Bill C-11 (Historical)

Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (priority hiring for injured veterans)

This enactment amends the Public Service Employment Act to establish a right of appointment, in priority to all other persons, for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.

Veterans Hiring Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to be part of this debate on Bill C-27, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act with the intention of enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces. I am going to speak just a little bit about this bill, and then I would like to bring forward some points concerning former members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the kinds of things that the government really could be doing to assist our veterans.

First, helping veterans find jobs is very helpful to their recovery and well-being on release from the military. Placing injured veterans at the head of the hiring line and increasing the access of veterans of the Canadian Forces to jobs in the civil service and in government is a positive thing.

Is it a meaningful promise made by a government that has already cut 20,000 jobs in the federal sector and is on track to reach 30,000 and has put a freeze on hiring in the federal government? That is the question. Is this a meaningful bill, and is it the best way of accomplishing the purpose of assisting veterans who have left the military for medical reasons to transition into civilian life and find employment?

I have heard from many members of the armed forces who are in the process of transitioning to civilian life that it is a difficult process. People who have dedicated themselves to the Canadian Armed Forces and a career in the military have a sense of the family atmosphere in the military. It is their network. It is their family. It is the kind of work that they wanted to do in their career and it is what they are trained to do. When the unfortunate eventuality comes that someone needs to transition out for medical reasons, it is foreign territory in a way, for these men and women previously in uniform. Therefore, finding meaningful employment is a very important project.

Canada Company, for example, is a non-profit that was created by several people who were concerned that there was not enough support for people leaving the armed forces. It is a charitable, non-partisan organization and it serves to build a bridge between business and community leaders and the Canadian military. Its goal is to ensure that members who are transitioning from the Canadian Armed Forces themselves receive the widest possible support, care, and recognition. Its target is having employers recognize the strengths and leadership that are inherent in the members of the Canadian Armed Forces due to their dedication and training, the work that they have done in the Canadian Armed Forces and how well that can translate into meaningful positions for careers in the private sector.

I would like to congratulate Canada Company for the work it is doing, its directors are doing, and its members are doing right across the country.

One concern that we have about this bill is that it appears to not at all acknowledge that many injured Canadian Forces members wish to stay in the forces and the employment of the Canadian Armed Forces. They may well be eminently suited to undertake a number of kinds of work that are different from the work they had been doing. Perhaps they are jobs that do not require being deployed overseas. Perhaps they do not require the same physical capabilities that they had before their injury. Perhaps they do not require the kinds of complex work that they were doing before their injury, whether it is physical or mental.

Although there are other jobs in the Canadian Armed Forces that they could certainly do, because of the universality of service provisions in the Canadian Armed Forces, unless these members are fully capable of being deployed and doing the most difficult work possible, they are not eligible to stay in the Canadian Armed Forces. That would do far more to satisfy the concerns of these injured members or people with medical conditions than to force them to leave the Canadian Armed Forces and transition into meaningful civilian life. It is heart-wrenching when we hear of veterans who are on the street because they have not been successful with a challenge, and there are too many of them who are in that predicament. Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan are still coming forward about being discharged from the military against their will and before qualifying for their pension, despite repeated Conservative promises that service members injured in the line of duty can serve as long as they want in the Canadian Forces, should they have meaningful work to do in the Forces.

Bill C-27 would add to a previous bill, Bill C-11, which had provisions that related to internal postings in the public sector, providing priority over all others for external postings to these Canadian Forces members and former members of the Canadian Forces who had served at least three years in the Canadian Forces and were honourably released. A concern about this bill has been expressed by the Veterans Ombudsman, and that is that this bill seeks to create separate classes of veterans for priority hiring. The Veterans Ombudsman notes that all Canadian Armed Forces members should be treated the same way because there is an inherent service relationship for every Canadian Armed Forces member who is medically released because the individual can no longer serve in uniform. I will also point out that losing one's career as the result of a medical condition is unique to service in the military. There would be two classes of veterans for priority hiring. Members who were released for medical reasons not related to their service would have a lower priority for jobs compared to those who were released for medical reasons that were related to their service.

An unfortunate set of complications would be created by this bill because, since the reason for the medical release would become important to the former armed forces member, a lot of bureaucracy would be created. For example, which department would do the adjudication and determine if the medical release was related to service or not? What documentation would be used in the adjudication process? What benefit of the doubt would be given in terms of this presentation? How long would the process take? How much visibility would the member have in the process? Would there be an appeal process? If the decision were made that the medical release was not service-related, would it affect the decision-making for other benefit programs such as the disability award?

The concern here is that in creating two classes of Canadian Armed Forces members released for medical reasons, this bill would create quite a lot of bureaucracy. I have concerns that this might lead to a longer timeframe and a lot of extra work for the members to actually access these jobs. At this point, we do not know if there would be any jobs, but certainly at one point one would expect that this would be something positive in terms of accessing employment. Bureaucracy has been a continuing problem in Veterans Affairs and in the Canadian Armed Forces that frustrates the serving members who have been injured.

When I was at the Alberta-Northwest Territories Command Legion, I heard that the Legion was at times using its poppy fund to pay the rent for service members who were leaving the military who had been physically or mentally injured. The bureaucracy in being released from the armed forces was so onerous and time consuming that the very benefits they were entitled to upon their release were not available for months afterwards and they were having problems paying their rent. How can we let that happen? How can we force an armed forces member to have to grovel to get money from non-profits to pay their rent simply because of the bureaucracy in National Defence?

I am concerned that this would add another layer of bureaucracy.

Another concern that has been raised about this program is that the government's announcements are not fairly representing the kind of funding that is available, and I will quote from an article in the National Post by Barbara Kay, entitled, “Ottawa fails veterans with cynical displays of show over substance”. This is unfortunate in a country where it is our moral obligation to be as clear and positive in our support as possible, but what we have is a lot of spin.

According to Ms. Kay:

Recently the government proudly announced two new initiatives. The first pledges to give priority to veterans seeking civil service jobs...

The article goes on to express some of the concerns I have already mentioned in terms of the lack of available civil service jobs and the hiring freezes. However, she then points out that:

The other initiative increases funding for vocational rehabilitation programs to $75,800 per veteran. But the fine print belies this seeming generosity. The money is allocated at $2 million over five years, spread over 1,300 veterans.

Although it sounds like a lot of money, it actually only comes to $1,500 per veteran, and not $75,800. It is misleading and undermines the government's credibility when it does that kind of thing and puts out information that is simply not true or that is misleading.

I will also draw members' attention to a previous time when the government did this. It was supposedly a $2billion fund that was announced in 2011 as a claimed commitment to enhance the new veterans charter, but on closer inspection, it turned out that $2 billion was actually $40 million annually over 50 years. This is the only government I have ever heard of that would make a promise 50 years into the future and then talk about it today as if it is money in its budget.

It is unfortunate to have this kind of a lack of credibility and trust on the part of the current Conservative government. However, that is the situation we are in because of its repeated failures, its failure to deliver for ill and injured soldiers, its failure to deliver for veterans, and its failure to deliver for Canadians.

I want to talk a bit about ill and injured soldiers, because Canadians have really let down the men and women in uniform through their government's failure to address properly the kinds of support that are needed by ill and injured soldiers. There have been so many times during my term as a defence critic when I have become aware of yet another way in which the soldiers are being let down.

The health professional personnel needs for the Canadian Armed Forces were identified in 2003, as our country was entering the war in Afghanistan. In 2003, these postings were identified as a need, and until very recently, well over 10% and more like 15% of those positions were never filled.

That meant there were bases across the country that did not have access to a psychiatrist. In fact, as recently as a few months ago, one-half of our Canadian bases had no psychiatrist available on the base. This is in a situation in which there are literally hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members who have served in Afghanistan, sometimes repeatedly, who have been injured and are possibly suffering from PTSD, but are not even able to see a psychiatrist at their base.

I have had a number of other concerns with support for our soldiers. These are the very soldiers who, in many cases, are transitioning out, and this bill is intended to support them. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these armed forces members and veterans are not receiving the kind of respect that we Canadians promised to accord them as long as 100 years ago, when Prime Minister Borden made the promise in the First World War that veterans and returning soldiers would receive the respect and care that they deserved for the sacrifices they have made.

