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

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

moved that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our government's proposed measure that would help veterans move to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified Canadians for federal service jobs. These changes demonstrate our steadfast commitment to support those who have served and continue to serve our great nation. Since elected in 2006, we have ensured that our men and women in uniform, past and present, receive the support and recognition they deserve for their service and their sacrifice.

The issue we are debating today builds on our ongoing efforts to be there for those who have always been there for Canada. It is clear that support for our veterans is a priority for this government. That is why we have invested almost $5 billion in new funding to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services.

Our most recent economic action plan goes even further on our record of achievement by committing an addition $108.2 million over the next three years to ensure modern-day veterans of modest means have access to a dignified funeral and burial. To ensure our veterans have quick and easy access to the benefits and services they need, our 2014 budget also allocates $2.1 million to enhance our ability to serve veterans online.

As well, we committed to commemorate our brave men and women who served in Canada's mission in Afghanistan, which we proudly delivered with a National Day of Honour on May 9. In doing so, Canadians came together to recognize the historic significance of this military engagement and the enormous personal sacrifices made by thousands of Canadian Armed Forces personnel, dedicated public servants, and civilians.

These changes are necessary to ensure our veterans have the support they need as they transition to civilian life. Beginning a new, meaningful career plays an important role in that successful transition. Our government understands that, which is why we have introduced these measures that give priority hiring and new employment opportunities in the federal public service to Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans. We understand that one of the ways we can meet our shared responsibility is by providing veterans with meaningful new careers and employment opportunities when their military service is over. This initiative builds on our commitment to provide the tools and assistance Canada's men and women in uniform, past and present, need and deserve.

For this, I commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs, just as I commend him for his dedication to ensuring the new veterans charter adequately supports veterans and their families. The minister's call for a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter is sending a clear message to Canada's veterans and their families that we are committed to doing everything we can for them.

By asking the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to cast the widest net possible in its review of the new veterans charter, the minister is leaving no stone unturned to ensure those who serve our country have the care and support they need when they need it.

Equally important, the minister asked that this same parliamentary committee to recommend how we, as a government, can best state our commitment to veterans and future veterans, and I want to thank him for doing so. Quite frankly, these measures go to the very heart of our government's efforts on behalf of veterans, still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families.

On the one hand, we are delivering real action by making sure our programming continues to evolve with the diverse and complex needs of Canada's veterans and their families.

At the same time, we recognize the importance of demonstrating our nation's great pride and profound gratitude in the most meaningful of ways.

The legislation before us would accomplish many of the same things. It would deliver real action and send a clear message. Simply put, we would give qualified veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces greater access to new and rewarding opportunities in the federal public service. This is the right thing to do. It is the honourable thing to do and it reflects the importance our government has placed on being there for those who have always been there for our country.

Our record demonstrates that we have not only talked the talk, we have walked it, too. In fact, since being elected in 2006, we have invested almost $5 billion in new funding to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services. Through this new funding, we have been able to implement the new veterans charter as a more modern and comprehensive way to care for and support those who are injured in the line of duty.

Through the new veterans charter, we are now providing full physical and psychosocial rehabilitation services for injured and ill veterans. We are offering vocational rehabilitation and career transition services for those who want to continue to work and serve after their military service ends. We are delivering economic security through immediate and long-term financial benefits and, of course, we are providing the health care benefits and one-on-one case management services that are often vital to an injured veteran's successful transition to civilian life.

What does this mean in practical terms? Through our programs, benefits, and services, we are able to provide world-class medical care for seriously injured veterans. We can provide up to $75,800 in training assistance for eligible veterans to start a new career and we can provide a minimum pre-tax income of $42,426 a year for eligible veterans who are unable to become suitably and gainfully employed, as well as for those in Veterans Affairs Canada's rehabilitation program.

In addition, we will help eligible veterans with shovelling snow from their laneways or cutting their grass. We can help them with their housekeeping. We can have health care professionals and case managers visit them in the comfort of their own homes as required. We can assist them with the cost of travelling to their medical appointments.

We do all of these things because we are determined to help injured and ill veterans make the best recoveries possible, as quickly as possible. The measures proposed in the veterans hiring act would build even further on this by giving medically released veterans more opportunities to start new careers in the federal public service.

We would provide those who are released from the Canadian Armed Forces because of a service-related injury or illness with the highest level of consideration for jobs, above all other groups, in recognition of their sacrifices for Canada. As well, the duration of priority access for all medically released veterans would be extended from two years to five years. These measures also recognize the sacrifices of our serving military personnel and our honourably released veterans by allowing them the opportunity to compete for public service jobs, as they have at least three years of military service. This initiative would also allow them to continue to compete for these jobs for a full five years after they are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

To ensure our veterans have access to the meaningful jobs they need, we would also establish a hiring preference for veterans, in the event they are as qualified as other applicants. This new measure would last for up to five years from the day veterans are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are doing all of this because we believe veterans and serving members deserve such consideration, and because we believe Canada would be better for it. Without these changes, we would run the risk of continuing to lose the valuable contribution of highly qualified individuals when their military career ends. Veterans have the skills, training, and experience that can greatly benefit our public service. This initiative would allow our highly qualified veterans to continue their service to Canada in a civilian capacity by enhancing and enriching the federal workforce.

Canada's veterans have done so much to build our strong, free, and prosperous nation. It is incumbent upon this government to make sure they also share in the wealth and security they have created. These measures are another way to recognize that our veterans have served Canada with courage and distinction, and how they have been willing to sacrifice everything for a better tomorrow.

Finally, to ensure our veterans have the support they need to successfully transition to civilian life, we are committed to enhancing employment opportunities for veterans in the federal public service. I am pleased that the veterans hiring act would do just that. It would create new opportunities for veterans in the public service by making changes to the Public Service Employment Act.

Our first measure would move eligible veterans to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified candidates for the federal public service to help grant greater access to federal public service job opportunities for Canada's veterans who are medically released for service-related reasons. These changes would ensure that these veterans receive a statutory priority period for up to five years. It would provide these veterans with the highest level of consideration for public service jobs above all other groups in recognition of their tremendous service to our country.

With this change, we would recognize that, while these men and women have suffered injuries that prevent them from continuing to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, they still have much more that they can contribute towards our country. Additionally, we would guarantee that all medically released veterans would have their existing priority entitlement period extended from two years to five years. Simply put, these changes would offer new employment and career opportunities to qualified veterans who were injured while they were serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is also important to note that these opportunities would be extended to Canada's cadet organization, administration, and training services, and rangers.

These measures would be retroactive to April 1, 2012. This means that if a veteran previously had priority status under the regulation and that status expired during the past two years, we would reinstate it for a full five years. In fact, we would extend it for an additional full five years for any veteran who still has priority entitlement.

Furthermore, eligible veterans who are still recovering from their injuries or illnesses would have up to five years to be certified as fit to work. This would give them up to 10 years to find a job in the federal public service, which would greatly assist and ensure that our veterans have a successful transition to civilian life.

However, we have not stopped there. It is our duty to assist our other honourably released veterans in finding meaningful employment as well. That is why this piece of legislation also creates new employment opportunities for still-serving members.

Through the measures we are proposing, our government would permit still-serving military personnel who have at least three years of service to compete for internally advertised positions in the public service. We would also allow them to continue to compete for these internal postings for a full five years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces.

To make certain that veterans gained access to the opportunities they need, this legislation would establish a hiring preference for veterans over other eligible applicants for the externally advertised hiring process. Simply put, if the veteran was equally qualified over other eligible applicants, the veteran would take priority and be offered the job.

Our government recognizes that the skills, training, and experience Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans gain through three years of service would be an asset to the federal public service. In turn, if given the opportunity, veterans would greatly enrich and enhance the federal public service. By serving Canada, our veterans and still-serving members have demonstrated a real commitment to Canada. These measures are a great way for us to recognize this dedication and devotion toward our great nation.

A five-year eligibility period would greatly assist in ensuring that our veterans achieve success after their time in uniform is complete. Further, it would give our brave men and women the time to upgrade their education and skills before returning to the workforce.

Canada's veterans have served our great country with courage and distinction, and they have sacrificed far more than we can ever know or imagine. We have a duty as a government to do the same for them. It is our responsibility to ensure that the programs, benefits, and services they need are there for them when and where they need them. The measures proposed in the veterans hiring act are another way we can do that. It is another way we can signal our willingness to do whatever it takes to help them in their transition to civilian life. It is another way we can thank them on behalf of a truly grateful nation.

Creating job opportunities within the federal public service for our veterans is an important step in helping them transition to civilian life.This is the right and honourable thing to do, which is why I am disappointed that the NDP and the unions do not support these measures. The president of the Union of National Defence Employees went as far as to say that injured veterans should go to the back of the line, behind civilian employees. It is shameful that unions do not want to recognize the sacrifices of our veterans.

I hope all members of the House will seize this opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of those remarkable men and women and support this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-27. I do not share his rosy outlook, however.

He says that the government is working hard to improve the lives of veterans; however, more could be done. Bill C-27 is a step in the right direction, but it is still a half measure.

Can my colleague tell me if the government has done a study to determine how many veterans will find work in the public service thanks to this bill? In this era of cutbacks, there will not be a lot of public service jobs available in the next few years. There is also the fact that public servants often need a university degree. Injured veterans often do not have a degree.

I have a second question for my colleague. Veterans who have been recognized as having a non-service-related injury can appeal to VRAB, which may recognize their injury three or four years later. Does the member agree that the five-year entitlement period should start after the board decides to recognize their injuries?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking my hon. colleague for his work on the veterans file. As part of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, he, along with other members, has been working hard to conduct a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter. I want to thank him for his contribution in that regard as well.

I am sure not just members of this House but all Canadians would agree that the skills veterans bring forward from their experience in the military, what they have accomplished, and the kind of discipline they have would be a tremendous contribution to our country. These are individuals who have sacrificed tremendously when it comes to their personal lives and families. The least we can do as a government, as Canadians, is give them the opportunity to transition and have opportunities to serve Canada in other ways, such as being part of the Canadian workforce when it comes to the federal government.

We are thankful for them and we stand behind them. I would encourage the opposition members to support this important piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the forces, I can truly appreciate why the government is making this gesture through legislation. The number of personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP at any given time is incredible. It is tens of thousands of people.

Has the government done any background work in terms of what it anticipates will be the take-up of public service jobs by individuals leaving the forces or the RCMP? Does the government have any sense of the actual number that would be applicable here?

Second, to what degree does the government feel it has an obligation to encourage private sector involvement in terms of recruiting military personnel who are retiring? A good example would be the Commissionaires and the fantastic work they do getting former military and RCMP personnel engaged in the private sector.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to predict the number of veterans who would be affected or impacted by this piece of legislation.

Of course, a veteran would have to be qualified and meet the requirements of a job posting. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is very clear in this piece of legislation. All we are proposing is that in the event that there is a civilian who qualifies at the same level as a veteran, the veteran should get priority.

In terms of consultation, of course we have consulted. We are always consulting. We are always looking for ways to make benefits and services for our veterans better. We will continue to do that. We are always consulting. That is part of the reason we have invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming into office in 2006.

This government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans, and we will continue to do that.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share a story as I ask the hon. member a question.

As many know, I am the granddaughter of three World War II veterans, including my grandmother, whose own father was in World War I. He was a Cree male, with three brothers who fought valiantly. My grandmother, when she went to World War II, was trained in a number of areas, including transcription services.

Unfortunately my grandfather, who had been in Dieppe, et cetera, survived the war but died at a very young age, and my grandmother was left to raise her children. She went into the workforce and tried to find a job so that she could support her children, and she had a very difficult time.

My grandmother's transcription abilities and the other abilities she got while serving in the Canadian Armed Services would have served this place very well. I only wish that this kind of bill was possible during that time.

I would ask my hon. colleague to describe the types of positions that might become available to our armed forces members.

I want to thank him very sincerely on behalf of me and my family, which is very much entrenched in military family situations, for putting this bill forward. It certainly will help our veterans go a long way after serving so valiantly. As we all know, some of them make the ultimate sacrifice, which cannot be repaid, but for those who are injured, this is a way to thank them.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for her question and for her contribution and hard work on behalf of Canadians.

Let me give an example of how Canadian Armed Forces members who are medically released or discharged can benefit. Veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces who are medically released due to service-related injury or illness will be given top-level priority consideration for job openings in the public service. They will be given statutory priority access in the federal public service, internal and external.

These veterans have made a tremendous contribution, and we can never repay them and their families for the kinds of sacrifices they have made. The least we can do is give them opportunities such as these. I would encourage the opposition to support this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill, and we clearly support the idea behind it. We just do not think that it goes far enough.

To begin, I am wondering about the retroactive date of April 1, 2012. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how they came up with that date.

My second question for the parliamentary secretary regarding this bill is about the fact that he said that the government, to use his words, left “no stone unturned”, meaning that it considered every aspect that directly or indirectly affects veterans, particularly those with injuries.

The government said that the new veterans charter would evolve and that it would solve various problems. When I spoke to veterans about Bill C-568, I heard one thing over and over again. Injured veterans, who used to receive a disability pension for life, now receive a lump sum payment that works out to far less money than they received before the new charter was implemented. What can he tell me about the fact that this bill does not address that situation?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sharing the NDP's perspective and for its support for this piece of legislation. It is definitely music to my ears. I am very thankful for that support.

In terms of retroactivity, the period of five years would start April 1, 2012, for anyone who had been honourably discharged. We would not only implement this moving forward but would also go back.

In terms of the new veterans charter, the minister actually asked the veterans affairs committee to launch a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter, which is currently under way. We are drafting a report. I would encourage the hon. member to wait just a few more days until that report is tabled. We will address many of those concerns.

[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.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague find it odd that among all the listed categories, there seems to be no room for people who are injured during training? Sometimes soldiers get injured on the base, during training or manoeuvres, and not during armed combat abroad.

Does the member not find it odd that injuries sustained in armed conflict seem to be all that matter and not injuries sustained in soldiers' daily work?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

That could be a problem in some cases. Veterans must train to stay in shape. However, when they are injured during training, their injuries are often not recognized as being service related. In, many cases, they should be because it is every soldier's duty to remain physically fit. They have to be able to carry out their duties properly when they are deployed.

They are obliged to be physically fit, but there is nothing in this bill to help them if they are injured during training, which has happened. This situation is recognized far too infrequently. These injuries should be recognized as service related.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will have eight minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The last time the House considered this motion, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant had eight minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He pointed out that there are flaws in the bill we are studying.

I would like to come back to one point in particular: the RCMP. The RCMP is not included in this bill. I would like him to elaborate on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his excellent question.

There are some flaws in this bill. Veterans of the RCMP were mistakenly or deliberately excluded from this bill. It would have been a good idea to include them. Creating categories of veterans goes against what they are asking for. The government should not be creating more categories of veterans because they have all served our country and deserve to be properly recognized. The ombudsman agrees with that. A veteran of the Second World War or the Korean War should not be entitled to benefits that other veterans are not entitled to.

There are a number of categories of veterans in the bill, which makes no sense. This bill is not on the right track; it is creating more categories.

In answer to my colleague's question, I would say that the RCMP is the largest police force in Canada. If a police officer is wounded in the line of duty, he might want to transition to another career, but he does not really have a choice other than to stay with the RCMP, which takes pretty good care of its members. It would be a good idea to give injured RCMP members the opportunity to transition to a new career. Many of them are highly skilled and have the qualifications they need to begin a career with the public service. There could be all kinds of great opportunities for them, but they were left out of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and thank him for it.

Since he is the NDP veterans affairs critic, I would like to ask him a question that people asked me when I visited several Canadian legions. The question is about the problem with the new veterans charter. In 2006, it was touted as a living charter. However, in practice, it has not been changed to take into account the new problems it is causing.

One of the problems that many people talked to me about is the fact that the disability pensions that were available before April 1, 2006, have been replaced by a disability award. People wounded at a young age, who would once have collected a disability pension for 50 years or more—which adds up to several million dollars—are now getting only a single award worth just tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars after their military service.

I would like my colleague to comment on this injustice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his excellent question.

He is shedding light on some of the problems with the new veterans charter. The main problem with what is now being called the old charter, which was actually the veterans pension system, was that there were no incentives for career transition. Veterans could have access to certain benefits and certain pensions without having to make any effort to go back to work.

In 2006, Canada took part in armed conflict in Afghanistan. We knew that veterans of Afghanistan would be young veterans who might not be able to continue serving in the Canadian Forces. However, they could return to civilian work since they were not totally disabled.

The new veterans charter was implemented in a rush between two minority governments. The government said the charter would be a living document. As I was saying earlier, if it is a living document, then it needs some oxygen. It has not been used very much and it has not evolved. We are looking at everything that has to do with lump sum payments, one-time payments, and we are at the report stage of our study. In fact, some veterans raised the problem of the lump sum or one-time payments. We are going to propose a number of changes to the minister in the hope that he will listen and respond favourably to our suggestions in committee. He has to listen because only one very minor improvement was made in 2011. This document needs major improvement. We hope the minister will improve it soon, once our report is tabled.

[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 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.

[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.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I know that at heart the hon. member cares about veterans, as every member of the House does, but I am troubled again. We appeared together on a political panel show, and it was clear that she does not understand the role of the Legion for veterans. She actually mocked me for suggesting the Legion plays an important role through its veterans service officers, and today she talked about the poppy fund being used for buildings and rents and things like that, when the poppy fund actually goes toward helping veterans and has done so since 1925 when, by act of Parliament, the Legion was empowered to be the eyes and ears for the government in the communities of the nation.

