Bill C-27 (Historical)

Veterans Hiring Act

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces)

This enactment amends the Public Service Employment Act to provide increased access to hiring opportunities in the public service for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces and 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 the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines are attributable to service.

Veterans Hiring Act

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for his service to our country at the various fronts that he referred to. However, his words ring hollow.

On Thursday of last week, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the Conservatives increased their advertising budget by $4 million. However, their budget for career transition counselling increased by $11,000. That means they are going to serve 296 veterans in career counselling. That is 296 resumes. We have 40,000 veterans coming out of Afghanistan, but it is 296 resumes, at $1,000 a piece.

The government has taken 20,000 jobs out of the public service, and it is going to take another 30,000 jobs. It has put on a hiring freeze. Therefore, I would suggest that the member's words ring hollow.

I would ask the member to give me some substance, not words. Does he know how many jobs will be provided? When the member says that the government is doing everything it can, I do not believe it, and Canadians do not believe it. Tell me how many jobs will be created by this bill for these veterans.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is spouting numbers left, right, and centre. I think that this legislation would allow armed forces members access to services. It would not necessarily qualify them, but at least they could access the service.

Our government has eliminated compulsory retirement in the public service. However, in the Canadian Armed Forces, one needs to retire at 60 years of age. There are able people who can work longer. Even if there is one job, it is more than zero, and this legislation would provide it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East for the service he has given to our country and for graciously sharing his time with me today.

It is the men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed so much for our country, and those who continue to do so, who have made our nation what it is today.

That is why I am pleased to rise today to support the government's efforts to recognize these sacrifices by helping our veterans find meaningful employment in the federal public service. It is the least that we can do.

Our veterans are the ones who have defended our freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law and the ones who, too often, have given their own lives doing so.

Their sacrifice has allowed us the freedom and peace to pursue and realize the great riches and potential that our country offers.

Indeed, Canada’s veterans personify the ideal of commitment to cause and country. They embody honour and modesty.

Each week, I run into many veterans, whether I am stopping by at the Orléans branch of the Royal Canadian Legion or participating at different commemorative events. There are a considerable number of military personnel and veterans in Ottawa—Orléans, and of course, Branch 632 is the friendliest Legion in the region.

When veterans are asked about their service, their sacrifice or the reasons why they served, their answer is almost invariably because it was their duty.

They did much more than that. They have made Canada a nation that is universally respected around the world. They have helped those in crisis and in need. They have helped to keep the peace in many troubled areas far from Canada.

When all other avenues failed, they fought to protect our way of life and preserve the right of others to live in freedom.

The proud record of Canada's veterans explains the government's deep commitment to recognizing their service and honouring their sacrifice every day.

The government continues to strive to ensure that veterans and their families receive the care and support they need whenever and wherever they need it.

The veterans hiring act further solidifies the government’s commitment and determination to be there for those who have always been there for Canada.

It is our responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete.

The measures we are proposing today will greatly help veterans succeed by creating new opportunities for veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces to start rewarding new careers in the federal public service.

We will create a five-year statutory priority entitlement for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service-related injuries and illnesses.

This change will move these veterans to the front of the line, ahead of all other groups for jobs in the federal public service and by doing so, it will recognize their very real sacrifices for Canada.

Additionally, these new measures will extend the priority entitlement period for all medically released veterans from the current two years to five years.

This means that eligible veterans whose military service is cut short by a career-ending injury or illness suffered in the line of duty will have the time they need to find a federal public service job.

However, we must not forget our other honourably released veterans and still-serving military personnel. As outlined in economic action plan 2014, the government made a commitment to allow eligible, still-serving military personnel to participate in the hiring process for internally advertised positions in the federal public service. This eligibility would extend for a full five years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces.

To ensure our veterans move to the front of the line for federal public service jobs, a hiring preference for our veterans will be established.

If a veteran has the same qualifications as another applicant in an externally advertised hiring process, the veteran will get the job.

This new hiring preference will be available to all veterans who are honourably released with at least three years of military service. It will last for up to five years from their release date.

This will give our veterans who want to upgrade their skills and education before entering the public service the time to do so. This is great news for these remarkable men and women, and it is the kind of action Canadians have come to expect from us.

