Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 36: Regulations Amending the Public Service Employment Regulations

September 7, 2024

Statutory authority
Public Service Employment Act

Sponsoring agency
Public Service Commission

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

The Public Service Employment Regulations (the current Regulations) prescribe, among other things, rules in relation to priority entitlements, appointments and the lay-off regime that support the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). The current Regulations have remained almost unchanged for over a decade. During this time, the staffing system has evolved, and therefore a review is underway to ensure the current Regulations continue to support the PSEA and to meet current and emerging needs of hiring organizations that fall within the jurisdiction of the PSEA.

Objective

The objective of the review is to ensure that the current Regulations remain relevant and continue to meet current and emerging needs of hiring organizations that fall within the jurisdiction of the PSEA, as well as to eliminate requirements that are no longer necessary.

The following are specific objectives that are also being proposed:

Description

The Public Service Commission (the Commission) is responsible for establishing the current Regulations, which give effect to the PSEA, so that Canadians will continue to benefit from a professional and non-partisan public service. Section 22 of the PSEA provides the Commission with the authority to make regulations.

The proposed Regulations Amending the Public Service Employment Regulations (the proposed Regulations) would modify the current Regulations. Most of the content and intent of the current Regulations would be retained. Specifically, the proposed Regulations would maintain the requirements around incumbent-based processes and executive group — underfill and overfill, make minor modifications to the acting appointments provisions and disclosure of information obtained in the course of an investigation, and modify or add requirements to the interpretation, priority entitlements and lay-off provisions.

Interpretation

The proposed Regulations would modify the definition of acting appointment to specify that the term “promotion” must be understood within the meaning of section 3 of the Definition of Promotion Regulations, thereby prescribing that the calculation methods provided for in those Regulations be used to determine if an acting appointment occurs.

Disclosure of information obtained in the course of an investigation

Within the context of disclosure of information pertaining to standardized tests obtained in the course of an investigation, the proposed Regulations would broaden the definition of a standardized test to include non-competency-based tests.

Priority entitlements

The current Regulations establish, for certain classes of persons, a right to be appointed in priority of others. The period of entitlements and the conditions under which the entitlements will cease are specified in the current Regulations. Most of these provisions remain; however, some amendments are proposed and are listed below.

New parameter concerning the end of a priority entitlement

The proposed Regulations would add provisions that end priority entitlements upon accepting or declining indeterminate placement without good and sufficient reason, regardless of the type of mechanism used, including conversion of the period of employment from term to indeterminate under subsection 59(1) of the PSEA, and deployment for an indeterminate period.

Surplus entitlement

The proposed Regulations would harmonize when the surplus entitlement ends in the current Regulations with the surplus entitlement of the PSEA, so that the entitlement ends upon indeterminate placement or when the lay-off becomes effective.

Title change — Employee who becomes disabled

The proposed Regulations would change the title of a priority entitlement from “employee who becomes disabled” in the current Regulations to “employee unable to carry out their duties.” The requirement and application of the priority entitlement would remain the same, however, the formulation of the provision would be amended to better reflect the intent of the priority entitlement.

Extension and additional entitlement periods — Employee unable to carry out their duties and Royal Canadian Mounted Police discharge for medical reasons

The proposed Regulations would extend the entitlement period of employees unable to carry out their dutiesfootnote 1 and of persons discharged from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for medical reasons from two years to five years.

The proposed Regulations would also provide employees unable to carry out their duties and persons discharged from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for medical reasons whose two-year priority entitlement ended during the three-year period prior to the coming into force of these proposed Regulations with an additional three-year priority entitlement. The intent is to provide these persons with a total of five years of priority entitlement. The additional three years of priority entitlement would not be provided to those whose priority entitlement ended due to an indeterminate appointment or deployment or refusal thereof without good and sufficient reason.

Extension and additional request period — Surviving spousal or common-law partner

The period allowed to make a request for surviving spousal or common-law partners priority entitlement would be extended from two to five years, in the proposed Regulations.

