Thank you, Ms. MacNeil. Mr. Moses.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think that’s where we get a little bit of a concern, is that if it’s the opinion that we want to keep somebody continued within the public service sector, that if we do find a position that they’re qualified for, say, in the Department of Justice, and they’re leaving, maybe, the Department of Human Resources, that in the other department there’s the opportunity for other employees, especially now that we’re trying to

do this regional engagement strategy, that we’re not taking somebody in that positon that might have been there for 20 years and now we’re filling a vacant positon that didn’t go out for competition when we might have two or three other qualified candidates that have worked in that department for years. That’s where I get a little concerned. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen employees who’ve worked in departments waiting for a competition to open but under the direction from Ministers I’ve seen positions get filled where we had qualified staff who’ve worked for about 20 years within the government and we just bypass them without any regard, so that we can keep somebody’s continuity with the government up to speed and kind of disrespecting and taking out of consideration these employees who’ve served with that department for a long time.

What provisions are in place that would prevent that from happening, that a job that’s vacant does not go out for competition when we already have qualified people in that department?

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Beaulieu.

I’m going to have Ms. MacNeil explain the process of how the positions are filled. I don’t know how we would go about trying to talk about what happens in the department that’s going to be receiving the affected employee and what happens in there, but we will do our best to try to answer the concern. I’ll ask Ms. MacNeil to add more to that.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. MacNeil.

Thank you, Ms. MacNeil. Mr. Moses.

I’m not too familiar with the Staff Retention Policy, but if there are provisions in there that respect that, but it’s also stated in this clause that it’s still under the opinion of the Minister here. Should those type of positions happen where the Minister does direct appoint an employee that’s identified for layoff into a position that wasn’t put up for competition but we did have qualified individuals

in that department, is there an appeals process for the affected employees in the department where the job wasn’t put up for competition? Is there an appeals process on their behalf, the person who might have been working 20 years waiting to get to that job? Is there an appeals process that they can bring forth when a person with maybe only two or three years in the public service gets that position?

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no appeal process for this situation.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated, that is a concern for me that if we bypass the process of a competition to accommodate a certain individual that are long-term employees within the government that we might have given awards to, long-term service awards to, are not getting the due respect that they should deserve moving forward. That is a concern, and I think there should be something in place like an appeals process for these individuals who have committed years of service to the GNWT.

One last area of concern is just the double filling of positions, as you heard earlier, in terms of somebody identified. That would mean we’re not paying two people to do the job of one job position even though there’s going to be on-the-job training and those kinds of things. Now we’re having two people do the job of one person, and once again, it’s speaking to the integrity of somebody who’s wanting to maybe retire out of public service who might have put in 30 years, and now instead of giving them the integrity to do their job, it might be a big project on their way out of their project, now we’re sending somebody else in and it all moves kind of like we’re pushing them out the door a lot sooner. That’s just another concern for our long-term employees who have done good work on our behalf and now we’re back double filling a job and paying two people to do the job of one person. I just wanted to put that concern out there as well.

We’re not equipped to make changes to the Public Service Act as a whole. These amendments are not contemplated here today. This legislative proposal does not contemplate those amendments. They are in the current Public Service Act.

We agree that there should be a review of the Public Service Act. We have indicated that a review of the Public Service Act would take about two years.

These are amendments within the Public Service Act that we’re looking at and we consider to be minor amendments to streamline, simplify and improve the process for employees. It is all of the other things that need to be reviewed in the Public

Service Act that are being contemplated here today.

I can perhaps ask Ms. MacNeil to talk a bit about the Public Service Act, or maybe specific to some of the concerns that are brought forward today.

Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. MacNeil.

Thank you, Ms. MacNeil. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have been listening very attentively to the issue regarding this clause. To save time and energy of the House I’d like to move a motion, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Go ahead, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that proposed subsection 27(3) in clause 4 of Bill 30 be amended by striking out “to any position in the public service” and substituting “to any vacant position in the public service”. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Committee, a motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak on the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. We’ll go to Mr. Dolynny first. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t want to steal the Minister’s thunder. As a committee member, I support the objective of minimizing any disruption to the continuity of employment for affected employees to reduce their stress for these individuals during a time of uncertainty in their lives. Nonetheless, there is particular wording that exists in this section, Section 27(3) of the Public Service Act, and it remains an amendment contemplated in this Bill 30. I find this clause very troubling.

The cause of concern is the wording which gives the Minister the authority to appoint the employee without any competition to any position in the public service to which he or she is qualified. Concern with a reference to any position is echoed in a written submission received by the Northwest Territories Teachers’ Association during the public review of the bill.

Some committee members share my concern that the failure of the legislation to place reasonable limitations on the nature by which the Minister may appoint provides the Minister with enormous authority. This authority could potentially lead to the appointment of an individual identified for layoff to a position that is already occupied by an incumbent.

During the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the Minister indicated that the department intends to undertake an overhaul of the Public Service Act, which was described by his officials as outdated, within the next few years. While this is very welcome news, we should not wait until a future review to amend this troubling wording in the legislation, which is now a problem before us.

The Minister was asked about the possibility of including the word vacant, as in any vacant position, as a way of more accurately defining the nature of positions that might identify for those who are being laid off. The Minister expressed resistance to this suggestion, indicating that it would unreasonably limit the department’s options for finding alternative positions for its affected employees, and that was echoed equally here today.

The Minister further explained that, on occasion, positions may be double filled for training purposes or for succession planning when the incumbent has already signaled his or her intention to leave the position. Again, this was echoed today on the floor of the House.

In the end, I find the defence arguments of the Minister and the department of poor quality in justifying their status quo position of the Minister’s consistency of power. In fact, the summary of the bill, as pointed out by my colleague Mr. Bromley, reminds us the spirit and the intent of the bill used the term vacant position in its summary, yet this is

purposely removed from the bill itself and we need to ask why. To the concern of an incumbent would never be displaced by a layoff appointment, let me remind Members the removal of an incumbent under the process of constructive dismissal is such a situation which could apply in today’s debate.

The problem needs to be fixed now to give comfort to all GNWT employees that their positions will not be usurped and to accommodate someone who has been identified for a layoff. We all know the phrase “devil is in the details” and I can assure Members of this House this is exactly the road we are about to embark on by not including the qualifier “of any vacant position.” History in the law will judge our action or inaction in due course.

So at this time, I’d ask Members to consider and weigh all options on this amendment and to not pass judgment until there has been full disclosure for consideration. Mr. Chair, I will be seeking for a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Beaulieu.