This is a government that has actually gone to court and sent its lawyers to make representations in court that the contract does not exist. It is shameful in the first place that veterans and injured soldiers have to go to court to get their due. In the Manuge lawsuits, some $800 million that had been clawed back from veterans was reinstated by the courts. In the Equitas lawsuits, armed forces members and veterans are still fighting to get proper compensation for their injuries. The government's contention is that they have no more claim on the public purse than any other person in Canada, as though they were individuals on social assistance and have no more claim than that for their compensation.

In fact, the compensation under the new veterans charter is less than workers compensation would pay for the same injuries. That is a disrespect for the veterans, and it adds to the disrespect that has been shown by the minister when veterans have come to Ottawa to present their case and present their concerns about pensions.

In the case of armed forces members and veterans who were the most severely disabled, those pensions dropped almost in half, to below a living wage, when they turned 65. When the veterans came forward to talk about their concerns, the minister was very disrespectful. He kept them waiting for over an hour. When he finally showed up for a few minutes before their press conference, he was rude to the veterans and stomped off.

This has been symbolic to the veteran community of the disrespect and contempt in which they are held. I think that is a sad comment on the government, and it is sad for people right across the country.

There have been many other examples of that disrespect, such as closing veterans offices to save a few million dollars while spending $30 million to promote the War of 1812. The government's priorities are to burnish up its brand as a warrior government, but not to actually treat the real warriors with the kind of support and respect that they deserve.

In terms of the bill, we Liberals will be supporting it because it does advance the opportunity of some veterans to find work through priority hiring in the civil service, but it is thin gruel, I have to say, in terms of what it actually does to address the concerns of our armed forces members who have become ill or injured in the course of duty and service, and it does nothing to address the key concerns that veterans have been bringing forward and want resolved by the government.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his very positive remarks. They are much appreciated.

As my colleague mentioned, this government is starting to routinely introduce ill-considered bills that are quite flawed. They realize it afterwards, drop them and then introduce another version.

That is what happened with this bill. The former Bill C-11 became Bill C-27, because the first one was also flawed. Some elements have been forgotten. That shows that the government does not consult enough, takes a silo approach and has its own vision.

As a result of this tunnel vision, the government introduces bills that are often unpopular and ill-conceived. This is a serious bill that includes some of the elements that were missing from the first version. However, it still does not go far enough. There are still some flaws, but it is better than its predecessor.

The government has become fixated on introducing bad bills, abandoning them and coming up with others. That is irresponsible.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his answers, which are very enlightening. It is obvious that he has given a great deal of thought to this matter.

Some elements of the bill before us were presented recently as Bill C-11. However, that bill was only debated for one day before it died on the order paper. It disappeared. Now it is being revived in part in the bill before us.

Could my colleague tell us what he thinks of the fact that Bill C-11 was abandoned and is being revived as Bill C-23? Is the government failing to take things seriously by introducing bills and then abandoning them almost immediately? Are we to take this bill seriously or not?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, the Veterans Hiring Act.

This bill corrects the problems with Bill C-11, which was introduced earlier this year or late last year. We had a first day of debate, but there were problems that the government corrected. In fact, it withdrew Bill C-11 and returned with a new version, Bill C-27.

Unfortunately, the government did not adequately consult groups of veterans about this bill. All too often, the government fails to consult. For example, with respect to the first nations education bill, very few aboriginal people were consulted even though the government has an obligation to do so. There was not enough consultation with respect to Bill C-11. Thus, the government came back with Bill C-27.

Despite what I would call a lack of professionalism on the part of the government, I am obviously pleased to rise and say that we will be supporting Bill C-27, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because all measures to improve veterans' quality of life are important. In order to improve the career transition of our injured veterans, we will obviously support any measure such as this one.

However, as I said when asking the parliamentary secretary a question, I feel that, in some respects, this is a half measure to address the problems with the transition to civilian jobs, which too often is difficult for veterans.

Consequently, if we consider all the problems pointed out, mainly in the ombudsman's reports, it is very little. The government often tends to go for window dressing. However, upon closer inspection, the proposals are all too often half measures, which do not enhance our veterans' quality of life.

I am thinking of the changes made concerning career transition, but I will get back to that. They said there would be bigger budgets, but if we look at the details, at what was budgeted, this will help only a handful of veterans finish university. If we look at the changes announced to the funeral and burial program for veterans of modest means, the government really boosted funding for that. Not long ago, it was paying just over $3,000 to cover funeral costs for the neediest veterans, and now that amount has been increased substantially.

However, if we look at the eligibility criteria, those have not changed. For the very neediest veterans, those living below the poverty line and some others, it would be good to expand the eligibility criteria to really help more veterans. There are a lot of these half measures. On the surface, they can say they are helping veterans, but in reality, they are not helping a lot of people. That might be the case with this bill too.

After it came to power in 2006, the Conservative government passed the new veterans charter. Actually, it was passed that same year or a little before. They called the new charter a living document and said it would improve veterans' lives, especially for modern-day veterans. They knew that younger and younger veterans were coming home from Afghanistan wounded, so they had to do away with the old pension system and put more emphasis on incentives to participate in career transition programs. It was supposed to be a living document. It was kind of rushed through the process. They said they would adapt it over time as problems came up. Since then, however, only one small cosmetic change has been made, and that was in 2011. They improved the charter, but only a little.

It turns out that there are all kinds of problems with the new veterans charter. It is very disappointing that the government has turned its attention to this problem just once in nearly eight years. That is not very much. As the parliamentary secretary said, there is a review of the new veterans charter going on right now.

We will prepare a comprehensive report. I hope that the government will respond favourably to most, if not all of the recommendations because this new charter has a lot of problems. The government has to stop twiddling its thumbs when it comes to improving the new veterans charter. It has to come up with appropriate, concrete and comprehensive measures because there are far too many problems.

The new veterans charter is described as a living document. I would say that it is on life support and in desperate need of oxygen because it is weak and, as I was saying, full of problems.

The new charter was passed in 2006, and we expected it to be amended as problems arose. As we can see, the government has dropped the ball on improving the new charter.

Our troops suffered heavy losses during the mission in Afghanistan. To date, 158 deaths and more than 2,000 injured soldiers have been reported. This number could go up given that it sometimes takes years for the initial symptoms of PTSD to appear.

According to a recent study, 14% of our soldiers returned from Afghanistan injured, but it is thought that this number is actually much higher.

It is in this context that Parliament passed the new veterans charter, calling it a living document. However, it must be improved as soon as possible after we table our report, which we intend to do in a matter of days. The government must respond favourably to it by adopting appropriate measures.

That is what brings us to debating Bill C-27, which essentially seeks to give priority for public service jobs to serving and former members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.

If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. These veterans will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority. That priority will be valid for a period of five years. Previously it was valid for two years. To be clear, it is five years after the soldier is released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.

A second measure in this bill would give members of the Canadian Forces who have accumulated more than three years of service the right to participate in an internal public service appointment process. Section 35.11 states that veterans who have been honourably released may, during a period of five years after their date of release, participate in this process, but they would not have priority.

Furthermore, subsection 39(1) of the Public Service Employment Act gives preference to World War II and Korean War veterans, among others, ahead of all Canadian citizens. A veteran is defined as someone who served at least three years in the Canadian Forces and was honourably discharged.

We will obviously see a resurgence of veterans who have preference in the appointment process over Canadian citizens. This preference will be valid for a period of five years. However, survivors of a veteran and former members of the Canadian Forces who served at least three years will not have access to that preference.

This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

There will be few jobs available in the public service in the short and medium term, since the public service is currently restructuring and undergoing budget cuts. The public service is being cut, and it will be a long time before a new crop of public servants is hired. For that reason alone, I do not think that this bill will help a lot of veterans.