I would ask the hon. member if she could explain to the House where the funds from the poppy fund go to help veterans, and how we, as a government, can support the Legion in its veterans activities.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from veterans' representatives themselves at the Legion that it stretches the very good work they do in supporting veterans. That work is appreciated on all sides of the House, but it is difficult for them to implement their full programming when the bureaucracy in the Department of National Defence is causing veterans to be unable to pay their rents as a result of how long they have to wait for the benefits they are entitled to. I do not think that is what the Legion was intended to do, and certainly the members who were speaking to me do not think that is what the Legion was intended to do.

I would like to ask the member for Durham whether he thinks the Legion's purpose is to pick up the ball when there is a thicket of red tape in the Department of National Defence that undermines the ability of released soldiers to pay their household bills because they are waiting months and months for their benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really ironic to hear the member for Vancouver Quadra, who is the Liberal critic for national defence, talking to us about bureaucracy and this government failing our veterans, soldiers, and men and women in uniform. It is really ironic. I know she was not there at the time, but it is that very party that in 1994 made the cuts in the federal national defence budget that led to the closure of the Royal Military College Saint Jean in my riding.

It is really ironic to hear her criticize the government, because—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

We brought it back.

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

That is true. It was actually the Conservative government that brought it back, although not entirely, because—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

There's still work to do.

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

There is still work to do. We are still waiting for the university part. In 2015, I hope that we will be in government and be able to bring back that university part.

I would like to ask the member for Vancouver Quadra how she can reconcile those two contradictory statements she made in her speech.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just for a clarification of history for the member, in the decade following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, there was a shrinkage of funding for the military under both Prime Minister Mulroney and Prime Minister Chrétien. By 2000, those funds were being built back, and they were built back for a decade, between 2000 and 2010.

However, since 2010, there have been a series of hiring freezes, budget lapses, and budget cuts that, according to senior defence analyst Dave Perry, account for a $30 billion shortfall at this point between what the government promised in its defence strategy and what people were counting on for military equipment. Between that marker and what has actually been put forward, there is a $30 billion gap under the Conservative government.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's comments, particularly with respect to the rent problem. I have Canadians Forces Base Uplands in my riding, and I have heard from many families who are struggling under the weight of the rental problems that continue to go on and on.

However, I want to raise another important point. The government is taking a tepid but important step toward helping our veterans find meaningful employment. However, overseen by the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is regional minister for the national capital region, we have seen 30,000 to 50,000 jobs slashed—so many jobs slashed, in fact, that the outgoing Parliamentary Budget Officer was never given the information and was never able to expose for Canadians and veterans where all those cuts were taking place and what front-line services were being affected.

We are trying to reconcile that over here. On the one hand, the government says it wants to do something meaningful for our veterans, but on the other hand, surreptitiously and in the dark, it is slashing thousands of jobs. Just today another 100 to 300 jobs are being lost at Canada Post. It is an interesting question.

Finally, can the hon. member help us understand how it is possible that the government is going to take these very small steps involving very small funds when it spends $42 million a year on obscene economic action plan advertising in the middle of hockey playoffs?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say about this particular bill is that while it purports to do something positive in terms of employment, it is in fact what I would describe an empty purse, and the member was clear about why that is. With the cuts to civil service, there is not much on offer here.

However, what it really does, from my perspective, is reinforce the concern that the current government has essentially contempt and disrespect for veterans. Where was the consultation with veterans that resulted in the conclusion that what they really wanted was to move up a couple of levels in the priority list for civil service jobs? Where was that their top priority?

What I have been hearing is that their top priority is to address the failures in the new veterans charter, which the government has supposedly been studying. What they have been asking for is pensions that would give them a life above the poverty level and for veterans offices where they can go and talk to a human being.

When the veterans came here to meet us in Parliament, one of them said, “I tried the human resources line. I waited for an hour on the line, and when somebody finally answered, they said, 'Oh, no. Sorry. I can't help you with that.'”.

That is the kind of service that the current government wants our veterans to have. Clearly it has not been listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding is extremely large.

I would like to echo the comments of my colleague with regard to the lack of consistency in the Liberal Party member's questions.

Canadians remember the time of the Chrétien government as very dark days because of the budget cuts the Liberals made to the Canadian Forces. In particular, the funeral and burial program was drastically reduced.

Does my colleague think that the government is justified in making cuts to funeral assistance for veterans? If so, how can she justify the comments she made today given the draconian cuts that were made by the Chrétien government?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question.

I would like to point out to him that Jean Chrétien's government is not in power right now. We have had a Conservative government for over eight years now.

Is the Conservative government not at all responsible for the situation of veterans and soldiers today? Why do the NDP not recognize the challenges and issues caused by this government's faults and failures?

This government spent four of its eight years in office making budget cuts in a secret, non-transparent way. That is why there is so much chaos in the armed forces and in veterans offices.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I am delighted to share my time today with the member for Durham.

I am pleased to rise today in support of our government's efforts to help Canada's veterans find meaningful employment after their service is complete. I join in support of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act.

We have been working hard to provide Canada's veterans and their families with the support they need. Our proposed measures to improve access to federal service jobs for veterans are a perfect example of this. They would provide Canada's deserving veterans significantly increased access to jobs in the federal public service, rewarding and meaningful jobs that would allow them to continue to lead and serve our great country.

The bill before us builds on a previous commitment made by our government, as well as new ones outlined in economic action plan 2014, to help move veterans to the front of the line for federal public service jobs.

First and foremost, eligible veterans whose military service was cut short by a career-ending injury or illness suffered in the line of duty would be given statutory priority consideration for job openings in the public service. This change would give these veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs in the federal public service, a well-deserved advantage that would recognize their sacrifices for Canada. This single measure clearly demonstrates that our government understands that while men and women with disabilities may no longer be able to continue serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, they are still very capable of making great contributions in the service of our country. That is the same principle behind our proposal to increase the existing priority entitlement for all medically released veterans from two to five years.

However, we propose to take this even further. The initiative we have proposed today would also allow a great number of veterans and still-serving military personnel who have at least three years of service to participate in the hiring process for advertised positions in the federal public service. This would give our honourably released veterans and still-serving military personnel access to the public service employment opportunities they need to thrive following their service. Under this legislation, eligibility for these opportunities would continue for a full five years after release, giving our veterans the opportunity to upgrade any training or education they deem necessary.

As much as these changes would provide Canada's veterans with access to public service jobs, it is important that a measure be put in place to ensure that they are seriously considered for the opportunities for which they apply. That is why this bill would give our personnel and veterans priority for externally advertised jobs if they have three years of military service.

I am proud to support all of these amendments. They are truly the right thing to do. These new measures, coupled with our significant investments and initiatives, would provide our veterans with much of the support they need. I am proud that our government has listened to the needs of our military personnel who have served with such valour and courage. Let me assure the House that we are not only listening, we are taking concrete, substantive action to ensure that these brave men and women are provided the opportunities they so richly deserve.

Our government has already invested almost $4.7 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services we provide to veterans and their families. We have also established the veterans bill of rights, something our veterans have been asking for since the 1960s.

To ensure the fair treatment of veterans, their representatives, and their families, we created the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. Since 2007, we have also doubled VAC's national network of operational stress injury clinics from five to ten, which has addressed the growing number of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions.

Further, since forming government, we have implemented many important mental health programs and initiatives. They include the following: developing access to a national network of more than 4,800 community mental health professionals so veterans can get the help they need wherever they live; establishing the VAC assistance service, a 24-hour toll-free line that provides veterans and their families with short-term professional counselling and referral services, including support for mental and emotionally health concerns; and investing in a peer support program for injured and ill veterans and still-serving members, and expanding it to the support of their families.

In 2008 we enhanced the critically acclaimed veterans independence program so that thousands of veterans, widows, and caregivers could also receive the housekeeping and grounds maintenance services they needed to remain in their own homes.

In 2009 we restored and expanded benefits for approximately 3,600 allied veterans and 1,000 families who have made Canada their home. That same year, we worked with the Department of National Defence to open our first integrated personnel support centres on Canadian Armed Forces bases and wings. Today there are 24 such centres across the country as well as seven satellite offices so that more than 100 VAC employees are now working alongside their counterparts at National Defence to provide coordinated services for releasing military men and women.

In 2010 we announced that we were significantly enhancing the new veterans charter. Changes we implemented in October 2011 better ensure that our most seriously injured veterans and their families are receiving the financial support they require.

To serve veterans and their families better, faster, and in modern and convenient ways, we launched the cutting red tape for veterans initiative. Through this initiative, we have first, simplified our policies and programs for veterans; second, streamlined business processes at veterans affairs; and third, introduced new technologies.

To better ensure that Canada's veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel make a successful transition to civilian life, we developed our veterans transition action plan, and we are supporting initiatives from the new Veteran Transition Advisory Council that are helping to raise awareness of the skill sets veterans have to offer the private sector.

Our government continues to work ambitiously to ensure that Canada's men and women in uniform transition out of military life with the utmost success. That is why we have been a proud supporter and financial partner in the new helmets to hard hats Canada program, a program that is providing veterans with opportunities for employment and apprenticeship in the construction industry. That is also why we are working with corporate Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces in partnership with employers across the country to assist veterans in transitioning to civilian careers.

Our government will continue to ensure that our veterans succeed after their service. That is why we have brought forward these measures that build on all the investments and initiatives our government has made in support of our veterans.

They establish our unprecedented level of commitment to hiring veterans in the federal public service and deliver meaningful new opportunities for Canada's veterans and military personnel.

This legislation is a giant leap forward, not just for these remarkable men and women but for our country. Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans are admired for their leadership and teamwork and for having executed their duties faithfully and effectively to serve our nation at home and abroad. They have taken up the cause to defend our rights and freedoms and preserve our way of life. They have the skills, training, and experience that make them strong candidates for federal public service jobs.

Our government is committed to ensuring that when veterans leave military service, they have the support they need to transition with the utmost success. That is why I urge all members in this House to give their full support to the changes I have outlined here today.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague some questions about the speech he just gave, I would like to point out that the NDP is going to support Bill C-27, even though we think that it does not go far enough, unfortunately.

I have a question regarding a rather specific detail. I do not know whether my colleague opposite will be able to answer it. I saw in the bill that surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in the Second World War and the Korean War will be given priority access to public service jobs but that the same is not true for surviving spouses of former members who served at least three years. They are not given that priority access.

I would like to know why this restriction was included in the bill. I must say that, on this side of the House, the NDP disagrees with this provision. We think that the surviving spouses of veterans who gave their lives for their country deserve this preferential treatment regardless of where their spouses served.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the bill has been geared not only to veterans but to their families to ensure that our families are cared for. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a statement the Minister of Veterans Affairs made not long ago. He said:

The Public Service Alliance of Canada has zero credibility on Veterans’ issues. This is the group that opposes giving priority hiring for federal government jobs to injured Veterans. Veterans stood up for Canada through thick and thin, while PSAC stands for Veterans only when it suits their political goals.

We as the government, in presenting the bill, want to provide an environment where our veterans will be cared for, where their families will have the ability to meet their needs, pay their bills, and live a fruitful and fulfilling life after their years of service. I believe the bill would do just that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I actually saw what our government was doing for veterans and what we continue to do for veterans. I have family who are veterans and served in Afghanistan. I am proud of that fact. If I had better eyes, I likely would have been a veteran myself, as I wished. I would be a former member of the air force.

What I find unfortunate about some of the discussions around veterans issues is that even though we work together at committee for veterans and work behind the scenes, what is problematic is that they becomes political pawns. Veterans become the pawns of the political opposition. It is unfortunate, because we should all be working towards veterans' needs and working toward a good end for veterans.

What does the member think of veterans being used as political pawns?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the House on another issue, I was here last Friday, May 9, for the National Day of Honour. As a Canadian, I could not have been more proud to witness the veterans who have served in Afghanistan, their families, and the families of those who were unfortunately lost in that conflict being recognized, honoured, and respected. The recognition on the National Day of Honour was by all Canadians. In Ottawa we witnessed the tens of thousands of people who came to honour our veterans, which spoke poignantly to the fact that we as Canadians do honour our veterans. Obviously we want to recognize their contribution to keeping our country free and safe. They have done that for us.

When this issue enters the House, it should be maintained at a high level of respect and honour. I would hope that all members in the House, regardless of party, are able to maintain that balance in ensuring that whatever we discuss relative to the service and the commitment of our veterans, we maintain that high level of standards that recognizes and honours their commitment to our great country.

Bill C-27—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I recognize the hon. opposition House leader.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware that, sadly, this is the 67th time that closure and time allocation have been used during this Parliament, during this government. We all remember that the Conservatives always said they would not be like the corrupt Liberals. It seems they are just as corrupt as their predecessors. There is no doubt that they too want to suppress debate.

This bill has been debated for two hours. It is a new version of a bill that was botched, Bill C-11. That bill was introduced last year and had a number of problems. Now they have introduced another bill. They do not want any debate because they know that we will raise concerns about this bill, just as we did with Bill C-11. Even if we support Bill C-27, we still have to debate it in the House. That is the problem.

The other problem is the fact that even under time allocation, government members are not showing up for their speaking shifts. Twenty-six times last week, the speaking shifts were basically jumped. They did not show up. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals showed up for evening debate, even under time allocation. We are talking about strict limits on the amount of time, but they missed 26 shifts.

When factory workers miss their shifts, they get their pay docked. Nurses and doctors show up for their shifts. Single mothers, single parents, show up for their shifts. Why do Conservatives not start showing up for their speaking shifts? Why do they not do the work Canadians are paying them to do, and why do they not allow some debate in this House of Commons?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are mixing two issues here. We are talking about a bill that is absolutely critical to helping our veterans and their families progress into meaningful quality-of-life endeavours in the public service. They are those who were injured in the line of duty, if you will.

I do not know what the member is speaking about, because I, for one, was here till midnight and change last week, and I am sure that my colleagues have been equally diligent.

However, there is more to this than just the objections raised by the hon. member. I believe that he is probably alluding to the fact that John MacLennan, president of the Union of National Defence Employees, stated, “It is not right”, meaning this particular bill, “topping up opportunities for veterans at the expense of public servants. It is disrespectful to public servants”. He went on to say that giving priority status to injured veterans should not be done at the expense of civilian unionized employees.

That speaks volumes about what the member opposite is alluding to.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us right now is not about the content of any given piece of legislation; it is about the way in which we deal with legislation inside the House of Commons.

Whether it is New Democratic provincial governments or Liberal governments in the past, we have always used some form of closure at times to get legislation through.

What makes this government unique is that ever since it has achieved its majority, it has been using closure through time allocation as part of a normal process, to the degree that when legislation is brought in, the government House leader walks in and introduces closure. It is as if it is something that is completely acceptable and is part of the new norm.

It is important that we recognize that it is only this majority Conservative government that has abusively used closure in order to advance its legislative agenda, and that is the reality.

My question is not for the minister responsible for the bill that it is applying to right now, but more to the government House leader. Can the government House leader explain to this House why it is that the Conservatives persist in using closure as a part of the normal process of passing their legislation? It is highly undemocratic, and the manner in which this motion is being dealt with today in the House of Commons is unethical.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that the House leader has deputized me to proceed with answering these questions.

It is important that we move this debate from the House of Commons to committee after three days of debate on this important subject. I believe that I am correct in saying that all parties have put their positions forward. The Liberals are keen to study this at committee, while the New Democrats want nothing more than to stall and delay this legislation because their big public service union bosses have basically told them, or should I say, ordered them, to do so.

Our job as legislators is to propose new ideas that will move the yardsticks forward in an expedient way, keeping in mind that we are responsible for the well-being, care, and support of our veterans and their families. It is time to get on with this particular item.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some things are obvious here in the House of Commons. After three years, one thing that is pretty obvious to, I think, all Quebeckers and Canadians, is that the Conservatives are repeat offenders when it comes to shutting down debate. This is yet another example of that: the 66th in just over three years.

[An hon. member]

Sixty-seven.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my mistake, it is the 67th gag order. Sixty-seven, who will up the ante? Next week, it could be 68.

[An hon. member]

The Conservatives.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have managed to beat the Liberals' record, if you can believe it. We never thought they would sink even lower than the Liberals. They are making no sense at all. On top of it all, they are making MPs work until midnight. If we have to do it, we will, no problem, but at the same time as they are extending sitting hours, they are bringing in gag orders to limit time for debate. I am having a hard time seeing how they can justify that to the people.

As our House Leader of the Official Opposition says, they extend the hours of debate and then they do not even show up. Last week they missed 26 shifts. They should have been here debating since they were the ones who asked that the House work longer hours.

How do they explain that they are asking members to do the work, but they barely show up?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are going around in circles. I sincerely believe that items such as this, and this particular bill, have had ample and sufficient time for discussion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Two hours.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, whether it is two hours or two hours and a half, to sustain and support our veterans, especially those who are injured in the line of duty and service to country, and their families, is the right thing to do and for all the right reasons. I suggest very strongly to get on with this and let the committee hear from experts about how moving qualified service-injured veterans to the front of the line for public service jobs is the right thing to do. If they have any objections to that, I would certainly like to hear them.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister speak. Our House leader said earlier that the bill had another form in another Parliament. I need to remind the House that it is the government that controls the legislative agenda. If this was such a priority for the government, it already had a previous bill. It has now been in power, unfortunately, for three years, and it has had three years to bring the bill forward.

