Evidence of meeting #31 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was priority.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Why would the Minister of Veterans Affairs need that degree of latitude? Why would we place that degree of discretion with one person or that one person's department?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
Like I just said, it's just a standard practice. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is the minister who has to make that decision—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I don't mean that it's the minister. I mean why should that amount of latitude and discretion be given to the minister? It's not the minister himself, but the government essentially. Why would that not have to come back?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Somebody has to have the authority. And it's ministerial authority, whether it's the minister in person or somebody exercising the minister's authority. Somebody has to make the determination. It's seems to me, logically it would be the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
I think our analyst has some clarification on this if everybody agrees.
3:50 p.m.
Jean-Rodrigue Paré Committee Researcher
As I understand it, it's basically that the release itself is the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence. But a release that is attributable to medical reasons is the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. And if it's not specified, it's not clear who has the responsibility to determine medical reasons attributable to service or not, and the release itself, which is the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Is there any further comment on that amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We do have another amendment from the Green Party on the same clause, and it is in order so I'll ask Ms. May if she could comment, please.
3:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
By this amendment I'm suggesting amending clause 7 by adding language after line 35, which you can find in front of you. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, if we find a person who fits most qualifications is not available, the veteran will be provided with information about available training opportunities so that they can upgrade to meet those qualifications as quickly as possible. That's the purpose of my amendment.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
If you are offering the opportunity, it makes sense. If there's an opportunity that exists, but they don't meet the qualifications, that opportunity may remain open or may reopen at some point in time. Who knows? The amendment doesn't say they must or anything like that. If it gives them the opportunity to meet those qualifications and they're so inclined, why not have that opportunity be given to them? Why not offer that kind of support of retraining, which is really the goal of the regulations in the first place, the new Veteran's Charter, and this. It would be entirely consistent.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We already give $75,800 for retraining but not for a specific position. To me this would just open it up to, not abuse, but people contesting things all the time. I don't think we can hold up the public service from appointing somebody to a position because a veteran wants the position but is not trained for it. I just think you're opening up a can of worms with this, because we do offer retraining, $76,000 worth. I think it's very impractical.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
It says they'll provide the person with information about the available training. That's all. That's—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
That can't mean that the public service holds that job open while somebody goes off—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Whoa, whoa.
I love a debate, but this is not really the process.
We're at a point where there's some disagreement of what it's doing.
Is there anybody else who wants to comment before Ms. May responds? No.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
3:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
I think Mr. Valeriote anticipated my response, which is that perhaps my friend Mr. Hawn may have read into this more than is intended. It's not a requirement that any position be held open. There's no can of worms that I can see here. I don't see a can opener either. What this really says is exactly what it says: if individuals, veterans, who hope to obtain a job within the civil service, don't qualify within the meanings of the act, that the individuals be referred to training opportunities that might get them to where they need to be to apply for that job. They may or may not be able to get to that job, and they may come back and apply for one later, still within the statutory period.
Thank you.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Thank you. We've finished the discussion. Is there any further comment? Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 8 agreed to)
(Clause 9 agreed to)
(On clause 10)
On clause 10, is there any comment?
Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Quite simply, I am reading this, and maybe it's my lack of formal education in this regard, but I was hoping to get a much clearer explanation. There seems to be quite a lot about the complaint process.
Can the commission explain it to me in plain language that I can clearly understand? To be honest with you, I'm a tad confused over it. I'm being honest because we're in camera.