Thank you, Mr. Chair. The repeal of the definition “layoff” in this act was done for legislative drafting reasons. The existing definition breaks at least three rules of good legislative drafting. It contains a matter of substance – if I may be permitted – it currently reads layoff. It means a person who has been laid off under subsection 27(1) and who, in the opinion of the Minister, is suitable for continued employment in the public service. This test, that the person, in the opinion of the Minister, be suitable for continued employment, is a matter of substance, and good legislative drafting would require that that matter of substance be moved to the substantive provision and that’s what we have done in this case.

In addition to that, the term “layoff” was used only once in the act, in Section 27. Another rule of good legislative drafting would require that you don’t have a definition for a term that is used only once. You include the content of the word or the meaning of that word in the substantive provision where it’s used.

Lastly, the existing definition of layoff represents an unusual use of the word. It refers to whereas the word “layoff” may be used as a noun to describe a person who has been laid off, as a layoff is not in keeping with good English. Those were the reasons that the definition has been repealed.