Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

No? Well, carry on, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

Mr. Hawn is next, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

And thanks to our witnesses again for being here.

I have just a couple of quick points relative to Mr. Valeriote, and these aren't questions.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

They're points, not questions.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Points, not questions....

This bill is not for the next couple of years, but for the next 50 years. Whether there are jobs today or not, this is long term. Also, the RCMP is under different legislation. In fact, they work for Treasury Board, so they wouldn't be covered under this.

Relative to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal and the appeal process—and it actually might go back to something that Mr. Stoffer just said, that a 22-year veteran of the public service might be crankier if a five-year veteran of military got appointed—could you brief us a little bit on the appeal process, and does anything in Bill C-27 change that appeal process?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

I'm going to ask Michael to clarify if anything will change, but my understanding is that it will not. What happens in the priority system is that there is an order in which people are referred. If this legislation is passed, then medically released veterans who are released for service-related reasons would be at the top of the list. They would get referred and considered first, and if found qualified, would be appointed. If there are issues in the appointment process, the commission has actually designed the process so that the controls are built in up front. If people have concerns, if veterans have concerns or departments have questions, we have officers available to deal with those in real-time as the appointment's being considered.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Up front and not...?

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Mr. Chicoine, please.

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

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today to answer our questions.

I would like to know what happens when a position within the public service becomes vacant. I was under the impression that, when a position became vacant, it was first offered to surplus employees, advertised internally for all public service employees and then advertised publicly on websites, in newspapers and so on.

Is that how things work when a position becomes vacant?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

I will ask Mr. Thom to explain our staffing process.

[Gerry Thom, Vice-President, Staffing and Assessment Services, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Thank you for this question.

That's not exactly how things work. It is important to bear in mind that the staffing of a position requires an authorization number. When a position is staffed internally, the competition is open only to public service employees. Priority positions are open to the general public.

When a position is staffed, either internally or externally, an authorization number is required. That is when my organization would check what the individual who needs to staff a position is asking for in terms of experience, education and so on.

We then match them with individuals who have priority access. That's done at the very beginning of the process. A position is not open to the general public because no one is found within government. The people who are in charge of staffing a position have to decide from the outset whether the competition is internal or external. Regardless of their decision, they must take into account priority appointments.

Before anything is done, if Bill C-27 is passed, medically released veterans will have priority access.

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

Is this always indicated on the Web?

[Gerry Thom]

Yes, always.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm going to repeat an earlier question that I put to Charlotte, Elizabeth, and Sandra from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was with respect to a skills translator. You'll recall that I talked about my experience, being both with the military and the navy, and how professionally trained many of these men and women are, frankly beyond what I expected to see.

In my own mind, I could see them moving into materiel management. I've written them down: leadership, human resources, logistics, computer and software development, and understanding transportation systems that could be applied in school boards, etc.

I understand that the council is looking at four areas right now. I look at a skills translator. I think about the costs, frankly, the insignificant costs, of using an effective skills translator and aligning our armed force members, women and men, with the jobs that are out there, far more than public service jobs, and private sector jobs.

I've seen it in application in the United States. It just seems to be a more effective way of doing this. Goodness, I bless you for the work you're doing, and I'm not criticizing you, but why aren't we thinking outside of the box in which we tend to think right now? Can we? Are you the people I should be asking about this? If you are, what are we doing about it?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Certainly, we will think about how that could be applicable in work that we do in supporting veterans and matching them to positions available in the public service, but I'd also like to comment on what you observed earlier.

Veterans do have a vast, diverse set of skills and linguistic qualifications. When we looked at the data coming into this committee, we saw that they were appointed to a wide range of occupations across the country: finance, engineering, clerical, trades.

They do have the skills that we need and we do anticipate the ability, particularly with the changes in this bill, to place an increasing number of veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Stoffer and I sat on the this committee, I believe, when we were elected in 2006. Once you've been on this committee, there's a place in your heart that's a little special, likely more special than it was before we came here.

With that, Bill C-27 is an incredible step forward in what we will do for our veterans that are leaving because of injury.

I want to follow-up on Mr. Valeriote's question a little bit. There are two things. You talked about the number of skills that our veterans have when they leave. I've also had the same opportunity, as he had, of being a part of the air force.

I'm wondering what skill development they are going to. Is there a particular area where they are transferring their skills to? When they do that and meet the criteria, is skills development added to that when they get in? Is that also available?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

As I previously mentioned, there is a wide range of skills that veterans bring with them. The commission matches those skill sets with the requests from departments. To date, 53% of medically released veterans have been placed in clerical and administrative-type functions. But others, as I said, have been placed in computer systems, purchasing and supply, electronics, engineering, and in some cases, executive functions. Again, there's a wide range of occupations.

I know, for example, that if you enter as a correctional officer or a border guard, those departments, as they do for anyone who enters the public service, provide individuals with the training they need to do their job. That's quite commonplace in the public service for any new entrants, regardless of where they enter, to have workplace training provided once they are appointed.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just have a comment. We need not forget the private sector, which has played a major role in this. I think, as an organization, we should thank them for stepping up to the plate and being of assistance in the employment of our veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you for that, Bev. I think it was a good clarification, and it's a little more complicated for them in prioritizing in terms of hiring, as they have a few more restrictions, I might say, or more things to consider. But they are making an effort. There's no question about it.

I'm not trying to drag this out at all, but there is some more time if anybody wants it.

Okay, that's for both sides, if you folks have any interest.

I think Mr. Rafferty, and then Mr. Valeriote.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I was wondering if I would ask this question, because we usually ask this of witnesses. I get the sense that the Public Service Commission really likes this bill. Is there anything about the bill that you would change? Is there anything that is missing, perhaps, or anything that you'd like to see in this bill from a commission point of view?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Thank you for the question.

I think it's fair to say that the commission does support the bill and thinks it will actually make a difference. As the entity that administers the program, these mechanisms will help us place more veterans and medically released veterans than it otherwise would have without the existence of this new legislation, if it's passed.

The one thing I would mention, as I did in my opening remarks, is that this legislation applies to entities that are subject to the Public Service Employment Act, which, if you look at the core public service, is approximately 200,000 positions out of a core public service of around 250,000 or so. Those are just estimates. There are a number of larger operational departments, like the Canada Revenue Agency, Parks Canada, and CFIA, as three examples, that would not be subject per se to this legislation because they're outside of the Public Service Employment Act. Having said that, I understand from talking to those departments and working with others that they are willing, through their own separate human resource regimes and legislation, to meet the spirit of intent of this legislation and to do their part in placing veterans.

The reason why I say that's important is that we know from our experience in administering the legislation to date that veterans tend to be in the regions of the country—and it's understandable that they seek employment in the various regions across the country—so the departments having broader footprints in the federal public service, I think, will make a great deal of difference to our overall success. Again, I was very pleased to know and talk to my colleagues and understand that they will also do their part, as I understand, in supporting the spirit and intent of this program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I appreciate your making those points. That's very useful information.

Oh, Mr. Valeriote has another question.