The proposed Regulations would also provide persons whose two-year period to request the surviving spousal or common-law partner priority entitlement ended during the three-year period prior to the coming into force of these Regulations with an additional three years to request the priority entitlement. The intent is to allow these persons with a total of five years to make a request.

Reinstatement priority entitlement

The current Regulations provide for a reinstatement priority entitlement for persons with a priority entitlementfootnote 2 who are appointed or deployed to a lower level than the public service position they held, so they can be appointed or deployed to any position in the public service that is of a level that is not higher than the position that triggered the entitlement. In the proposed Regulations, this priority entitlement would also apply to priority persons whose period of employment was converted to indeterminate under subsection 59(1) of the PSEA in a position that is at a lower level than the public service position they held prior to the start of their initial priority entitlement.

Moreover, the scope of this priority entitlement would be clarified so that the priority applies only to positions in the public service that are at a higher level than the employee’s current position. In order to be more precise, the proposed Regulations would prescribe that the Definition of Promotion Regulations is to be used in the determination of what constitutes a position at a lower or higher level.

In addition, persons with a priority entitlement under section 39.1 of the PSEA, i.e. Canadian Forces — released for medical reasons attributable to service, would be removed from the types of priority persons who can benefit from the reinstatement priority entitlement. In fact, given that Canadian Forces members are not public service employees and that positions in the Canadian Forces cannot be compared to public service positions to determine whether it is at a lower level, this entitlement is not applicable to them, and the amendment would correct this anomaly.

Obsolete transitional provisions

The proposed Regulations would repeal transitional provisions that are no longer necessary, as no individuals could have these entitlements given their timelines, namely, in the current Regulations, priority entitlement to

Acting appointments

Rotational positions

The current Regulations exclude acting appointments to rotational positions from merit, from the application of priority entitlements, and from notice and recourse to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. The current Regulations further define a rotational position as one that is part of a rotational system established by the deputy head for the purpose of providing for the movement of employees within and outside Canada for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Canada Border Services Agency. The proposed Regulations would clarify the intent of this provision by specifying that a rotational system may not be composed of positions solely within Canada and that an international component must be included. Moreover, the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would be amended to reflect the name provided for in the Financial Administration Act, namely the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

Lay-off provisions

The current Regulations do not provide a clear distinction between direct identification for lay-off, pursuant to subsection 64(1) of the PSEA, and the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off as per subsection 64(2), which are two types of lay-off exercises.

The proposed Regulations would clarify the lay-off provisions of the current Regulations that apply to the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off (i.e. when some, but not all, the employees in any part of the deputy head’s organization will be laid off), as opposed to those that apply to all lay-offs. It would also clarify that when only one employee in a unique position is to be laid off, or when all the employees in the part of the organization are to be laid off, there is no need to select them.

Notice to employees

The proposed Regulations would increase transparency and communication requirements in the identification and the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off, by distinguishing the requirements for both concepts.

Laid-off employees

The proposed Regulations would provide that all employees to be laid off be informed, in writing, of the reason for which their services are no longer required, the date on which their services will no longer be required, a statement indicating that they are to be laid off; and their proposed lay-off date,footnote 3 if it is known; if it is not known, a statement indicating that they will be informed, in writing, of that date once it is known.

Laid-off employees identified through a selection of employees for retention or for lay-off process

In addition to the communication requirements outlined above, the proposed Regulations would also provide that all employees who have been selected for lay-off following a selection of employees for retention or for lay-off process would be informed, in writing, of the reason for which they have been selected for the lay-off (that is, the qualification[s], requirement[s], need[s] used to make the selection); and a statement that they may make a complaint under subsection 65(1) of the PSEA that their selection constituted an abuse of authority.

Employees retained

The proposed Regulations would provide that employees who are not selected for lay-off following a selection of employees for retention or lay-off are informed, in writing, that they are to be retained.

