
55,428
99.7%
72
4,344
3%
73
1,008
1%
74
75
76
Supervisors and technical occupations in natural resources,... and related production
82
92
94
96
Total Hours
Percentage of Total Inuit Hours Falling in this Sk ill Level
Percentage of Total Project Hours Supplied by Inuit, by Sk ill Level Category
Hours in this Sk ill Level Not Work ed By Inuit
24%
37,008
26,292
2,787
20,616
68,480
81,720
2%
12%
39%
47%
100%
32%
82%
20%
3%
87,960
5%
430,392
144,972
17,604
Source: See above Table.
84%
24
173,603
Most Inuit labour (90%) in 2014 fell into Skill Levels D and C occupations, up from 86% in 2013.
Expansion of Inuit involvement was greatest in Level C—accounting for 46% of all Inuit labour in
2014, up seven percentage points from the 2013 level of 39%. The relative importance of Skill
Level D work for Inuit declined by three percentage points, accounting for 44% of all Inuit labour
on-site in 2014, compared with 47% in the previous year. The relative contribution of Level A and
Level B jobs to overall Inuit involvement also declined, from 14% of all Inuit labour in 2013 to 11%
in 2014.
The considerable growth of Inuit engagement in the Project generally arose from expansion of
labour demand in all categories more than through substitution of southern with northern labour.
For example, while Inuit involvement in Level D occupations increased by 84,130 hours (a 103%
increase) from the previous year, the proportion of Level D labour performed by Inuit increased
only slightly, from 82% to 87%. Since Inuit already supply most Level D labour, there will be little
opportunity for expansion of Inuit involvement in these types of jobs once Project demand
stabilizes.
In contrast, Inuit continue to provide only one-third of the labour needed by the Project in Level C
occupations. Therefore, in addition to opportunity presented by any future expansion of Project
demand in these areas, substantial opportunity exists for increased Inuit employment by growth in
the proportion of these jobs performed by Inuit. For example, with no further growth in Project
demand, an increase in Inuit contribution in Level C occupations from the current level of 34% to,
say, half of the total Project demand of 510,841 hours would entail an increase in Inuit labour supply
of some 82,890 hours. 8 Most of this opportunity lies in group 75, transportation, heavy equipment
operation and maintenance. However, several other occupational categories—14, 15, and 65—
within this skill level also experienced expansion and may present further opportunity for Inuit labour
force development.
In the higher skill trades, technical and managerial occupations classified under Level A and Level
B, the Inuit labour force is currently contributing minimally to Project needs. In the construction and
maintenance trades areas (NOC 72 and 73), the Inuit labour force has provided only 10,326 hours
of the 620,641 hours needed by the Project in 2014. Future growth of Inuit labour force engagement
in these areas will require capacity development.
4.1.3
Supply of Labour By Gender
Of the 414 Inuit individuals who worked for any period of time at the Mary River Project in 2014,
129—roughly one-third (31%)—, were women. These women carried out 30% of all hours worked
by Inuit (Table 12). This is a slight increase from the previous year. There were an additional 120
Non-Inuit women who worked at the Project in 2013, accounting for 6% of the Non-Inuit labour
force. Combined, Inuit and Non-Inuit women accounted for 11% of all hours worked.
8
Half of demand in Skill Level C would be 255,420 hours, i.e. up by 82,890 hours from the current supply of 172,530
hours. This is not to say that 50% is or is not a reasonable expectation or objective. Rather it is simply to illustrate the
point that there is substantial room for increased labour supply by Nunavummiut within these Level C positions—positions
that have been demonstrated to be accessible to Inuit within the North Baffin and Iqaluit labour force.
25
Table 12
Mary River Project Labour Force Profile - Beneficiary Status & Gender, 2014 & 2013
Beneficiary Status &
Gender
Inuit
- Women
- Men
- Percentage Women
Non-Inuit
- Women
- Men
- Percentage Women
Total
Number Engaged In Project
Hours Worked
(at any point in the year)
(in Nunavut)
Full Time Equivalents
(2080 hrs / FTE)
2013
291
87
203
30%
2014
414
129
285
31%
2013
174,365
49,611
124,754
28%
2014
379,606
112,437
267,169
30%
2013
84
24
60
2014
183
54
128
1,302
94
1,201
7%
2,018
120
1,898
6%
688,812
49,200
639,468
7%
1,488,276
94,072
1,394,204
6%
331
24
307
716
45
670
1,593
2,432
863,177
1,867,882
415
898
Source: Labour force data for BIMC and Contractors was derived on March 5th, 2015 by Doug Brubacher from daily site
roster “Actual Master” file and other supporting HR data, provided by Baffinland Site Administration on January 5, 2015.
Notes: 1) The site roster was a key source. It provides a list of who is on-site each day. This was converted to “hours of
labour” making an assumption that everyone worked 12 hours each day they were on site, as is the standard. These
“hours worked” data do not include vacation time or other authorised and paid time off-site. The FTE calculations
therefore probably underestimate the comparable impact of this work on the local labour market. 2) The data includes
positions located in communities as well as at the Project site. For community-based positions, an assumption of 40 hours
worked per week of active employment was made. 3) Beneficiary status indicated in the source data sets was verified
against NTI’s beneficiary list.
4.1.4
On-the-Job Social Context Experienced By Inuit Women 9
Inuit women performed just over half of all labour performed by women at the Project. However
Inuit women are not working side-by-side non-Inuit women by and large. Most Inuit women at the
Project are employed in occupations where few if any non-Inuit women work. For example, 71% of
the 129 Inuit women engaged in the Project in 2014 (92 women) work in NOC 67 positions where
there were no non-Inuit female employees. Inuit women engaged in office support occupations
(NOC 14) and travel coordination / security services (NOC 65) do on the other hand work side-byside non-Inuit women in these occupations. They make up 44% of the female workforce within
these categories. Only a small number of Inuit women (19 of the 129 total) are involved in these
positions however. Similarly, the small group of Inuit women working in the male-dominated NOC
75 occupations find themselves working alongside an equally small group of non-Inuit women also
in these jobs.