If the Conservatives are that concerned with veterans and their families, my question for the minister is this. Why did he wait until recently to bring the bill forward and then shut down debate in Parliament? That does not make any sense. If they are that incompetent and this was a priority, why could they not bring it forward in a more timely manner, and why are they shutting down debate now?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2014 has paved the way for more veterans to move to the front of the line for federal public service jobs. However, the unions and the NDP want veterans to move to the back of the line. Of course, all of these complaints about the expediency with which we need to move this item forward are really framed in the context of stalling because they truly do not support our veterans. Eight budgets in a row have shown that they are voting against benefits, services, and support for our veterans. That speaks for itself.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the hon. minister for his hard work on the veterans file and everything he does on a day-to-day basis to help Canada's veterans, and for his commitment and dedication. I have had the opportunity to work with him and I have witnessed this first-hand.

I also want to thank the minister for a number of initiatives he has brought forward since he has taken over the file, including initiatives in economic action plan 2014 and bringing this piece of legislation forward.

I wonder if the minister could highlight some of the positive impacts that this piece of legislation might have on Canada's veterans in transition to civilian life. Also, I wonder if he could tell us whether the unions support this legislation.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his support on the veterans file.

It is plain that our efforts in this area are motivated by wanting to do the right thing for the right reasons on behalf of our veterans, especially those who have sustained an injury or a disability in service to our country.

Veterans Affairs has done a great deal of work over the last year to support the hiring of veterans in the private sector. In addition, corporate Canada has participated and become involved. It is very supportive of our efforts in the government to transition veterans coming out of the military, who are in need of a job, into a profession in the private sector. The government needs to move in sync with that, which is what this bill is all about.

Medically released veterans currently have fewer opportunities to access federal public service jobs. I sincerely believe that any opportunities to access federal public service jobs, and any opportunities that come up for employment, are often filled by those people in a higher priority category, before those listed in the regulatory priority would get consideration.

All we are trying to do is to move things along so that we can be more efficient, more effective, and more helpful in lending a hand to those in greater need, our veterans who are injured in the line of duty.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 67th time allocation motion. It seems that the government is always under the gun. I am not sure whether the Conservatives know how to plan, but being under the gun all the time—this is important and that is important—means not knowing how to organize one's work.

Given that we are in a British-style Parliament and that the debates are used above all to flesh out the bills and enhance the work that has already been done, I wonder why the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is always in such a rush. Can the minister answer my question? Why are we always in such a hurry? Why does the government introduce bills without leaving us enough time to pass them?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are working hard over here. We are making great progress. We are delivering for Canadians, on many different fronts.

I hear an hon. member across the way laughing. He can laugh all he wants, but the joke is on him. He is over there and we are over here.

In any event, the NDP is taking its cue from the big union bosses. Unions and some Canadians may express concerns, but I am confident, through the dialogue we have had with veterans themselves and communities widely, that this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for those in need, people transitioning out of the military who have been injured.

I do not know what the opposition's problem is with respect to moving this bill along. As I stated, it is the right thing to do for our veterans and their families, and we should move on with it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as the last speaker indicated, this is the 67th closure motion limiting debate, which has become a common practice for the Conservative government.

One of the reasons we are so opposed to closure is because of the very last comment that the minister made. He said that we are over here and they are over there. We all take shots in the House, but the fact is that we all represent Canadians. We all have a point of view.

I would suggest to the minister that there are some good things in this bill. However, it would be better to debate the bill in its full context without the limited timeframes. That way, the minister can get out the good points he wants to raise, and opposition members, who want to, can raise a point that maybe needs to be added to the bill or support the minister in some of these things.

We all represent veterans and Canadians in the House. Regardless of whether we are in government or the opposition, this is the Parliament of Canada. This is a game that is undermining this place of debate by shutting down and limiting debate that would give us the best bill possible. That is what is wrong with this debate at the moment. I am not talking about the bill; I am talking about the tactic of the government to limit debate in the House of Commons and ram things through like a bulldozer, as it always does.

It is not the right way to do things in a democracy.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to move the bill along so it can go to committee. There is no reason in the world why this cannot proceed. It will be debated further. There will be more discussion and more opportunities for the parties opposite to engage. That is the process.

As I stated earlier, it is time to move on with some of the more critical aspects of what we need to do to help our veterans, to help their families, to help those in greater need, and particularly those who have been injured in the line of duty. I know the unions do not like it, but this is the right thing to do. We encourage the members opposite to move it along.

If I may, my earlier comment about them over there and we being over here was only because the member opposite was mocking my comments.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the minister feels in his government when we are over here and they are over there. That is what Parliament and democracy are all about. That same minister came from a service that represents justice. He was a police officer in Toronto. He represented justice and the laws of the land.

In a democracy, the laws are made in a parliament that leaves room for debate. I find it insulting when he says “the union boss” every time he stands up.

We know that this government likes chambers of commerce. The Minister of Finance and the other ministers go around the country and meet with chamber of commerce representatives. Does the government not have the right to meet with our country's organizations? Is the government anti-union?

Every time the hon. member stands up he seems to be attacking the unions. Is he really attacking the representatives of workers who are recognized under Canadian law?

Workers have the right to be unionized. Every time he rises, he insults Canadian workers. I have trouble accepting that. In fact, I would like him to apologize because it is not right.

In our country, workers have the right to have representatives, just as employers have the right to have chambers of commerce. The government does not attack chambers of commerce. What is this all about? Is he unable to rise and be respectful of all Canadians and their representatives? I would like to hear what he has to say about that because it is an insult when it comes from the House of Commons.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if quoting someone verbatim should be an insult. I am in fact transmitting the very words spoken by John MacLennan, president of the Union of National Defence Employees, who said, “It's not right. It's disrespectful to public servants, topping up opportunities for veterans at the expense of public servants...”. Priority status to injured veterans should not be done at the expense of civilian unionized employees.

There is nothing offensive about that, other than the theme that there is a particular protectionist regard for a certain level of employees, and disregard for veterans and their families, who are those who have sacrificed and served this country and who, in the line of duty, are injured as a result.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to an incident that occurred last Thursday. It was rather ironic that, on that evening, I had the pleasure of giving a speech at 11:57 p.m. Unfortunately, I was unable to finish it, because it was supposed to be a 10-minute speech. However, it was a courtesy on the part of the Conservative government. I thank the government for allowing me to speak at such a late hour.

That same day, something very instructive occurred. In any event, what I saw on television about this incident was fairly instructive with respect to the Minister of Veterans Affairs' attitude towards Jenifer Migneault. One could see the despair on this woman's face in the face of the minister's inability or unwillingness to solve her difficult problem or to even respond to her, speak to her, smile or acknowledge her.

This is my question for the minister: does he not think that he is rubbing salt in the wound with this time allocation motion on a bill that deals with resources we want to give Canada's veterans?

Not even a week has passed and he is at it again. My question is this: was it really necessary to add insult to injury when dealing with our veterans?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bogus conspiracy theory if I ever heard one. However, I am not about to politicize an individual veteran's case on the floor of the House, as I indicated earlier, and neither should the member or his party. It is totally inappropriate. I, on behalf of our government, care deeply about the well-being of Canadian veterans and their family members. We always have and we always will, and that is why the bill is going forward. As well, we are doing a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter.

I also would like to suggest that if members are so concerned about the welfare and well-being of veterans and their families, it really would be a novel experience for once to have them vote for those kinds of things that we propose year after year in our budget to help veterans and their families, which members opposite do not support.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has moved another time allocation motion. This is the 67th time. I do not think it is out of concern that the government has imposed 67 time allocation motions in two or three years. I would like to talk about this some more, rather than just about the bill.

Veterans want guidance that will help them during their reintegration, while they are looking for a place to work and trying to become part of society again. Guidance is what they want. Opening the door to the public service is fine, but if the necessary guidance is not there, absolutely nothing is going to be accomplished. There is nothing in the bill about that, so I will stop there.

Sixty-seven time allocation motions. That goes to show that the government is incapable of working with Canadians. When a government is elected with 39% of the vote, that means that 61% of Canadians voted against it. They want to be able to talk to the government. Every time Canadians talk to their government, or try to, the Conservatives take off in the other direction. It is completely ridiculous. It is unacceptable that the government has imposed sixty-seven time allocation motions.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. member opposite, he obviously does not know the full suite of support and assistance that is already in place for veterans and their families. One of the items that he maybe needs to be informed about is that in the new veterans charter, a veteran who are injured in the line of duty can avail himself or herself of up to $75,000 for retraining and other assistance that he or she may require in order to transition to a good-paying, rewarding job in the private corporate sector.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he cares about veterans. I would like him to take the opportunity now in the House to rise and apologize to Jenifer Migneault and to say that he will agree to meet with her, as the NDP asked him to do during question period today. Could he do that, apologize to Mme Migneault and her family and also agree to meet with her?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I addressed this issue in question period. I have addressed it in this session of debate. I am focused on assisting our veterans and have been doing that, and will be continuing to do that. I care deeply about our veterans, but I certainly will not debate their issues on the floor of the House of Commons, and the member opposite knows that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the minister is staying here with us. That is not usually the case. He usually turns on his heels when people talk to him.

I am pleased to be able to ask him how it is possible that we are dedicating so little time to such an important bill. What is even more ridiculous is that we are spending 30 minutes debating procedure instead of talking about the bill. That is not my choice, that is the choice of the government in power. Time allocation motion after time allocation motion, the government forces us to debate procedure, which is a clear sign of the government's disregard for democracy. Could we not spend the precious minutes we have left until the end of the session debating bills, not procedure?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite humourous that the member opposite would be accusing me of running from anything. I spent 40 years on the front lines in policing and have dealt with sufficient and enough people. While we are at it, it would be helpful if the NDP were to fess up to the inappropriate squandering of hard-earned taxpayer money and speak to that issue as well.

Having said all of that, as we have been discussing, the debate has been going on for three days on this important subject. All parties have already put their position forward. I do not know what more there is that the members opposite are concerned about. I understand their concern about issues that are not particular to this bill. I would encourage them, for once, to put their political biases aside and help our veterans and their families get an uplifting help from this government, from all of us in Parliament, so they can get on with the aspects of their life that they are entitled to receive from us as politicians.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here to point out that he was not in Quebec City last Wednesday.

Something tremendous happened in Quebec City last Wednesday: the opening at the Citadelle of the second-largest museum, the museum concerned with Canadian heritage and francophone military heritage. That jewel is also the residence of the Governor General.

The minister was not at that very important event, which was attended by hundreds of guests. Instead he sent a message by fax. He did not even send a federal government representative to such an important event organized to acknowledge our veterans. I was the only federal government representative there. I will always be there for our veterans.

When they need our help, we must make calls, go and see them and listen to them. The first thing they ask of us is that we listen to them. Then we see whether we can help them.

I invite the minister to take a step in that direction.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for attending. We are grateful for that. She has my absolute word that I will be going. I made that commitment already. I apologize for not being able to be there. I know it was a great event. I want to congratulate everyone who participated in it and supported that very fine museum. I feel badly about missing it, but I am on the ticket to be there, and I look forward to it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is one the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #159

Veterans Hiring Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Public Safety.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I support this bill at second reading. This bill, just as a bit of historical reference, is a reworking of Bill C-11, which previously died on the order paper. I certainly welcomed this new bill, thinking that it would go a bit further than Bill C-11. Unfortunately, while I am supporting it at second reading, there are some issues with this bill. It still does not go far enough in addressing the shortcomings of the previous bill, Bill C-11.

Bill C-11, the previous bill, and this bill, Bill C-27, are based on many criticisms levelled by veterans groups and the Veterans Ombudsman regarding the government's career-transition services. Unfortunately, this bill overlooks an entire group of veterans who have trouble transitioning to a new career. The vast majority of veterans do not have the necessary degrees to obtain a position in the public service, and of course, many are simply not interested in a career in the public service.

The bill would amend a number of sections and would offer priority status to members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons, placing them in the highest priority category ahead of both surplus employees and persons on leave. It also would increase the length of the priority entitlement period from two years to five years. It is important to note, and many people may not realize it, that Veterans Affairs also includes RCMP veterans. RCMP veterans would not be eligible for this new priority.

The bill would give Second World War and Korean War veterans priority over other Canadian citizens. By expanding the definition of “veteran” to include military personnel having served at least three years, we would see a resurgence in the appointment of veterans to public service positions, and this priority would last for a period of five years. However, surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Forces who served for three years would not get priority. This is in contrast to widows of World War II and Korean War veterans. We do not agree with these provisions as we believe that surviving spouses of all veterans who sacrificed their lives for our country should be given this preferential treatment. In designating several categories of veterans, it appears in this bill that we have abandoned the idea that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran, which is, if I can say, a cherished principle of the NDP.

One aspect that is overlooked regarding the length of the priority entitlement period is that it would begin on the day a member left the Canadian Forces. This means that if members wished to contest the reason for their discharge or the length of time between their service and injury, their priority period would be decreasing by the day. As members may be aware, these procedures can take years to resolve. Members who pursued these courses of action would be at a disadvantage compared to other members of the Canadian Forces who did not have to appear before an administrative tribunal.

We believe that the bill does not go far enough and that it focuses on only a very small number of veterans in transition who have the training and experience necessary to pursue a job in the public service.

The government must implement the career transition recommendations made by the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General. The government is balancing its budget clearly on the backs of our veterans and is proposing half measures that would not have a significant impact on the standard of living of veterans as a whole.

Rather than implementing the recommendations of the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General, or even waiting for the revision of the new veterans charter, which will be tabled tomorrow in this House, so the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs could make recommendations about transition as a whole, the Conservatives chose to introduce a bill that applies only to a very small part of the transition program.

The priority entitlement period would end five years after a member of the Canadian Forces had been medically released. The eligibility period, as I said before, would increase from two years to five years.

We believe that an increased length of time is justified for veterans who wish to pursue university studies. For example, a regular veteran, a regular Canadian, would take about four years to get a university degree. However, in the public service, advanced degrees past the first degree are often key to getting a good job in the public service. Even with that increase, it might be too late for them to take advantage of this hiring priority.

Veterans Affairs Canada, together with the Department of National Defence, should explore other collaborative opportunities with organizations. Some of these were outlined in the report of the Veterans Ombudsman that came out in June last year. We should explore opportunities with organizations such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, and so forth.

It should be the job of the government, and part of this bill, to cultivate partnerships with organizations that specialize in job placement, mentorship, and internship opportunities, which, again, was indicated in the report of the Veterans Ombudsman. It should be developing affiliations with academic institutions and the provinces to translate military skills, experience, and training into civilian academic equivalencies recognized by provincial ministries of education. That was also from the Veterans Ombudsman.

It is pretty clear from the statistics that most departments do not hire veterans. A culture shift is required within government departments themselves. Of the few hundred each year who take advantage of priority hiring, 50% to 80%, depending on the year, will find positions in the Department of National Defence, not other departments. There should be a general effort made to ensure that this happens.

A universal deployment principle could be adjusted for Canadian Forces members who have been injured in the line of duty. The latest figures I have are from 2011-12. In that period, of the 942 medically released former Canadian Forces members, only 10% had a completed or partially completed post-secondary education. Nearly half of them had high school levels or less in education.

In the future, seven out of 10 jobs will require specialized post-secondary education. Therefore, the onus should be on the federal government to ensure that those opportunities are there for our veterans.

Equally interesting is that only 16% of the companies that were polled would make a special effort to recruit veterans. Clearly, knowledge and understanding of veterans and their experiences have not translated into the private sector.

Only 13% of the companies polled said that their human resources departments knew how to read the resumés of military applicants. That is understandable, because their training is a little bit different. I remember a few years ago, before the program ended when MPs had a chance to spend some time in the military, I was with the navy. I asked a question of the soon-to-retire captain of a ship. We were passing a cruise ship, and I said that there could be a cruise ship opportunity for him as a captain. He told me, quite politely, that his training really did not translate into being a cruise ship captain. People clearly do have to know how to read the resumés.

I would like to say one more thing about veterans, and Thunder Bay in particular, where the office recently closed. In 2012, 3,127 veterans were served in the Thunder Bay office, which is now closed. That office cost about $686,000 a year to keep open. All the veterans offices that were closed cost about $4 million. Strangely enough, that is the same amount of money, $4 million, the government is now spending on veterans advertising. There could have been some better use of that money.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a government freeze on hiring right now. It has already cut about 20,000 jobs, with an expectation of cutting another 30,000 jobs.

My question is simple. I see this more as window dressing and as a very hollow bill. There may be a few people who might get jobs, if that. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that observation, which is shared by many people.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. As I said in my short speech, I believe that the bill does not go far enough. It focuses on a very small number of veterans in transition. He is absolutely right that even that small number of veterans may not have the opportunity to take advantage of priority hiring. It really is unfortunate. If the government had decided to implement some of the career transition recommendations made by the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General, perhaps we would be in a better position to help veterans.

I would be remiss if I did not mention again that, unfortunately, the government is balancing its budget on the backs of veterans, in spite of the good work of all parties on the new veterans charter, which will be tabled tomorrow.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his great speech. I was surprised by the percentage he gave, which is that 10% of veterans, out of 942, which is roughly 94 veterans, are going through this program. I was also surprised to learn that the RCMP is not included in this bill.

I would like my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River to try to explain to us why so many veterans are being ignored by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians do not realize that the RCMP is included under Veterans Affairs, and I think the government may think that RCMP veterans, in fact the large majority of RCMP veterans, have actually worked their entire lives and have retired at an opportune time from the RCMP. It does not address issues concerning RCMP veterans who are perhaps injured in the line of duty.