Determination — employees part of a selection for retention or lay-off process

As for selection of employees for retention or for lay-off, the proposed Regulations would provide that, for each occupational group and level for which lay-offs are to take place, in the relevant part of the organization, the deputy head has the responsibility to determine the employees that are at the same occupational group and level and who are either employed in similar positions or performing similar duties.

When there are employees in different occupational groups or levels, or when employees in the same occupational group and level perform different duties or are employed in positions that are not similar, different processes would be conducted: one for each occupational group and level where some but not all the employees will be selected for the lay-off.

Determination of qualifications, requirements and needs

The proposed Regulations would provide that when, in any part of the organization, some but not all of the employees at the same occupational group and level who are either employed in similar positions or are performing similar duties are to be laid off, the deputy head determines the qualifications, requirements or needs most relevant for the work to be performed or for the organization, currently or in the future. The qualifications that are the most relevant are a subset of merit and must consist of essential qualifications (including official language proficiency), and may include any asset qualifications, operational requirements and/or organizational needs.

Information

The proposed Regulations would provide that the deputy head informs employees, in writing, of the qualifications, requirements and needs against which they will be assessed, the assessment methods to be used, and the opportunity and process to request accommodation measures.

Assessment methods

The proposed Regulations would provide that the deputy head may use any assessment method that they consider appropriate to determine to what extent an employee meets the most relevant qualifications, requirements and needs.

Before using an assessment method, an evaluation must be conducted to identify whether the assessment method and the manner it would be applied include or create biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group and, if one was identified, make reasonable efforts to remove or mitigate its impact on those persons.

Moreover, it would provide that when assessing the employee’s proficiency in their second official language, the assessment must be conducted using the same methods as those applied to appointments to or within the public service.

Language of examination or interview

The proposed Regulations would provide that examinations or interviews conducted for the purpose of assessing qualifications, requirements or needs, other than language proficiency, shall be conducted in English or French or both, at the option of the employee and that those conducted for the purpose of assessing the qualifications of the employee in the knowledge and use of English or French or both, or of a third language, shall be conducted in that language or those languages.

Assessment and selection

The proposed Regulations would provide that when, in any part of the organization, some but not all of the employees are to be laid off, employees at the same occupational group and level who are either employed in similar positions or are performing similar duties must be assessed against the most relevant qualifications, requirements or needs for the work to be performed or for the organization, currently or in the future as determined by the deputy head. The deputy head would then select which employees to lay off.

Volunteers

The proposed Regulations would provide that, if an employee volunteers to be laid off, the deputy may advise the employee that their services are no longer required and lay off the employee.

Recording the reasons

The proposed Regulations would expand record-keeping requirements to include reasons for the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off. Specifically, it would provide that deputy heads are to record the reasons for their selection of employees for retention or for lay-off decisions, for both the decision to retain an employee and the decision to lay off an employee.

Ship Repair Group

The current Regulations provide for the use of merit and seniority factors for the Ship Repair occupational group at the Department of National Defence in the context of selection of employees for retention or lay-off processes. This provision would be repealed in the proposed Regulations, which would harmonize the way those processes are conducted for all occupational groups in the public service.

Informing the Commission

The requirement in the current Regulations to inform the Commission of the names of the employees who are to be laid off and of their proposed lay-off date is no longer necessary and would not be a requirement in the proposed Regulations. The original reason for this requirement was to ensure that priority persons would be registered by the Commission in the Commission’s inventory so that they could be marketed for placement as a result of their priority. The Commission clarified that organizations are now responsible for registering their own priority persons in the Commission’s inventory in a timely manner.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Initial consultation

Initially, an environmental scan was conducted internally and externally to the Commission aimed at seeking views of key stakeholders on the application of the current Regulations and solicit thoughts on opportunities to enhance these Regulations. Based on the intelligence gathered, proposals were developed. The concepts and elements which underpin the proposed regulatory model were shared with hiring organizations within the federal public service, bargaining agents (unions), subject-matter experts (including employment equity and diversity and official languages experts), the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer and Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). The main consultations were held in 2020 and the mechanisms used ranged from presentations at internal and external committees to formal consultation products sent by email.