The 92 Inuit women engaged in NOC 67 occupations may work side-by-side the 52 Inuit men also
engaged in this category. However, there may be a distinction between those involved as kitchen
helpers and those involved as housekeepers and cleaners.
9
The data presented in this section is derived from the “Actual Master” site roster data set. This includes hours spent in a
job category for any period of time during the year. These values vary slightly from the “Employment Continuity” data set
which assigns a single NOC code per year based on which position accounts for the most hours worked in a year.
26
The specific characteristics of the social setting within which Inuit women work that are most
important in establishing a conducive work environment are not evident from the quantitative data
available to date. Rather, these considerations may emerge through qualitative data generation—
specifically interviews with workers and supervisors—if deemed to be important.
4.1.5
Origin of Mary River Project Employees
Table 13 shows the origin of labour for the Project. In 2014 there were a total of some 2,432
individuals who worked for a period of time at site, performing a total of 1.87 million hours of work.
Eighty per cent of these people came from outside of Nunavut. This group performed 79% of all
labour required by the Project in 2014.
A total of 414 Inuit had some involvement with the Project, supplying 20% of all Project labour. The
379,606 hours of work performed by this group is the equivalent of 183 full-time jobs. North Baffin
communities supplied most of the Inuit labour, accounting for nearly three-quarters (74%) of all
hours of Inuit labour. A total of 100 individuals from Pond Inlet supplied one-quarter of this Inuit
labour, or some 93,683 hours—the equivalent of 45 full-time jobs. Fourteen Inuit beneficiaries of
the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement residing outside of the territory were employed at the Project,
performing 4.5% of Inuit hours of work provided to the Project.
Table 13
Origin of Mary River Project Employees, 2014
Beneficiary Status &
Residence
Number Engaged In Project
Hours Worked
(at any point in the year)
(in Nunavut)
Inuit
- North Baffin
Hall Beach
Igloolik
Arctic Bay
Pond Inlet
Clyde River
- Iqaluit
- Other
Non-Inuit
- Nunavut
- Other Canada
- Outside Canada
- Unknown
Total
2013
291
214
43
33
28
80
30
63
14
1,302
11
1,289
2
1,593
2014
414
307
62
52
50
100
43
93
14
2,018
27
1,633
54
305
2,432
2013
174,365
125,870
23,896
18,760
14,070
52,502
16,642
38,799
9,696
688,812
7,056
680,616
1,140
863,177
2014
379,606
281,679
53,548
42,988
58,407
93,683
33,053
80,796
17,131
1,488,276
16,239
1,330,671
14,855
126,511
1,867,882
Full Time Equivalents
(2080 hrs / FTE)
2013
84
61
11
9
7
25
8
19
5
331
3
327
1
415
2014
183
135
26
21
28
45
16
39
8
716
8
640
7
61
898
Source: see above table. Notes: see above table.
4.1.6
Employment Status Prior to Project Engagement
Previous employment status data was available for roughly one-third of the Inuit engaged at the
Project in 2013. At that time, as indicated in the 2013 monitoring report, one-half were not
employed, one-quarter had full-time employment, and one-quarter were engaged in part-time,
casual, or self-employment.
27
During 2014, an additional 228 Inuit were inducted into work at the Mary River Project. Baffinland
hired 79 of these new recruits, while the remainder were engaged by various contractors. Data for
the previous employment status of these individuals was not accessed.
4.1.7
Employment Continuity, 2013 to 2014
•
•
•
63% of Inuit working in 2013 returned to work again in 2014, implying a year-over-year
turnover of 37%. Turnover amongst those working less than two full two-week rotation
in 2013 was 60%, while only one-quarter (23%) of those working four rotations or more
in 2013 did not work again the following year.
Turnover amongst NOC 75 truck drivers / heavy equipment operators was much lower
than amongst other Inuit employed at Mary River. Only 14 of 69 Inuit engaged in these
jobs in 2013 did not return in 2014—a 20% year-over-year turnover rate for the
category. Slightly more than half of the 55 returning NOC 75 operators approached fulltime employment, working eight or more rotations.
Turnover in NOC 67 positions was much higher, at 47%—45 of the 95 Inuit working
these jobs in 2013 did not return in 2014, in spite of a 115% increase in Project demand
in this category.
Over the course of the first two years of the Project, some 522 Inuit have been engaged in supplying
a total of 553,971 hours of labour. This volume of work is equivalent to an average of between 130
and 140 full-time jobs over a period of two years. 10
A total of some 294 Inuit were engaged in the Mary River Project to some degree in 2013. Of these,
a total of 186 individuals were also engaged at the Project in 2014, while 108 did not work during
that subsequent year. This provides an average year-over-year turnover rate of 37% across the
2013 Inuit workforce.
It should be noted, however, that there is tremendous variability in the duration of work carried out
by individual employees at the Project during both years. This is the case both for the Inuit and
Non-Inuit components of the Project labour force.
Further insight into employment continuity can be gained by considering the hours worked by a
person in 2014 in relation to the hours worked by that same individual in the previous year. This
analysis is based on site roster data for the two years to date and is presented here for all Inuit
employment.
Data for all Inuit engaged in the Project so far is presented in Figure 5. In this chart, the total number
of individuals who worked in 2013 is indicated in brackets in the upper right cell—294. 11 The
number of people within this cohort who did not continue in 2014 is indicated in bold in the cell
below (108 individuals). The number of Inuit working in 2014 is indicated brackets in the lower left
10
One full-time job is calculated as 2080 hours per year, so 130 jobs is equivalent to 270,400 hours per year, or 540,800
hours over two years. This may underestimate the FTEs, however, as the recorded hours are all on-site hours and don’t
take into account vacation or other authorised paid leave. For this reason a range is provided. The figure is used simply to
illustrate the relative magnitude of the Project.