With regard to priority access for medically released members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what will happen to veterans who are not released for medical reasons and who appeal the decision to VRAB? It can take three or four years before the board determines whether the injury is in fact related to the member's service. Is the government prepared to extend that five-year period? It can easily take three or four years after the member is released for VRAB to render a favourable decision, so the period of five years set out in the bill is a problem. This sort of thing happens fairly frequently. The five-year period must be extended so that veterans are not penalized by an initial unfavourable decision. If the department's decision is overturned by VRAB, the veteran must get an entitlement period of five years.

The Veterans Ombudsman made some comments in this regard on his blog. He said:

However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release.

Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this legislative uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated "service-related medical release" or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada or VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.

This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans, rather than many categories. We believe that all veterans, regardless of which war they served in, whether it be a past war or a modern war, deserve the same status. They are all soldiers who served our country. We are against creating categories of veterans.

Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Only members of the Canadian Forces released for service-related medical reasons will have this priority entitlement. Unfortunately, others will not.

In addition, the bill amends the definition of veteran and specifies that the surviving spouse of a veteran is not eligible for the same hiring preference within the public service. The surviving spouse of a traditional veteran used to take priority over Canadian citizens. Why did the minister specifically make spouses of Canadian Armed Forces veterans ineligible? That is one question we have. The government likes to break veterans into distinct categories, which I have no choice but to oppose.

In this era of budget cuts, when massive numbers of public servants are losing their jobs, this bill may help veterans only in the long term. In the short term, I do not see how this could make for a better career transition for veterans who are given hiring preference within the public service. In this case, when there are massive layoffs, it will not help them.

This bill is a response to the government's lack of leadership on the issue of career transition.

It reacted by introducing this bill, but it did so during a time of budget cuts. I think the government needs to work harder to improve our veterans' lives and their transition to civilian life. They really need help. They need more than half measures.

From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans took advantage of this hiring priority. Of those, 1,024 veterans got jobs in the public service, and of those, 739 got jobs with National Defence. That is about three-quarters or 75% of all veterans who found work in the public service. In other words, they do not have access to many jobs outside of National Defence.

The situation at Veterans Affairs Canada is even more disastrous. During the five-year period between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans were hired at Veterans Affairs Canada. That is just 2% of all the jobs, which is very little considering that Veterans Affairs is probably one of the departments that could really benefit from hiring veterans because they have the experience and they know about the programs the department offers. It would seem to be an ideal match. I think that the minister and the department are not doing enough to recruit veterans within their own department.

The statistics for veterans finding work in the public service show that, other than National Defence and maybe Public Works and Government Services Canada, there are very few departments—almost none, in fact—that hire veterans. There has to be a shift in mentality in the public service and the departments so they recognize the skills that veterans have and make more room for them. There has to be a shift in mentality. This bill will not shift anyone's mentality, but it will help give priority to veterans in the public service. There has to be a shift in mentality so the departments do a better job of recognizing our veterans' skills.

According to the ombudsman, about 4,500 veterans sign up for rehabilitation services and vocational assistance. On average, 220 veterans get their names on the list for priority hiring, and 146 veterans, on average, get jobs in the public service that way. That is not a lot of people. Even with this bill, the numbers are likely to go down in the short term and possibly even in the medium term if departments do not end up hiring a lot of people in the medium term. That is not a lot. This bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on the majority of veterans; it will affect just a few of them.

These numbers also show that veterans previously did not have the skills or university training to obtain many of the jobs in the public service. As I was saying, this perhaps reflects lack of interest or lack of qualifications. This is something that needs to be addressed during the career transition. We must provide university training to veterans who are willing and able. This would go a long way in helping them find a new job in the public service.

In fact, veterans are required to accept a job in a field that does not necessarily interest them, but for which they have certain skills. The ombudsman also indicated that veterans are not given enough opportunities to start a new career. Veterans do not necessarily feel like continuing on with the same type of work they did when they were in the Canadian Forces. We must give them the ability to choose something other than what they know. This would also help veterans immensely during their career transition.

In closing, we will support this bill, but the government will certainly have to allay our concerns in committee. It will also have to make the necessary changes with regard to the entitlement period for veterans who dispute the reason they were released from the forces and win their case before VRAB, to ensure that they are not penalized.

We look forward to studying this bill in committee.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator, for coming down to talk to a bunch of commoners like us and share your wisdom with us.

I want you to know that, before you became a senator and I became a member of Parliament, I was already seeking out your wisdom. I attended some of the lectures you gave at the University of Ottawa. So it was still refreshing to hear from you today.

I did a quick study of the interim report published by your senate committee in March 2013. I would especially like to discuss recommendation 6, which reads as follows:

The Government of Canada consider streamlining the way that veterans are able to access the internal appointment process throughout the federal public service and ensure that veterans are given priority and assistance in the process.

Although the government has not yet tabled its response to your report, I am proud of what the government has done and of the commitment shown by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

In November, we introduced Bill C-11, Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act, which effectively gives priority to injured veterans in the public service hiring process.

Our government has gone a step further with Bill C-27, finally allowing our highly trained soldiers, sailors, and air personnel access to internal federal public service job competitions. Additionally, these remarkable men and women will also be eligible for preferential hiring when competing against an equally qualified Canadian in an externally posted competition.

Your recommendation 9 is the following:

Veterans Affairs Canada consider involving more veterans throughout Canada to enhance the relevance of their outreach activities.

Can you clarify “to enhance the relevance of their outreach activities”?

[Alain Lauzon]

I think Brad spoke in detail a little bit more about the private copying that we're involved in. Brad and I are both on the Copyright Board as members of the board.

As I mentioned, private copying is one issue that is really being looked at in Europe, not being weakened but being stronger for the Europeans that we work with, and the value of the private copying for the creators, performers, songwriters, and record labels as well, because it brings money directly into the hands of those who have created the works. That part is very important. That's the first thing about Bill C-11.

The second thing is the law has to pass, obviously, the one that came into force in 2012. It's sad that in the last 15 years we had minority governments and all that and it didn't go. I has to pass. Is it 100% good? No. But the problem that we're facing right now with Bill C-11 is the fact that we're facing a lot of cases in front of the court in the next coming years. I'm involved in two or three of the decisions of the Copyright Board. We will have to go in front of the Supreme Court as well because new concepts are coming with Bill C-11, and we will face that obviously.

Some of the exemptions that were brought up in Bill C-11 did not facilitate our work. Especially with the broadcasters, it brought out a situation where the revenues can decrease in the future. This is something we have to face. In the next five years it's supposed to be reviewed. I hope the decision will be there and that the target will be looked at within those next five years. I think we will have to adjust a lot of things. Especially, as I said, we have to put back in the equation the value of the music and have an équilibre with the revenues that are coming from the...in the pockets of the performers and the creators. That's mainly the problem we have right now.

I have 6,000 members who are creators and who are publishers and they have exactly the same thing. The first question I ask them is whether they are living off their music. There aren't that many people living off their music nowadays. Back then they could live because their market was larger. As I explained, the problem is with the development of technology. We can't go in the past. We have to go in the future, except that the revenues that are coming from new services, the business model that is related to creators—and when I say “creators”, it's all of us—even though there will be more income coming from digital in the future with streaming services and all that, the level of revenue that will end up in the pockets of the songwriters or the performers is not high enough in that kind of business model.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Forces

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to join in this important debate. I am particularly proud to do so as part of a government that has demonstrated in meaningful ways its genuine support for and pride in the men and women who have served both in the military and the RCMP and who continue to serve this great country.

Our continued commitment remains. We will ensure that veterans and their families have the support they need, where and when they need it.

The shift in where we are placing our resources reflects the very real and changing demographics within our veterans community and where veterans choose to live. We are ensuring that Veterans Affairs' employees are located where they are needed the most, where they can provide the fastest and most effective service to the greatest number of veterans and their families. No government has done more on this front. As of February, we will have increased the number of points of service for veterans sixteenfold since 2006. Veterans now have access to service and information at our government's nearly 600 Service Canada offices. For the first time in our history, Veterans Affairs Canada has a presence in every region of this country, from coast to coast to coast.

In the eight communities where we are transferring an area office, we will continue to provide additional support to local veterans by posting one of our specially trained employees in the nearest Service Canada location, and in some cases within the same building or the same area.

