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.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Acting Director General, Delegation and Accountability, Public Service Commission of Canada
Under the current scheme of the PSEA, priority appointments are not subject to recourse to the public service staffing tribunal. My understanding is that this is a consequential amendment to section 87 of the PSEA in order to ensure that the appointments of persons with the medical release from the CAF, the new priority, would not be subject to recourse of the public service staffing tribunal as well. So, It's just a matter of ensuring that this new priority entitlement is treated exactly the same as all the existing priority entitlements.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Are there any other comments or questions?
(Clause 10 agreed to)
(On clause 11)
Clause 11 does have one amendment proposed.
So, Mr. Valeriote, would the Liberals like to make their comments, please?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes, similarly, Mr. Chair, to the two previous amendments that we proposed, this would eliminate the five-year limitation period for the reasons I recited earlier, the manifestation of an illness after the first five- and second five-year periods, to enable that candidate to be eligible for the benefits that this legislation provides. Since the previous two amendments failed it's likely that this too will fail.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Are there any additional or new comments? Mr. Valeriote said it is consistent with his previous ones. Are there any comments or do we go to the vote?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to the clause itself. Again, if anybody wants to comment on the clause we always have that opportunity before we vote.
(Clause 11 agreed to)
(On clause 12)
I'm reminded to explain this very carefully for Peter's and my sake more than anything else—that there's a proposed amendment from the Green Party and a proposed amendment from the NDP.
The Green Party amendment is dealt with first. If that is adopted, the NDP one obviously dies on the paper. If it doesn't pass then we go immediately to vote on the NDP amendment. Is that clear?
So what we'll do, Ms. Green, if you'd like to comment on your amendment, please....
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
I had her admonition earlier. I'm not going to make that mistake. It's Ms. Green. I know that.
4 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I represent the Green Party of Canada. As the leader of the Green Party of Canada, I'm happy to present this amendment to clause 12.
The attempt here is to treat the survivors of veterans in the same fashion. We've had changes in this bill that we make sure that the definition of veteran allows all members who have been honourably released from the Canadian armed forces, who have accumulated at least three years of service, to benefit from the veterans hiring act. But we have restricted the meaning of survivor of a veteran to those who are survivors of—well, I think for all practical purposes we don't really. Survivors is World War I and World War II but basically it's restricted to veterans' surviving spouses from the Second World War and not those who are survivors of a veteran who has passed who has served three years. So, it's an attempt to equalize so that survivors of veterans are treated the same throughout the act.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Okay, thank you.
We're open to comments then.
I think Mr. Valeriote was first, please.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Can I ask the analyst whether he understood that explanation and whether this is a proper interpretation of that section?
4:05 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I have one concern: that what it would do is cancel the definition of a spouse. For the intention that you are presenting now, I'm not sure that would be the way to do it, because the definition of a veteran has been modified, and to make it consistent, instead of going from paragraph (a) to (e) you could go from paragraph (a) to (f), and that would include all the definitions.
What this amendment would do right now, I think, is simply abolish the definition of a survivor, which would create difficulties, obviously.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It certainly wasn't my intention to abolish the definition—
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
—but I think it would be much more equitable to treat the survivors of a Canadian Forces veteran of three years the same way we treat survivors of veterans of the Second World War and other veterans.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I have a question for the commission here. Can they explain to us what, in their view, a survivor is—their definition of a survivor?
The reason I ask is that the traditional sense is that it is the husband or the wife or common-law partner of a deceased soldier, sailor, airman, or airwoman. But in a situation in which you have an individual who is, say, 50 years old and who has a son or a daughter who is 20ish and not married, and that 20-year-old relies on this individual who passes away, and you have the 20-year-old left alone, would that 20-year-old child be considered a survivor of a deceased veteran? If yes, would they then be entitled to any benefits in terms of priority in hiring and all that kind of stuff that follows through? Or does the survivor in the legal sense mean strictly the husband and wife or common-law partner of the individual who is deceased?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Program Policy and Outreach, Department of Veterans Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
Yes, the definition of survivor is a spouse or a common-law partner.
I would note, however, that the Public Service Employment Act currently gives a regulatory priority to survivors of members of the Canadian armed forces whose death is attributable to service. So those survivors of modern-day veterans, as we call them, have a regulatory priority, which is in fact a higher priority than “preference”, which is what is being referred to in this proposed amendment.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Director, Program Policy and Outreach, Department of Veterans Affairs
That's correct.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must be slow, because I didn't understand that clearly, as per the question that Mr. Stoffer asked. It includes also a minor child; for instance, would a 17-year-old child not be included as a next of kin or a survivor?