A thorough analysis was made of the comments received on the proposed model to determine if any changes were required. While there was a general support of the proposal, some areas of concern were raised. In some cases, some adjustments were made to the proposal, to respond to the views of stakeholders. For example,

It should be noted that the scope of the review has been revised. Despite proposed amendments shared in initial consultations, acting appointment provisions will not be modified at this time, apart from minor revisions.

Consultation on the evaluation of assessment methods for bias and barriers and the use of seniority in the context of selection of employees for retention or lay-off

Independent of this regulatory initiative, an amendment to the PSEA regarding the evaluation of assessment methods for biases and barriers in the context of appointments came into force on July 1, 2023. In addition, following collective bargaining in spring 2023, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and TBS agreed, via a letter of agreement, to submit a proposal to the Commission with respect to the use of seniority in the context of workforce adjustment situations.

In October 2023, TBS recommended the Commission consider and study the possibility of including seniority, along with considerations related to employment equity and merit in workforce adjustment situations where some but not all employees are to be laid off. In fall 2023, the Commission re-opened consultations to allow stakeholders to provide their input on these two aspects. Stakeholders consulted were organizations, the employer, bargaining agents and employment equity, diversity and inclusion networks.

The vast majority of the respondents were supportive and expressed strong support for the Commission’s proposal to apply the evaluation of assessment methods for biases and barriers in the context of the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off.

On the topic of the use of seniority in the context of the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off, most organizations expressed support to not using seniority and harmonizing the lay-off provisions across all occupational groups, including the repeal of the current seniority-related provision for the SR occupational group at the Department of National Defence. However, the bargaining agents who submitted responses were opposed to the proposal stressing that seniority provides a fairer, more transparent method for lay-offs, and that promotes less stress for employees and managers. They also advocated for “equitable seniority” whereby the selection of employees for lay-off would be solely based on seniority, and maintaining or increasing employment equity representation. As for the employment equity, diversity and inclusion networks, half of the respondents supported the proposal while the other half either did not support it, had no opinion on the subject or did not provide comments. Some of the networks acknowledged the difficulty in making workforce adjustments decisions while trying to uphold employment equity representation and expressed that equity considerations should be rigorously and consistently applied in the context of the selection of employees for retention or for lay-off. The proposed Regulations would provide deputy heads with the ability to use qualifications to establish that extensive experience could be an asset for the work to be performed or for the organization.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, a preliminary assessment has been conducted for this proposal, and there does not appear to be any implications on Canada’s modern treaty obligations.

Instrument choice

The regulatory-making authority respecting the matters covered in the Regulations is vested to the Commission by the PSEA. The Commission may make any regulations that it considers necessary to give effect to the provisions of the PSEA relating to matters under its jurisdiction. Specifically, subsection 22(2) authorizes the Commission to make regulations that pertain to specific matters, such as defining incumbent-based processes for the purpose of subsection 34(1) of the PSEA, priorities, acting appointments, appointments to and within the executive group, disclosure of information obtained in the course of an investigation, and lay-offs.

Several of the provisions of the current Regulations give effect to the provisions of the PSEA, and address situations involving an individual’s right. Given the same matters present in the current Regulations are being modernized, and that no new powers are being exercised, it was determined that the appropriate choice was to amend the current Regulations. Also, regulations were not established where the effect could be better achieved by other means such as policy and guidelines.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

A cost-benefit analysis was completed and determined that the overall net costs associated with the proposal are minimal and less than one million dollars annually.

It is anticipated that the proposed Regulations would have a minimal impact on resources for federal public service organizations. Organizational staffing frameworks and other internal documents would have to be updated to reflect the modified requirements stemming from the proposal.