We do not have to talk about physical injuries. Just like members of the Canadian Forces, members of the RCMP are also subject, perhaps even more so, to certain injuries, such as PTSD, for example, and others that would put them on a new career track if they were included in this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week a wonderful group of people from the private sector came to the Hill. It was an apolitical event where the private sector was being encouraged to look at individuals who have served in the forces. The argument is that not only do we owe a great deal of gratitude and thanks to members who have served in the forces but that they also have certain skill sets that could be utilized within different sectors of society, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the benefits of the skill sets members of the forces acquire by serving.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, many in the private sector, as evidenced by the statistics I gave earlier, do not even know how to read the resumés of people who have been in the Canadian Forces. It is understandable that a human resources director may not see how valuable experience as an infantryman is, for example, when it may not translate exactly into a particular business. I believe that as part of this bill, the government should be reaching out to private sector organizations, not just to public sector organizations, to ensure that veterans have the best opportunities possible.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, concerns a top priority: our veterans. No one will say otherwise.

It is not enough to say that we are behind them. We must take action. After these people have put their lives and health at risk, it would be hypocritical not to provide them with all the assistance and support they need to return to civilian life.

This bill is an amended version of Bill C-11, introduced in the fall of 2013, which the government allowed to die on the order paper after seven days of debate. Even though we feel this bill does not go far enough and the main flaws in Bill C-11 have not been corrected, we nevertheless support Bill C-27 at second reading.

Enough time has been wasted, and much work remains to be done in committee. We must work to ensure that this bill truly helps veterans return to civilian life.

In its present form, this bill will not help veterans who are finding it hard to make the career transition from the armed forces to civilian life. The vast majority of them do not have a university degree, which is necessary to secure a position in the public service, whereas others simply are not interested in that kind of career. I understand why because soon there will be no more public servants.

Under subsection 39(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, preference is given to veterans of World War II and the Korean War. However, surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Forces who served less than three years will not have access to this preference, unlike the surviving spouses of World War II veterans.

We disagree with this proposal because we believe all veterans deserve the same treatment. By creating so many classes, the Conservatives are abandoning the principle of a single class of veterans, those who risked their lives for Canada.

In view of the staff cuts in the public service, veterans do not have access to as many positions as they did previously. Employees who have been victims of the cuts take precedence.

There also appears to be a flaw in the bill regarding the period during which veterans have hiring priority over other candidates. We feel that the period during which employment priority applies is quite short.

Veterans wishing to earn a university degree will need about four or five years, in certain cases where the position requires a master’s degree. This five-year period begins when the member is released. Consequently, if a member challenges the reason for his or her release or whether an injury is service-related, the priority period will continue to run during the proceedings, which may extend over several years. The member would therefore be put at a disadvantage relative to another member who would not have to challenge the matter before an administrative tribunal.

Private sector co-operation must be improved because people in the private sector are unaware of veterans’ skills. Human resource departments do not know how to interpret the curricula vitae of veterans who apply for jobs.

The government has announced that it will reimburse veterans up to $75,800 for training and transition costs. That amount will be spread over five years, and the budget has a ceiling of $2 million. If the maximum amount is granted to every veteran, only 27 will be able to receive it, roughly five a year. When we think of the tens of thousands of veterans returning from Afghanistan, we wonder how many veterans will be able to take advantage of this program.

In a recent advertisement, which focuses more on the government’s image than the service advertised, the Conservatives show a veteran standing in front of his closet. He hesitates between his uniform and a suit, as though he is merely making a clothing choice. However, the reality is completely different.

I cannot help but think of another veteran I saw. At the Remembrance Day ceremony on November 11, 2013, a man in his fifties leaned on his cane so that he could lay a floral wreath in front of the cenotaph. Having been wounded in training, he was forced to retire from the armed forces two years before he was eligible for a full pension. Today he must live on a pension that has been reduced by 35%, which puts him below the poverty line. He told me that he had enlisted in the armed forces to fight for his country and that now he had to fight against his country.

To sum up, there are two major classes of veterans: those the government presents to us in its advertisements and those who are fighting through an administrative maze against a bureaucracy that is preventing them from living their lives.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague speak about Bill C-27, I was thinking it was quite incredible to force veterans to return to the labour market when they might not all be ready to do so. That really is a key point.

The government is trying to confuse people with Bill C-27. Once again, it has set aside the recommendations of the veterans ombudsman. They have been set aside several years in a row. People told me that this made no sense and that the government should see that, year after year, a report was issued and included the same recommendations every time, calling for more services and more care for veterans. The government is setting it aside today and distracting us with Bill C-27, which is not at all up to expectations.

I really would like to hear from my colleague on this. Can he tell us what we expect from this Conservative government and what we would like it to do?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we ask people to go and defend our convictions and our principles. They are brave, motivated people who put their lives and health at risk. The least we can do when they come home is to ensure that they have no more worries and provide them with a decent quality of life and standard of living.

I base my remarks on the experience of my uncle, who fought in World War II. He was wounded in a landmine explosion in which his brother was killed right before his eyes. He went through something absolutely horrible. When he came home, despite the therapy he received, he was no longer able to live in society because he was shattered. He went to work in a logging camp for 20 years until he could return to some kind of balance.

Today I believe we should do more for our veterans and ensure that they do not have to suffer misery after the trauma they have gone through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the two veteran classes he mentioned: those commonly called “older” veterans and “new” veterans, who have mainly served in more peace-oriented missions in Bosnia, on the Golan Heights and subsequently in Afghanistan. That was no peace mission, but the 60,000 veterans who took part in it fall into this class of so-called modern veterans.

I would like my colleague to describe for us his opinion and feelings about the injustice that is caused by the creation of two classes of veterans.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three of my uncles landed at Dunkirk and one of them died. To me, there is no difference between a Second World War veteran or a Korean War veteran and our young people who were recently in Afghanistan.

If there is a difference, it is that the latest generation of veterans experienced events that were even more traumatic and highly publicized in a context that was less clear-cut than in the days when my uncles went off to fight fascism. Now the causes are harder to understand. However, there should be no difference in the way veterans are treated once they come back to the country having carried out their duty.

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

Mr. Speaker, before starting, I would like to inform you that I will split my time with the member for Ottawa—Orléans.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-27. I served for 23 years in the Canadian Forces, in the reserves, the regular force, and the cadet corps. I participated in the missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Afghanistan, in 2007, when we were starting to realize that we were not in a peacekeeping mission but at war.

I am pleased to speak to yet another important way that our government is creating new opportunities for Canada's veterans and still-serving members who want to join the federal public service. The veterans hiring act builds upon our efforts to create priority hiring for those men and women who are medically releasing from the military because of a service-related injury.

This new bill reflects our government's profound gratitude for the service and sacrifices of Canada's men and women in uniform, past and present. Just as importantly, it recognizes that Canada's veterans and servicemen and women are highly skilled and admired individuals who are known for their courage and dedication. It recognizes our government's appreciation for their leadership, their professionalism, and their teamwork.

Most of all, it recognizes that they are renowned for getting the job done, no matter what the mission is. Our government is proud of them. We are proud of their extraordinary contributions to our great country, and we want Canada to continue to benefit from their experience and expertise. They have a lot to offer, even when they are retiring at the compulsory age of 60.

Increasing access to career opportunities for veterans in the public service does all of this. It also builds on our many other important investments and initiatives to support veterans in their transition to civilian life, an ongoing eight-year commitment that started when we implemented the new veterans charter, in 2006, and one that has continued with the delivery of our economic action plan 2014, in February.

Our government has been single-minded in doing everything we can to ensure that veterans and their families have the care and support they need when and where they need it. This includes ensuring Canada's veterans make a successful transition to civilian life, which often depends on finding meaningful new employment.

The fact is that the average age of our releasing Canadian Armed Forces personnel is just 37 years old. These young men and women have the drive, skills, leadership, and experience to start successful new careers. That is why we are helping veterans and their families with vocational training and employment opportunities after their military service.

This includes a flexible new approach to training for eligible veterans in the rehabilitation program, which provides up to $75,800 for even the most specialized training, if needed, and the hire a veteran initiative that is aimed at connecting veterans with employers.

We are working closer than ever before with both the private and public sectors to remind them of the very real benefits and advantages of hiring former military personnel. We are committed to ensuring that veterans have the supports they need to successfully transition to civilian life.

We demonstrated this when our government announced that Canadian Armed Forces veterans who are medically released due to a service-related injury or illness would be given the top level of priority consideration for job openings in the public service.

The veterans hiring act builds on this. We want to help move veterans to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified Canadians for federal public service jobs.

As well, this initiative would provide even further support for all medically released veterans, by extending their existing priority entitlement period from two years to five years.

However, our government proposes to go even further.

The bill adds new measures that would benefit even more veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel. Among other things, we would extend additional hiring opportunities to other honourably released veterans and still serving members who want to start a new career in the federal public service.

Through the amendments we are proposing, qualified veterans who have at least three years of military service will be given access to internally advertised positions. We will also allow them to continue to compete for these internal postings for a full five years after their release from the Canadian armed forces.

As well, these veterans would receive a hiring preference in the externally advertised hiring process if a veteran is equally qualified and has been honourably released and has at least three years of military service. Simply put, if a veteran is as qualified as the other candidates, the hiring priority will ensure that the veteran gets the job.

During their service to Canada, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans have acquired the skills that make them ideal employees. These new measures recognize that. They have demonstrated their commitment to Canada, and it is now our responsibility to ensure that they have access to the employment opportunities they need to be successful when their time in uniform is complete.

At the same time, the five-year hiring preference would provide veterans with sufficient time to further upgrade their education and skills if required, before they seek work in the federal public service. This measure would ensure exactly what I mentioned at the outset of my comments, that our government will continue being able to tap into a remarkably skilled and dedicated pool of individuals, a pool of talent that was created through our country's investment in their training and development.

Although their time in uniform is complete, their dedication to Canada remains, which is why I am pleased that these measures would help veterans continue their service to Canada in the public service. This is the right thing to do for every Canadian who has proudly worn our nation's uniform.

We hope all members of the House will throw their full support behind these measures. Let us move quickly so that we can put these enhancements into effect as soon as possible. Our nation's veterans and still serving members deserve our support, and our government is proud to deliver it.

Obviously it is a shame that the Union of National Defence Employees is unsupportive of what is being proposed. It does not agree that we should recognize the service of Canada's veterans by providing them with access to jobs that will help them and their families succeed. Instead, it wants to see them moved to the back of the line behind civil servants. I strongly urge the NDP to bring the union bosses onside and support this legislation.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. However, for several reasons the NDP believes that it does not go far enough. In my riding, I meet a lot of veterans and their families. These veterans and their loved ones have to cope with a lot of problems. They feel that they do not get enough support from the government.

The government decided to cap its training spending at $2 million over five years. That is a way of restricting access to the program.

Why did the government decide once again to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking care of veterans. This legislation would allow serving members who are honourably discharged to use their skills and participate in the internally advertised jobs in the public service.

It is a shame that we who served in uniform are not considered qualified for these jobs. This is the reason that I am here in Parliament today, to fight for Bill C-27.

[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.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is a large part of the problem due to the fact that the Conservatives are incapable of using a long-term perspective to manage anything? If they were capable of doing that, they would be concerned about global warming, rail safety and many other issues.

If we send 40,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, it is reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of them will come back with very serious injuries and in need of care. The structure that will allow us to take care of them should already be in place. We should not be improvising now that the mission is over.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is assuming that the Conservative government's intentions are more honourable than they really are.

He spoke about the situation with VIA Rail. I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the loved ones of those who died in this morning's accident on the Montreal-Quebec City line. This accident was particularly frightening. One wonders if the government really is that incompetent or if it simply wants to get rid of some of the crown corporations, such as Canada Post.

I take the train every week. One wonders, seeing the deterioration in service at VIA Rail, whether the Conservative government is simply waiting until the situation gets so bad that it can sell the crown corporation to a private company and get rid of it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to speak on issues related to veterans. I am very happy to follow my colleague from Saint-Jean, in particular because we share an affinity for Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean in his riding. We both reminded the House not long ago of the 1994 budget of the Liberals that kick-started the decade of darkness for the Canadian Forces, and which closed that fine school. I was very proud that a number of years ago our government reopened Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, and that my friend Michel Maisonneuve has done a great job of building that centre of excellence back up. We hope to see it continue to produce fine young men and women leaders for the Canadian Forces.

Speaking of leadership, we are talking today about Bill C-27 and the subject of the veterans hiring act. It is important for Canadians who may be listening to this debate, or groups that are unsure about the subject, to know that this is truly a group effort. A few members of the House have suggested that there are not going to be many veterans who would qualify for the public service, or that it is going to be a very small group or contingent. That might be true. This might be only for dozens or, over many years, 100 or 200 serving veterans to transition into other public sector positions. However, it is an example of our government playing an active role in the subject of hiring veterans and, more importantly, creating a culture in Canada where hiring a veteran becomes commonplace.

I would suggest that does not exist at the moment. However, there are a number of groups that I will refer to in my remarks that, over the last five to 10 years, have been trying to create a culture of hiring a veteran in Canada. Why is that a good culture to build? I suggest, altruistically, that it is good to hire veterans. These are men and women who have served our country with distinction, at times putting themselves into harm's way, whether overseas in Afghanistan or on missions here in Canada. Therefore, it is good for the government, and indeed the private sector, to hire veterans. However, it is more than just altruism; it is good business sense. It is actually accretive, to use a business term, to the bottom line, because businesses are getting men and women with demonstrated leadership.

Whether it is a master corporal or a major-general, these Canadians have received training that is unparalleled throughout NATO and the developed world in terms of an educated military, one that is trained in leadership ethics, managing people, leading under stressful situations, and with a culture that is inherently loyal. The regimental structure that the military is based upon is based on loyalty.

I have dealt with employers for many years, and one of their biggest challenges is retention. Somebody who is in high demand will go on to the next opportunity. Hiring a veteran helps to reduce costs over time, by retaining people who are inherently loyal. If employees show loyalty to employers with the opportunity of a job, they will return it, not just by meeting expectations but exceeding them. Therefore, the government is an important partner in the creation of a culture in Canada to hire veterans. I am pleased to be part of a government that has brought two bills before the House on this very subject. Whether 1,000 veterans are hired or one veteran is hired, it is a good step for Canada.

Bill C-11 was a priority hiring for injured veterans who were released as a result of injury, and Bill C-27, before us today, is on hiring veterans for the public service more broadly. This bill looks at Canadian Forces members who have given at least three years of service, and allows them an internal hiring opportunity in another part of government. Whenever I speak about veterans, I try to provide facts and educate others on this because there is too much rhetoric on this subject and not enough facts.

It might be news to some people in this House to learn that upwards of 4,000 to 5,000 people transition from the Canadian Forces each year. About 1,200 of those people leave for a variety of medical reasons, whether it is people with serious injury as a result of service, such as in Afghanistan, or those whose vision or hearing has become impaired and may lose their flight qualification, as I almost did in the air force when my hearing was damaged. We are looking at 4,000 to 5,000 men and women transitioning out of uniform each year. This bill would give those people one more avenue to explore as they plan their transition.

People who receive an honourable release from the Canadian Forces after a three-year service minimum have a level of priority within the civil service that would extend to five years. That number is important because it inherently recognizes that when they transition, veterans may receive additional training or get more education. The Canadian Forces can assist with that. In fact, there is matching of some payments for training programs and tuition payments, to allow people to continue their education while in uniform. In many cases, there is tuition assistance as they transition out. By building in a five-year period, we are acknowledging that people may release and decide to improve their skills or education. We want to ensure that opportunity in the civil service remains open to them.

As I said with respect to Bill C-11 earlier, if people release from the Canadian Forces as a result of a medical release, including an injury or a change in their medical category, they would be given the highest priority of hiring within the civil service. That is appropriate. It recognizes that the men and women who join the Canadian Forces give an unlimited liability to their country.

The most important decision that the members of this place make as parliamentarians is sending our men and women into harm's way. It is appropriate for us, in turn, to give these people the highest priority to find a position in the civil service.

I am glad to hear that many members, on all sides of this House, are here to support Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. I am disappointed because it is certainly clear in listening to the debate that not a lot is known about the subject and how many people transition each year. Unfortunately, the politics in this area creeps in so often. However, it is refreshing to see that, in principle, most members of this House will be supporting Bill C-27.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about what I alluded to at the outset, which is building a culture of hiring a veteran in Canada. I said that with Bill C-27 and Bill C-11, our government has been an important partner. In many ways, we have helped to nudge the private sector and other individuals in Canada into doing more for hiring our veterans. However, as a parliamentarian who served in the Canadian Forces for 12 years, and after my release has worked on veterans issues for the last decade, I also want to salute some of the Canadians who have been doing this in a steadfast and dedicated way over the last decade. Government should not be the answer for everyone. A lot of veterans will want to go into the private sector. There have been some real trailblazers in that regard.

In fact, another thing that our government did was to create the Veteran Transition Advisory Council. I am very happy to say the minister, just last Friday, met with the Veteran Transition Advisory Council, VTAC, as it is called, in Toronto, to hear its latest update. This is a group of business leaders from across the country. The previous minister gave a mandate to them to help break down barriers within certain industry sectors and report back to the government on how it can facilitate more hiring of veterans. In a similar way that Helmets to Hardhats helped veterans break into the construction industry, VTAC was meant to do that.

I would like to thank Shaun Francis, the chair of the True Patriot Love Foundation, who was the first chair of VTAC, and the vice-chair, Joel Watson, someone I am happy to call a very good friend, like Shaun. Joel served as a dragoon officer before becoming a lawyer in Toronto, and has continually given back.

The entire board of the Veterans Transition Advisory Council, which has been advising the government, has each started veteran-friendly hiring initiatives within their own companies. In some cases. that might mean dealing with the human resources department to educate them, to let them know that looking at military experience as an important determinant on who to hire is something they should focus on.

In fact, one of my last major initiatives as one of the founders of the True Patriot Love Foundation was working on a conference with Canadian employers called “From Battlefields to Boardroom”. The goal was to bring senior human resources leaders from companies across Canada to a conference to hear from veterans, to hear from other companies that are hiring veterans, to show them that sometimes accommodating a veteran in the hiring process or considering their military service to be equal to some related civilian experience, will go a long way in getting them a great addition to their team.

