Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister and the department here today as we talk about the amendments to the Public Service Act here. Before I get into my general comments, I think it’s important that we discuss some of the presumptive language around the term “direct appointment” within the scope of this bill. Clearly, some Members, including myself,
have a great deal of concern on the frequency and the volume of direct appointments granted by Cabinet and as Ministers. These appointments typically circumvent the public process of competition which, in my opinion, undermines the basic premise of a healthy and sustainable public work force. With that said, anything, in my mind, that codifies, substantiates or endorses the practice of direct appointments by Ministers is in itself contrary to public acceptance.
In the public review process, members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations were mindful of comments made by submissions and by some committee members themselves on the expressed discomfort that this process required in order to get this bill on the floor of the House today.
Holding one’s nose due to our perceived smell is not, in my opinion, the way we should be dealing with legislation of the House. With that said, it is imperative that Members truly understand what is at stake today and vote accordingly with their conscience. If we are to begin, let’s begin with the amendment of least resistance. This is referenced in what was summarized earlier by our chair of the committee in granting employee leave for work for political candidacy. This amendment was of merit, and I have no problem as worded.
As we progress in the bill, the expansion of power of the Minister to approve direct appointments without Cabinet approval in order to meet the government’s duty to accommodate sick, injured or disabled employees was a great debate. The shift of authority from Cabinet to the Minister was rationalized by the department as having little discretion and the desired effect is merely in expediting the GNWT’s efforts.
During our public review, the Minister also suggested that there could be instances where the Cabinet could refuse to appoint such a direct appointment and the government would be in breach of its duty to accommodate. While there may be little discretion with respect to the fact that the GNWT has a duty to accommodate an employee, there is potentially a great deal of latitude on how that duty will now be fulfilled with such an amendment. In the end, the oversight of Cabinet in this regard is an important check in the system. Although great debate consumed committee, I realized that there was not enough support to amend this clause to retain the oversight of Cabinet in instances where the government is fulfilling its duty to accommodate, but it was imperative that my views were brought forward today in consideration of this bill.
Finally, to the issue of most contention with this bill, is the concern of appointment without competition for employees identified for layoff. To set the context, this act is currently written in such a way
that an employee affected by a layoff must first be terminated from the GNWT before he or she can be appointed to another position within the public service. The amendment before this House assumes the person identified for layoff is redeployed to another position, rather than being processed for termination. This all makes sense for minimizing the disruptive issue of continuity of employment, maintaining one’s benefits and reducing stress for all.
Nonetheless, there is a particular wording that exists in Section 27(3) in the Bill 30 which is troubling. The cause for concern is the wording which gives the Minister the authority to “appoint the employee without competition to any position in the public service for which he or she is qualified.”
Concern over the reference to the term “any” was also noted in a written submission during the public review process. The perceived failure of the term “any position” suggests the fact that the Minister may appoint an individual identified for layoff into a position that is already occupied by an incumbent. This parachuting someone, in effect, is a failure of the bill’s attempt at clarity. As written, the Minister has zero limitations at the discretion in the direct appointment process and, in essence, grants the Minister enormous authority.
Some committee members share my concern; others were on the fence. In my opinion, we need to be mindful of the role and the duty to protect our entire public workforce at all times. In the end, we need to give comfort that this amendment, as written, will not usurp current GNWT employees to accommodate someone who has been identified for layoff.
Mr. Chair, I will have further comment when we deal with the clause-by-clause of this bill pertaining to this particular issue. Thank you.