In addition, organizations would have to learn and adjust to the new regime. However, it is believed that this would not yield significant costs to organizations, given that the proposed regime is a modernized version of the current Regulations, which have been in effect for over 15 years and are widely known and understood by the human resources specialists and the hiring managers of regulated entities.

The cost associated with implementing the proposed Regulations would be compensated by efficiencies gained in the organizations’ staffing regime. For instance, the proposed Regulations would increase the return on investment through the facilitated retention of persons with priority entitlements. The granting of a longer priority entitlement period to a certain portion of the priority population would increase their chances of securing continued permanent employment in the federal public service. It is also aligned with the Government of Canada’s priorities, such as the Accessibility Strategy.

Small business lens

The employment regime of the federal public service has no cost impact on small businesses in Canada. Therefore, the small business lens does not apply.

One-for-one rule

The proposed Regulations would not result in any administrative burden on the industry. As a result, the one-for-one rule does not apply.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed Regulations do not have a regulatory cooperation and alignment component.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

This proposal would ensure that the Regulations continue to support the PSEA and to meet current and emerging needs of hiring organizations that fall within the jurisdiction of the PSEA. The proposed Regulations support the Government of Canada’s Accessibility Strategy, by providing more advantageous rights to some persons with priority entitlement attributed to medical reasons. Therefore, this would strengthen Canada’s commitment to diversity and building gender equality.

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) assessment was conducted to determine if the regulatory amendments have any impact on diverse groups. It is anticipated that the proposed Regulations would not result in any disproportionate impacts on any group of persons related to identity factors. The assessment determined that the proposed amendments would safeguard gender equality and diversity objectives. For instance, harmonizing the priority entitlement period for persons with priority entitlement attributed to medical reasons would allow equitable employment opportunities to those affected, which may result in an increased placement rate.

In addition, an amendment to the PSEA regarding the evaluation of assessment methods to identify biases or barriers in the context of appointments came into force on July 1, 2023. With an aim to strengthen diversity and inclusion, the Commission is proposing to add a new requirement to identify biases or barriers in the context of assessment of employees for retention or lay-off and make efforts to remove or mitigate their impact on persons belonging to any equity-seeking groups.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations would come into force on the 30th day after the day on which they are registered. Transitional provisions related to lay-off, that provide that the current Regulations continue to apply to lay-off processes that are underway on the day the proposed Regulations come into force. This would allow a smooth and logical transition.

As part of the implementation, a communication strategy would include a letter to heads of Human Resources, once the proposed Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

The proposed Regulations and supporting documents, including a transition guide to support organizations, would be made available to assist organizations with the implementation of the proposed Regulations. The Commission’s guidance would also be updated accordingly. Information sessions may be provided to explain the changes.

Compliance and enforcement

Through its oversight activities, the Commission monitors, audits and can investigate the practices followed by organizations in applying the Regulations.

In addition, in accordance with the Public Service Commission’s Appointment Policy, as a component of their ongoing monitoring of their staffing systems, deputy heads of regulated organizations must assess, on a cyclical basis, adherence to the requirements established in the PSEA and other applicable regulations, which includes the Public Service Employment Regulations. Deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that appropriate remedial action is taken to address any deficiencies, and to report to the Commission the results of their organizational cyclical assessment.

Contact

Christine Roy
Regulations Section
Policy and Strategic Directions Directorate
Public Service Commission of Canada
Email: cfp.examenrefp-pserreview.psc@cfp-psc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Public Service Commission proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Public Service Employment Regulations under section 22footnote a of the Public Service Employment Act footnote b.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Christine Roy, Senior Analyst, Regulations Section, Policy and Strategic Directions Directorate, Public Service Commission of Canada (tel.: 873‑353‑2249; email: cfp.examenrefp-pserreview.psc@cfp-psc.gc.ca).