The conference also had leaders from the Canadian Forces educating private sector employers on the difference between a corporal and a colonel. A lot of civilian organizations that do not have veterans may not know the different types of service or types of education and training that our men and women in the Canadian Forces have.

The battlefields to boardrooms conference was a big step in breaking down barriers to hiring veterans. I would like to thank all of the participants in that event.

There are also groups that have been doing this as part of their outreach to Canadians in working with veterans and with our wounded. I spent time this Saturday with Scott Maxwell and Phil Ralph from Wounded Warriors Canada, in Uxbridge, at a fantastic thanks to our troops tribute.

Wounded Warriors is part of their charitable efforts, allowing Canadians to support the men and women of the Canadian Forces. They have encountered companies and employers who want to do more than just help financially; they want to open their hiring process and open opportunities within their companies to veterans.

I salute the entire team at Wounded Warriors. I know they have an upcoming employer fair, in Alberta. They will be spreading their message that it is more than just the right thing to do. Some of the best hiring decisions they will make will be by hiring men and women who have served Canada.

Probably the most fascinating group I have ever encountered, and I am happy to belong to it as well, is a group called Treble Victor. It was begun a few years ago by Don Ludlow and Mark Walden, and is currently led by Tim Patriquin.

This is a networking group of veterans that started in Toronto. After they have transitioned into the private sector, they meet with their HR department. They meet with their senior leadership and ask them, “Why are we not hiring more veterans?” Or they ask, “Are there barriers to the hiring of veterans in our company that we can address?”

They have had tremendous success. I remember a number of years ago, before joining this House, Gord Nixon, the CEO of Royal Bank, when approached by Treble Victor members within the bank, talked about doing a bit of an audit, asking how many veterans they had. He was amazed at how many there were within the national organization. They were then empowered to create a network within the bank to help other veterans find employment.

Canada Company is another spectacular example of good charitable work leading to employment opportunities for veterans. It was started by Blake Goldring and a number of prominent business leaders. I was happy to attend a lot of their events when I was a lawyer in Toronto. It started as a program to raise funds for scholarships for the children of the fallen. However, it soon grew into an employment initiative, as senior business leaders wanted to do more than just support them financially. They have the military employment transition program, the MET program, and a website of tools run by an RMC classmate of mine, Walter Moniz, reaching out to employers and allowing transitioning veterans to plug into opportunities in the private sector.

There are also groups like Military Minds, started by a soldier suffering from operational stress injuries, creating a community for people to rally upon. Now there are opportunities for employment from that.

When I was in Windsor, I met with the leaders of Delta Company, a group of business leaders from the Windsor area helping find employment for members of the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment.

Government is one part of building a culture here in Canada of hiring veterans. I wanted to salute some of the trailblazers, some of the people who have been at the vanguard of this subject.

I would also like the opportunity to thank a couple of members of this House. In fact, I would like to thank some members from the other side of the House, including my friends from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Winnipeg North. Last week, they joined me in co-hosting the second annual celebration of service on the Hill, recognizing the parliamentarians and members of Parliament Hill staff who have served in uniform.

At the event this year, we also recognized some of the trail-blazing companies that have been implementing great hiring veteran programs for many years, such as General Electric, McDonald's, Thales, and TD Bank. The award for TD Bank was received by retired General Rick Hillier, who now works at TD Bank and helped the bank roll out a veteran hiring program throughout its national network of branches.

McDonald's started as a charitable sponsor of the True Patriot Love dinner and has now hired veterans throughout its organization. That is an organization where people can start small and go all the way to the top organically.

We wanted to recognize some of these trailblazers on Parliament Hill.

I have heard concern here about Veterans Affairs ads. I will tell the House that if any member of the House has worked on this issue, like I have for the last decade, an important part of those ads is the information. The information is very important, because most young veterans from Afghanistan try and access most of their services online. There are 15,000 who have signed up for a My VAC account.

More importantly, though, is the image of the former soldier straightening his tie, taking his daughter's hand, and going out of the house. That has been a message and an image that I, personally, have been trying to send for many years to show that taking the uniform off, our veterans are the men and women of Canada. We are thankful for their service. They are dads. They transition into amazing soccer coaches, parent council members, and private sector employees. Even more important than the valuable information on services and how to contact them is sending the message that veterans can transition from uniform and have a meaningful post-military career, be a great dad, a great community member, and a great role model.

I would suggest that websites, which have been mocked by some in this House, are the number one way that anybody thinking of transitioning out of the forces finds out about it. They go to Google and they google it. The employers, businesses, and charities that have worked on this for ten years are all there.

It seems that the MPs in the House seem to forget that we now not only serve veterans who are 80 years old and 90 years old, we serve Afghan veterans with multiple tours in their 20s. We have to make ads. We have to be online.

I would invite members to look at journalist Kevin Newman's blog on the subject. We need a better and more unified website that scores highly and that people will see.

I would like to finish by saying that it will take government and the private sector to build this hire a veteran culture. We have to show that it is not only the right thing to do, but that hiring a veteran will make a business a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for his speech.

Will the Conservative government go beyond words and rhetoric and finally recognize its sacred duty to our injured veterans?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question because I love history and it allows me to speak for a moment on my favourite prime minister, Robert Borden. When Robert Borden went to conferences in London during the war, he visited our wounded on the front. He said that it was a duty for Canada to take of our injured.

If we look at the act in 1925 that began the Legion, and eventually decades later with Veterans Affairs, the government has committed to support and help our veterans. However, that has never remained static. It has always changed, and I will use an example to explain why.

The MP from my riding in World War One served at Vimy. He was elected to Parliament from the front in 1917. He died, sadly, as a result of his post-traumatic stress disorder. However, he is not even discussed, and most Canadians do not even know he existed. Sam Sharpe was his name.

Now our government is evolving and we have opened 17 operational stress injury clinics. It is more than about a phrase or a term, it is about a commitment. If we look at the $700 million on an operational basis in more funding each year with an accumulative total of $4.5 billion in benefits, our commitment is clear, but we are also not going to be stuck in the past. We are going to evolve to meet the future needs of our veterans.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Durham for his service to our country and for his comments.

Frankly, I agree with his idea of creating a culture of hiring a veteran. I do not entirely agree with the touting he did of his own government and everything it has done, because members will hear and have heard already that it could be doing much more in a more significant way.

We talked about helmets to hard hats earlier, and we know how much of a failure that program was: $100,000, and it hired very few veterans.

I am trying to be constructive. There is an opportunity for the government to be more engaged in this process by using what is called a “skills translator”. They are using it in the United States for a quarter of the price that the current Conservative government is spending on ads for veterans during the playoffs. For a quarter of the price it will align, interpret, and translate the skills of many of our veterans into other jobs that are out there. It links veterans in the United States with the private sector, not just the public sector, at a very minimal cost.

I challenge the member to take this idea to his caucus, to his Minister of Veterans Affairs, and encourage him to embrace this idea of skills translators, at very little cost, to help our veterans more significantly determine their aptitudes and find employment.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph touched upon a subject I have worked on for many years, in fact, long before I joined this Parliament in 2012. I have met with the folks from monster.ca many times over the years. I know and have seen its skills translator. In fact, representatives are coming to my office in the next few weeks to show me the modifications to that translator.

I commend the member from the Liberal Party for bringing a rational voice to the veterans affairs committee, and I say that sincerely. I know he has been productive, and I very much keep in touch with my colleagues. The previous member from his party, not so much, but I welcome his interventions.

Part of the challenge is that transition itself for veterans starts when they are members of the Canadian Forces. They are actually in DND when they are searching on Google and wondering if they should move back to where they enrolled from, such as Nova Scotia or B.C., or if they should stay where they are finally posted to. It has to be a case where DND and VAC work better together. Each has chosen a different model. If the member pledges to break down some of those barriers between those two departments, I will work with him on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Durham for his thoughtful comments and his service to our country.

The member talked about some of the organizations that have been involved, such as the Veteran Transition Advisory Council and the great work it is doing. CEOs and leading people in organizations understand the benefits that these veterans can bring to their organizations. He also talked about the win-win.

The question I asked before was that, to me, there seems to be two parts to this. One part is the service to the veterans when they come back, and getting them ready. The second part of that is having a place for them to go. The private sector is stepping up on these fronts to do some of this work, and it is good business for the public sector.

I would like the member's input as to the importance of attachment, because these folks are used to being on a team. They are used to working as a team and so it is as important to make sure to continue that team effort back in the workforce.

Could the member talk a little about the importance of that work environment in continuing that team effort?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member hit the nail on the head. In many ways, I alluded in my remarks to the inherent loyalty of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. They want to join a new team, in a lot of cases.

There are some programs out there, in fact, one of Prince Charles' charities, the Prince's Trust, works on entrepreneurship with veterans and that was supported by the True Patriot Love Foundation. However, the vast majority actually want to join a team. We need to ensure that we connect them better to teams that want veterans on them. That is why the Treble Victor Group and some of these groups have been building networks within national companies, including in Atlantic Canada, companies like McCain Foods, like IMP Aerospace. I met with them last week. They have a number of veterans already working within them. That helps the veterans transition in because they know someone has already blazed the trail.

We need to build better online resources to allow that mentoring to happen, without the government needing to intervene. If there is a forum out there, and this is what Kevin Newman was calling for in his blog, we need this to be facilitated by the veterans themselves. This is an example of where the government should get out of the way.

However, he is very right. The team-based approach is key for many veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I really appreciated his comments on the government's efforts to help veterans transition to civilian life. That is a recurring problem that we have to try to fix. The bill will certainly not hurt in that regard.

However, I did not appreciate the government propaganda in my colleague's speech. He said that, since coming to power in 2006, the government has spent an additional $6 billion on transition programs.

I did the math. That money was budgeted, but was not spent. Close to $1 billion was not spent over the past seven years. The government keeps repeating that number, and I want everyone to know that it is not quite accurate.

Also, with respect to transition support for post-secondary and university studies, the government announced $2 million, I believe, over the next five years. Divide that by 100,000 and it turns out that it will help just a handful of veterans, who will be able to go to university so they can be employable in the public service.

What does my colleague think of that amount? Should it be increased so more veterans can be helped? If that amount does not go up, the government will not even be able to help 50 veterans during that five-year period.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I served, for a time, on the veterans affairs committee, and I know he is sincere in his passion for veterans.

One thing I would invite him to learn more about is, as I said, the transition between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs, which is key. When a lot of veterans decide they are transitioning at the end of their short service engagement or whatever contract they are under, they begin their education while they are in the Canadian Forces. We cannot look at just the post-release education without looking at the education gained in the Canadian Forces.

Groups like Canada Company and others have worked on a lot of universities, breaking down tuition barriers or reducing or limiting tuition for some veterans, depending upon the nature of their release.

Certainly, education is a key part of transition. The government is helping. Veterans are taking advantage of it. However, it is also key to create this hiring culture and to show that government is not the only answer, but we are part of the solution.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Western Arctic.

As many of my colleagues have said, we are going to support this bill, but we do not think that it goes far enough. We think that it raises questions that the government needs to answer.

First, with regard to the priority given to members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons, we are wondering what will happen to members who are released for medical reasons when the department or the board does not recognize the connection between their injury and their service. This affects me personally because I have been in touch with a veteran, Mr. Scalise, who resigned from the Canadian Forces because he was suffering from burnout; however, he failed to inform the armed forces that his situation was related to post-traumatic stress.

For four years now, Mr. Scalise has been fighting to have his situation recognized as being connected to his years of service. According to the bill before us, his priority entitlement period is almost up.

First, I believe that the time it is taking to process Mr. Scalise's file is ridiculously long and unacceptable. Second, the bill as it stands does not address Mr. Scalise's needs. This man could very well go back to school, upgrade his skills in various areas and eventually get a job. However, he will not have time to do so if the bill is passed as is.

Whether at the CEGEP or the university level, it takes between two and four years for veterans to acquire a specialization that will allow them to make the transition to a civilian job. We therefore have to give these veterans time to heal and get treatment for their post-traumatic stress before they go back to school.

This transition takes time. It does not happen overnight. The committee should look at this issue again to ensure that the bill that is eventually passed meets the expectations of veterans and truly allows them to reintegrate into the civilian world and the labour market.

The skills acquired in the military are not necessarily automatically transferable to civilian life. Skills upgrading is required. What is more, the private sector is not really aware of the qualifications or technical skills that soldiers develop. A collaborative effort needs to be made here. In fact, the ombudsman proposed measures to that effect, but they seem to have been completely left out of the current bill. That is too bad.

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. That is the case for Mr. Scalise. Like the ombudsman, we have concerns about this administrative uncertainty when it comes to maintaining hiring priority.

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 in 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.

Either way, we want the system to be consistent. That way some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their priority entitlement. That is central to our argument.

This bill also creates categories of veterans; that is another issue. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans.The bill takes another direction. 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 because it reminds him of the trauma should have hiring priority. He practically gave his life to serve the public. It is only right that the government acknowledge that it has a social and moral obligation to that individual, just as it is only right that the government acknowledge that it has a moral obligation to the people it sends into various conflicts or on various missions.

According to what I read in the veterans' class action suit against the government, the government does not even acknowledge this moral obligation. That is so sad. It is implied. I hope that the veterans will win their case against the government and that their lawsuit will be successful. I hope that the government has a moral duty to people whom it sends into conflicts and who return injured. I hope that we have a moral duty to support them and to ensure that these people get quality care, have a rehabilitation process supported by the government and have access to jobs offered by the government.

There is another side to this coin. At present, we are in a situation where different departments are systematically downsizing. Since the arrival of the majority Conservative government, there has been a series of cuts. Jobs have been systematically cut in different departments, and even if the veterans are given hiring priority, the jobs have to exist. If departments are not hiring, this priority is completely meaningless because there are no jobs available. There is no correlation.

I think this is a weakness that must be studied in committee, and we must ensure that this hiring priority is based on something concrete. It is unrealistic. They will not be able to implement it. I find that too bad.

I will not have time to talk about all the statistics, but there are not many veterans who find jobs in the public service compared to the number of veterans who have access to these types of jobs and the number of veterans who are qualified for these jobs.

We have been told that of the 4,000 veterans who could have been entitled to these jobs, 200 applied and 63 were hired. The employment priority really applies to a very small number of people. That is another aspect that will have to be analyzed in committee to determine what other support could be provided to those members who have finished their military career and those who have been injured in order to ease the career transition to civilian life. We must ensure that there is a transition. For the time being, there are weaknesses in that regard in what we have before us.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I was here when the New Democrats forced the debate on sending our troops into Kandahar under Operation Enduring Freedom. We asked simple questions at that time. Where were our allies? Where was the support? What would they be faced with? We were thrown slogans about boots on the ground and how we were like 21st Neville Chamberlains. We heard this machismo sloganeering that showed that the government had no real plan for what would face our troops in Kandahar.

Now we see this bill, which we support, but I hear the same kind of sloganeering from the government about how it is part of the solution, and sometimes governments should get out of the way.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Government sent these men and women to put their lives at risk. Government had them have their limbs blown off or suffer PTSD. They did it for the government. Therefore, when I see the government members talk about how government can be part of the solution, that the government should step out of the way, it was the government who put these people, our brave men and women, in these situations. It is the government that has the entire responsibility to work with the private sector and others, but fundamentally it is a government responsibility.

What does my hon. colleague think about these slogans he hears from the Conservative government with respect to its continual refusal to meet its basic obligations to the men and women who served our country?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I contrast the government's campaign and what is actually happening before the courts with our Afghanistan veterans, it is shameful. Absolutely shameful.

Afghanistan veterans are now forced to go to court to have their rights recognized. How can that be? Government lawyers claim that the government does not have a moral obligation towards them. That is totally wrong.

This is doublespeak here. On the one hand, the government claims to support veterans, and on the other hand, it is forcing them to go to court. That is unacceptable. Fortunately we are here to talk about it, otherwise we would only get one side of the story.

I spoke about this issue this evening and in particular about Equitas, and I noticed that there are not many Conservative members on the other side of the House. That is unfortunate. I will take another question if there is time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to explain a little further about the class action lawsuit. The Government of Canada and all of the ministers in the front row stood and had their pictures taken, for all of their propaganda purposes, with our men and women and sent them overseas. When those men and women came home, that same government said that it did not have a moral obligation to follow through on that social contract, which has existed in our country since the First World War: if they serve our country, they will be looked after. The government takes the position that is only there when it is good for the photo ops, but let the veterans stand up for those rights and to take it to court.

Would my hon. colleague explain what he thinks about this attitude of using our men and women as props when it supports the government and then telling those men and women to take it to court when it comes to the moral contract?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would like things to be different and to not have this doublespeak, but that is unfortunately the case.

If we are to believe the Conservatives, veterans cost a lot of money. Senator Roméo Dallaire, who is well known, took exception to the rumour that veterans cost a lot of money and that we should not pay for them. That is how some Conservatives think, and they try to negotiate by cutting the costs of our military involvement throughout the world.

When we participate in a military operation in a given area, the primary costs are not related to the intervention itself, but to support for injured soldiers, who need help when they return to Canada. The United States learned that the hard way during the recent conflict in Afghanistan.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-27. Of course, I will be one of the few in Parliament who actually gets to speak to the bill, because we have gone to the process of closure very quickly.

I think it is unfortunate that closure took place today, when tomorrow and the rest of the week we will have many veterans here on the Hill. “Rock the Hill”, they call it.