11
Note the slight discrepancy in total number of Inuit identified in 2013. Minor adjustments to the data set post-2013 report
have led to a revised number of 294 compared to the previous 291.
28
hand cell (414 individuals). The number within this 2014 cohort who were newly recruited that year
is indicated in bold to the right (228 individuals).
Categories of “hours worked” relate to the typical 84-hour work week at site. A typical two-week
rotation consists of 168 hours, two rotations would encompass 336 hours, four rotations 672 hours
and eight rotations 1344 hours.
Reading down the far right-hand column shows how the 2013 cohort performed in 2014 in terms of
these categories (which are indicated in the far left-hand column). Reading down through the
middle columns provides insight into the outcome of specific “hours-worked” components of the
2013 cohort.
In a similar fashion, the bottom row shows the origin of 2014 employees in terms of the hours they
worked the previous year. Reading across the rows in the body of the chart shows the past
experience of specific components of the 2014 cohort. Finally, the number in the lower right-hand
cell indicates the total number of Inuit engaged in the Project over the combined two-year period.
Figure 5
Continuity of Employment by Hours Worked
All Inuit, 2013 to 2014
Hours worked in 2013
672 1343
1344+
43
16
2
108
1
-
-
-
3
1
1
3
-
-
5
168 335
32
-
-
3
5
5
3
16
336 671
60
1
-
5
14
5
2
27
672 1343
74
2
1
4
25
11
1
44
1344+
All Inuit
Performance
of 2013
Cohort
(294 people)
19
1
2
8
38
24
18
91
228
5
5
22
85
45
24
1 - 83
84 - 167
168 - 335 336 - 671
-
10
12
25
25
1
1
18
-
84 167
1 - 83
0
0
Experience of
2014 Cohort
(414 people)
522
Source: Data for these charts was derived by Doug Brubacher from the Site Roster “master file” March 7, 2015.
As illustrated in Figure 5, there were 108 individuals who worked in 2013 but did not continue any
employment relationship with the Project in 2014.
Of the 186 individuals who did work again in 2014 the largest group (comprising 91 individuals)
worked at least 1344 hours, or eight rotations. Amongst those who worked between two and four
rotations in 2013, one-third (43) did not work again at the Project in 2014. Most of the remaining 85
Inuit within this experience cohort went on to work as many or more hours in 2014—38 went on to
29
work 1344 hours or more, 25 worked between 672 and 1343 hours and 14 worked between 336
and 671 hours. Few of the 79 individuals who worked less than two rotations in 2013 fared well in
2014. Nearly two-thirds (47 individuals) of this group did no work at all at the Project the following
year — a year-over-year turnover rate of 60%.
Turnover amongst the “top performers” in terms of hours worked during 2013 is much lower. Only
23% of those who worked four rotations or more in 2013 did not work again in 2014. Amongst the
26 individuals who worked eight or more rotations in 2013, only two (2), did not work again in 2014,
for a year-over-year turnover rate of 8%. Most of this cohort (18 individuals) worked eight or more
rotations again in 2014.
84 167
672 - 336 - 168 1343 671
335
1344+
1 - 83
0
Figure 6
Continuity of Employment by Hours Worked By Gender
Inuit, 2013 to 2014
Figure 6 shows the employment record separately for Inuit women and Inuit men. Amongst both
Performance
women and men, there appears
of 2013
Inuit
W omen
672 Cohort
1344+
84 - 167 168 - 335 336 - 671
0
1 - 83
to be a decision-point between
1343
(88 people)
336 to 671 hours worked, or
10
13
6
1
39
5
4
roughly two to four months into
1
3
12
1
1
a regular two-in / two-out work
1
1
6
rotation.
Experience of 2014
Cohort (129 people)
9
-
-
-
3
2
-
5
18
-
-
-
1
2
1
4
28
1
1
1
8
-
1
12
7
-
-
4
9
6
5
24
80
2
2
6
22
10
7
168
Inuit
Men
Performance
of 2013
Cohort
(206 people)
672 1343
1344+
30
10
1
69
-
-
-
-
0
1
1
2
-
-
4
-
-
3
2
3
3
11
42
1
-
5
13
3
1
23
46
1
-
3
17
11
-
32
12
1
2
4
29
18
13
67
148
3
3
16
63
35
17
1 - 83
84 - 167
168 - 335 336 - 671
-
5
8
15
13
-
-
12
-
23
84 167
672 - 336 - 168 1343 671
335
1344+
1 - 83
0
0
Experience of 2014
Cohort (285 people)
354
Only one-third of women and
less than one-half of men
working less than 336 hours in
2013 continued at all in 2014. Of
those who worked more than
this amount in 2013, two-thirds
of women and three-quarters of
men worked again in 2014. Of
these veteran employees, most
worked more hours in 2014 than
they did in 2013.
There
are
substantial
differences in employment
duration depending on the
category
of
job
being
undertaken.
The
following
charts (refer to Figure 7 below)
present data for the three major
occupational groups where Inuit
have been engaged—NOC 67,
75, and 76.
