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.