In 2009, for example, we first started working with the Department of National Defence to open 24 integrated personnel support centres and another seven satellite offices on Canadian Armed Forces' bases and wings across the country. The result is that more than a hundred of our front-line employees are now working alongside their counterparts at National Defence to provide one-stop care and support to veterans and still-serving members. Thanks to our cutting red tape for veterans' initiatives, we are just a click away with our full suite of new e-services that are available online 24/7.

Let me also directly address the claims that our government is not committed to veterans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2006, we have added $4.7 billion in new funding for programs and services directly related to veterans and their families. While the number of veterans in Canada declines, our government has only increased the budget for veterans' services to a record number and it is a record that Canada can be proud of.

Nevertheless, one group in particular has questioned our loyalty to veterans. I am speaking of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It has tried to paint itself as the champion of veterans. Let me be absolutely clear: it is anything but. This union has opposed Bill C-11, the priority hiring for injured veterans act. This would give the veterans injured on duty while serving Canada the first crack at federal job opportunities. I cannot think of anyone who deserves these opportunities more, yet the public sector unions stand in opposition to it.

Canada's veterans of both the Armed Forces and the RCMP have stood up for us through thick and thin, while the public service unions only support veterans when it suits their political objectives and their agenda. Shame on them.

However, there is another extremely important issue we must discuss today, the issue of mental health among Canada's veterans.

Above everything else, I want to echo the Prime Minister's expressions of sympathy and those of every member of our government by offering my own sincere condolences to the families of military personnel who are grieving the loss of a loved one. Nothing we can say or do here today will undo the tragedy they have and will continue to endure, but we cannot let them down. We must let them know that we mourn with them, that we are committed to taking action.

Indeed, I want to assure all Canadians that under the leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, we are all exploring further enhancements in this very complex area of the human dynamic.

These are very complex issues, and there are no easy solutions. Our military and my department at Veterans Affairs Canada have never had more comprehensive mental health programs than what we currently have. That begins with the full care and support required to treat operational stress injuries, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, through our partnership with the Department of National Defence, we are operating and funding a total of 17 such clinics across the country. We have established tele-mental health services at these clinics to reach veterans living in remote or rural areas of our country.

As well, Veterans Affairs has access to a national network of more than 4,800 community mental health professionals so that veterans can get the help they need, wherever they need it and when they need it. This includes approximately 375 community clinical care managers who are available to provide intensive care management services to those with complex mental health issues.

In addition, we have a 24-hour toll-free crisis and referral centre and world-class peer support programs so that veterans and their families can seek help from others who know first-hand what it is like to cope with severe service-related injuries.

As these different programs and services illustrate, help is indeed available, but as a number of authorities have noted in recent weeks, the first step is to ask for help. We have to overcome the stigma that is still too often associated with mental illness. We have to do everything we can to encourage men and women in crisis to seek the care they need. We have to reach out in every way we can to those who are suffering in silence. We have to demonstrate to veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces that true courage is admitting the need for help.

Recognizing the sacrifice of Canada's veterans is an important part of this entire process of providing help and support. This year we will commemorate the many milestone anniversaries approaching from the World War I and World War II eras. We will encourage Canadians across the country to recognize and honour Canada's veterans, not just for their service but for their sacrifice.

Most of all, I want to reassure all veterans that they will continue to receive the specialized care and support they require regardless of where they live. I want to repeat that: regardless of where they live, veterans and their families can continue to rely on home visits from registered nurses and their Veterans Affairs Canada case managers for those who require them.

We will continue to be there for them to cut their grass, to shovel their snow, and of course to help them with their housekeeping needs, as well as to provide health care and financial benefits as they need them.

Through our comprehensive review of the new veterans charter, we also intend to take into account and implement improvements to our continued commitment to support our veterans, especially those most in need.

We are not going anywhere. We have always been there for Canada's veterans and their families, and we always will be. I am not leaving.

[Anne-Marie Robinson, President, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to be here today to discuss, on my own behalf and my fellow commissioners'—Susan Cartwright and Daniel Tucker—the Public Service Commission's 2012-13 annual report, tabled in Parliament on November 6.

The mandate of the Public Service Commission is to promote and safeguard merit-based appointments and, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to protect the non-partisan nature of the public service. We welcome this opportunity to report to Parliament on our mandate.

Today I will be focusing my remarks on three areas. I will discuss the results of our oversight activities, make observations on the hiring and staffing activities in the public service, and highlight some of areas where I think there is still more work to do.

Oversight of the staffing system is a priority for the Public Service Commission. Based on all our oversight and feedback mechanisms—which include monitoring, audits and investigations—the commission has concluded that the management of staffing in departments and agencies continued to improve in 2012-2013.

The 12 audits the PSC conducted this year found that most of the key elements of effective staffing management were in place, and deputy heads and managers respected their delegated authority. However, some areas still require further attention. For example, some organizations need to continue to improve their internal monitoring of appointment processes. That monitoring allows them to detect and correct issues in a timely way. This brings me to our investigations.

This year, 44 cases were founded. We saw more cases involving fraud—for instance, the use of false educational or professional credentials. Many of these cases were detected as a result of improved monitoring by departments and agencies, as well as by the PSC.

However, I would like to note that the number of problematic transactions and founded investigations is actually very low in the context of the more than 100,000 hiring and staffing activities conducted on average each year.

With respect to hiring activities, this was an unusual year in many ways as departments and agencies focused their efforts on redeploying employees and placing persons affected by workforce adjustments, thereby altering the normal staffing patterns in government.

Overall hiring to the public service declined by 28.3%. This includes indeterminants, specified term and casual hiring, as well as the hiring of students. With fewer hires and more departures, the overall population that is covered by the Public Service Employment Act declined by 5.4%. Public service hiring declined throughout the country, but more particularly in the national capital region.

While student hiring was also down, over 9,500 students were still hired for part-time and summer employment. They represented 31% of all hiring to the public service, a percentage that has consistently increased over the past four years.

We also saw enhanced access to public service jobs. National area of selection continues to allow more Canadians to apply for opportunities no matter where they live. As well, Canadians without any previous work experience in the public service accounted for 41.7% of new permanent hires, the largest component for the first time in over a decade.

Now I'd like to turn to the support that the PSC provided to organizations in managing workforce reductions.

In 2012-13, the PSC enhanced the priority administration program, which allows the public service to retain qualified employees who have the skills and experience needed for the future. Working in close collaboration with departments and agencies, the PSC placed 956 priority persons, 17% more than last year even though permanent hiring was down by some 60%.

I'm also very happy to say that since April 1 we have successfully redeployed another 953 priority persons, the vast majority of whom were surplus employees. At the same time, the PSC has seen a drop in the placement in other priority categories, including a significant decline in the placement of Canadian armed forces veterans who have been medically released.

At the request of Veterans Affairs, the Public Service Commission provided technical options to address this issue for their consideration and the government has recently introduced Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (priority hiring for injured veterans). Should Parliament approve these proposed amendments, the PSC is ready to implement them.

I'd now like to turn to public service renewal. There were fewer graduates who entered the public service in 2012-13. There were also fewer employees aged 35 years of age and younger; they represented 18.4% of the public service in March 2013, down from 21.4% in March 2010. In this context, a focus on renewal and the recruitment of new employees will gain greater importance as the public service moves forward.

Future recruitment must also take into account our increasingly diverse population. According to the most recent population data published by Treasury Board Secretariat, overall, we are making progress with the representation of employment equity groups in the public service. However, we still have work to do.

This year, the PSC conducted further research to better understand the challenges that employment equity groups experience and to use the findings to better target areas for specific action. For instance, we looked more closely at how being a member of an employment equity group affects the chances of promotion. One of the notable findings was that both men and women with disabilities were less likely to be promoted compared to those not belonging to an employment equity group. Even though these findings represent a single snapshot over a period of one year, we are concerned and are now undertaking more detailed work using this year's data. As part of this, we are taking a deeper look at career progressions among the designated groups.

In the meantime, we are sharing these findings with those in the public service who have leadership responsibilities for employment equity, including deputy ministers, and heads of human resources. We've also shared these results with the champions and the chairs of the respective employment equity groups in government.

