Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I just have a few comments to make. I guess some of the points that were made against priority hiring, that’s a policy of this government where government has significant changes. We change organizations on a regular basis. To hear that some Members will stand up loudly against priority hiring concerns me.

We have priority hiring to protect the employees of the government. If we don’t have priority hiring, it means that if we change our organization, it means that we will have to lay these people off, and that’s a concern for me.

Also, the fact that this motion does not appear to support succession planning, if we have no vacant positions, then we will not be able to provide succession planning other than to perhaps create additional positions. Similarly, with duty to accommodate, we’ve heard in the past we have too many vacant positions and we should get rid of vacant positions. Now, in order to fulfill our legal responsibilities for duty to accommodate, what if there are no vacant positions? Then we won’t be able to legally fulfill our requirements.

I guess most concerning is the fact that we’re working to have a representative public service. Direct appointments is a tool that we can use to do that, and I think that with this motion that would seriously limit our ability to have a representative public service. I will be voting against it, and this side of the House will be voting against this motion.