Evidence of meeting #66 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
Someone said earlier that we should avoid having several definitions of the same term in different statutes. Here, however, we are referring directly to a definition that already exists and represents a consensus. The subamendment that my colleague is considering would be tantamount to allowing public servants, themselves, to define, by regulation, what constitutes an abuse of power, even if the definition already exists. I don't want to insult anyone, but I am trying to make sense of this.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Does the Public Service Employment Act contain a definition of abuse of authority? If so, what is it?
5:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you for the question.
I don't have the definition in front of me, but I know that it specifically relates to hiring and staffing.
If you take a definition that is applied in a narrow framework and then apply it in a broader framework, it could be missing some things, or it could be interpreted as being only related to staffing. That's the difference in terms of the definition contained in the Public Service Employment Act.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In fact, when I look at the definition of “abuse of authority” in the Public Service Employment Act, I find it to be very broad. It reads as follows:
References to abuse of authority (4) For greater certainty, a reference in this Act to abuse of authority shall be construed as including bad faith and personal favouritism.
Certainly, this definition can apply to the hiring of an individual, but it falls within very general definitions and may apply very broadly as well. With all due respect, it does not say that this definition only applies in the context of hiring. It's a general definition. That's why we used it.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
From a very technical standpoint, it isn't a definition in the Public Service Employment Act. It's called a reference, which says, “For greater certainty”. It includes bad faith and personal favouritism. It doesn't actually, as a whole, define the term. It is telling you part of what is included but not the entire thing.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
It's more for the purposes of hiring. In its current form, it is not to show favouritism in hiring public service employees.
5:45 p.m.
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's how the term is used in the Public Service Employment Act. That's correct.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, I think Mrs. Vignola would like something that covers a range of situations and not be limited to what already exists in the Public Service Employment Act. That is my goal. I don't know if our legal experts can give us an interpretation.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In the Public Service Employment Act, it is not just hiring that is referred to when it comes to abuse of authority. Subsection 65(1) mentions layoffs being an abuse of authority. That doesn't have to do with hiring someone; it has to do with laying them off, which is the complete opposite.
Further on, subsection 77(1) of the act provides as grounds for complaint any “abuse of authority by the Commission or the deputy head in the exercise of its or his or her authority” and “an abuse of authority by the Commission in choosing between…internal appointment process”. While both of those grounds relate to looking for or being hired for a job, the act does not address only the hiring of an individual.
That said, I suggest we move to a vote to settle the issue. The definition in the Public Service Employment Act is already very broad. If our amendment is defeated, we will decide what to do next, and if we need to put forward something else, we will.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
After hearing Mr. Fergus's support of CPC-2, as well as the definition as clarified by Ms. Stevens, and in consultation with Mr. Garon, I will be asking for unanimous consent to add, once again, CPC-2, as it seems to have voiced support from the government and perhaps addresses the concern outlined by Ms. Stevens, which I believe Madame Vignola has concerns about as well.
I'm asking for unanimous consent to reinsert CPC-2, please.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks, Mrs. Kusie.
We have two options.
Ms. Vignola, if you agree, we could ask for unanimous consent to withdraw yours, and then we can go to that.
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw?
5:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