With respect to innovation, the PSC continues to leverage its technology and expertise to offer departments and agencies efficient and cost-effective services tailored to their needs.

This year, the commission expanded its e-testing capacity. We have seen a steady increase in online testing, which now represents 50% of all tests administered by the PSC. We also made further advances in the use of unsupervised Internet testing and computer-generated testing. These innovative tools are a valuable link in enhancing access to public service jobs and effectively managing high volumes of applications.

I would now like to turn to the issue of non-partisanship. Safeguarding the political impartiality of the public service continues to be of critical importance. Our 2012 staffing survey found that employees' awareness continued to increase. For instance, 73% of respondents were aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to political activities—up from 69% found in last year's survey. We will continue to collaborate with departments, agencies and other stakeholders to find ways to sustain this momentum.

It has been seven years since the implementation of the Public Service Employment Act, and we are reflecting on how we can continue to evolve our risk-based approach to audits, for example, with respect to small and micro organizations.

Going forward, the Public Service Commission is committed to working collaboratively with departments and agencies to build a strong culture and foundation of compliance, while providing independent oversight and assurance to Parliament on the health of the staffing system and the non-partisan nature of the public service.

Finally, Mr. Chair, you may have noticed that the PSC itself was among the 12 organizations audited in 2012-13. The commission put in place robust measures to mitigate risks concerning possible conflicts of interest. The findings and the three recommendations in this audit are being addressed through the implementation of a detailed action plan.

I would now be very pleased to respond to your questions.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by thanking the House staff, you, and all members of the House for indulging Tuesday night in going through 284 virtually identical amendments from the opposition with regard to that budget implementation bill, all of which simply required deletion. Fortunately, those were reduced by the Speaker to some 16 to make the process more manageable. That did help us to advance the process, notwithstanding the clear efforts by the opposition to obstruct at every stage our very important economic action measures for the benefit of Canada's economy, for job creation, and economic growth for Canadians.

First let me thank all parties in the House for their co-operation on that. This afternoon we will continue and finish the second reading debate on Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act. If we wrap it up before 5:30 p.m., we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-11, Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act.

Today, all parties in the House worked together to pass—at all stages—Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act. Perhaps this is a sign of the Christmas spirit spreading throughout the parliamentary precinct. I hope it will continue into tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.

As I told the House on Tuesday, the budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures that our government has advanced. Unfortunately, once again we find the NDP opposing it, despite such things as the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which has the potential to benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many thousands of employees they might hire into the future. That is something the NDP is voting against. We think it is important that it be put in place right away.

Monday will be the final allotted day of the autumn, which will see us consider a proposal from the New Democratic Party, followed by the supplementary estimates and a supply bill.

During the remaining time available to us next week, I hope to see the House adopt second reading of Bill C-15, if that does not happen today; second reading of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-8, the combatting counterfeit products act, which was reported back from the hard-working industry committee this morning.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader with regard to the difficulties and uncertainty of scheduling when we are not using the scheduling devices that are available to us under the Standing Orders. I am certain that he will find that he is able to cope with that, but perhaps I will take his advice and his concern about the lack of proper scheduling here under consideration and see if there is an opportunity to please him by once again returning to it.

Before I turn to the business of the House for the week ahead, let me congratulate those who won Monday's by-elections and will soon be joining us as members. Once returning officers have done their part of the job, which gives them the title upon the return of the writs of election, and after the new MPs have taken the oath, we will have their introductions here in this chamber, which will be a very special memory for them and for all of us.

Since this will probably be the last opportunity to use their names in the House, I will say that we on the Conservative benches are especially looking forward to welcoming Ted Falk and Larry Maguire. Larry proved to be an outstanding campaigner when it really counted. He overcame what expert pollsters said was a 29-point deficit in just 24 hours to win Brandon—Souris. This abrupt collapse of Liberal support must be troubling to the Liberal leader.

This afternoon, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, and, again, tomorrow. If we have extra time, we will take up Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading.

Bill C-13 will, as we heard from the Attorney General yesterday, ensure children are better protected against bullying, including cyberbullying, by making the distribution of intimate images without the consent of the person depicted a criminal offence.

Following on this morning’s report from the chair of the hard-working, productive and orderly Standing Committee on Finance, we will consider Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, at report stage, and hopefully third reading, on Monday and Tuesday.

This bill would provide support for job creators, for example, by extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses; and it would also close tax loopholes, combat tax evasion and respect taxpayer dollars. Overall, it is an important part of our government's ongoing agenda to place, as our top priorities, economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity; indeed, they are priorities for most Canadians. I also will set aside Friday of next week for this important economic bill, if we need a third day to pass it.

Next Wednesday and Thursday, we will debate a bill to implement the devolution agreement reached with the Northwest Territories, for which the House adopted a ways and means motion this morning. If we can pass that bill at second reading before the end of Thursday, we would then return to the debates on Bill C-11, the priority hiring for injured veterans act, and Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

To help with the committees' forward planning, Monday, December 9, shall be the fifth and final allotted day of the autumn.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you for coming and enlightening us on some of the concerns we have.

There is a new bill the minister has put in place, and it's Bill C-11, which gives priority to the military veterans to get jobs within the public sector.

A lot of people are being laid off, there are a lot of cutbacks, so we need to see how real that is. However, a military veteran who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or other ailments....

In the military we teach one skill—defend your country, be prepared to stand for it—and that's one skill that we teach and there are other skills that certainly follow it. But a lot of the military personnel might need retraining. If there is no retraining available, for a lot of them, when they get to that job, it will be a flop, a failure, or they will not be able to engage. In order for somebody to get the job they must be retrained. Should we also bring in a caveat that says that if money is needed to retrain that person, that should be the case?

A lot of people who are injured, a lot of people who need to move into another job, need to have some sort of retraining package. Would that make fair sense and be a fair comment from my side?

Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you were sitting in the chair yesterday when there was an exchange between this side of the House and the government side about medical records that have gone missing.

I understand the parliamentary secretary has said something to the effect that after looking into it, there could be some people whose files could be missing.

I want to quote from an article that appeared today in The Globe and Mail on page A4. It is headed “Veteran continues to search for missing medical files”, and it reads as follows:

Former infantry corporal Kenneth Young tried for years to obtain the medical records related to his treatment at a now-closed veterans’ hospital only to learn they had been destroyed in 2009, along with more than 27,000 boxes of other veterans’ medical files.

That is 27,381 medical boxes of files to be exact.

The article continues:

He kept pestering the bureaucrats to find them “and it got to the point where they said ‘don’t write us any more. If you have any other problems or questions, contact the Privacy Commissioner.’ Which I did,” he said. “A few months later [the Privacy Commissioner] called me up and said ‘well, your files were destroyed.’” The Privacy Commissioner’s office sent Mr. Young an e-mail from 2009 in which Valerie Stewart, the supervisor of national information holdings for Veterans Affairs, explained to department staff that Library and Archives Canada had “reviewed the hospital patient files and determined that they do not have archival value.” Ms. Stewart went on to say that officials at the Veterans Affairs department had “determined there is no potential research value in these files,” and urged that “we proceed with the destruction of these files ASAP.”

The article goes on to quote the parliamentary secretary, mentioning him by name, which I shall not do because I know we cannot in this House, who said, “Indeed, no active, living veteran's file was involved in this process.”

There we have it. I know I am not supposed to show this to the House, but here is the picture of the veteran. He is alive. He is 65 years old, yet the department had him as dead.

There are many other such veterans whose files have gone missing, have been “plucked”, if I may use that word, as a lot of veterans are saying. There are even orderlies coming forward saying that they were ordered to cleanse the files and encouraged to pull stuff out of the files.

I accept my hon. friend's view of his mistake, and I hope we both wish Mr. Young to live to be a very old man.

That said, in the spirit of friendliness, allow me to speak to Bill C-11 and say that we will be supporting it.

However, I will start off by proposing a change straight off the bat. Maybe the minister will take this as an offer that we on this side of the House would like to work with him.

