Debates of October 31, 2014 (day 47)
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that the department intends to undertake an overhaul of the Public Service Act, which was described by his officials as outdated, within the next few years.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.
RECORDED VOTE
Question is being called. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.
Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Moses.
All those opposed, please rise.
Mr. Nadli, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Blake, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes.
All those abstaining, please rise.
Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Bromley.
All those in favour, three; opposed, nine; abstaining, two. Motion has been defeated.
---Defeated
Committee, noting the clock, I will rise and report progress. Thank you, Minister Beaulieu, and thank you to your witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.