The Conservatives have not seemed to show much of the courage of their convictions in perhaps having the debate about this particular issue when the veterans are here on the Hill. They are very anxious to get this over with tonight. That is the reality of what the Conservatives have done here with closure. They have taken the opportunity we could have had to have the veterans here to listen to the different points of view of the people in this Parliament on this subject. Conservatives are very happy to get closure on the bill and get it away.

I have the opportunity to speak to the bill at second reading. Of course we support the principle of assisting with priority hiring for injured veterans and doing more for veterans within the civil service. How could anyone in this Parliament not be solid with that principle? What we argue at second reading is principle and how bills should be formed, using the knowledge we all have about the history of the service of the Armed Forces in Canada.

My father was a veteran of the Second World War. He spent five years in Europe in Bomber Command. He always said that toward the end of the war, the CCF was very popular in Canada, and their numbers were well up. The government respected that and brought in very good programs for veterans when they returned from the war. It did not want to see this turn into a socialist paradise, which may have happened with these veterans who came back. It offered land in Edmonton. My father got a piece of land on a veterans estate. Veterans got an opportunity for low-interest loans to build their houses and to set up their families after being in the war and being away from their communities and their loved ones for the period of time they were in Europe, that five years. Compare that to some of the commitment our servicemen make today of 10 and 15 years overseas.

As well, the government at that time tried to hire many veterans, and my father got a job with the Department of Transport, working in the Arctic, taking care of the airports. The skills matched up in that regard, because he worked in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and that sort of relationship existed at that time.

As well, in every small community across Canada, there were lots of veterans who came back from that big war. The legions were working very well. There was comradeship and an opportunity in every small community to share with many other veterans. I remember growing up in this atmosphere of legions and the respect everyone in the community had for the veterans.

Compare that to today. The veterans come back from a foreign conflict, generally of a terribly undefined nature, where they are not involved in liberating countries. They are involved in inter-regional conflicts that have so many variables attached to them. When they walk away from those conflicts, do they have the honour people had coming out of the Second World War? Do they have the approbation of the citizenry across the country for which they have served? No. That does not happen anymore. Is there a large volume of veterans who can join together in common places like the legion? No. In fact, across the country, legions are shutting down.

In the major city in my riding, Yellowknife, even with Joint Task Force (North) there, the opportunity to maintain the legion has almost failed completely.

The times have changed. There is no structure anymore for veterans, like there was in the past.

The good side of it is that we recognize post-traumatic stress disorder. That was not part of the vernacular of the Second World War. We are much more understanding of the nature of the mental injuries veterans suffer in these conflicts.

Bill C-27 tries to provide some answers, but it is not adequate. We do not think we should change the principle that a veteran is a veteran. That principle should remain in the bill, but it is not there. That is one problem we have with the principles of the bill. They are not dealing with all veterans in the same fashion as they used to be dealt with. They are not taking care of people and keeping the commonality among veterans that is so important.

The Conservative government is offering up the opportunity to go into the public service. The public service has changed so much. It is not the public service of 1945 to 1950. It is different. More specialized skills and education are required.

People may be put in priority positions that may not work for them. My Liberal colleague talked about the U.S. government program that includes skills identification. Quite clearly, it is important not to put people in jobs they will not be satisfied with and where there may fail. That would not help the veterans.

We need to pay careful attention to these people. They do not have the same opportunities veterans had in the past. They do not have the same volume of strength that 500,000 veterans had. The veterans today are thin in number. They are not a large part of the population. They need more specific attention. The Conservative government should be thinking about how it could provide the services these veterans require that would make their transition to normal civilian life successful.

This debate must continue until we come up with solutions. I look forward to the bill going to committee, because perhaps at that time, we could consider some of its details. We all agree with the principle that we should do more for the veterans, that we should find ways to integrate them into the workforce. How much more could we provide to the bill in committee on some of the issues we have identified in the very short time we have had to talk about this bill? We have a very short time to communicate in the House about the issues surrounding veterans.

We are doing our veterans a disservice by not continuing this debate for a period of time. They are going to be on the Hill, but they will not have the opportunity to speak to parliamentarians so we can carry their message forward in the House. We could do it at committee, but it is not really the same as talking here in the House.

The bill does not go far enough. We want to see it improved. We are willing to send the bill to committee. I encourage the government to take this seriously, to look at the other options put forward in committee, to listen to the witnesses, and to be open to amending the bill to make it work better for the veterans.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his remarks. Certainly I was proud when our government, a few years ago, extended the Bomber Command commendation to our air force veterans from World War II. I indeed hope that the member's family, or perhaps his father himself, got that for his medals.

The member made an interesting point about the so-called Rock the Hill event later this week. As the member may know, it is organized by Canadian Veterans Advocacy. He is asking why are we not having this debate when they are here. I would invite the member to just walk across the hall in the Confederation Building and meet with Canadian Veterans Advocacy, who work out of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore's office.

As a veteran myself, I have been quite offended by some of the work that group does. It is not sincere. It is not based on sound policy. I understand, at committee, that they have acknowledged that their funding has come from unions.

I would invite the member to actually get into the legions and start hearing from members specifically. To suggest that we are not listening to and debating with veterans is insincere. I would like his comments on who he speaks to beyond that group.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but I do not agree with him. It was a couple of months ago that I had a very long and detailed conversation not only with a retired colonel in Yellowknife, from the Armed Forces, who explained to me many of the details of what was going on with veterans. I also had the opportunity to meet a serviceman who was experiencing the difficulty of getting his condition recognized by the authorities. Here is someone who is still in the Armed Forces, who has post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and yet has had an incredibly difficult time getting through the bureaucracy to understand how he can get himself healed.

For you to suggest that we are not in conversation with veterans or that we do not hear from other people about the problems in the system is really unfortunate, because we are all committed to doing a good job.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Just a polite reminder to hon. members, if they can direct their comments to the Chair from time to time, it helps the Chair to give some time signals and helps the member to guide their comments and stay on track time-wise.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously my question is for my colleague from Western Arctic, but I was shocked at the comments made by the member for Durham. He suggested that funding was coming from unions or other sources. During question period, the Prime Minister mentioned conspiracy theories. This seems a lot like a conspiracy theory that does not make any sense.

In fact, we spend a lot of time in the legions in our ridings, as do all members of the House. I worked with a veteran in my riding who was homeless. He did not have enough money to pay his rent. I will not name names out of respect for the individual. We managed to help him, but not by going through Veterans Affairs Canada. We worked out a solution by working with the municipality. The municipality had to help this veteran by providing him with housing until things got sorted out and we could finally work with the government. It took far too much time in my opinion.

My colleague spoke about this. I would like to hear his comments. It is all well and good to talk about hiring and all those things, but we have to look at the whole picture. The reintegration of our veterans is not just a one-step process, and I do not think that what we are seeing is sufficient. I would like him to elaborate on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely that this process is not simply about hiring. It is going to take more than that. In many respects, the veterans are young people who are coming back. They are going to have to continue their work lives. We can look to the past as to how people accomplished that, but this is the modern age, where there are particular skill sets in many cases.

I think of MPs. If we leave our jobs as MPs, we can get skills retraining after one year on this job.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for West Nova, who is also the outstanding chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

As the son of a veteran who spent 36 distinguished years in the Canadian Armed Forces, I can say it truly is a privilege to join the debate today and to express my pride in the generations of men and women who have served our great country. These include my mother, both of my sisters, and my brother-in-law. Among those and my father, there are over 80 years of direct immediate family experience in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am just absolutely so honoured and privileged to have been part of that. I did not join myself, but I think about them every day and I care deeply about our Canadian Armed Forces.

I also consider it an honour to serve on our Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where I have gained an even greater appreciation of our government's efforts on behalf of veterans and their families. I would like to take this opportunity to thank colleagues on both sides of the House who sit on that committee. I believe genuinely that we all care very much, and collectively we are doing an incredibly good job on behalf of our veterans. I look forward to continuing to do so.

As some of my colleagues have already explained, our government is dedicated to caring for and supporting our men and women in uniform, past and present. As you know, our parliamentary committee is seized with two of the most pressing questions of the day: how can we make the new veterans charter even better; and how best can we state and demonstrate our commitment to Canada's veterans above all, and as well their families? I believe these two questions go to the core of what it means to serve those who have served our country so well.

The veterans hiring act would build on this. The measures before us would add important new levels of support for veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces by offering them greater access to jobs in the federal public service.

As we meet, both here and at committee, to discuss new measures and enhancements for veterans, I want to make it very clear to Canadians watching that they can also be proud of what we have already accomplished.

Since forming government, we have delivered for Canada's veterans by investing almost $5 billion in new funding to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services. As a result of this new funding, we have been able to implement the new veterans charter as a more modern and comprehensive way to care for and support those who are injured in the line of duty.

Through the new veterans charter, we are now providing full physical and psychosocial rehabilitation services, vocational rehabilitation and career transition services, both immediate and long-term financial support, health care benefits, and one-on-one case management services.

Through these programs, benefits, and services, we are able to provide world-class care for seriously injured veterans, we can provide up to $75,800 in training assistance for eligible veterans to start a new career, and we can provide a minimum pre-tax income of $42,426 a year for veterans who are unable to be suitably and gainfully employed as well as for those in Veterans Affairs Canada's rehabilitation program.

On top of those measures, we can help eligible veterans with shovelling snow from their laneways or cutting their grass, we can have health care professionals and case managers visit them in their homes, and we can assist them with the cost of travelling to their medical appointments.

I must say that Veterans Affairs has helped my mother out tremendously.

We do all of these things because we are determined to help injured and ill veterans make the best recoveries possible as quickly as possible, and we are committed to ensuring that all veterans experience a seamless transition to civilian life.

Ensuring veterans have access to meaningful employment is yet another way we are delivering on this. In recognition of their sacrifice to Canada, we are proposing changes that will give qualified veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs in the federal public service. That is why we want to give medically released veterans more opportunities to start new careers in the federal public service.

We would provide priority access for five years for those released from the Canadian Armed Forces because of a service-related injury or illness. This measure would move them to the front of the line for the public service jobs they are qualified to fill and perform. As well, all medically released veterans would see their existing priority entitlement period increased from two years to five years.

Our government is also helping Canada's honourably released veterans to access federal public service job opportunities by proposing two new measures.

First, still-serving military personnel who have at least three years of service would have access to internally advertised positions in the federal public service. This measure would allow them to continue to compete for these internal postings for a full five years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces.

Second, we would establish a hiring preference for veterans over other eligible applicants for externally advertised hiring processes. This means they could be appointed, if qualified, over other qualified candidates. In the case of the hiring preference for eligible veterans, this new measure would last up to five years from the day they were released from the Armed Forces.

We are doing all of these things because we believe veterans and still-serving members deserve such consideration and because we believe Canada would also be the better for it. Without these changes, we would run the risk of losing the valuable contributions of highly qualified individuals when their military careers end. That is why we will 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 to create a fair and appropriate process. This process would allow Canada to continue to benefit from having invested in and supported veterans during their military careers, would ensure our federal workforce is enhanced and enriched by the valuable contributions that highly qualified veterans have to offer, and would at the same time permit eligible veterans to keep serving their country and to hone their experience and skills in a civilian capacity.

In short, these new measures demonstrate the value we place on the skills, the training, and the experience our men and women in uniform acquire in the Canadian Armed Forces. We do not want to lose that.

At the same time, Canada's veterans have done so much to help build our strong, free, and prosperous nation. These measures recognize that they have served Canada with courage and distinction and that they have been willing to sacrifice everything for a better tomorrow. We owe them the same.

I wish this program had been around when my sister and my brother-in-law left the Armed Forces. I am sure they could have benefited from it at that time. They are doing fine, do not get me wrong, but it is a good program. I encourage all members to support this important piece of legislation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I wonder if he would share the view of the member of Durham who just stood in the House and said that he was offended by veterans who are speaking up on the fact that they have had to take a class action lawsuit. He said that they were not sincere.

I would like to ask this of the member about Kenneth Young, who served with the Royal Canadian Regiment. Is he not sincere? There is David MacLeod, 27 years with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and served in Afghanistan. Is he not sincere? We have Mike Blais, veteran of the Royal Canadian Regiment. Is he not sincere? How about Mark Campbell, severely injured by an IED in Afghanistan and now involved in a class action lawsuit? Is he not sincere?

When the member for Durham stands up and says that they offend him, is it that they are offending him because they do not follow the government's pitiful line on the treatment of veterans? Will the government show them some respect?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's not what he said.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That is exactly what he said, Mr. Speaker. You are going to hear that all night.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am not sure that the question is really relevant to the question that is before the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That was a speech, Mr. Speaker, so if you are telling me that when a speech is made—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Challenging the Speaker now, Charlie?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Kick him out.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

You are not sincere.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Sorry if I have offended your government.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

He should leave this chamber.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member will come to order. We are on questions and comments with the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Members are aware, of course, that the topic before the House is on Bill C-27. As I was saying, it does not appear to me that the question that the hon. member posed is in fact relevant to the question that is before the House, nor—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Points of order—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Sit down. Show some respect.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The member will take his seat.

At the same time, I am certainly quite willing to let the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie field the question if he is so inclined.

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to what the member for Durham might have said or not said as I was not in the House, but I can speak to what the member opposite says or does not say in the House. Quite frankly, I do not often believe some of the things that come out of his mouth, so until I have an opportunity to review what the member for Durham may or may not have said, obviously I cannot comment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of course agrees with the intent of the bill, which is to foster new opportunities for our veterans. It is a noble intent, but I have two specific questions for my colleague.

The first question is this. Can he tell Canadians and veterans who may be watching exactly how many positions have been cut from the public service over the last three years? The former parliamentary budget officer could not get an answer, but we hear estimates of between 40,000 and 47,000 jobs. Furthermore, there is a job hiring freeze right now in the public sector, so how does that create opportunities for veterans?

Second, would he help us understand why we are not moving to a skills translator system of the kind that is in place in the United States? In this system, the skills and aptitudes of veterans are determined, and they are then lined up for opportunities in the public sector and the private sector. That initiative would cost one-quarter of what the government is presently spending on advertising during the playoffs for veteran messaging. One-quarter of those costs could set up precisely that skills translator system.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you were obviously distracted by the member for Timmins—James Bay, so you probably did not hear the question in terms of its relevance. I would suggest that those two questions were every bit as irrelevant as the question that came from across the aisle. They do not warrant a response. They are not at all specific to the bill that we are talking about.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it seems everyone is in tune with the topic this evening, so I will try to continue.

We are talking about Bill C-27, and a lot has been covered on the bill itself. I look at it as one step toward what we are trying to do for veterans, together. There are probably a lot more steps that we have to take, and we realize that.

I will not go into details about the bill itself. That has been covered quite a bit. However, I would like to go into some of the background of what we have been attempting, together, members, private sector and veterans, to try to improve the lot of veterans and the opportunities for veterans.

For us in the House, it basically started with the new veterans charter. The whole idea was to move from an era where veterans were simply pensioned off rather to concentrating on getting veterans back into society. Those leaving the military should be given opportunities to get upgraded, to get skills and to find opportunities to transition into a full life within their communities.

I think every member of the House shares that wish and ambition. I do not think this is a political issue per se, although we do tend to get a little fixed sometimes on the difference of opinions. The reality is that our country expects us to honour these veterans. Our country expects us to invest in our veterans.

We know that taxpayers in fact have invested a lot in initiatives that take place right across the country. To quote a former veterans affairs minister, Hon. Greg Thompson, “Can you ever do enough for veterans?” We all know the answer is no. It is always a work in progress. There is always a lot that has to be done. Tonight is an example of one small step in the direction of trying to answer some of the questions they have, such as training opportunities, transition opportunities and certainly job opportunities. Not that government alone is ever going to fix it, but government has to set its own. Government has to work with the private sector. It has to work with the veterans groups.

Do we always agree? Absolutely not, whether it is members in a committee or whether it is people from various veterans groups themselves.

At the end of the day, we have to realize that over the years many military members have successfully retired into Canadian society and have not needed veterans affairs services. They are not clients of veterans affairs. They have successfully transitioned, in many cases on their own. With their wonderful training and mental outlook they have on life, they have become very productive members of society in a second career.

There are those who need our help. There are those who are really challenged either by mental or physical difficulties, some in active duty and some maybe in training exercises, but the kind of pressure and incidents they have run into means we have to pay attention to their needs.

What I have observed around the country, and in my particular riding, is there are those who are doing things and it is not government. One example I think of with great pride is Maple Grove Education Centre in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. It has a memorial club, all students, all volunteers. They built a monument to the Afghan soldiers who passed away. They did it with their own fundraising. It is an amazing memorial to those people who they believe, as young Canadians, sacrificed for the future and the betterment of our country, and did their bit in the world because they were asked to.

Surely, if young people can get that message, we can all understand the opportunities out there. We do have to listen. We will disagree. We will never totally be on the same page as to what is right and wrong, but we have to continue to make progress. We owe that to the military and to the veterans in our country.

I know most of us went through the Day of Honour not long ago. Next to the Greenwood air base in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, in the village called Kingston, there was a big turnout of veterans, military and interested community citizens.

Some time ago I was fortunate to be on a special committee of the House, looking at Afghanistan. We had a lot of witnesses and heard a lot of stories. The one that struck me was from a very brave woman from Afghanistan who said to us that we should remember that Canadians would get impatient with the progress that was taking place, but that we were making a difference. Our military had made a huge difference. There were now water supplies where there had not been before. Thousands of young girls were being educated and it was now over seven million. She asked us to understand that it was not her husband's view as a male about women that would make a difference, it was her son's view. It was a generational change and that was what the military had done in helping a foreign country, in helping people they did not even know because they knew it was the right thing to do.