I could be mistaken, but in looking carefully at this bill, I did not see any funds allocated in order to provide a bridge for the veterans so that they can learn the job they are applying for or to give them training for the job they are applying for.

A lot of the veterans were in the army. We taught them one skill: to kill or be killed, to survive in order to be able to kill tomorrow, if I can put it bluntly. From the stories they have been telling us, not only have they learned how to do a lot of things, but many have said that they were trained to provide us the democracy we have here today.

I am sure that the minister, in his previous life as an officer, was also trained in some of these very skills. However, we also have to provide the necessary tools to apply those skills in new jobs that have supposedly been opened in the department.

That said, I hope the minister will take this as an offer and say that the government will provide the training and the money that are needed. Since this is a bill from the government, with changes that require money, this is something the minister can certainly look into.

There are two small problems. Placing injured veterans at the head of the hiring line is an empty pledge unless money for readjusting and retraining comes with it, especially in an era when the federal government is laying off government workers and there is a hiring freeze. On one hand, we are saying that we are going to give veterans the right to be at the front of the line, and on the other, we have hiring freezes. I still have a little bit of difficulty comprehending that.

Bill C-11 should not replace the government's obligation to help Canadian Forces members stay in the forces, if that is their wish. I keep referring to Corporal Dave Hawkins and Corporal Glen Kirkland. I will get to them in a few seconds.

Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan are coming forward about being discharged from the military against their will and before qualifying for their pensions. This breaks a Conservative government promise that service members injured in the line of duty should serve as long as they want in the Canadian Forces.

According to the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, soldier support centres have been left acutely understaffed and unable to provide for troops dealing with physical and psychological injuries. The purpose of the centres is to help injured soldiers and members of the forces return to active duty and transition to civilian life.

This brings me to the issue of the nine centres the minister is so bent on closing. I would invite the minister, if he wishes, to take a trip. As a matter of fact, I will go with him to see the veterans. I am sure that the NDP and everybody here would go and meet the veterans.

Look at Ron Clarke, who for years has been a Conservative member. If I were to repeat in the House what he said about the minister in that part of the world, I would probably get kicked out. He says, “my royal...” whatever. It is unparliamentary so I will not repeat it. Maybe I will let the member or somebody tune into YouTube to see it.

I will say, though, that they want to close nine centres. That is 26,788 veterans who will have to drive. Veterans will have to drive from Windsor, Ontario, to London, Ontario. That is a two-hour drive. Veterans will have to drive from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Halifax, Nova Scotia. If it is winter, and they have to go over Kellys Mountain, it is not a pleasant drive. It can take a veteran five or six hours to get across. If some of the veterans are 80 years old, are we asking them to do that drive? Is that what this country is asking a veteran to do? The veterans fought to put us in front of the line. These are the veterans who fought for us to have the democracy we have in the House. I am sure that is not what the minister wants.

Here is an opportunity for the minister to say that yes, he might have made a mistake. Yes, we are going to wait another 15 years until the Second World War veterans and the Korean War veterans, who are the primary people using the centres, have left us behind. We are not going to ask an 80-year-old man or woman to fill in a form with somebody on the line at the 1-800 number. We are not going to ask a veteran to be at the back of the line at a government services office, when he or she fought to keep us in front of the line.

I am sure that the minister, being a veteran of the Toronto, London, and Markham forces and the OPP force, knows for a fact that not only veterans have fought to protect this country. Police officers who risk their lives in duty on an everyday basis need to be respected and in front of the line.

Maybe the minister wants to reconsider the judgment made. Maybe it was made before he got there. Maybe he wants to consider that having the veterans go through all those hoops is not the Canadian way. When the minister swore an oath to protect some of us who live in Toronto, London, or York Region, and the majority of the members of Parliament in this House who live in Ontario, we needed to respect what he did for us.

Why, in the same breath, are we disrespecting the thousands of veterans who were not hesitant for 30 seconds to give up their lives for us in World War II, Korea, the United Nations, NATO, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Croatia? The list goes on and on.

The minister might have a change of heart and when he goes home tonight will say that we will keep those nine centres open for the next couple of years, especially for World War II and Korean War veterans.

In the past year, the Canadian Armed Forces has been forcing personnel with service-related injuries to leave the Canadian Armed Forces before they qualify for their pensions. Corporal Glen Kirkland, who suffers from physical and emotional wounds as a result of a Taliban bomb that killed three comrades, was being forced to leave the CAF because he did not meet the military universality of service requirements.

Last June, the Minister of National Defence said in the House of Commons that any Afghan vet injured in combat would not be released as a result of these injuries.

Recently, Corporal David Hawkins, a reservist from St. Thomas, Ontario, with post-traumatic stress, was forced out a year before he was able to collect a fully indexed pension. On October 30, 2013, the Minister of National Defence said in this House of Commons, “...we want to thank Corporal Hawkins...”. That is a great opening. He continued, “...for his service and sacrifice for Canada”. That is outstanding. He continued, “Before being released, members of the Canadian Armed Forces work with the military on a transition plan. Ill and injured Canadian Forces members are provided with physical, mental and occupational therapy services for their eventual transition to civilian life. Members are not released until they are prepared”. Well, Corporal Hawkins was released before he was well prepared.

If Corporal Hawkins were to apply to get a job with any department, he might have to get a bit of training. He might need a couple of bucks to get retrained in order to apply. Maybe some money will have to be allocated in the department so that this injured vet, suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, is able to qualify to do that job. Corporal David Hawkins was not prepared to be released.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs is trying to find a way to show that the Conservative government is caring for injured veterans while not coming clean on a lot of these issues.

I will continue. The Veterans Ombudsman stated in a press release, when he made the following observations on Bill C-11:

...under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual's file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release. ...it will create separate classes of Veterans for federal priority hiring...all medically releasing [sic] Canadian Armed Forces members should be treated the same way, because there is an inherent service relationship for every Canadian Armed Forces member who is medically released because the individual can no longer serve in uniform. ...losing one's career as a result of a medical condition is unique to service in the military.

Other questions were raised by the Veterans Ombudsman. Maybe the minister might want to stand up and answer them during question and answer.

Which department will do the adjudication? What documentation will be used in the adjudication process? Will benefit of the doubt criteria be established? How long will the process take? How much visibility will the member have in the process? Will there be an appeal process? If a definition is made that a medical release is not service related, will it affect the decision-making for another benefit program, such as the disability award?

I can say what is in the media. This is from November 8:

Sensing the lousy optics of unhappy vets during Remembrance Week, the government has pledged to give discharged soldiers first crack at civil service jobs. Given that the feds are cutting staff, this is an empty promise. And it’s doubtful many of those scarce jobs could actually be filled by soldiers unfit for military duty.

Here is another one from the National Post. “Ottawa fails veterans with cynical displays of show over substance”. Barbara Kay writes:

Recently the government proudly announced two new initiatives. The first pledges to give priority to veterans seeking civil service jobs. But Mr. Parent points out that thousands of veterans are incapable of working due to injuries suffered during their service. And since hiring freezes are in place over most of the federal departments,“priority” consideration for frozen jobs is not of much use. The other initiative increases funding for vocational rehabilitation programs to $75,800 per veteran. But the fine print belies the seeming generosity. The money is allocated at $2 million over five years, spread over 1,300 veterans. That comes to $1,500 each, unless 40-some veterans get all of it.

I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has paid attention and will have the generosity today to accept the amendment from this side of the House that money be allocated for veterans to be retrained and that there be a sum for each veteran. Second, I hope that the minister stands up, after my pleading with him, and says that they will keep these nine centres open, which affect 26,788 veterans, for the next 10 or 15 years. If he gets up and says anything about the 600 points and “da de da de da and we're going to their houses”, the veterans are watching. They know that it is totally bellowing. We will leave it at that.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-11, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This is only the second bill since the Conservative government came to power. That is very little considering all the issues that have been raised, including in the ombudsman's reports, and the recommendations on how to improve the new veterans charter.

It is a little disappointing that our government has so often ignored our national heroes over the past six years. The worst part is that the new veterans charter was supposed to be a living document, but the bill we are about to debate does not deal with the new charter. Contrary to what the minister was saying in response to the parliamentary secretary, the new veterans charter has not been routinely improved; it was improved only once.

