Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to consider Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act, Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Education Act, and Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Does committee agree?

Thank you. We will reconvene after a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call committee back to order. We are reviewing Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act. I will go to the Minister responsible. Minister Beaulieu, do you have opening remarks?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some opening comments. Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to be here today to discuss Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act. This bill proposes three amendments to the Public Service Act to simplify human resource management for the benefit of our employees.

A range of legislation, policy, Collective Agreement terms and conditions of employment, human rights and labour law governs human resource management in the public service. This provides a transparent, balanced approach to ensure employees and managers understand their responsibilities and rights.

Through the Bill 30 amendments, I believe we created an efficient and sensible approach for employees to fulfill the government’s duty to accommodate obligations, meet the government’s commitment to retain employees affected by layoff and realize the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation to eliminate a perceived conflict of interest for those employees interested in seeking political candidacy.

During the standing committee’s review of the bill, concerns were expressed on impacts to employees and members of the public interested in GNWT employment. Bill 30 does not change our established commitments. Public service employees’ rights and responsibilities remain unchanged. It does not expand the power of the GNWT to appoint individuals without competition. GNWT managers act responsibly within the legal and policy frameworks provided in the best interest of their employees and the public service as a whole.

Bill 30 simplifies and fine tunes the existing legal mechanisms we use to accomplish our accommodation and staff retention goals.

I would be pleased to answer any questions Members have today. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Now I’ll go to the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Government Operations has been considering Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act. The purpose of this bill is to enact three changes to the Public Service Act:

1. to remove the potential for conflict of interest in

the process of granting a leave to an employee who wishes to run for elected office by shifting the authority to grant such leave request from the Minister responsible for the Public Service to the deputy minister;

2. to permit employees who have been identified

for layoff to be placed in vacant positions

without disrupting their continuous employment status as the act currently requires;

3. to expedite the appointment of employees in

order for the government to fulfill its legal duty to accommodate someone who has been impacted by illness or injury.

The committee has no concerns with the amendment that proposes to shift the authority to the deputy minister to grant the leave requests for the purpose of political candidacy. This change is consistent with the recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer and his report on the administration of the 2011 General Election and subsequently concurred with the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures.

The committee is, however, divided in its support for the remainder of this bill because there are aspects of the remaining two proposed amendments that some members of the committee find troubling. Nonetheless, the committee completed a clause-by-clause review of the bill on October 16, 2014. Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 30 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 30. Individual committee members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. I will ask the Minister, Mr. Beaulieu, do you have witnesses to bring into the House?

Mr. Chair, I do.

Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Thank you. Minister Beaulieu, would you please introduce your witnesses?

Mr. Chair, with me today is Shirley Desjardins, deputy minister, to my immediate right; Nicole MacNeil, director, labour relations, to my far right; and to my left I have Ken Chutskoff, legislative counsel.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Committee, we are on general comments for Bill 30. First on the list is Mr. Dolynny.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Next on my list, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Dolynny summarized it pretty good about the…summarized it very good, actually, in terms of what some committee members expressed as concerns in some areas of the clauses that are being brought before us today. In some cases they are just small little changes to the wording, but what I see out of those small little changes are some possible big consequences not only for the department but for our public service sector and people who have been working with the government for X number of years. You can actually be overlooked with some of these possible power decision-making made by a single Minister.

Mr. Dolynny referenced that employees who are deemed for layoff can actually be appointed to any position within the public service without competition. I have some concerns over this, that if

an employee was recognized for layoff and they were able to be put into another position, any position within the public service which we have over 5,000 positions within the GNWT, he or she might be able to go into another department where somebody who had been working five, 10, maybe 25 years, who is looking to fill that position, now might be overlooked because of a direct appointment. Taken out of the hands of all Cabinet members to discuss such an appointment, I think, does draw a lot of concern.

As I have stated in a lot of discussions with the Minister’s office, I have worked in the public service sector for 12 years. I have seen some of these practices happen. I have seen some employees who were looking for a position, waiting for the job competition to open up, and a direct appointment was given to another employee sometimes from a different department and it really affected the atmosphere of the working conditions within that department. I think, as you move forward into making these amendments as small changes to the act itself, it will cause big consequences. I also do feel that it puts too much power into the hands of one Minister, in terms of direct appointing an employee to any position without competition within the public service sector.

