Many of my thoughts on this bill fall into a similar category as Sil's post, and that is easily worked on the same way spelling and grammar are - not the point of the bill, and not worth diving into when covering what we should cover when evaluating the bill itself. This bill as currently written is quite the departure from how the rest of the legal code is written even setting aside phrasing, and this departure is what concerns me most. This starts from the very beginning, when executive workers are defined. The main issue I have with this bill is that it assumes the current system as the default, despite that system not being present in the legal code until this new proposed language. Every delegate has the option to shape the executive as they see fit, so long as a very small core number of mandatory ministries are present. We may not even need to call them "minister" potentially. In the case of the definition, I am not sure "articulate" is the word you want to go with here. I believe the point is to essentially define the executive staff in the legal code - in that case, I would suggest calling them that, the "executive staff," as it is a recognized term that we utilize currently. What does the staff do? I think the definition should make that clearer. But on principle I do not accept codification of the executive staff, because we may not always have one, or we may have something similar that works entirely differently, and our executive government should naturally fit the vision of our chief executive.
We don't even have to get into what constitutes "personal animosity." I think we can rely not only on existing Court precedent protecting the executive staff, but our basic Bill of Rights protections as well. It does make sense, if you are codifying the executive staff, to codify the deputy minister as well, but the trouble here is that deputies in the ministry are very different from deputies in the Speaker's office. They are not government officials and may be utilized in very different ways depending on the ministry. The definition provided here does succeed in accommodating that wide variety, but in the process doesn't really serve much of a purpose except to be specifically mentioned. I am not sure what that clause is actually adding to the bill.
We then fall into the over-regulation section. I am not sure what a one week notice is doing - I can think of situations where notice was much shorter by necessity, and I do not see flexibility considered here. Roll calls and advance warnings are commonplace enough but they are not guaranteed, and sometimes not warranted. If there is cause to remove a member of staff, then there should be no consideration for an arbitrary warning window. I will just say that the judicial review is not needed for similar reasons mentioned before - government official action is subject to judicial review, and even if it was not a government official, an r4r could still be filed. I actually am not sure the appeal process makes sense. I am loathe to complicate this bill even further, but if the minister removes someone from staff, they should no be responsible for reviewing their own decision - appeals should properly be heard by a separate party that can serve as a check on the party who performed the action. I can imagine they would likely uphold their own decision, causing the Court to be the last resort anyway.
When envisioning these Court cases, what do you think it will look like? Someone on staff is removed from the staff and takes issue with that removal, so they take it to Court? As we saw when abc tried this in 2019, it is already entirely possible for this to happen. Usually when a bill is proposed, there is some notion of what inspired it, or what it is aiming to fix or improve. I find that motivation lacking in your proposal. This appears to be an inspired labor rights promotion bill imagining protection from unjust termination of employment and a judicial mechanism to alleviate it. But I do not know where it fits into how TNP currently conducts itself. I'm not surprised Boston assumed this was in response to a move he made, I think Wym or even myself can all point to examples of things we think led to this bill, but only you can explain what it is you're trying to do and why. I think that would help some people understand where this is coming from and how to shoot for a legislative solution that we can all get behind.
I said earlier I am against codifying the executive staff on principle. However, the executive staff has existed for years, has been continued by every subsequent delegate, and is an established and recognized part of our government system. Perhaps some feel it has earned firmly rooting itself in our laws as a result, or perhaps recent reminders of how easily it can be eliminated cause concern for some. There could therefore be some value in a debate as to whether or not we should establish it in our law. Your bill doesn't do that directly, it does it by default by embedding assumptions about its existence into the legal code. I think if this were to be pursued in a serious way, it would have to be by directly establishing the staff itself. Then we can worry about what protections would also have to be codified, or what extent we can rely on the protections inherent in our law and controlling Court rulings.
. 