When the charter was adopted in 2006, the concept of a living document meant that the charter would be amended as problems emerged. In the mission in Afghanistan, our troops suffered heavy losses. There were 158 deaths, and over 2,000 wounded soldiers came back, not to mention those who will be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in the coming years. According to a recent study, that is 14% of our troops, but we suspect that the number of injured soldiers and soldiers affected by stress is much higher.

It is against that backdrop that the new veterans charter was adopted by Parliament on the condition that it be a living document. That meant that it was going to be amended a number of times if required, as needs arose, or if the charter proved to be inadequate, as has been shown by the issues and comments raised in the past two years.

Since they came to power, the Conservatives have not kept that promise. The charter was amended only once in 2011, by means of Bill C-55. After seven years, a minister has finally decided to review the new charter in its entirety. It is not official, however, because the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has not yet begun the official review. As specified in Bill C-55, that study was supposed to have begun on October 4. Today is November 21 and the House adjourns on December 11, so we will have hardly any time to begin studying the new charter before the House adjourns for the holidays, and we will not be starting again until next February.

That leads us to today's debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act. Essentially, this bill seeks to give priority to veterans and members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service. If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. They will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority.

A second provision of the bill deals with the extension of the entitlement to priority, from two years to five. At the moment, veterans are in a regulatory category whereas public service employees are protected by the act. The government has therefore decided to include veterans in a category that is protected by the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund, and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half-measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

We will therefore support this bill at second reading, but we consider that it does not go far enough and that it raises questions that the government will have to answer. Moreover, in a climate of budget cutting, where we are seeing massive layoffs in the public service, this bill unfortunately will not really help veterans to get jobs in the public service, at least in the medium term.

This bill is actually a reaction to poor human resources management. The Conservatives have laid off so many public servants that veterans are no longer successful in being hired from the priority list.

What is most disappointing about the measures this government has introduced is the little impact they have had. I will not start listing off everything from 2006 on. I will only go back as far as the last budget, tabled in 2013.

The Conservatives announced with great fanfare that they were going to improve the Last Post Fund and double the refundable amount from close to $4,000 to a little under $8,000. An ombudsman, Patrick Stogran, had been mentioning this problem since at least 2009. The government waited some three or four years before addressing it. I would like to point out that it was a Liberal government that gutted the program in 1995 or thereabouts.

More recently, the Conservatives announced that they were increasing aid for training and post-secondary education, with maximum funding of $75,800 per veteran and a maximum envelope of $2 million over five years. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Although I do not know exactly how many veterans will apply for assistance under the program, let us take the amount of $2 million, for example, and divide it by $75,800, which is an accurate amount for someone going to university. If veterans receive the maximum amount, only 27 of them will have access to the program over this five-year period. Therefore, a little over five veterans a year will have access to the program.

I do not see how these measures will help our veterans. The Conservatives say they are increasing aid, but the criteria are often so strict that no one qualifies for it. It is easy to pull numbers out of the air and then make sure the criteria are so restrictive that the government will not be out of pocket at the end of the day. That is what the Conservatives are doing. They are using these tactics and saying that they are helping veterans, when what they are really doing is balancing the budget at their expense.

Now there is this bill that gives veterans priority for appointment to public service jobs. At first glance, it is a wonderful measure. However, on closer inspection, this bill is much less attractive because few public service jobs will be available in the coming years.

From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans made use of this priority entitlement. Of that number, 1,024 veterans secured a job in the public service. Of those 1,024 veterans, 739—72%—got a job with National Defence.

At Veterans Affairs Canada, the situation is somewhat more dire. Between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans got jobs at VAC, which corresponds to only 2% of all jobs.

However, our veterans, who have experienced the difficulties involved in the transition to civilian life, should be ideal candidates for jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. They should play a key role in the development of VAC policies to ensure that those policies are designed for them and meet their needs.

The second-largest employer of veterans in the public service is the Correctional Service of Canada, which hired 54 veterans during that period, or 5% of all veteran hires. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is not very far behind with 44 hires, or 4% of the jobs obtained during this period.

When we look at these figures, it is clear that not all departments are making the same effort to hire veterans. Indeed, most departments have hired fewer than ten veterans, while others have hired none.

Therefore, these departments would have to undergo a major culture change to ensure that such measures actually help our veterans. As things stand right now, I am not sure that this will help even things out in terms of hiring more veterans in our public service.

The Ombudsman has found that about 4,500 veterans per year participate in vocational rehabilitation services. On average, 220 veterans put their names on list of those eligible for job priority status, and, as a result, 146 veterans on average get a job in the public service. This is a very small number. This does not make much of an impact on the majority of veterans or even on many of them.

Moreover, the job priority status for veterans applies only to a very specific group.

The vast majority of jobs in the public service require bilingualism, a post-secondary diploma or even university education. Two to four years of experience is often also required.

Under current regulations, veterans are given a two-year priority entitlement. The veteran must already have a diploma in hand because there is not enough time to start a university degree. Even now, with the new deadline, there is not enough time for a veteran to go to university, if he so wishes, and be available within the time prescribed.

In addition, veterans who do not have a university degree are not overly interested in going to university for the extended period required. As I said earlier, 4,500 veterans participate in the vocational rehabilitation program each year. Only 63 veterans chose university-level programs; 32 received support from Veterans Affairs Canada and 31 received support through the service income security insurance plan. The other participants chose vocational training or college-level programs that lasted anywhere from 12 to 24 months.

That number, 63, caught my attention. Is it true that only 63 veterans chose university-level programs, or are people being discouraged from choosing such programs because of the severely restrictive criteria?

The Ombudsman wrote the following in his report:

While...Veterans Affairs Canada profess[es] to consider the needs of the client/Veteran, they normally do not permit training or education in a new career field if, at the time of release...the client...has skills that are transferrable to the...workforce....

They are required to take a job that does not interest them or one that pays less than a career requiring post-secondary education, simply because they have skills.

The government does not want to do anything that will cost a lot of money. That is the conclusion. In the end, it is not need that influences the decisions, it is the cost of funding education.

The government is putting a lot of focus on the helmets to hardhats program, as though the construction industry were the miracle cure for job transition for our veterans. I agree, it is a good program, but it is not available in every province and it does not cover all trades. As I said, it is not available in Quebec, unfortunately. I have received calls from veterans who are disappointed that they cannot access this program because it is not available in Quebec.

I believe this restricts our veterans' ability to improve their quality of life and their job prospects. For example, the ombudsman recommends entering into partnerships with other industries and organizations, such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian defence and security industries and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. We have to have more collaboration from private sector players, who are not always aware of veterans' skills. Unfortunately, human resources departments do not know how to interpret the CVs of military candidates. A recent study revealed the scope of the task. The Navigator study, conducted for the Veterans Transition Advisory Council in late August, found that most of the 850 employers consulted have little or no understanding of veterans' skills. Only 16% of employers make a special effort to hire veterans.

Almost half of employers believe that a university degree is more important than military service when hiring. Only 13% said that their human resources department knows how to interpret a resumé from a military candidate. We have to do more in this regard.

To my mind, this bill has a major flaw. First, we have to remember that only Canadian Forces members medically released for service-related reasons will have access to the program. Previously, to be given priority, members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP had to be released for medical reasons, whether they were service-related or not. That is also the spirit of the new charter. To qualify for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits and services, the injury has to be service-related. If the department ruled otherwise, the veteran could appeal the decision to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and then the Federal Court. Unfortunately, this is no longer clear.

In addition, if a veteran needs to appeal a decision before a Canadian Forces tribunal or the VRAB, the procedures involved in these administrative tribunals can be very long. Does this mean that the duration of the priority, which begins the day the soldier is released from duty, continues to run out while these administrative procedures drag on? The ombudsman had this to say recently on his blog:

However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release.

Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated “service-related medical release” or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by VAC or the VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.

This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans. That is not what this bill does.

Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Now members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons attributable to service will have this priority entitlement and others will not.