30
Figure 7
Continuity of Employment by Hours Worked In Three Job Categories
NOC 67, NOC 75, and NOC 76, 2013 to 2014
672 1343
1344+
16
8
1
45
1
-
-
-
2
-
-
1
-
-
1
168 335
10
-
-
-
4
2
1
7
336 671
Performance
of 2013
Cohort
(95 people)
24
1
-
-
1
3
-
5
672 1343
29
1
-
1
8
1
-
11
1344+
Inuit
NOC 67
7
-
-
2
8
7
7
24
93
2
1
4
22
13
8
168 - 335 336 - 671
1 - 83
84 - 167
-
6
5
9
13
-
1
10
-
84 167
1 - 83
0
0
Experience of
2014 Cohort
(143 people)
672 1343
1344+
8
-
-
14
-
-
-
-
0
-
1
1
-
-
2
168 335
6
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
336 671
7
-
-
-
4
-
-
4
672 1343
Performance
of 2013
Cohort
(69 people)
17
1
-
1
5
5
-
12
1344+
Inuit
NOC 75
188
7
1
1
3
21
8
2
36
39
2
1
5
32
13
2
1 - 83
84 - 167
168 - 335 336 - 671
-
-
1
5
1
-
-
1
-
84 167
1 - 83
0
0
Experience of
2014 Cohort
(94 people)
672 1343
1344+
5
4
-
16
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
168 335
6
-
-
3
-
-
-
3
336 671
Performance
of 2013
Cohort
(52 people)
13
-
-
3
7
2
-
12
672 1343
8
-
-
1
6
2
-
9
1344+
Inuit
NOC 76
108
-
-
-
1
3
5
3
12
32
0
0
8
16
9
3
1 - 83
84 - 167
168 - 335 336 - 671
-
1
1
5
-
-
-
5
-
84 167
1 - 83
0
0
Experience of
2014 Cohort
(68 people)
84
Attrition amongst cleaners and
kitchen helpers (NOC 67) appears
to be quite high between 2013 and
2014, with nearly half (47%) of
those working in 2013 not working
again in 2014. Even amongst
those who worked between two
and four rotations in 2013, nearly
half (42%) did no work in the
following year. Amongst those
working four to eight rotations in
2013, more than one-third did not
proceed to work at all in 2013.
This said, there does appear to be
a small group of NOC 67
employees that is moving toward
more stable employment. Onehalf of the 50 veteran workers in
this category went on to work
more than eight rotations in 2014.
Amongst new recruits to NOC 67
positions, the most frequent hours
worked were between two and
eight rotations. However a
relatively large number also
appear to have terminated
employment after only short
periods of engagement. Nearly
one-quarter of this group worked
fewer than 167 hours—less than
one rotation.
The picture for NOC 75
employment is very different. Only
20% of the 69 individuals
employed in these positions in
2013 did not proceed to work
again in 2014. Two-thirds of this
continuing
worker
group
proceeded to work eight or more
rotations (1344 hours or more) in
2014.
31
Year-to-year continuity amongst NOC 76 labourers falls between the previous two categories, with
nearly one-third (31%) of those who worked in 2013 not showing up on the 2014 roster. Amongst
the veteran employees in this category, one-third worked eight or more rotations and another onequarter worked six to eight rotations in 2014. Slightly more than half of these returning employees
worked more hours in 2014 than they had the previous year. 12
In order for the Inuit labour force to progressively build capacity to meet Project labour needs, and
for individuals to gain the experience and training required to progress into higher positions
improved continuity of employment will be desirable. This will be indicated by a shift in density of
these heat plots toward the bottom right corner of the charts.
4.1.8
Hours Worked Per Employee
Further perspective on the dynamics of employment at the Project can be gained by considering
the duration of employment experienced by Inuit and other employees. In 2014 the median hours
worked by all employees, including short-term technical advisors as well as long-term employees
was roughly 500 hours. Inuit tended to be employed in longer term positions and show somewhat
higher median hours-worked profiles. 13
As previously noted, demand for labour was more consistent in 2014 than it had been during the
ramp-up in 2013. Therefore the median (50th percentile) and upper quartiles (75th percentile) are
substantially higher in 2014 than during the previous year (Figure 8). For example, one quarter of
Inuit women engaged in the Project worked more than 1297 hours (the 75th percentile) in 2014,
compared with 759 hours in 2013. Half of Inuit women engaged at Mary River Project in 2014
worked 720 hours or more, while in 2013 the median level was 390 hours. Amongst Inuit men, the
top quarter worked more than 1537 hours in 2014 and only 795 hours in 2013. The median hours
worked for Inuit men was 779 and 474 hours in 2014 and 2013, respectively.
12
Presenting occupation-specific continuity data raises the issue of how to treat instances where an employee has moved
from one position to another or has shifted between two or more positions over time. For this presentation, the most
recent position that accounts for the majority of hours worked in a year is the position used to assign the employee to the
NOC category.
13
These plots are developed by ranking hours of work from lowest to highest. The rectangular box contains the middle
half of the values (i.e. values between the 25th and 75th percentile). The horizontal bar inside the box is the middle value or
50th percentile.
32
Figure 8
Duration of Employment By Beneficiary Status and Gender, 2014 and 2013
2014 Hours of employment
Source: Data includes both Baffinland and Contractor employees extracted on February 16 by Doug Brubacher from daily
site roster “Actual Master” file provided by Site Administration. The distributions are based on days on site, assuming 12
hours worked per day, for each employee who worked at some point during the year presented. Work by Baffinland
employees whose jobs are located in a Baffin community is included, based on an assumption of 40 hours worked per
week employed.
Interestingly, the lower quartile does not seem to be much different between 2013 and 2014, in
spite of the dramatically higher demand for labour in the second year. Amongst Inuit the 25th
percentile for men was, respectively, 372 hours in 2014 and 348 in 2013. For Inuit women the
comparable numbers are 300 hours and 192 hours for 2014 and 2013 respectively. This suggests
that for these employees the factors limiting duration of work are likely to be other than work
availability.