There was another area here that I did have another concern with and I will discuss it more in detail with the clause-by-clause review, and that was for any employees that want to run for office, and putting that in the hands and decision of the deputy minister when we have a small population here in the Northwest Territories already and the relationship between the deputy minister and the Minister, and even though the Minister doesn’t have the right now because it is just an amendment, there still can be a conflict of interest because the deputy minister and Minister work so close and it could be even deemed more of a conflict if the deputy minister and that Minister were together for two, three or more terms. Obviously, the deputy minister and the Minister would have developed a strong relationship over however long they have been working together and that can be a conflict of interest as well.

Like I said, it’s a small population in the Northwest Territories, and with the deputy minister so involved in what happens in the goings-on of business in the Northwest Territories, travelling to communities, meeting with people who might be potential candidates – because I am sure they would be listening to people who would be very vocal, very outspoken, very involved in the community – and should that individual want to run for office, now we are leaving it in the hands of one individual and that’s the deputy minister. I think there is potential for conflict of interest there as well. There is nothing, I believe, in this act that would allow for the potential candidate, who could also be a good

employee for the GNWT, there is no appeals process that they can follow if they want to run, to get that opportunity to run. So we are actually shrinking and limiting the amount of potential good-quality candidates that would like to run for office within our government. Should the individual decide to run, it looks like the only option for them is to resign their position and run for office. Then there is no appeals process; there is nothing that says they can go back into the public service sector because there was no approval given.

Those are just some of the concerns that I’ve had with this. As we get into the clause-by-clause review, you will hear more questions to the Minister to get a little bit more clarity on some of these clauses that have given some concern to me.

As I say, working in the public service sector for over 12 years, I have seen some of these practices go on and I do believe putting all that power into one person’s hands on some very important issues is very conflicting for me and also gives me concern for all the people that go out there and do work in the public service sector. I think that speaking up for them, especially the long-term employees who might be getting overlooked, it’s going to be a concern for them as well. I think they should be spoken for in that case. With that, I will close my general comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The bill speaks to a number of points I have listened to from my colleagues and to the Minister. It certainly raises the questions on the appointments by this government for employees. Certainly for us in the Sahtu region, we have a different perspective. We are looking at the percentage of representation by this government of the people they serve into those higher levels of management.

Recently, I’ve been very pleased with the increase of northern Aboriginal people who are qualified who are now taking senior management positions. I believe that many of them have won these positions through a competition process.

I want to ask the Minister the breakdown of direct appointments for the Sahtu and also generally on the number of direct appointments within the government, because the Minister stated in his presentation that this bill does not expand the powers of the GNWT to appoint individuals without competition. I want to ask the Minister for some of these numbers that I’m asking for.

I know also that in the Tlicho Government human resources steps show that the Tlicho Government is doing well above the percentage of having their own people working. I think they post about 70 percent. I think we are below. I don’t know if we have done any good in the last three years. Maybe

some departments; I don’t know. I can go upstairs and get my numbers and figures. But what struck me, looking at the Tlicho Government, is that they have close to 70 percent of their people working within the government. That is a very good representation of the people they serve. The same with our government, our government is not doing too well in those areas. I’m more interested in how do we increase those numbers.

Over the years of being in the position of MLA, I always want to increase the representation population in our public service servicing our people. More so now in the senior management positions. I believe and I guess it’s really a balanced approach to a direct appointment competition. I know in my region a lot of people, for some odd reason, even though they’re qualified and whatever, they just don’t seem to make it within the competition race, and I get calls. Because of existing policies or something like that, they don’t get that second phone call. Sometimes we have to look at these cases and see that possibly a direct appointment could work.

I’m looking to a balanced approach on this issue here. I’m more interested in having the numbers increase with our government by the population that they serve, and right now what I’m reading, we’re not doing too well in that area. I know there’s a slow growth, and I know the Minister, through other programs and services and initiatives, is looking at increasing that number, but right now it seems to stall, maybe I could say. Is that the right word to use? Some departments are not doing too well, and I could list the departments where you see those numbers. Some departments are doing really well and they’re increasing. This is a huge department and this is affecting people. This is not like talking about roads and bridges. These are actually people who want to work within the government and people who want to make a difference in their lives, especially in our small communities. Like I said, in the Sahtu now it’s starting to change but there is still some work for us to do there, and I’m not too sure how or when those changes will happen. We need to look at that and be realistic about it and start making these changes.

I indicated in my Member’s statement earlier in the House, there are 75 students who are going to the Aurora College in the Territories, 79 students. Sorry; they are in Aurora College or some Aurora College learning centres. These are the people that are in business management, nursing, heavy equipment operator, office management, teachers. We’ve got to show them there’s a pathway there. I’m looking for that to see how we could work with them, knowing that they have the qualifications. I wanted just to say those are my comments for the opening of this bill here.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Committee, we’re on general comments on the bill. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of comments. One of the things that came to light when we were discussing the bill, we received some comments from one of the stakeholders who was concerned about consultation. I don’t believe that there was enough consultation done on this bill, if there was any consultation done at all. One of the questions I have for the Minister is to advise us what consultation was done in the development of the amendments to Bill 30.