Check our record. The government, regardless of fiscal pressures or economic uncertainties, has delivered on its pledge to maintain and enhance veterans' programs and benefits.

Due to the action taken by the government, the annual budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs has increased by a total of almost $785 million since 2005. In total, almost $5 billion in new funding has been invested towards enhancing veterans' benefits, programs and services.

At every turn, we have been adapting our programs and benefits to meet the changing needs of the men, women and families that we serve.

We have been streamlining the way we provide this support. We have been simplifying and reviewing our programs and policies.

We have been introducing new technologies to deliver better and faster service. It is all part of our cutting red tape for veterans initiative, because on this side of the House we are actually allergic to red tape.

The government has made significant improvements to ensure the best care, support and benefits for Canada's veterans and their families.

Turnaround times for processing veterans’ disability benefits have been significantly improved.

The approval time for access to rehabilitation services has been cut in half from four weeks to two.

Paperwork has been reduced.

We are listening. The government is implementing a comprehensive approach to serving veterans that is responsive, inclusive and flexible.

Passing this legislation will keep this momentum going. The implementation of these measures is key in helping veterans and releasing members of the Canadian Armed Forces make a successful transition to civilian life.

We are keeping faith with the courageous women and men who have served and continue to serve our country so well.

All members should demonstrate their own support and commitment to Canada’s veterans and serving members by supporting this bill.

I thank members for their kind attention.

I will be just as attentive to the questions put to me by members of the House.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him why the Conservative government is allergic, as he put it, to the recommendations of the ombudsman and the Auditor General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his question. I must also thank him for the extraordinary service his colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, provided to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and thank the committee for the work it did to make recommendations to the government.

I want him to know that we listened to the ombudsman's recommendations. The report will be tabled in the House tomorrow, and the government will respond to it in due course, without delay. I am sure the hon. member will be very pleased with the results.

In the meantime, I invite him to support this sensible bill that all veterans, especially those who need better access to federal jobs, will benefit from.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but notice that the member has done a reasonably decent job presenting what I suspect are a good deal of speaking points that come directly from the Prime Minister's Office saying “We do this. We do that”. However, if the member were to canvas many of our veterans, he would find that there are some very real, tangible concerns in regard to services provided by the government. A good example of that is the number of offices that were closed, taking away that face-to-face contact in favour of telephone contact.

My colleague, the member for Guelph, had posed a question to one of his colleagues in the Conservative Party, asking what it meant in real jobs. Could the member tell us if the government done any sort of analysis? What does it believe will materialize in terms of actual jobs for the program he is promoting today? Are we talking 1 job, 20 jobs, 200 jobs? Does the government have any sense of this, other than the fact that here is a bill, here are some great talking points? Does he know what sort of job numbers we are talking about?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the hon. member for Winnipeg North comes here with cheap shots. Just to reassure everyone, I write my own speeches, I do it in both official languages and I do it with the dignity that is commensurate with what is required in the House.

As far as how many jobs would be created, I will just say not one. This bill is not about creating jobs. It is about helping veterans to get to the head of the line and to have access to the jobs. It is to offer them hope, which is what veterans deserve.

If the hon. member just talked to his friend next to him, the hon. member for Guelph, who is a member of the committee on veterans affairs and who co-operated with the committee and contributed in a positive way, he will be very happy to see the report that the committee will deposit tomorrow, which the government will respond to in due time. Hopefully, for once, the member can come and vote in favour of that and in favour of all the programs that we put forward to help veterans.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the fabulous member for Saint-Jean.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, for our veterans. This bill, like its predecessor, Bill C-11, is a response to the many criticisms made by veterans' groups and the ombudsman himself of the government's career transition services.

I am very familiar with these criticisms, having been the deputy critic for veterans affairs during the first year of my mandate, having remained close to our veterans ever since, and having always lent them an ear. It is important to me that their sacrifice be honoured and that they never be forgotten or ignored.

Unlike the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I will not turn my back on veterans or soldiers, especially when they want my attention. I want to take this opportunity to extend warm greetings to the veterans in Quebec City and particularly the Royal Canadian Legion, which does exceptional work in Quebec City.

Bill C-27 does not measure up to veterans’ expectations, and yet their demands are clear. They want front-line services. They want services, just as they served their country. They went where no one wanted to go because the government asked them to, and today all they want is for the government to understand that when some soldiers return from a mission, they find it difficult to get back into the labour force.