This bill should have gone further. One major problem facing the Canadian Forces is the principle of universality of service, which requires members who cannot be deployed to be dismissed from the Canadian Forces. This is not entirely fair. We understand the importance of this principle to cohesion and morale, but would it not be possible to include the duty to accommodate principle?

Do those who served their country not deserve to be given a job where they could continue to serve? That is what the RCMP does for its members. The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that the Department of National Defence wanted to maintain the status quo on this. However, would it not be possible for the Standing Committee on National Defence to study this issue? Does this government not owe it to our troops and our veterans?

For months now we have been asking the government whether it realizes that it has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation toward injured veterans. The government's lack of response would suggest not. The NDP has said time and time again that it will honour this century-long commitment made by successive Canadian governments, except for this one.

Again, the NDP will support Bill C-11, but the government will have to address our concerns in committee and make the necessary changes to ensure that this bill benefits the largest possible number of veterans who need this priority entitlement for a smooth transition and a better quality of life for them and their family.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (priority hiring for injured veterans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise before the House today to speak to this important issue and changes that will further enhance the way our government supports Canada's veterans and their families. It is also a pleasure to do so soon after our nation came together as one to express its great pride and profound gratitude for what these men and women and their families did for our country.

The outpouring of respect and admiration we saw from coast to coast to coast on Remembrance Day and throughout Veterans' Week was truly heartwarming and reassuring to me as Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have always believed that this support and recognition for veterans and still-serving members must extend year round, and the changes we are discussing today are another example of how our government is doing exactly that.

Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments before us, I would like to take a moment to talk about the reasons why we are proceeding with these changes and how they fit within our ongoing effort to help veterans and releasing members of the Canadian Armed Forces to make seamless transitions into civilian life.

As Minister of Veterans Affairs and previously as the associate minister of national defence, I have had the privilege to see personally and up close why the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform and those who continue to wear it reflect the very best of who we are as Canadians. I have been impressed by their skill and professionalism, their character and courage and their commitment to serve without hesitation or reservation. I have listened with pride and awe to their stories and experiences. I have been amazed by their modesty and have appreciated their frank discussions about the issues that matter most to them and their families.

One concern I have heard many times is the challenge some of them have faced, or are facing, as they make the transition to civilian life. Central to this are the difficulties some experience trying to start rewarding new careers.

We know that former personnel sometimes face barriers trying to demonstrate how their military training, skills and experience translate into the civilian workforce. Our government understands this and that is why we have been doing everything we can to promote veterans' skill sets to potential employers. That is why we were a founding partner and financial supporter of the Helmets to Hardhats Canada program that provides veterans with opportunities for employment and apprenticeship in the construction industry and why we launched our hire a veteran initiative in partnership with employers across the country to assist veterans in finding new and meaningful work.

My department has been doing its part by specifically targeting veterans for hire by treating military experience as an asset in our selection process. Now our government is proud to take these efforts an important step further. Through our proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act and through changes to its regulations, we are moving veterans to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified Canadians for federal public service jobs.

With the proposed amendments before us, we will create a five-year statutory priority entitlement for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service-related reasons. This change will give veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs above all other groups in recognition of their sacrifice to Canada. With this change, we are recognizing that while these men and women have suffered injuries that prevent them from continuing to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, they still have so much to contribute to our country. This is the right and honourable thing to do.

Also, through changes to the act and accompanying regulations, full-time, regular and reserve force veterans who are medically released for non-service related reasons will see their existing level of priority extended from two to five years. This will also allow them a longer period of priority entitlement for positions they are qualified to fill. Simply put, these changes will offer qualified veterans the employment and career opportunities that never existed before for those injured and while they were serving as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

What is more, we will extend these opportunities to Canada's cadet organization administration and training services and to Rangers by adding them to the definition of who is considered “personnel” with the Canadian Armed Forces.

Finally, the proposed amendments we make to this legislation will be retroactive to April 1, 2012. This means that if a veteran previously had priority status under the regulations and that status expired during the past 18 to 19 months, we will reinstate it with a full five years. It is the same for those veterans who still have priority entitlement. We will extend that out to a full five years as well.

We are doing all of these things because we believe veterans deserve such considerations and because Canada will also be better for it.

For those of us who are fortunate enough to work with veterans on a daily basis, we understand that without these changes, we run the risk of continuing to lose the valuable contributions of highly-qualified individuals when they honourably end their military careers because of an injury or an illness. That is why we believe these amendments are common sense and that is why it is incumbent upon us to work in close consultation with key partners such as the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Department of National Defence, so Canada can continue to reap dividends from having invested in and supported veterans' military careers, ensure our nation's workforce is bolstered and enriched by the contributions veterans have to offer and, most certainly, at the same time continue to provide injured and ill veterans with the chance to keep serving their country and develop their experience and skills in a civilian capacity.

The measures I have outlined today are yet another way we can continue to honour veterans in a meaningful and practical way and ensure they share in the wealth and security that they helped create.

To summarize, every year, many military members transition out of the Canadian Armed Forces. For those Canadian Armed Forces members who cannot deploy and meet the demands of operations, finding meaningful employment is a key factor in making a successful transition to civilian life.

When a position becomes open in the public service, different groups have different levels of access. In spring 2014, when this regulation is expected to come into force, those regular force and reserve force members who are medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces for service-related reasons will receive a statutory priority for a period of five years. This will provide veterans with the highest level of priority consideration for public service positions above all other groups in recognition of their sacrifices and service to Canada. This recognition will also apply to their families.

It will move veterans who are injured in the service of Canada to the front of the line. Those full-time, regular or reserve force veterans who are released for non-service related medical reasons will continue to receive their existing level of priority. However, the duration of their access will be increased from two years to five years, allowing them a longer period of priority entitlement for positions. Veterans who make use of this measure must qualify for the postings they are seeking. The changes will apply to medically released veterans who received a priority entitlement on or after April 1, 2012.

When I announced this legislation in Toronto, Shaun Francis, the chair of True Patriot Love Foundation, said:

The leadership skills, experience and expertise that our personnel develop in uniform is second to none, and makes them an invaluable asset to any new organization they choose to join...We are proud of our ongoing partnership with the Government of Canada to ensure that soldiers, sailors and air personnel can continue to build on the incredible commitment they have already shown to Canada.

In addition to the proposed legislative and regulatory changes, our government continues to work with corporate Canada to help veterans find new opportunities to successfully make the transition from military to civilian life. Partnering with corporate Canada allows veterans to put their training and skills acquired during their service to good use in the civilian workforce, while at the same time also providing a quality of life for themselves and their families. We also provide opportunities to train and upscale their abilities to better qualify for available jobs in the federal public service and elsewhere. We recently announced in excess of $75,000 for such training and upscaling.

I would like to close by calling upon all members of this honourable House to lend their full support to these important changes and ensure that our men and women, who have given so much to our country and who are now becoming our veterans, receive their full entitlement and our respectful support for this proposal.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The deputy said that over the phone you can help a veteran fill out the forms. For an 80-year-old veteran from Korea or an 85-year-old or a 90-year-old veteran from World War II, it would be very difficult to fill out the forms and to listen to somebody over the phone telling them, “Fill in here, fill in there”.

I go back to ask you, sir, why we are closing down these centres where the vets need them the most. Mr. Stoffer said he had 11 vets on the phone, and these people are probably still waiting to be contacted. There are 27,688 vets who are being affected by the closure of the nine centres. As has been revealed, the only people who will get home visits are people who are case managed. I will put it to you further that for an 80-year-old or a 90-year-old trying to fill out the form over the phone it will be very challenging. Would you reconsider, sir, the closing of your centres? Would you consider leaving them open?

Last week Bill C-11 was introduced, and it said we're going to give priority to veterans to be at the front of the line to get jobs with federal departments. While you're saying you'll give them priority, you're closing centres and you're destroying jobs.

Having heard everything that has been said here today, I ask you again if you would reconsider and look the vets in the eyes and say, “Let's talk about it”, and maybe we should leave the centres open because an 80-year-old cannot fill out a form over the phone.

Here is one last chance, Minister. Would you reconsider leaving the centres open, yes or no?