The charts presented in Figure 9, below, show how hours-worked distributions vary across
occupations of different skill level requirements. Here again, expansion of Project labour needs
affects the amount of work performed by employees in the upper quartile much more than in the
lower quartile of the workforce. This is most striking in Level C occupations, where hours worked
33
by the top 25% of Inuit workers (in terms of hours of labour delivered) increased 142%, from 720
hours in 2013 to 1,745 hours in 2014. During the same period the lower quartile also increased,
but at a modest 50%, from 360 hours to 540 hours. Project demand for Level C increased by 139%
over this period (refer back to Table 11).
Amongst Skill Level D workers, the lower quartile seemed to be largely unaffected by growing
project demand, increasing modestly from 246 hours in 2013 to 300 hours in 2014. The upper
quarter of Skill Level D Inuit workers (in terms of hours worked) did, on the other hand, increase
from 753 hours in 2013 to 1,148 in 2014—a 52% expansion. Recall that Project demand for Level D
labour increased by 93% during this period.
Figure 9
Hours of Labour Supplied Per Employee, By Skill Level and Beneficiary Status,
2014 and 2013
Source: See above.
34
Figure 10 illustrates a substantial divergence between different occupations in terms of hours
worked per employee. Only one-quarter of Inuit truck drivers (NOC 751) worked fewer than 576
hours in 2014, while the top 25% worked at least 1299 hours. The top quartile of Inuit heavy
equipment operators worked more hours than did truck drivers—1833 hours or more—however the
bottom 25% worked 540 or fewer hours. Most of the heavy equipment operators are men. Amongst
the half-dozen women in this group, however, hours of work are high—with only one-quarter
working fewer than 900 hours over the year.
In contrast to the Skill Level C drivers and equipment operators, Inuit engaged in Skill Level D
labourer (NOC 76) and housekeeping / dishwashing positions (NOC 67) tended to work fewer hours
over the year. One-quarter of Inuit female NOC 67 employees worked fewer than 243 hours.
Women appear to be holding onto their positions a bit longer than men in NOC 67 jobs—with half
of the women working more than 696 hours. Amongst men in this group, half worked more than
552 hours. Median hours worked by Inuit men in NOC 76 was slightly higher than those in NOC
67, at 617 hours in 2014.
Figure 10
Hours Worked Per North Baffin Inuit and Southern Non-Inuit Employees In Several
Common Jobs, 2014
Source: See above.
4.1.9
Termination of Employment and Turnover Rates
Termination of employment results in “employee turnover” as new people are hired on to replace
those departing. While the “employment continuity” and “hours-worked” data presented in the
sections above provide indirect insight into employee turnover, the best source for determining
turnover rates are the hiring and termination records for the workforce that is hired on an
indeterminate basis. As in 2013, this data was only available for BIMC employees, not for
employees of the various Contractors.
A total of 155 Inuit were employed in 2014 by Baffinland, 79 of whom were newly hired that year.
Forty-five of these 155 individuals, or 29% of Baffinland’s Inuit workforce, departed their
employment relationship with the company that year (Table 14). The median duration of
35
employment amongst these departing employees was 22 weeks. Nineteen of these departing
employees were amongst the 79 Inuit hired by the company in 2014, a turnover rate of 24%
amongst new hires. The median duration of employment amongst this group was 12 weeks. The
26 employees who had been hired prior to 2014 and terminated their employment relationship that
year had a median employment duration of 34 weeks.
Table 14
Hires and Departures in the Baffinland Inuit workforce, 2014
number employed by BIMC in 2014
number departing BIMC employment in 2014
low value
25th percentile
median
75th percentile
high value
employed by BIMC in 2014
2014 hires departing BIMC in 2014
low value
25th percentile
median
75th percentile
high value
employed by BIMC in 2014
departing BIMC employment in 2014
low value
25th percentile
median
75th percentile
high value
Inuit Employed with BIMC in 2014
Men
All Inuit
Women
27
128
155
9
36
45
Weeks of Employment with BIMC Prior to Departure
6
2
2
13
10
10
21
23
22
32
37
37
132
244
244
Inuit Hired By BIMC in 2014
Women
Men
All Inuit
12
67
79
12
15
19
6
2
2
11
9
9
17
10
12
22
14
17
26
35
35
Inuit Hired By BIMC Before 2014
Women
Men
All Inuit
15
61
76
5
21
26
12
10
10
14
23
22
32
34
34
38
41
41
132
244
244
Source: Data was extracted by Doug Brubacher on February 12, 2015 from HR data maintained in Oakville for direct
Baffinland employees. It does not include contractor employees.
By way of comparison, in 2013 there had been nine (9) departures of Baffinland Inuit employees
amongst 92 individuals employed directly by Baffinland at some point during that year—a 10% rate
of turnover. While the 29% rate of turnover in 2014 is considerably higher than the previous year,
further experience will be required before insight into turnover trends can be confidently gained.
Figure 11 shows the distribution of seniority of employment amongst Inuit who departed
employment with Baffinland in 2014. A distinct cluster of departures occurs around the 12 week
point, followed by a much weaker cluster between 34 to 38 weeks. The first cluster coincides with
the end of a first probationary period established for all Baffinland employees at 90 days. A second
36
probationary period which ends at the 180 day point (roughly 26 weeks) does not show a similar
peak in departures, suggesting that reasons for termination following the first probationary period
vary widely.
Figure 11
Inuit Departures From BIMC Employment, By Seniority Of Employment
(2014)
Source: Data was extracted by Doug Brubacher on February 12, 2015 from HR data maintained in Oakville for direct
Baffinland employees. It does not include contractor employees.
4.1.10 Gender Analysis of Baffinland Employee Departures
In the socio-economic monitoring report for 2013, preliminary data suggested that turnover
amongst Inuit women working for Baffinland may be higher than amongst Inuit men. While the low
37
number of women engaged with the company prevents confident conclusions, the data from 2014
does not support this assessment. One-third of the 27 women employed by Baffinland in 2014
terminated their employment after a median of 21 weeks on the job. Turnover amongst men was
only slightly lower, at 28%, and seniority at termination only slightly higher, at 23 weeks. It is
cautioned that the low numbers involved means that values can be easily affected by only a few
hiring / termination events. It should also be noted that only 27 of the 129 women involved at the
Project were hired as employees of Baffinland. Most of the rest of the women worked for the site
services contractor.