Some soldiers have no choice but to become veterans rather quickly because they were wounded while on duty, either physically or psychologically. Let me say again that they do not choose to become veterans. It is important to understand that a wounded soldier will go through a period of genuine mourning for what he or she has lost.

Whether it is a soldier whose leg was shattered into a million pieces by an explosive device, a solider suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or a soldier suffering from an unexplained health problem, that soldier will grieve the loss of his former health. Accepting and adjusting to a new reality is an arduous, lengthy process.

That is why services are critically important and why Veterans Affairs Canada needs staff to help veterans get through this difficult time in their lives. Soldiers, unlike civilians, have been programmed. The government has a responsibility to invest resources into deprogramming them.

When the federal government opts to send our military members on either a combat or a peacekeeping mission, it has a responsibility to look out for their welfare before, during and after the mission. Experts, in particular experts in the field of health care, must be hired, something the government is not doing. If it were hiring these experts, we would not be reading all the time about soldiers and veterans committing suicide because they failed to get the help they needed. It has come to that.

My colleague opposite claims that a government has never done so much for veterans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Veterans and the Canadian public know that. Truth be told, never has a government done so little for our veterans.

Bill C-27 will in no way help veterans experiencing problems transition smoothly into another career. The vast majority of them do not have the degrees required to secure a job in the public service. It might take them a very long time to get these degrees. Others are simply not interested in a public service job, and it may well be that a given prospective job is not suited to the veteran’s new health situation.

A veteran has some good days and some not-so-good days.

A veteran’s health can be quite precarious. It can be good one day, and poor the next. Drugs can of course alleviate the pain and side effects, but there are no guarantees.

On June 20, 2000, former Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire was rushed to emergency after being found on a park bench in Hull. Inebriated and suffering from a reaction to anti-depressants, he almost slipped into a coma. This proved to be a wake-up call for the civilian world and an introduction to PTSD. We do not want to turn back the clock to that time when PTSD was unknown and left untreated. It is time to acknowledge the situation and allocate the resources needed to address the problem.

I have read a great deal about PTSD. I have also met personally with many veterans suffering from PTSD. I know they are struggling constantly to live in the present. They need to be able to count on having reliable and effective resources at their disposal, especially since soldiers may experience PTSD episodes only later, be it two years or twenty years after an actual mission. There is no way of knowing for certain.

On August 26, 2013, the Veterans Ombudsman released a report that focused on vocational training for veterans transitioning to civilian life. None of the ombudsman’s recommendations is included in this bill. The same goes for recommendations made by the Auditor General in the fall of 2012.

The NDP is of the opinion that the Conservative government should implement, not shelve, the ombudsman’s recommendations. It is really shameful to see a report, whether it comes from an ombudsman or from the Transportation Safety Board, shelved because of Conservative ideology, especially when it had the backing of all political parties in a parliamentary committee and was followed up on. It is truly a shame and it makes no sense at all!

Ombudsmen are appointed to prepare reports so that the government can listen to the concerns of all elected officials in the House. It is truly awful, shameful and disgusting to have these reports produced year after year, only to see the Conservatives scrap or completely ignore the recommendations put forward and then scrambling to backtrack. It is crazy really. A responsible government does not act this way.

What upsets me even more is that the government deliberately decided to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. It decided to make major budget cutbacks that directly affect our veterans, something that London or even Washington did not dare do, even in times of belt-tightening.

This really comes as no surprise, since we are dealing with an irresponsible Conservative government that still cannot account for $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funding. More than a year later, the money is still unaccounted for. Where is the explanation? How were these missing $3.1 billion spent? The government has not been able to shed light on this mystery and yet it has no problem making cuts that affect veterans.

This Conservative government lacks the courage it should have. It is unable to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with all of the relevant information when it announces budget cuts, proving in the process that these cuts are made hastily and haphazardly, completely in the dark. That is how the Conservatives govern. How truly terrible is that.

This is where we find ourselves in 2014, with a Conservative, or should I say Reform-minded, government. It should be ashamed of proposing half-measures that will have no real impact on the quality of life of veterans in general. It should be ashamed of its actions. Having served for quite a while on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I know what could be done in terms of long-term health care for veterans. They could be given access to improved follow-up services and receive help from specialists. I am also thinking about the work that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is not doing.

