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.