Gatineau, August 19, 2024

Marie-Chantal Girard
President of the Public Service Commission

Fiona Spencer
Commissioner

Hélène Laurendeau
Commissioner

Regulations Amending the Public Service Employment Regulations

Amendments

1 The definition acting appointment in section 1 of the Public Service Employment Regulations footnote 4 is replaced by the following:

acting appointment
means an appointment for the temporary performance of the duties of another position by an employee, if the assignment to the employee of those duties constitutes a promotion within the meaning of section 3 of the Definition of Promotion Regulations. (nomination intérimaire)

2 Subsection 4(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Non-application — certain persons

(2) The entitlement to appointment in priority established by sections 5, 7, 9 and 10 does not apply to an employee who is employed for a specified term.

3 (1) Paragraph 4.1(5)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 4.1(5) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

4 Subsection 5(2) of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and by repealing paragraph (b).

5 (1) The portion of subsection 7(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Employee unable to carry out their duties

7 (1) An employee referred to in subsection (4) who, as a result of a disability, is no longer able to carry out the duties of their position is entitled to appointment in priority to all persons, other than those referred to in sections 39.1 and 40 and subsections 41(1) and (4) of the Act, to any position in the public service for which the Commission is satisfied that the employee meets the essential qualifications referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a) of the Act if

(2) Paragraph 7(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 7(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(4) Section 7 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Additional entitlement period

(3.1) A person whose entitlement under subsection (1) ended within the three-year period ending on the day before this subsection comes into force as a result of the operation of paragraph (2)(a), as that provision read immediately before the day on which this subsection comes into force, is entitled to an additional entitlement period that begins on the day on which this subsection comes into force and ends on the earliest of

(5) The portion of subsection 7(4) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Application

(4) This section applies in respect of an employee who qualifies for disability compensation under

6 (1) Paragraph 7.1(3)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 7.1(3) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(3) Section 7.1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Additional entitlement period

(4) A person whose entitlement under subsection (1) ended within the three-year period ending on the day before this subsection comes into force as a result of the operation of paragraph (3)(a), as that provision read immediately before the day on which this subsection comes into force, and who is not on that day already employed in the public service for an indeterminate period is entitled to an additional entitlement period that begins on the day on which this subsection comes into force and ends on the earliest of

7 (1) Paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 8(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

8 Sections 8.01 and 8.02 of the Regulations are repealed.

9 (1) Paragraph 8.1(2)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 8.1(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Exception — additional period to make request

(3) A spouse or common-law partner is deemed to satisfy paragraph (2)(c) if they

(3) The portion of subsection 8.1(4) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

Entitlement period

(4) The entitlement period begins on the day on which the request is made and ends on the earliest of

(4) Subsection 8.1(4) of the English version of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:

(5) Subsection 8.1(4) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

10 Paragraphs 9(2)(b) and (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

11 (1) Subsection 10(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Reinstatement

10 (1) The following employees are entitled to appointment in priority to all persons, other than those referred to in sections 39.1 and 40 and subsections 41(1) and (4) of the Act, to any position in the public service referred to in subsection (1.1) for which the Commission is satisfied that the employee meets the essential qualifications referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a) of the Act:

Eligible positions

(1.1) The position must be at a level that is

(2) The portion of subsection 10(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (c) is replaced by the following:

Entitlement period

(2) The entitlement period begins on the day of the appointment, deployment or conversion and ends on the earliest of

(3) Paragraph 10(2)(c) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Section 10 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Interpretation — lower level

(3) For the purpose of paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) and (2)(b), a position is at a lower level than another position if the assignment of the duties of that other position — to an employee whose substantive level, as defined in section 1 of the Definition of Promotion Regulations, corresponds to the position in question — would constitute a promotion within the meaning of section 3 of those Regulations.

Interpretation — higher level

(4) For the purpose of subsection (1.1), a position is at a higher level than another position if the assignment of the duties of the position in question — to an employee whose substantive level, as defined in section 1 of the Definition of Promotion Regulations, corresponds to the other position — would constitute a promotion within the meaning of section 3 of those Regulations.