Decent pensions should be granted so that veterans are not forced to make repeated requests until they finally receive the full benefits to which they are entitled.

I find it truly offensive to treat people who chose to sacrifice their lives for us in this manner.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once we cut through all the partisan rhetoric of what was said there, there are a couple of themes that are important. The first area is services. There is no doubt that we need to do the best we can in those areas as well.

On this bill specifically, there were some comments made about people being released at 37 years of age, people who have plenty of time to make a good contribution to the workforce. The skills these veterans are bringing back in terms of teamwork and leadership can contribute to organizations. Under the hire a veteran program, Cenovus Energy and Intuit Canada have realized the skills that some of these veterans can bring to the table in organizations. Now we are proposing a bill that would allow those skills to be brought to the public service.

What that member said through all that rhetoric was that it is not even worthwhile, because that attachment and that work are as important in the rehabilitation of these people as anything else is, so she is saying we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a fool. I understand exactly what they are telling me.

They are saying that they are going to save some money on the backs of veterans. I am sorry, but we decided to send them on missions. We know that these missions can be costly and we know in what state our soldiers can return. If we are not able to invest in giving them the care they deserve when they get back, then we are not in a position to say that we can accomplish the mission.

I am sorry, but we need to be there for our veterans. I would agree that we have made some advances in terms of the professional transition aspect, but this bill is simply a way to distract people, when I am talking about something very important.

What is important is the health of our veterans, and the Conservative government does not seem to want to go there, because it knows that it will cost money. Yes, it will cost money, but we do not have a choice.

We decided to send them to Afghanistan and on other missions. We simply have to pay. That is how it is. Period.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Québec for her observations. They are absolutely accurate. This bill is hollow.

She talks about balancing the budget on the backs of veterans. Just so she is aware, and this might surprise her, the Conservatives have allowed $10 billion to lapse between 2013 and 2014. They were scheduled to spend $10 billion more on various services for Canadians, but they cut it back so they could balance their budget next year. Part of that was for Veterans Affairs.

However, they managed to increase their spending on marketing and advertising by $4 million. The minister admitted that last week before the committee. They spent only $296,000 on a program they call “career transition counselling” that will help only 296 veterans. The amount that was spent on Helmets to Hardhats to help them find jobs was $100,000, and most of that was for a new website.

I am wondering how alarmed the member for Québec is when she hears those statistics.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his wonderful comments and the figures he shared. It makes absolutely no sense to invest in websites and all kinds of things that do nothing to help veterans who are struggling.

When the Minister of Veterans Affairs turned his back on Jenifer Migneault when she was asking for help, it was because he had ignored the claims of veterans for hours, which is very sad.

I think it is important to point out that we all come from different parties and have different ideas. That is a good thing, but the veterans affairs file is a profoundly human issue. It is a human issue. It should never be a partisan one. We should not tear ourselves apart over this. We need to help our future, help our veterans.

I think it is disgusting that the government is investing in war machines and CF-18 replacements that will cost a fortune, but it is not able to invest in the human beings who operate that equipment. That makes no sense. It is absolutely ridiculous.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to Bill C-27. What my colleague from Québec said is absolutely true. We do not have our priorities straight.

I will obviously be voting in favour of this bill at second reading because it is a step in the right direction. However, the bill is not enough. One of the reasons it is not enough is that it always seems as though this government is responding because it is compelled to do so not because veterans are a priority for the government. We see it every day.

One of the reasons why I am interested in this subject is that we have a lot of veterans in Saint-Jean because we have a military base there, and most military members who have served in the Canadian Forces did part of their training at the base in Saint-Jean. We also have the Royal Military College, so we have a whole military environment. When members are transferred from base to base, some of them wind up staying in the area of one of their postings. That is true of Quebec City, with the base in Valcartier, but it is also true of us in Saint-Jean. A number of military members settle in the city of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu or in the region because their last posting was in Saint-Jean.

I am obviously very concerned about the situation in which we are putting our veterans. The Conservative Party and the Conservative government are not the only ones who have abandoned veterans. The Liberals did so as well. The cuts that the Liberals made in 1994 and 1995 when they were in power show that they were no more committed to helping our veterans or military members than the Conservatives. That is why we hope that the NDP will be able to take charge of this file after 2015 and give our veterans the help they deserve.