I would like to confirm in the definition of layoff, it’s being deleted, and I’d like to confirm, I believe the Minister advised us earlier that in the definition it’s being used as a noun and throughout the rest of the act it’s being used as a verb and that the language where it was used as a noun has now been changed. I would just like a little explanation on that to make it more clear.

I do appreciate the comments of my colleagues on adding the word “vacant” into Section 27(3), I think it is. I’m not sure, and I guess what I would like to know is we’ve been assured that nothing is really changing in this bill, and I note from the current act to the amendment, basically the intent is the same, but there still is the question of what safeguards exist to ensure that managers don’t parachute people into positions, and I don’t think that’s totally clear. I have concerns about direct appointments in general. I’m not too concerned about direct appointments here, but I do wonder why we can’t add the word “vacant,” and that was a comment from one of the submissions that we received, as well, why it does not say any vacant position, why it says “any position.” I know the current act doesn’t have the word “vacant” in it, but certainly, without the word “vacant” it can be read to allow somebody to be direct appointed into any position, occupied or not.

Those are my concerns, and if I could get a little bit of clarification. I’ll have questions when we get to specific clauses as well. If the Minister wants to answer them there, that’s fine.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Committee, we’re on general comments. Questions probably will come up more in the clause-by-clause. General comments. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually do have a question just to provide some context for discussion in the clause-by-clause. I appreciate all the perspectives I’ve heard so far and the Minister’s comments.

My question is: Does the Public Service Act, as it currently is, provide for the Minister to be able to directly appoint an employee into a position that is already filled, thereby displacing the incumbent? Is

that ability provided for in the current act? Just to be sure, I’m asking, does the current version of the Public Service Act, which we’re proposing to amend here, currently provide the Minister with the ability to directly appoint a person into a position that is already filled, thereby displacing the incumbent from that position?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. We’re on general comments, so I’m not sure if you had any further comments to make. If not, I don’t have you on my list, so we’ll just go to the Minister. But just to follow up with you, do you have any general comments?

No.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Do I have anybody else on general comments? I’ll go to the Minister now to reply to some of the general comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will generally respond to all of the opening comments from the Members, but I will answer the question from Mr. Bromley first. The only change that we’re looking for in the provision where a Minister may direct appoint a person to a position, to any position, is the person would now be affected by layoff, potentially affected by layoff, as opposed to what we’re… Pardon me. Right now in the act, the individual has to be actually laid off and discontinue service. Then I would be in the position to direct appoint that person to any position. What we’re requesting here is that the position, as soon as the individual is affected by layoff, potential for the layoff, that person is going to be laid off and if there’s a position that he or she is qualified for, I can then make the direct appointment into that. There’s no change there. It’s just the wording of the layoff.

I’d like to speak on each of the items. Duty to accommodate: The proposed change to Section 18(2) simplifies a way to duty to accommodate appointments made to fulfill the GNWT’s human rights obligations. It means that once an employee and management have agreed to an accommodation where an appointment to a new position is necessary, it can be made with minimum fuss and inconvenience for the employee. It also limits the release of information about the employee’s accommodation to only those who need to know. It gives the GNWT, as an employer, a process to quickly put employees into new positions to fulfill our human rights obligations to accommodate employees.

The appointment of employees identified for layoff - Clause 4

The proposed change to Section 27(3) allows employees identified for layoff to be placed into appropriate positions without having to be first formally terminated. For employees identified for

layoff, this change minimizes disruption for their continuous employment status. It provides them with a greater confidence that their employment status will not be interrupted and helps minimize disruption to the employee’s personal life. This change simplifies the administration of this government’s commitment to retain affected employees. It provides a measure of staffing stability for departments which want to retain valuable employees whose jobs they’ve had to relocate or eliminate.

Absence of leave for political candidacy

Bill 30 eliminates a perception of conflict of interest by removing the Minister from direct appointment of granting leave to restricted employees for the purpose of running for election. Instead, the deputy minister accountable for the act will approve an employee’s leave for political candidacy. The act does not allow us to deny leave for most employees who wish to run for political office. It is only restricted employees, basically senior managers, who may be denied. The changes provide restricted employees with assurance that political considerations of the Minister will not interfere with their ability to seek election. Employees can consider running for public office with confidence. If they are not successful, they have a job to return to.