4.1.11 Reasons For Termination
Data for the reasons for termination of employment was not available for 2014.
4.1.12 Absenteeism
Data for authorised and unauthorised absenteeism was not available for 2014.
4.1.13 No-Shows
Data for the number of employees who did not show up for their scheduled flight to site was not
available for 2014.
4.1.14 Career Path Progression
At this early stage of the Project opportunity for career progression has been limited. The “primary
position” identified in 2014 was different from the first position identified in 2013 for only eight Inuit
individuals. It is not possible to draw any insight at this point into career paths at this point.
4.1.15 Location of Work in Nunavut
Most of the work in Nunavut took place at site. In 2014, there were Baffinland Community Liaison
Officers in the five North Baffin communities (the BCLOs) and, by the end of the year, three
Baffinland employees in the Iqaluit office. The remainder of work was carried out at site.
38
Table 15
Location of Work Carried Out by Mary River Project Personnel
2014
Beneficiary Status & Location of Work
Inuit
North Baffin Community
Iqaluit
Number Employed
Hours Worked
414
379,606
10
15,933
5
On-Site
399
363,673
Non-Inuit
2,018
1,488,276
On-Site
2,018
1,488,276
2,432
1,867,882
Number Employed
Hours Worked
291
174,365
Total
2013
Beneficiary Status & Location of Work
Inuit
North Baffin Community
10
--
2
--
On-Site
284
--
Non-Inuit
1302
688,812
On-Site
1,302
688,812
1,593
863,177
Iqaluit
Total
Source: Baffinland data was extracted on October 1 from Baffinland HR by Doug Brubacher. Notes: 1) The site roster was
a key source. It provides a list of who is on-site each day. This was converted to “hours of labour” making an assumption
that everyone worked 12 hours each day they were on site. 2) For community-based positions, an assumption of 40
hours worked per week of active employment was made. 3) Given the small numbers of work in the communities, hours
are not presented in order to preserve confidentiality.
4.1.16 Outlook for Inuit Employment
The outlook for growth in Inuit employment at the Mary River Project will be dependent on two key
factors. These are expansion (or contraction) in demand for labour within areas where the Inuit
labour force is qualified and competitive, and replacement of southern labour with Inuit labour (or
visa versa) as project turnover creates job openings. Additional factors that will influence how these
play out include Inuit versus southern labour force turnover rates and growth in the ability of the
Inuit labour force to take on employment in occupations across the project labour demand
spectrum.
39
4.2
Administrative data sources such as the T1 Family File are available to provide context to the
Project-specific data presented here. Such data has not been generated through the collaborative
monitoring group.
4.3
COLLABORATIVE DATA
Turnover rates, reasons for termination, absenteeism rates from other major employers would be
helpful in order to place the Project-specific data in the broader context of the North Baffin / Nunavut
labour force.
40
TOPICS OF GENERAL RELEVANCE
SECTION 5.0 - TOPICS OF GENERAL RELEVANCE
5.1
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY
In 2014, hiring of Nunavummiut continued to focus clearly on the North Baffin. Three-quarters
(74%) of all Inuit engaged in the Project reside in these communities, accounting for 72% of all
labour performed by Inuit and 15% of total labour carried out in Nunavut. Inuit residents of Iqaluit
performed most of the remaining labour within the Nunavummiut cohort—accounting for 4% of total
Project demand.
Supporting data related to this North Baffin weighting was not available. For example, is the North
Baffin – Iqaluit distribution of labour mostly based on policy or on inherent labour force
characteristics? Could the Iqaluit labour force supply additional labour to the Project?
5.2
UNANTICIPATED INTERACTIONS AND EFFECTS
So far at least, the effects that have been documented in the first two monitoring reports are well
in-line with the interactions anticipated in the FEIS and the ERP Amendment.
In addition to collection of quantitative data from BIMC, perceptions and observations from
community, government, and company sources serve as “surveillance” to identify potential
interactions or effects. A particularly useful source was the May 2014 report of the QiSEMC group
that met in Iqaluit. 14 The following comments, noted also in the 2013 Socio-Economic Monitoring
Report, are highlighted along with an indication in italics of the monitoring implication:
-
“Sub-contractors may lure students away from high school with promise of jobs.”
[The impact assessment addressed Project effects on education. Qualitative data—
interviews with key individuals having perspective on hiring experiences—would be
needed in order to assess whether this apparent concern is grounded in isolated or
prevalent occurrences. Collaborative monitoring related to factors most critical to school
completion – non-completion outcomes would be needed to place such data in a
meaningful context.]
-
A comment was made that “community population needs to monitored—very important
issue.” Comments about social housing wait lists are also raised in the context of inmigration.
[The data presented in this report does not support the notion that Project-related inmigration to Baffin communities has been substantial. Monitoring will continue in this
area. Nonetheless, it may be worthwhile for Working Group partners to look into the area
of community demographics to see if in-migration is arising from other sources.]
-
A comment was made that employees who move to larger centres might run into
problems with open access to substances and end up losing their job.
14
Government of Nunavut, EDT. 2014. “Qikiqtaaluk Socio-Economic Monitoring Committee – Spring 2014 Report on the
Eighth Qikiqtaaluk SEMC Meeting.” Iqaluit, May 5 – 7, 2014. http://www.nunavutsemc.com/qikiqtaaluk
41
TOPICS OF GENERAL RELEVANCE
[While migration to Iqaluit and south has been low, it is worth keeping this potential
interaction “on the radar,” particularly with regard to housing and social housing wait list
implications.]