I am obviously going to talk about my bill, Bill C-568, which the government and Conservative members voted against. To my mind, once is not a habit. I can hold the Conservatives to account for their actions. They are always telling us that we voted against some budget measure or another when they are constantly serving up omnibus bills that contain measures on anything and everything. They then criticize us and attack us for not voting on one of the budget provisions, when that provision did not even have anything to do with the budget.

Now I am holding them to account for their choices. They voted against Bill C-568, my bill respecting long-term care for veterans, claiming that there was in fact no problem. When I meet with veterans, at the Legion or other events in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu or in the region, the comments I get from my constituents are not at all consistent with what Conservative members are saying. The Conservative government is not addressing the real problems.

One of the problems I raised in Bill C-568 was the creation of two classes of veterans. This is a concept that we in the NDP oppose. The government and Veterans Affairs Canada have created two classes of veterans. On the one hand, there are what are called traditional veterans or war veterans, which means those who served until 1953, mainly in World War II and the Korean War, and who are still alive. On the other hand, we have modern veterans, which means those who served after 1953, mainly on peacekeeping missions, but also on war missions such as the one in Afghanistan.

Within this second class of veterans, the government has artificially created a third class. That third class is the class of veterans who served after April 1, 2006, or those who now fall under the jurisdiction of the new veterans charter.

As we can see, the consequence of making various amendments to different acts is that three classes of veterans have in fact been created: war or traditional veterans, veterans before the new charter and veterans after the new charter.

What is the main difference between these two subclasses of veterans? It is mainly the disability pension that was previously paid to our wounded veterans and that has been replaced by a disability award since April 1, 2006. I have had many conversations with veterans, and they have convinced me that, in practice and in many cases, they realize that the amounts of these two types of compensation for the same injury can at times differ by as much as a factor of 10 or 15. Consequently, the financial implications are that, with a ratio of 1 to 10 or 1 to 15, this creates a new injustice between these categories.

I will not go over all the arguments that my colleagues have advanced thus far. I would just be repeating what they have already explained very clearly to this point. However, I would like to go back to the incident that made the news last Thursday, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs actually ignored Jenifer Migneault. That incident was truly indicative of the lack of interest and compassion the Minister of Veterans Affairs has shown. It is that lack of compassion that veterans report to us in meetings in our ridings every day.

What is quite paradoxical is that, on the one hand, Veterans Affairs Canada has closed nine regional offices that gave our veterans access to services and, on the other hand, has spent millions of dollars advertising the services of Veterans Affairs Canada. Members have probably seen some of those ads on television or heard them on the radio in recent weeks. I am not opposed to the idea of advertising to inform veterans about available services, but advertising should be in addition to the services themselves. It should not replace those services. In other words, it should not be purchased solely for the purpose of concealing the fact that services have been cut for those who have served our country and sacrificed themselves. It is really terrible that, on the one hand, services are being cut, while, on the other hand, the government is buying advertising to conceal this state of affairs, which is a reality. Veterans tell us this every day.

I will close on that point. I am going to support the principle of this bill at second reading so that it is referred to committee and can be improved, because it really must be improved so that it actually meets the needs of our veterans.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last point in regard to what could potentially happen at committee. If we were to canvas Canadians as a whole, we would find there is a great deal of sympathy for what we are doing today and what we could be doing in the future in assisting members who are retiring from the Canadian Armed Forces after serving in Afghanistan in different capacities and in different areas. I believe there is a great deal of sympathy in regard to what we can do in Ottawa.

We recognize that the legislation does have significant flaws and that the government would do well at committee stage to listen very closely to what the stakeholders are saying with the idea of improving the legislation.

Does the member have specific thoughts about what he would like to see happen in terms of potential amendments?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not very optimistic.

Although I do not have a great deal of experience in committee, I can say that my past three years in committee have convinced me that the Conservatives generally do not want to accept amendments that do not come from them, and that was particularly true of the amendments to the electoral “deform” legislation. The Conservative members did not want to accept amendments from the NDP.

However, the same ideas or amendments coming from the Senate and Conservative senators were considered acceptable. I have really witnessed some bad faith.

In fact, I do not expect much from the committee. An enormous number of improvements need to be made, and the ombudsman’s report contains a number of them.