We take the political rights of the employee very seriously and cannot deny a restricted employee’s leave unless their absence would very seriously interfere with the ability of this government to operate. As far as I am aware, no restricted employees have been denied leave to run for office.

Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Committee, we’ve concluded comments. Agreed to go into detail? Does committee agree?

Thank you. Committee, we’re on Bill 30, we’ll go to page 1, clause 1. Does committee agree?

---Clause 1 approved

Clause 2, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did sort of mention in my remarks I’m slightly confused why we are deleting the definition of layoff and I mentioned I think it’s because there’s a difference in the way that the word “layoff” it’s used, whether it’s used as a noun or a verb. I didn’t hear that, I don’t think, in the Minister’s remarks. I also didn’t hear about what consultation was done, but I don’t know if we can go to the Minister at this point or not, but that is a concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The legislative counsel will speak to that question.

Yes, Mr. Chutskoff.

Thank you very much. Minister, maybe to the issue of the consultation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The UNW was consulted and the NWTTA was not, but they have access to the public consultation process.

Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the legislative counsel for the clarification. I guess with regard to the consultation, I would advise the department and the Minister that anytime legislation that involves employees, no matter who they are, is being contemplated, that there ought to be consultation with them on the changes that are intended to be made to an act.

I’m not quite sure what the Minister means by the fact that the NWTTA had access to the consultative process. It’s one thing for a submission to come in when the bill is at committee stage. It’s quite another thing for a submission to be made at the LP stage or prior to the LP stage when amendments are being considered. So I would just encourage the Minister to do more consultation than what they think they need at the time that the amendments are being contemplated and in the development of an LP. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We agree with the Member’s statements. When we review the Public Service Act as a whole, we will certainly be consulting with all union groups.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did find it odd that we are repealing definitions within the purview of an amendment of an act. It is to my understanding that when we were doing legislative review, legislation in its pure form is supposed to be as prescriptive and definitive as possible to remove ambiguity, ambiguity in definition and ambiguity in law.

Although we heard earlier today that the term is used seldom – I heard only once in some other form of legislation – this would actually prove that even more detrimental that definitions are not removed from legislation. That there’s a clear and definite rationale for a definition to actually appear in legislation, as I said earlier, is to be as most prescriptive and definitive as possible. The courts have told us that. The courts expect that from legislators.

So again I ask, is this fundamentally the stance now of the department that when we review legislation we’re now seeing the removal of definitions, that we are actually being less prescriptive in design? Is this the intent? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. We will go to legislative counsel, Mr. Chutskoff.

Thank you, Mr. Chutskoff. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to that, the definition of layoff is clear in the Collective Agreement and we see no ambiguity to the public service.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Dolynny.

Mr. Chair, if that is indeed true, I don’t believe the Collective Agreement is considered legislation. I consider that an agreement, as it is intended, is with another third party.

As I said, repealing definitions, in my opinion, makes our legislation less prescriptive. It could be interpreted in different ways. We’ve heard that the term “layoff” is substantive in another form. I didn’t quite understand where this term “layoff” is.

Is the term “layoff” defined in any legislation, not regulations, that the department uses in its due course? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are not aware of any term “legislation” that’s identified in any legislation.

Mr. Chair, I will ask my question again. Is the term “layoff” defined in any of our legislation? Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we are not aware of the term “layoff” being identified in any of our legislation.

Mr. Chair, I believe that’s the justification of the argument today, where we are actually removing the definition even though it’s used in a noun or a verb. We are clearly lessening the legislative process by making more ambiguity in terms of the wholeness of the act, the spirit of the act and the intent of the act. If this is indeed the premise we are about to embark on, I strongly suggest that all departments coming forward to remove definitions is not really what we’re looking for, for great legislation. We’re looking for legislation to have proper definitions so we can understand wholeheartedly what terms mean and represent in the language of government.

I will leave it at that, otherwise we’re going to be chasing our tails on this subject, but it’s more of an observation.

I’ve commented on this before with other acts before the House. I’m cautioning the drafters, I’m cautioning the departments, keep definitions within the acts, please. It offers more clarity, and again, this is exactly what the courts are using. This is exactly what the collective bargaining agreements use. This is exactly what legislators will use to find out the spirit and intent and the true meaning behind acts, words, definitions. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Did you have anything to say, Mr. Minister?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I don’t.

Thank you, Committee. We’re on clause 2.

---Clause 2 approved

Thank you. Clause 3.