-
“Cautious of ‘boom – bust’ cycle.”
[Much of the employment during 2013 and 2014 has been with contractors who had
specific jobs to complete. Of the Inuit employed during 2013, 179 went on to work again
in 2014, while 115 did not. Reasons for termination of these 115 employment
relationships were not accessed for this report. The specific role of layoffs and time to
transition into positions with new employers is, therefore, not known.
However as illustrated in Figure 7 above, 80 of these terminations occurred within three
occupational categories (NOC 67, NOC 75, and NOC 76) where a total of 162 new hires
took place. It is reasonable to conclude that “bust” is not responsible for the terminations
at this point in the Project, however the reasons for these terminations are not explicitly
known.
On-going monitoring to detect characteristics of the Nunavut labour force that may make
it vulnerable or resilient in the face of future changes in Project labour needs is
recommended. Generating profiles of leaving workers will be a key part of the work that is
needed in this area. The data presented in this report goes only part way in this direction,
and would benefit from supplementary qualitative data such as interviews with current /
former workers and their supervisors.]
These perceptions and observations are not considered to be hard evidence of actual effects.
Rather they are presented simply to assist in calibrating future monitoring efforts so that appropriate
data may be sought to determine whether or not the possible interactions are important.
5.3
IMPACT ASSESSMENT UPDATES
No data arose during the 2013 or 2014 monitoring program that would call for re-assessment of
impact predictions.
5.4
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
No information has been offered regarding how the data presented in the previous monitoring report
has influenced Baffinland or government initiatives and activities. Given that the 2013 report has
only recently been completed, this is not unexpected.
42
NEXT STEPS
SECTION 6.0 - NEXT STEPS
At this early phase of the Project, understanding the magnitude of interactions with communities
has continued to be the main focus of monitoring. This report has presented some insight into both
point-in-time magnitude of Inuit participation as well as into the dynamics of Inuit involvement as
some drop out and others move into the Project labour force.
6.1
QUANTITATIVE MONITORING
Future quantitative monitoring should continue advancing insight into the dynamics of
Nunavummiut involvement in the Project. In particular, indicators related to the following
characteristics and effects of the Project should be monitored:
Depth and resilience of the Inuit labour force — is it being tapped out?
Continuation of the descriptive data presented here in order to generate profiles of performance
of veteran employees and new recruits, and past performance of terminating employees. Are
those recently recruited to the Project performing similarly as those recruited earlier? Was the
performance of employees who subsequently terminate distinctly different from those who
continue their engagement with the Project? Can Inuit participation in the Project be sustained
in the face of the experienced turnover rates or will a decline begin to emerge? Is the North
Baffin labour force (and other components of the Nunavut labour force) getting “tapped out” in
terms of its capacity to supply labour to the Project.
Absenteeism
So far, labour force performance has been limited to tracking how well individuals succeed in
showing up to work at site. Adding indicator/s related to authorised and unauthorised
absenteeism may be helpful in refining this picture.
Career progression
Insight into success in progression of employees from lower skill toward higher skill positions
will be gained through descriptive data related to career progression.
Training and education
Combined with monitoring of Inuit labour force performance and career progression in
particular, monitoring of the training and education program will provide insight into success of
efforts to build capacity. This is particularly critical as Inuit contribution to Skill Level D positions
is already meeting most of Project demand in that area. Future progress depends on Inuit
moving into occupations demanding higher skill levels.
Demographic movements and migration
While Project-related demographic effects have been limited so far, tracking of migration and
movements should probably be maintained for at least a few more years in the same
“surveillance” mode that has been used for these first two reports.
43
6.2
NEXT STEPS
QUALITATIVE AND “OUTCOME” MONITORING
Qualitative combined with existing quantitative research is desirable in order to understand why
North Baffin residents depart employment and to identify what, if any, barriers to success are
amenable to management either by company or public sector responses.
More generally, insight into how employment at the Project is interacting with community economic
and social life, as well as with household well-being should be addressed. This will require
collaboration amongst Working Group partners. It is anticipated that some outcome-focused
monitoring will be incorporated into the 2015 – 2017 reports.
6.3
SUPPORT FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED PHASE 2
One function that will drive decisions related to the focus of socio-economic monitoring is the need
to evaluate and possibly revise predictions made in the FEIS. This will be relevant in 2015 in relation
to assessment of the proposed Phase 2 amendment to the Project.
Figure 12, below, was introduced in the previous report and illustrates how monitoring data can be
used to influence adaptive management measures and to validate or refute FEIS predictions.
44
NEXT STEPS
Figure 12 Approach To Evaluating FEIS Predictions
45
Appendix A
Terms of Reference of the Mary River Socio-Economic Monitoring Working Group
M ARY RIVER SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING WORKING GROUP
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. PURPOSE
1.1 This document sets the Terms of Reference for the Mary River Socio-Economic Monitoring
Working Group (the “Working Group”). The Working Group will support the Qikiqtaaluk SocioEconomic Monitoring Committee’s (QiSEMC) regional monitoring initiatives through projectspecific socio-economic monitoring. It is intended to provide a forum for Working Group members
to engage in the work of the QiSEMC through identification of areas of mutual interest and socioeconomic monitoring priorities related to the Mary River project, communities, and the Baffin region
as a whole.
1.2 The Working Group will support the fulfillment of Terms and Conditions set out in the Mary
River Project Certificate that relate to socio-economic monitoring.
2. WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND MEMBER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 The Working Group will include as members:
a. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIMC) or the successor owner/operator of the Mary
River project;
b. Government of Nunavut;
c. Government of Canada; and
d. Qikiqtani Inuit Association.
2.2 Each organization is responsible for their own costs of participating in activities of the Working
Group.