12 The portion of section 11 of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

Lay-off

11 The periods referred to in subsection 41(4) and section 44 of the Act begin on the day on which the person is laid off and end on the earliest of

13 (1) The portion of section 17 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Rotational position

17 Despite sections 14 to 16, an acting appointment is excluded from the operation of sections 30 and 77 of the Act if it is to a position in a rotational system that is established by the deputy head in any of the following organizations and requires the movement of employees among places of work, at least one of which is outside Canada:

(2) Paragraph 17(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

14 Subsection 20(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Standardized test

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), a standardized test is a systematic procedure for sampling an individual’s behaviour in order to assess job-relevant characteristics. The procedure is systematic in five areas: development, content, administration, scoring and communication of results. The content of the test is equivalent for all test-takers. The test is administered according to standard instructions and procedures and is scored according to a set protocol.

15 Sections 21 to 23 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Notice

21 (1) A deputy head must, before laying off an employee under section 64 of the Act, provide a written notice to the employee that includes

Employees retained

(2) The deputy head must notify in writing any employee referred to in subsection 22(3) who is not selected for lay-off that they are to be retained.

Non-application — specified term

(3) This section does not apply in respect of an employee who is appointed for a specified term.

Selection of employees for lay-off

22 (1) For the purpose of subsection 64(2) of the Act, the selection of the employees to be laid off in any part of an organization in which the deputy head has determined that the services of some but not all of the employees are no longer required must be conducted in accordance with subsections (2) to (7).

Determination of qualifications, requirements and needs

(2) For each category of employees of the same occupational group and level who are either employed in similar positions or performing similar duties in the part of the organization referred to in subsection (1), if the services of some but not all of those employees are no longer required, the deputy head must determine

Information

(3) The deputy head must inform, in writing, all employees who belong to a category referred to in subsection (2) of

Assessment methods

(4) The deputy head may, subject to subsections (5) and (6), use any assessment method that they consider appropriate, such as a review of past performance and accomplishments, interviews and examinations, to assess the employees.

Identification of biases and barriers

(5) Before using an assessment method, the deputy head must conduct an evaluation to identify whether the assessment method and the manner in which it will be applied includes or creates biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group and, if a bias or barrier is identified, make reasonable efforts to remove it or to mitigate its impact on those persons.

Second language assessment

(6) Any assessment of an employee’s proficiency in their second official language must be conducted using the same methods as apply to appointments to or from within the public service.

Language of examination or interview

(7) Any examination or interview must

Assessment and selection

(8) The deputy head must assess the employees having regard to the factors determined under subsection (2) and must select which of the employees are to be laid off.

Volunteers

(9) Despite subsections (1) to (8), if an employee volunteers to be laid off, the deputy head may advise the employee that their services are no longer required and may lay off the employee.

Recording reasons

(10) The deputy head must record the reasons for selecting or not selecting each employee for lay-off.

Non-application — specified term

(11) This section does not apply in respect of an employee who is appointed for a specified term.

Transitional Provision

16 (1) For the purpose of subsection (2), Directive means the Work Force Adjustment Directive that was issued on the recommendation of the National Joint Council of the Public Service and with the approval of the Treasury Board and came into force on December 15, 1991, as amended from time to time.

(2) Section 21 of the Public Service Employment Regulations, as it read immediately before the day on which these Regulations come into force, continues to apply in respect of the lay-off of an employee who, before that day, is advised in writing that they are an “affected employee” within the meaning of the Directive or their collective agreement or is advised in writing, in accordance with the Directive or their collective agreement, that they are subject to a workforce adjustment situation.

(3) Section 22 of the Public Service Employment Regulations, as enacted by section 15 of these Regulations, does not apply in respect of the lay-off of an employee referred to in subsection (2).

Coming into Force

17 These Regulations come into force on the 30th day after the day on which they are registered.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

  • contain personal information
  • contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
  • express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
  • contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
  • contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • contain external links
  • contain a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.