Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting this motion. The department has given us the justification of why this position needs to be a lawyer and the clause opens us up to potential difficulties in hiring this position. When we’re looking to hire the position there may be opportunities, if there are no lawyers, that the people with lesser qualifications could fulfill this position, but in essence, the department has indicated that there are legal issues that this position does and is responsible for. Then if we don’t have a lawyer in that position, there will be additional costs to the system to hire a lawyer to do that person’s job.
Currently, the way it’s set up, that person is a lawyer and that work is being done in-house on that salary, so I’m concerned. It’s not a matter of not listening to the people; it’s a matter of qualifications and we’re setting the minimums that we have. We have a minimum qualification for this position. In a lot of professional industries where doctors of whoever cannot do certain items, cannot do certain things because there’s a minimum criteria for the safety, for the public’s concern, that’s where I feel that we need to make sure that this position remains a lawyer.
I understand where my colleagues are coming from in the way of wanting to have flexibility. I’m usually the first person to justify flexibility, but when you’re talking about the law, sometimes there’s a minimum requirement and flexibility is not an issue. The minimum qualifications are the issue here. I will not be supporting this motion.