2.3 Role of BIMC or the successor owner/operator of the Mary River project:
a. Identify indicators and share project-specific data that can contribute to priorities
identified by QiSEMC, where appropriate;
b. Participate in the analysis of data arising from collaborative monitoring;
c. Review the effectiveness of socio-economic mitigation measures;
d. Participate and prepare presentations of project-related data/issues for the QiSEMC.
APPENDIX A
2.4 Role of the Government of Nunavut:
a. Identify indicators and share data that can contribute to priorities identified by the
QiSEMC, where appropriate;
c. Participate in the analysis of effectiveness of socio-economic mitigation measures.
2.5 Role of the Government of Canada:
a. Work with the Working Group to identify and align indicators and share relevant data from
the Nunavut General Monitoring Plan (NGMP);
2.6 Role of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association:
a. Identify indicators and share data that can contribute to priorities identified by QiSEMC,
where appropriate;
2.7 Protection of Personal Information
It is recognized that, in collecting and sharing of any information and data under these Terms of
Reference, each of the members of the Working Group is required to comply with any rules
governing the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, applicable to each member
respectively, in accordance with the provisions of privacy legislation.
2.8 Information
The members acknowledge that:
a. BIMC is best able to collect and provide data concerning employment and training in
relation to the Project;
b. the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada are best able to report public
statistics on general health and well-being, food security, demographics and other socioeconomic indicators at the community and territorial level; and
c. the Qikiqtani Inuit Association is best able to provide information and data relating to Inuit
land use and culture at the community and regional level.
3. OBJECTIVES
3.1 The Working Group has the overall goal of contributing to the ongoing expansion of knowledge
related to interactions between communities in Nunavut and the Mary River Project. The priority is
on knowledge that will ultimately assist in directing socio-economic benefit from the Project,
enhance the accuracy of subsequent predictions related to socio-economic impact assessment,
and improve the focus and efficiency of socio-economic monitoring.
APPENDIX A
3.2 The Working Group aims to undertake collaborative monitoring in order to identify and access
priority data that will be useful in improving the socio-economic performance of the Mary River
Project. This will involve combining Project-specific performance data with data generated by other
member agencies. The resulting insight will be useful in supporting adaptive management
measures implemented by member agencies to minimize adverse effects and maximize benefits
from the project. The goal will be to analyze the monitoring data in order to assess the effectiveness
of current practices; obtain early warning should mitigation measures not be achieving their
intended outcome; and provide timely detection of unanticipated outcomes.
3.3 The Working Group aims to improve understanding of priority socio-economic issues in order
to increase confidence in socio-economic assessment predictions. The Working Group will identify
priority predictions contained in the Mary River Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and
will then work to address how these predictions can be validated or how unanticipated
trends/observations can be described.
3.4 The Working Group will provide monitoring data and objective analysis in a manner that is
focused, efficient and cost-effective.
3.5 The Working Group will ensure that project-specific monitoring aligns, where appropriate, with
QiSEMC priorities, such as, but not limited to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Health and well-being;
Education, life skills, and training;
Employment and career progression;
Demographics;
Land use, culture, food security; and
Other priorities that may be identified by the QiSEMC.
4. REPORTING AND COMMUNICATION
4.1 BIMC or the successor owner/operator of the Mary River project will prepare an annual socioeconomic report, presenting performance data, to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for review.
These annual reports will be due on 30 June of each year, containing data on the indicators
selected by the Working Group for the previous calendar year (January to December). These
reports will further describe the Company’s participation in the QiSEMC, other collaborative
monitoring processes and any activities related to better understanding of socio-economic
processes.
4.2 Following Project Certificate issuance and BIMC’s decision to proceed with the construction of
the Mary River project, annual reporting will commence following the start of site activities.
4.3 As appropriate, the Working Group may communicate with, and request data from, other issuespecific working groups that may arise throughout the life of the project.
APPENDIX A
5. MEETINGS
5.1 The first official meeting will be held within six (6) months of Certificate issuance or at the next
QiSEMC following issuance, whichever is first.
5.2 The Working Group is to initially meet twice a year, preferably immediately prior to or
immediately after the QiSEMC meetings. This meeting schedule may be changed at a later date if
agreed to by all members.
5.3 BIMC will designate a Chair and optionally a Secretary for these meetings. BIMC’s appointment
of the Chair (which could include itself) recognises the significance of the weight of responsibility
for reporting by the Company.
Hamlets, GN, GC, QIA,
Qikiqtaaluk Socio-
Proponents
Economic Monitoring
C
i
Regional
monitoring
Regional
Monitoring
Project-specific monitoring
Mary River SocioBIMC, GN, GC, QIA,
Economic Monitoring
Working Group
Mary River
monitoring
6. RELATION TO IIBA OBLIGATIONS
6.1 The parties recognize that this ToR is separate from any obligations under the Inuit Impact and
Benefit Agreement (IIBA) between the proponent and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and that the
mandate of the Working Group shall not include monitoring of the IIBA.
APPENDIX A
6.2 Any sharing of information with the Working Group related to the IIBA will be solely at the
discretion of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation or successor.
7. REVIEW OF TORS
7.1 These Terms of Reference may be reviewed by Working Group members periodically for any
required changes that may be applicable as the Project evolves from construction, through
operations and closure.
APPENDIX A
[INSERT: Dec 3_2012_MRSEMP_ToR_Final (clean).pdf]
link to PDF file on Doug's Mac computer
APPENDIX A

BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION MARY RIVER PROJECT

Transcription

Similar documents

bill prankard

Local Labour and Materials - Frontiers Foundation Manitoba

Indigenous peoples of the Arctic countries

Labour Market Information

MARY RIVER PROJECT

SS1 - Musées de la civilisation

S011 Construction sector leaflet

The Inuit Book

LMIP brochure final web