Our job is to look after those who are coming home. Our job is to provide opportunity. Our job collectively as parliamentarians is to understand and honour these people who have done so much for us. Tonight we are looking at one step, one piece of the progress we are going to make on this long road. We get frustrated sometimes in thinking about what could be or what should be. We have to remember, as we get in an animated conversation, there are a lot of good initiatives in place. A lot of good things are happening. A lot of progress is being made. Certainly a lot of people are gaining because we all have ensured they get the services and support they need. It is not the end of the story. It is not the end of the road. There is a long way to go and we have to keep at it.

I know we get quite worked up sometimes as parliamentarians. We get exercised over issues and details, but at the end of the day, I believe every member in the House believes and supports the military and supports the veterans. Whether we agree or disagree, at the end of the day we have an obligation to ensure initiatives take place that will support and help our veterans. They are watching us and measuring what we are doing. It is not about whether we agree or disagree. It is whether we together make progress where in a few years down the road we can look back and say that we supported the charter when it came in. It is supposed to be a living document. It is supposed to help veterans make the transition. All parties agreed when it first came in that it was the right way to go. We have to keep working to ensure it is the right initiative and the right document with the right results. We owe that to our veterans.

I will not go on any longer except I certainly hope we will support this initiative, not because it is the end of the progress and the end of the road we are travelling, but it is one step we can measure and put forward that offers more opportunity. Whether it is enough or not enough, we can debate that on and on. I expect there will always be a debate about whether we can do more. I believe we always will find that yes, we can, but let us do it together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which was hardly partisan at all, much like the work he does as the chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I really appreciate that.

However, he spoke very little about the bill itself. That is a change because it has been talked about quite a bit. Nonetheless, I have found one or two flaws in this bill.

If the department does not recognize that a veteran's injury is related to his service and then that decision is overturned by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I think that it would place the veteran at a disadvantage because the five-year entitlement period would apply only after the board had rendered its decision, once three or four years had already passed.

Does the member agree that we need to amend the bill when it goes to committee and correct the flaw that I mentioned?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that a very productive member of the committee has just asked the question. I cannot talk about what amendments may or may not take place. It will be given a very thorough review.

I agree that one of the problems we face has caused a lot of distress for veterans, and that is the gap between when they leave the military and when Veterans Affairs picks up. We have to realize, with great commitment, that the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the veterans. Sometimes that seems to get lost in the process.

Whether veterans are recognized immediately is a challenge we should never let go of because if they are medically discharged from the military, we have to respect the fact that they are leaving their military career, not by choice, but because of the result of something that happened. They therefore should get full consideration when they are looked at in these types of programs.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has served in the military, I am very interested in this whole issue and I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who has said some very fine words, what he thinks of the fact that there has been an unprecedented level of activism among our veterans in recent years?

When I was in the military, one hardly ever heard from our veterans. One hardly ever heard from our military. However, today, there is not a day that goes by without us hearing from a veteran, or a member of a veteran's family.

Does the member not think the government has come up short in terms of dealing with our veterans? Yes, there have been some very fine sentiments expressed, but have we actually served our veterans the way we need to? In this case, will the jobs be there for those veterans who seek that kind of employment when they leave the armed forces?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I know as a veteran the member understands that it is a good thing we are hearing from the veterans. It is called democracy. We believe it is important we hear what they are saying first hand. Even if we do not agree, or do not necessarily like what is being said everyday, it is important that we hear it. This is part of the progress of saying that an initiative may have not worked a hundred per cent and that maybe we have to review it.

However, it never means that we start with a premise that nothing is being done for the veterans. That is just absolutely wrong. There is a lot of good stuff and let us not leave that sense of fear among veterans that there are no good programs and services. What we have to do is ask how we improve on them. How do we ensure that this initiative really does work for the veterans? That is our challenge and I believe if we work together, it will work and it will be very successful.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of serving for a time on the veterans affairs committee, which the member chaired very capable, and his passion is evident.

My question in many ways relates to the comments that the member for Timmins—James Bay was getting all worked up about. I would ask the member, in his position as chair, or really just as a parliamentarian, when he hears from independent advocacy groups, can independence and trust be placed in a group if they work out of offices of parliamentarians running contrary to the government and if they are funded by an organization—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In all fairness, when I asked a question about the same matter, I was told that it was not relevant. It seems odd to me that the Speaker would rule that the same question on the same topic would suddenly be ruled as relevant to questions and comments. I find that very surprising.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Certainly, members would know that issues of relevance are in fact compelled by the Standing Orders. The earlier intervention that I made in respect to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay's comment, indeed, I did not feel was relevant at the time. I still allowed the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie to respond.

In the same vein, with the hon. member for Durham, we are getting into an area that is really questioning the veracity and/or legitimacy of certain advocacy organizations. Admittedly, it is an area that concerns the relationship between the topic at hand and the various organizations that represent them. I would just remind all hon. members to guard that type of commentary in relevance to the question in front of the House today.

I do not know if the hon. member for Durham was finished. Perhaps he could just finish up quickly and then we will go to the member for West Nova.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification. I will rephrase my question this way for the hon. member in his role as a committee chair. In the rules of his committee and in his experience in that position, would it be normal for his committee to hear from a witness who is also an intern, a staff member, or a volunteer within the office of a parliamentarian? Would that be appropriate within the procedures of his committee?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I liked your answer on the topic very much.

In this study that we just finished, which we will hear more about tomorrow, we heard from some 55 or so witnesses who came before us. There were a variety of differences in opinion on the programs, and some would disagree with each other on occasion, and so on. We were careful not to go into why they were there or if they were from a particular organization or group, unless they registered that they were with an organization such as Wounded Warriors, et cetera.

The safe answer would be that we have heard from many different individuals, as veterans, with many different ideas. We tried to listen to them all.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to rise to speak to any bill that seeks to find meaningful and lasting employment for the men and women of the Canadian Forces who have served our country so well. For the last many years in Afghanistan and Libya, in the Balkans, and across the world before that, the men and women of the Canadian Forces have accepted unlimited liability when they volunteered to serve. They served on the understanding that when they came back, we would take care of them. That is our sacred obligation.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this bill would do enough. It is a textbook example of how the Conservative government would take a half measure and exploit our universal support for our veterans to pass it as legislation.

There is no substance beyond the title. One of the most substantial efforts we can make on behalf of veterans is to help them find a career when they are released, medically or voluntarily, from the Canadian Forces. This bill might do this for a very small few, though I am afraid that it simply would not be enough.

Currently, medically released members of the Canadian Forces who served full-time are eligible for priority hiring as a regulatory priority, regardless of the reason for the medical release.

The bill before us, Bill C-27, would build on a piece of legislation introduced in November 2013, Bill C-11, which the government introduced as part of its communications plan to address the backlash created by the closures of nine Veterans Affairs Canada centres in communities across the country. Addressing some of the major insufficiencies of Bill C-11, the government has decided to surmount it with this new legislation.

This bill would amend the Public Service Employment Act to increase the priority of Canadian Forces members who are released due to a service-related illness or injury, from fourth to first overall. Importantly, this bill would further extend the eligibility to all reservists, including cadet organizations, administration and training service personnel, and Canadian Rangers, as well as increasing the time period of eligibility from two years to five years, retroactive to members released as of April 2012.

Additionally, Bill C-27 would build on its predecessor by increasing access to internal postings of the public service and priority over all others for external postings to Canadian Forces members and former members of the Canadian Forces who served at least three years and were honourably released. Furthermore, Bill C-27 would amend the definition of “veteran” in the Public Service Employment Act from the traditional definition of an individual with First or Second World War service, to include someone who “has served at least three years in the Canadian Forces, has been honourably released within the meaning of regulations made under the National Defence Act and is not employed in the public service for an indeterminate period..”.

On its face, there is nothing problematic in these changes, but as a solution for hiring veterans, it truly falls short. Nothing in Bill C-27 or its public relations counterpart, Bill C-11, would ensure that veterans will get jobs. It is one thing to have priority to jobs in the public service, but it remains contingent on possessing the skills that match any number of the public service jobs that exist. In many cases, there is a wide gap between the skills possessed by a member of the Canadian Forces and the skills required in the posting.

There is nothing in this bill that would offer any form of skills translation or upgrading. Priority would be contingent on possessing skills that match the public service job first, and this bill offers no skills upgrading.

In addition, with the freeze on hiring, what jobs are Conservatives proposing that these veterans would fill? The government has guaranteed that there are no available jobs in the government. According to recent reports, the Conservative government will likely eliminate 30,000 more federal jobs on top of the 20,000 that it has terminated since 2012. When one couples 50,000 fewer jobs in the public service with the government's freeze on hiring, there is not much left that is available to released veterans.

In a piece in the National Post earlier this year, Barbara Kay wrote:

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 federal departments, “priority” consideration for frozen jobs is not of much use.

Mr. Parent, the Veterans Ombudsman, also expressed concern that under the changes, which increase priority for Canadian Forces veterans, the system would have to adjudicate an individual's file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not.This will be important, considering that it will be the difference between priority to internal postings or external postings. It would create separate classes of veterans for federal priority hiring.

When dealing with seriously injured veterans, it is also important to consider that injured veterans are unlikely to find employment in line with their initial goals. Particularly since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan, our Canadian Forces are often not career soldiers. Many are or were reservists, who intended to continue in or return to civilian employment. When someone is injured, a lot of that goes right out the window. It is a long and often endless road from recovery to rehabilitation, and finally to employment. This bill neither shortens this road nor hastens the completion of one's effort.

The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs heard from experts who agree that the key to successful rehabilitation from a serious disability is early intervention. Judy Geary, vice-president of work reintegration at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, explained to the committee, in November, that after six months off work, only 50% of disabled workers ever return to full-time employment, and that following two years of unemployment, re-employment is rare. It is unfair to present this bill as a panacea when it is unlikely to bear much fruit for rehabilitating Canadian Forces members.

It is largely with this in mind that the Department of Veterans Affairs has embarked on its most recent advertising initiative. At this point we have all seen it, given that the government has spent millions of dollars plastering it throughout prime time playoff slots. It is great production value, with a punchline that Veterans Affairs Canada can be counted on to provide career transition services. Despite all of this, not much comes from following the 1-800 number or the web link. One arrives at the standard web page where it boasts about this bill and having provided funding for 296 veterans. These are $1,000 grants to develop resumés. That is pretty thin gruel for a man or woman who has served in our Canadian Forces.

Recently, I had an opportunity to question the minister and deputy minister of Veterans Affairs on the estimates. It became clear that while the Conservatives had the audacity to increase their Veterans Affairs advertising budget by $4 million to promote the Conservative government, we learned, to our amazement, that they are only spending $296,000 on those services themselves. It is more on advertising, less on services. Veterans deserve better jobs and services.

In the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the federal government, along with many other private employers, use a skills translation tool, which allows veterans to determine the jobs for which they are best suited. Better yet, they help to determine how to translate the skills they already possess and determine which skills build the bridge to another.

Contrary to the opinion expressed by the minister before the committee last week, not all veterans feel best suited to take up jobs in policing once they are released by the forces. Like Sergeant Bjarne Nielsen, they want to be financial planners. Like Corporal Mark Fuchko, they want to be lawyers.

By present estimates, a skills translator, the calibre of which has been used in the United States for over three years, would cost a fourth of what the government is spending on advertising the $1,000 grants it will provide to assist CF members in writing their resumés. While I do not wish to detract from the possibility of jobs that might be created by public service priority hiring, the government has many other opportunities that it refuses to exploit, in favour of closing regional offices and advertising itself.

While I am glad that the government is finally acting on a recommendation put forward by the Canadian Forces Advisory Council that it has had before it for the length of its time in power, more than eight years now, I have sadly come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a public relations exercise. As always, its talk is much more than what it actually does. I believe our Canadian Forces members deserve the very best resources for translating their valuable skills learned during their time in the military into jobs in civilian life. I do not think that this bill does it.

Liberals will support the bill, but grudgingly. The government will have to demonstrate much more solidly a desire to help our veterans and Canadian Forces members find jobs and rehabilitate before it can tout itself as a champion for veterans and for the military.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I have to say that I enjoyed working with him and the rest of the committee to come up with what will be tabled tomorrow. I think he would agree that it will be another example of progress.

However, the member mentioned that this bill is not a panacea. Of course it is not a panacea and there is no silver bullet. There are measures that will address an issue and there are other measures that will address other issues, some of which will be tabled tomorrow and we will see how that turns out.

I have a couple of points and then a question.

First, veterans do watch hockey and every year there are 730,000 calls to that number that are answered, and services are given, which is a lot of calls a day.

With respect to job measures, there is a variety of programs. This is simply one measure to address one area. There are others, such as hire a veteran program where we have worked with Sanovas, 3M, and Intuit Canada; helmets to hardhats; and various other programs out there. The member is right, there is no panacea, it does not exist.

I want to ask the member about skills education and transferring, and upgrading education.

We already have in place $75,800 for a member to upgrade his or her skills, and if he or she cannot use it, a spouse can use it. Would the member not agree that, again, it is no panacea, but it is a nice measure that would help a lot of folks develop those skills to get those kinds of jobs?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton Centre for all of his hard, collaborative work on our committee, and we will see the fruit of that tomorrow.

The member spoke about the $75,800, but what I heard at committee was that very few people actually accessed that program. I heard that from those who came before our committee who wished to study accounting or law. Frankly, accessibility to these programs is a fact that the Veterans Ombudsman also brought forward.

To respond to the member's question, would it not be much better, for a quarter of the price of the ads that the Conservatives put on TV, that we use the skills translator? It would help our veterans determine their real skills and aptitude that could be translated into jobs, and not just the hope of a job in the public service, where it is hopeless right now frankly, but jobs in private industry. This is what they are doing in the United States.

There are some who have the aptitude to take advantage of the $75,800, but many thousands more would be advantaged by a proper skills translator.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are almost at the 70th anniversary of D-Day, which is a moment that makes us consider the incredible sacrifice that our men and women have made. They are often called the greatest generation, but I would argue that the veterans today are still the greatest generation. Therefore, I am very concerned when I see the veterans who have had to go to court to fight for basic compensation from the current government. They are told by the government that its position is, “at no time in Canada's history has any alleged 'social contract' or 'social covenant' having the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute, regulation, or as a constitutional principle, written or unwritten”.

The position of the current Conservative Party is that if one risks one's life for the people of this country, when one returns, there is not a fundamental obligation or social covenant that Canadians expect. The current government does not believe that exists.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about a government that keeps telling us how great it is that it is puts ads during hockey games, but goes to court and tells veterans that there is no such thing as a social covenant or an obligation to them.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member for Timmins—James Bay has focused right in on the issue.

I have frequently asked the minister in this House why is it that in the House we speak of a sacred contract declared by Sir Robert Borden many years ago, of which the member for Durham spoke of earlier. It is a sacred contract that obliges us to look after our veterans. It is our first obligation.

Conservatives speak of it in the House, yet their hired lawyers in British Columbia deny that the sacred contract exists. They say it was mere political talk and tout designed to get votes. Well, the way the Conservative government uses the term “sacred contract”, I actually believe its lawyers, that it is just designed to get votes.

Last week I learned that the current government has increased its advertising budget by $4 million, yet the Conservatives have increased the budget for a program called “career transition counselling” by $11,000, which is 11 more resumés than they had funded before. Resumés alone do not find jobs.

The current government is failing our veterans and the Conservatives are failing in their commitment to honour our social contract.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to deal with what I believe is a really important issue that Canadians want us to respond to and to do what we can for those who have served our great nation.

It has been a privilege of mine that I was afforded the opportunity to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I served for just over three years. I have a very high appreciation of the commitment and pride of those who choose to serve in the forces. One of things members of the forces recognize is the degree to which Canadian society as a whole has assigned so much value, appreciation, and thanks to those who made the decision to serve their country.

Earlier today through members' statements, I had the opportunity to express appreciation and to offer thanks to those members who have served in the past and their families and those members who are currently serving. Yesterday there was the recognition of Canadian Forces Day. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have recognized the valuable contributions of the past and today by those who have put their name forward and served our great country.

I hear a lot about the importance of what happens after an individual has had the opportunity to serve. I go to what I think is one of the greatest organizations that has had the right attitude in terms of those individuals who served, retired, and want to get engaged. I printed something from the Commissionaires website, an organization I have made reference to in the past. The website says:

Trusted, Everyday, Everywhere Commissionaires is Canada's premier security company, offering a unique combination of integrity, experience and innovation.

What I like is their mission. Their mission is to hire and support veterans. I would argue that no organization has done more in terms of being able to reach out to the degree to which our Commissionaires from coast to coast to coast have. They have done a phenomenal job in providing opportunities for retired service personnel.

Whether it is security guards, mobile patrols, everything from the taking of fingerprints to high-profile positions of security such as in medical labs to bases, it has taken the opportunity to demonstrate in a very tangible way that individuals who serve our country do have skill sets that can benefit society as a whole.

There are certain skill sets that are a given when a person is in the military. Some of those that come to mind are discipline, doing things in a timely manner, developing good teamwork, responsibilities, and skills.

One of the things that comes to mind is that some of the best cooks we would find in our country have been trained through our Canadian Armed Forces. We have specialty cooks who get the Red Seal. There are many different skill sets that are given to members of the forces and ultimately we could do so much more in terms of recognizing those skill sets.

I listened to my colleague, the member for Guelph, who has done an admirable job as the Liberal Party's critic for veterans affairs. He talks a great deal about the importance of taking career transition services seriously. If the government were to make that a priority issue, I and members of the Liberal Party would argue that we would have far greater success at finding employment for individuals who are retiring today from our Canadian Forces.