---Clause 3 approved

Thank you. Clause 4. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m just going to attempt once more at my question. I apologize; I do not have a legal background. I’m trying to determine, with reference to the initial phrase under Section 4(3), “Notwithstanding any other provision of this act...” I’m just wondering, going back to the Public Service Act as it now stands before amendment, whether it enables the Minister to appoint a person into a position that is already filled, thereby displacing that person. Can the Minister do that already today without reference to what’s happening in this amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As to a bit of a response, I’ll have Nicole provide the majority of the response. What we’re asking for here is just a change in the term. The legislative proposal presented here today is the legislative proposal that is trying to put the least impact possible on an individual that is affected by layoff. Currently, this legislation reads that the individual has to be laid off and everything else is the same. If we’re going to make change in this legislation, that’s not something that we’re proposing, that’s outside of our legislative proposal here today, then we would have to go back to the union with that. However, I will ask Ms. MacNeil to provide more detail.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. MacNeil.

Thank you, Ms. MacNeil. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for that response. I think that sums up my understanding in the area that I needed it.

The second thing I’d like to ask about is I note in the summary of the bill, if I can just quote that starting in the middle: “to permit employees identified for layoff to be placed in vacant positions without disrupting their continuous employment status.” I know the intent here of the Minister – and he must, I’m sure, be in line with that – is to make the appointments into vacant positions. That is what the summary of the bill says. But in fact it does not say that in the legislation. This is a point that’s been raised by my colleague Mr. Dolynny. Why do we state it clearly in the summary but then not clearly in this clause?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason that the LP does not speak to vacant versus any position is because the LP is about layoff versus laid off. This is where we are coming forward with that amendment. We are not coming forward to amend other parts of the public service in this LP. The detail on how we can insert “vacant” versus “any” position, I will ask Ms. MacNeil to provide what the steps would be in order for us to bring that LP forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. MacNeil.

Thank you, Ms. MacNeil. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, thank you for that response. I am getting some clarity on it here.

I guess, are there any corralling sidebars with respect to this potential to double fill? To ensure that the example that was used, somebody is about to retire, that would be acceptable, but somebody that was not about to retire and was being forced out without due process, that would be something, I suspect, committee would not appreciate or support. So are there any controls at all on the double filling potential? Thank you.

Have there been any cases in the last year or two that the Minister is aware of where we have done this sort of thing, double filling positions?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We may not have all the stats here, but I will just draw on the deputy minister’s knowledge in that area. Ms. Desjardins.

Thank you. Deputy Minister.

Thank you, Deputy Minister Desjardins. Next I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up a bit on this same subject. I think Mr. Bromley has covered most of it.

My question here is similar to his and maybe I will try asking it in a different way. My concern is that it has been referenced that GNWT can’t just remove an employee, but where is it written that we can’t do that? What safeguards exist? Where are they that one could go look at them and read them that basically states we can’t just remove somebody or we have to have cause to remove somebody? Because it’s not clear what safeguards are in place to prevent the Minister from parachuting somebody into a job and booting out the incumbent. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Ms. MacNeil.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Under this clause, as well, the way it is being worded, there is some concern in terms of the powers that fall onto the Minister here. I guess the first one, it says, “if the Minister is of the opinion that an employee identified for layoff under subsection (1) is suitable for continued employment in the public service, the Minister may appoint the employee without competition to any position...” So the first one is of the opinion. So it is, I guess, the Minister’s opinion, and what constitutes what the Minister believes is right rather than what the resume or somebody’s qualifications are in place? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no change requested in this area. This is not part of our LP that we present here today. The statement that “within the opinion of the Minister, this individual be suitable for another position” is currently in the act. Thank you.

I guess we can look back at statistics and see what kind of direct appointments might have been done in that sense. It is a concern because we do put a lot of power into the Minister’s

hands in terms of his opinion on who might be able to take another job.

I guess, moving further down in the clause, it does say, “without competition to any position in the public service…” As I stated in my general comments, we have over 5,000 jobs in the GNWT. We also learned over this past summer’s session that some of these positions are left vacant on purpose.

How does the Minister have the authority to appoint an employee who has been identified for layoff with any position within the departments? How does the Minister work with other Ministers to ensure that they can just take that position and move it into any public service position in the public service? Thank you.

Again, although we’re not contemplating any change in this area or asking for a change or bringing an LP forward asking for a change in this area, I will have Ms. MacNeil explain the process to try to provide some comfort to the Members. There is a lengthy process that we go through in order to make these appointments.

Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. MacNeil.

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.