Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a need to set the public record straight and get the facts before this House on the matter of contracting with former GNWT employees. This is not a new issue nor is it just a northern issue. However, it has become a recurring topic in this Legislature and in the media since government went through its major downsizing initiatives of the past few years. There are now many more former GNWT staff out in the private sector trying to make a living in an economy dominated by government contracting and spending.
Mr. Speaker, the current government guideline governing contracting with former employees has been in place since December, 1986. It is contained in the Human Resource Manual Section 003 titled Ethics - Conflict of Interest - Outside Employment, Clause 14, under guidelines which read:
For one year from the date their employment ceases, senior officers may not own, operate, control or be employed by any business enterprise within the community in which they were employed and in which they may be in a position to unduly exploit knowledge they gained while employed by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
This is the guideline that governs contracting with former senior officers. It also governs other situations such as subsequent employment within a specific community. An employee may apply to the Chairman of the Financial Management Board to be exempted from any or all provisions of this section.
The guideline attempts to find a balance between the collective and individual rights and the need to encourage movement of talented people between public and private sector employment. As a collective, the public must be protected from situations where former employees may have an unfair market advantage in bidding on government work or where government policy restrains competition or trade. As an individual, the former employee has a right to not be unfairly restricted in his or her ability to make a living.
The approach taken in the guideline is to set criteria that guard against former employees gaining an unfair market advantage in securing government contracts. Unfair market advantage in this case can only arise from undue exploitation of knowledge gained while employed. It is assumed this refers to confidential information or knowledge, as public information or knowledge can be exploited by anyone and thus by definition could not be unduly exploited by a former employee. The guideline is premised on several assumptions about what gives rise to unfair advantage.
The first assumption is that only senior officers have access to enough confidential information or knowledge during their employment to have the potential to have an unfair market advantage. This exempts hundreds of former employees who have been laid off or have resigned in the past few years who have not been senior officers. However, approximately 250 current staff meet the definition of a senior officer. Three years ago there were over 330, so there is the potential for many former employees to be subject to this first criterion.
The second assumption is that confidential information or knowledge has a relatively short shelf life. Given the openness with which government operates and the rapid pace with which the environment and government operations change, it is unlikely that confidential information or knowledge carries a market advantage value for more than one year. As a result, the guideline sets a second criterion by specifying a one year time limit on its application.
The third assumption the guideline makes is that confidential information or knowledge is only of value and only gives rise to an unfair advantage if that information directly pertains to the government work in question. For example, knowing the government's internal plans for meeting public housing needs is not going to give rise to an unfair advantage if the government work being contracted is to study potential environmental liabilities. This is the basis for the third criterion, which prohibits undue exploitation of confidential knowledge gained.
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to distinguish between the use of confidential information or knowledge to gain market advantage versus the release or disclosure of confidential information generally. All employees must take an oath of secrecy concerning the release or disclosure of confidential information. The secrecy oath continues to apply to all former employees whether or not they are covered by the guideline governing contracting former employees. For example, no one wants former employees releasing or using confidential medical information under any circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, our guideline that governs contracting with former employees is similar to that in other jurisdictions. The practices of other jurisdictions range from no restrictions in Alberta because they prioritize encouraging movement of people between the public and private sectors, to one year cooling-off periods that apply to a very narrow group of employees in Manitoba.
The GNWT guideline balances collective and individual rights and interests and takes a pragmatic approach to this issue. It is structured to prevent former employees from successfully suing the government for unfairly restricting their ability to earn a living. It is intended to give guidance to government staff who are tendering and entering into contracts. It informs both current and former employees what the government believes their rights and obligations are after they have ceased to be employees.
The number of former employees active in the private sector probably reaches into the thousands. Even the hundreds of those defined as senior officers and thus covered by this guideline are too many to allow one organization or individual to police every contract entered into by the government. However, the job of my department and myself is to ensure that a reasonable guideline is in place, that it is widely published and that situations that are called to our attention are reviewed. Each contracting authority is responsible to know the rules set out by the guideline and to abide by them.
Mr. Speaker, although I would always caution on reacting to poorly researched media editorials, I do note that the editorial in the November 30th News/ North raised government contracts with a specific former employee, Mr. Roland Bailey. I believe the government should correct the misleading information and the editorial presented. I will request staff to complete a survey of the practices of other jurisdictions, to research the case law that is relevant and to assess whether any changes to our approach is appropriate. When this review is complete, I will communicate it to the Members of this House. Thank you.
--Applause