I love the contrast that the member puts to the floor of the House. All it takes is political will. We see a government that seems to be focused on political spin. We have a bill before us that is hard not to support. How can we not support the principle of the bill and allow it to go to committee? What our veterans really want to see is something that is a whole lot more tangible, something that is not going to create a false hope.

When we talk about this legislation, there are many current members of our forces and many veterans who are starting to believe that there are going to be hundreds or potentially thousands of jobs created by this particular piece of legislation. That is not going to happen. Look at the dramatic cuts to our civil service over the last few years. There are tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost or that are committed to being cut into the future. We have asked about the degree to which we can anticipate what kinds of numbers will follow out of the passage of this bill, and we have not gotten an answer from the Conservatives.

In part, it is because the Conservatives are more concerned about how they might be able to develop a positive spin and try to give the appearance that they are doing a lot for our vets. If the government wanted to do something a whole lot more tangible, I would make the humble suggestion that they listen to what the member for Guelph, as the Liberal Party's critic on veterans affairs, has talked about in terms of the career transition services that could be made available. The money is there. We have seen how tax dollars have been squandered. My colleague from Ottawa often refers to the waste that takes place in advertising. The last numbers that I heard were in excess of $600 million. Imagine, $600-plus million that is going to pat the Conservative government and this Prime Minister on the back to try to convince Canadians that they are doing a really good job. The Conservatives are not doing the good job that the Conservatives think they are doing.

The government should funnel some of that money to where it really matters. If they say that our veterans are important to us today, my challenge to the government is to then make it a higher priority in a very real sense. They could adopt the bill being proposed by my colleague from Ottawa who wants to depoliticize some of the advertising, and take some of the money that we spend on that advertising and funnel it in to the area of transition services. Let us get some of these retiring members and enhance their skill sets through post-secondary education, quite possibly on-the-job training. There are unlimited ideas out there that would make a significant difference in the lives of our military personnel who are looking at retiring and of their families.

All it takes is strong leadership, and that leadership needs to be coming from the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Talk is cheap. What our vets want is action. My colleague from Montreal made reference to the fact that we have veterans today who are complaining more than they ever have. I think we need to stand up and take note of that fact. There is a reason they are doing—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I am afraid the member for Winnipeg North has exhausted his time. Perhaps in questions and comments he can raise additional points. Questions and comments.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened, not needing my ear set, to my hon. colleague. I do enjoy his comments most of the time.

I want to draw a comparison. The member talked about the “massive cuts” and so on we have made. In fact, the number pales compared to the cuts they made in 1995. That was then, and there were reasons to do that and that is okay.

However, the real numbers are roughly 20,000 positions and about 12,000 people. It is not tens of thousands of people on the street. Most of those were through attrition over a period of time. Organizations as big as the public service are always hiring. Whether they are downsizing or not, they are always hiring. The number may not be as big as he or anybody would like at this point, but presumably, this stage of our economy and public service are not going to stay this way forever. We are talking about the long term. All of these measures should not be just for today or tomorrow. They should be for the long term.

We do not agree that this is one measure. Again, there is no panacea. There is no silver bullet. This is one measure that over the longer term will benefit more veterans than it might benefit today or tomorrow.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that what we are really talking about in the life of the government, and this is a conservative estimate, is 30,000 jobs. These are public service jobs. What we are talking about is staff years. The Conservatives can say that these are people who are retiring and the number of people affected is not as high as the actual numbers. However, we are talking about staff years and jobs that have been lost, not to mention the services Canadians receive because of being cut back. These are, in fact, positions.

We cannot have a dramatic reduction of the civil service and then go out and say to retiring military members that we are going to be hiring military personnel at a time when we have these massive cuts to our civil service. There are fewer jobs. There are fewer staff years.

More could be done if the government would follow advice and deal with transitional services. Invest in transitional services. More military personnel would directly benefit if the government made that a higher priority.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the theme my colleague mentioned when he said that talk was cheap.

It is true that talk is cheap. What is not cheap is advertising on television. Here are the facts, and it is not pleasant for the government members to hear them. In the Conservative government's eight years, it has spent $610 million on advertising. Annually it is spending $42 million on the economic action plans. It has erected 9,000 billboards across Canada at a cost of $29.5 million. The Conservative government cannot refute it, and it cannot look their constituents in the eyes and justify this kind of expenditure, not when there are these kinds of needs among our veterans for retraining, for purpose-driven retraining, to go forward in the public and private sectors.

The member for Edmonton Centre says he has the answer in terms of how many jobs have been cut. He does not have the answer. The government will not even give the information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to confirm whether it is 40,000 or 47,000 jobs lost, and there is a hiring freeze on.

My question for the member is simple. Do we not actually have an obligation to stop this silly, unjustifiable partisan spending and to invest in the things that matter to our veterans to give them a new fresh start?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is about priorities. What we have seen is the government talking a lot about the vets, but it has fallen short in terms of results. It can spend hundreds of millions on useless advertising, and the number of veterans who are calling in with issues of concern continues to climb.

I will suggest that the Prime Minister has bad priorities. If the government wants to rectify the problem, all it needs to do is readjust its priorities and make the veterans and retiring military personnel of Canada a higher priority. If the government does that, it will get more support from the vets. Our vets, in essence, will have that much more to look forward to.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the veterans hiring act.

Canadians, regardless of age or gender, have been directly affected and impacted by what our brave men and women in uniform have done for our country throughout our history. Chances are that we know or knew of a family member or friend who is currently serving or who has served in the Canadian Forces. This is definitely the case for me.

My wife's grandfather, Philip Lavoie, for example, fought as a soldier in World War I at Vimy Ridge and was wounded twice during the Great War. My wife's father, Brendan McSherry, served as a medical officer in the reserves. My own father was in the Royal Canadian Air Force for over two decades, and for my part, I served for 20 years in the Canadian army as an officer in the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers before I became a member of Parliament.

As yet another way to recognize the service and sacrifice of our veterans as well as their desire to continue serving their country when their military careers are over, our government has brought forward Bill C-27.

The legislation before us is aimed at giving veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces greater opportunities to start new careers. It is also a way for Canada to continue to benefit from their skills, experience, and leadership. However, as we discuss the veterans hiring act, it is important to remember that this is not be the only way we would assist veterans who want to pursue new jobs and rewarding new careers when they transition to civilian life.

With the time I have today, I would like to speak to how these measures would assist our veterans in their transition to civilian life and the other important ways we are helping veterans find meaningful employment following their military careers.

I think it is helpful to start by reminding this House why post-military careers are so critical to the well-being of Canada's veterans and their families. First and foremost, as each of us knows from our own experiences, the work we do goes a long way in defining who we are as individuals. It greatly influences our sense of self, our level of personal satisfaction, and even how others see us.

Our men and women in uniform, of course, are no different. Their sense of identity is strongly tied to their military careers and experience. Indeed, for many of them, military service to their country is all they have known for the majority of their adult lives. That desire to serve or lead does not end when they are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

In fact, the average age of those members releasing from the military is dropping steadily. Today the average new veteran is just 37 years old. That is exactly how old I was when I left the Canadian army. Most of these men and women have the drive and desire to find new jobs and start new careers. Their time in the military has provided them with skills that make them an asset to any employer. Their service has taught them how to organize, prioritize, effectively manage staff, and make decisions under pressure.

Canadian Armed Forces soldiers and veterans are admired for their leadership, teamwork and the fact that they faithfully and effectively carry out their duties to serve their country, both at home and abroad.

Their skills, training and experience make them good candidates to work in the federal public service. That is why our government has made it a priority to support veterans who are looking for a new job to help them find meaningful work. Thanks to our leadership, veterans will be getting more support as they transition from military to civilian life.

To gain a better understanding of veterans' needs and expectations, our government committed to conducting a series of studies in recent years. This project, titled “Life After Service Study”, yielded much-needed results. It gave us a better idea of what is happening with the 7,600 individuals who leave military life each year, including the 1,000 men and women who are released for medical reasons, either injuries or illness. It is important to underscore the fact that there is no such thing as a typical veteran. They are anywhere from 18 to 98 years old.

Some of them served during the Second World War or in Korea, others served in Bosnia or Afghanistan. Some were never deployed.

Just over half of them have more than 20 years of service. However, a large number of them were released with less than two years of military service. Lastly, two-thirds of all veterans are of working age. They are less than 65 years old.

This diversity means that we should not use a cookie-cutter approach to assisting veterans who need our help and support. However, there are some general conclusions we can reach.

First, employment is important to a successful transition. Nine out of ten new veterans start a second career after their release from the military.

Second, most of these veterans report that the experience, education, and training they gain in the military helps them in their new jobs.

Third, the majority report that their transition to civilian life was relatively easy. However, some veterans report experiencing a difficult transition, particularly those who are medically or involuntarily released from the military.

Our government understands this reality, which is why we have developed a comprehensive veterans transition action plan, an ambitious new strategy that pulls together all our rehabilitation programs, transition services, and employment initiatives. The veterans hiring act is part of this overall strategy, but as I mentioned earlier, it is only one initiative in a larger suite of solutions.

To ensure that Canada's veterans have the support they need to transition with the utmost success, we offer full rehabilitation services to meet the physical, psychological, and vocational needs of our veterans. The goal is straightforward. We want to ensure that a veteran's health and well-being are not barriers to his or her successful transition.

Last fall, the Minister of Veterans Affairs also introduced new measures to make our vocational rehabilitation program more responsible and flexible. As a result, eligible veterans have faster access to more training support. However, these services are designed specifically for our medically released veterans. That is why we also have our employment strategy, which is designed to help all veterans, whether they have a service-related injury or not. This legislation is part of that effort. It would create better access to jobs in our federal public service. We are also creating opportunities for veterans within corporate Canada as well as with public sector employers at other levels of government.

In addition, we are conducting ongoing research into the issues and the challenges facing veterans who want to keep working after their military service ends. For example, what kind of help are veterans seeking, and how are we responding to meet their needs? Our government understands that veterans are looking for good, reliable advice and assistance that meets their specific needs. What we have found is that many veterans need help effectively communicating their military experience and expertise to potential civilian employees. The reality is that more often than not, employees do not understand how their skills and training apply in the civilian workforce, and we need to bridge that gap.

For example, take the work of a military logistics officer. Does the average employer really know what such a person does or did in his or her military career? Do potential employers understand how these veterans were team leaders who learned to get a tough job done in difficult conditions with demanding deadlines? Do potential employers know that these veterans may have been high-level leaders managing budgets, allocating resources, and inspiring people to work together to achieve a common mission?

We need to bridge that language divide in the same way we need to close the cultural gap between serving in the military and working in civilian life. Our government is spearheading a variety of innovative strategies to do just that.

The veterans hiring act before us today proposes four key initiatives.

First, we want to create a statutory hiring priority in the federal public service for veterans whose medical release is attributable to their service.

Second, we are proposing that the existing two-year priority entitlement for all medically released veterans be extended to five years.

Third, we want still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have at least three years of service to be able to compete for internally advertised federal jobs. This hiring preference would also continue for five years after their release date from the armed forces.

Fourth, we want to give eligible veterans hiring preference when it comes to externally advertised positions in the federal public service. This means that if a veteran is just as qualified as any other candidate applying for a federal job, the preference would be to hire the veteran. We think this sends a powerful message to the private sector that we understand the unique skills, leadership, and professionalism veterans offer, that we are putting veterans first, and that we hope businesses and other levels of government will follow our lead.

That is also the goal of our hire a veteran initiative, which aims to encourage employers to put an emphasis on hiring veterans not just to support our country's former military personnel but also as a way to strengthen their workforces and remind all Canadians of the important contributions and sacrifices veterans have made building our country.

So far, by working in tandem with the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada Company, we have recruited more than 200 employers to participate in the program. We have been working with other partners who are equally determined to think outside the box when it comes to helping veterans with this transition process. That is why we are a supporter and founding member of the Veterans Transition Advisory Council. It is a blue-ribbon panel that reads like a who's who of corporate Canada, whether it is Air Canada, the Royal Bank of Canada, General Electric, TD Waterhouse, or J.P. Morgan Securities, just to name a few.

Our government established this advisory council through Veterans Affairs Canada, in partnership with the not-for-profit organization True Patriot Love Foundation. The council is providing the Minister of Veterans Affairs with advice on how to support veterans in transitioning from the military to successful civilian careers. As a result, the advisory council is coming up with imaginative ideas to overcome systemic barriers and help veterans make a rewarding return to civilian life.

This council also sprang directly from some of our first forays into a veterans employment strategy, including our $150,000 contribution toward the launch of a Canadian version of the Helmets to Hardhats program. Helmets to Hardhats is an innovative partnership between government, the building trades, and private companies to help veterans find apprenticeships and well-paying jobs in the trades and construction industry. Over the program's first two years, we have seen dozens of employers and more than 1,200 veterans register.

In short, we are doing everything we can to find new ways to help veterans who want to start new careers in their civilian lives. We are trying to tailor these solutions to their individual needs.

Bill C-27 is a great initiative. It is a practical, effective, and honourable initiative, one that would deliver meaningful results to our veterans. Therefore, I urge all members to support this legislation and I encourage the NDP to bring its union bosses onside.

Believe it or not, the Union of National Defence Employees does not think Canada's veterans, who have sacrificed for our country, deserve to be put at the front of the line, ahead of civil servants. I disagree. In recognition of their service, they deserve the support they need to gain meaningful employment.

I recently visited all of the Legions in my riding and took the time to speak with Legion members and veterans. I know that the veterans of the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell support the bill and are encouraged by the leadership that our government is taking in caring for and supporting our veterans.

Our government knows that veterans deserve the support they need to succeed and thrive in the civilian workforce. We will continue to act for veterans and we are committed to achieving these important goals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand up and give the hon. member a bit of a compliment, but then he slants the unions in terms of union bosses. There is no such thing as a union boss. That is the first thing he should understand.

A couple of weeks ago I did a press conference in Halifax, where DND is laying off 30 commissionaires, and every single one of them is a veteran. They are being laid off from the fire service, the watch service they have on the dockyard at the Cape Scott yard in Halifax.

I want to let the member know we support the legislation. We hope to improve it at committee. However, that said, how can the government on the one hand stand up and say it is supporting veterans and wants to hire veterans, when on the other hand the Department of National Defence is laying off 30 veterans from Halifax? It is a simple question. How does it hire veterans when at the same time it is laying them off?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the importance of this legislation. When veterans are seeking a second career, particularly a career in civilian life, they would be moved to the front of the list, provided that they have the skill set necessary to do the job within the public service.

I think Canadians understand that there is an ebb and flow in terms of how many people actually work for the federal government at any particular time, and that the government, much like businesses, changes over time in terms of where its resources are.

They key thing about this legislation is that veterans who seek meaningful employment after their military career would receive priority treatment in being chosen for that work, provided that they have the skill set necessary for that job.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. I want to thank the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his comments, but when he goes to his Legion and touts this bill, does he tell them as well, “By the way, we have cut tens of thousands of jobs, and there are not likely to be any opportunities. Oh, and there is a job freeze as well, so it is unlikely that there will be any jobs”? Really, this is just creating a lot of false hope.

Does the hon. member ever look beyond the borders and look to other models? He talked about innovation and new ways of doing things. Did he look beyond the borders and look at these skills translators in the United States, which actually align the skills of the veterans with jobs, not just in the public service but in private industry as well? There are thousands of job opportunities, and they are harmonizing. They are lining them up.

It is not enough to just help somebody create a resumé at $1,000 a pop from the $296,000 that has been dedicated to the program. We can juxtaposition that against an increase of $4 million for advertising for Veterans Affairs.

We have a narcissistic Prime Minister and a narcissistic government that would rather tout itself than truly invest in veterans. Have you told the members of your Legion that?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind the member for Guelph to direct his comments to the Chair, not to other members in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am surprised to hear this coming from the critic for veterans affairs in the Liberal Party, because in asking that question, he seems to be showing an ignorance or a lack of knowledge about some of the programs that are offered.

In my speech, I spoke about this legislation being an initiative within a suite or a family of solutions to help veterans back into the workforce. The member should know well that we have programs that will fund up to $75,000 for veterans to develop new skills to help them reintegrate into the workforce. There is no timeline on that. It does not expire. It is that type of program.

I mentioned the Helmets to Hardhats initiative that helps to transition ex-military people into construction jobs. However, when we bring these initiatives forward, when we being forward funding requests to the House to support our veterans, this member and his party vote against them every single time.

When I talk to my veterans, I tell them about the programs we are offering, and they understand that these programs will benefit existing and retired members of the Canadian Forces.

Let me conclude with the advertising. If veterans want to take advantage of these programs, they need to know about them, and they would not learn about them from the Liberal Party or from the NDP. That is guaranteed. It is a wise investment to inform veterans of the services we are providing for them to help them transition back into civilian life.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his service. We both went to Royal Military College. He served a distinguished 20 years and now serves capably in this Parliament.

My colleague had a very interesting number. He reminded the House that the average age of a departing or transitioning veteran is 37, the age he was when he transitioned. I was a few years younger because I did not work as long.

I hear members in the House claiming they are sincere in trying to be as knowledgeable on this topic as possible, but they are also criticizing the use of websites or the use of advertising. People who have worked in this area for a number of years know that government does not do the hand-off between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada well. People start to think about transition when they are in uniform, when they are not yet veterans, so we need to reach out to them through these forums, including advertising, to let them know what they should be thinking of when they plan their transition.

More importantly, what I love about the ads is that they show employers and Canadians a young veteran in transition. He is doing the tie. He is also a father. The ads break down barriers for our veterans so that they can get hired in the private sector. They are excellent ads, and it is sad that those members do not even understand why they are needed.

I would like to ask the member how he found out about any opportunities that might have been available when he transitioned. He probably was not able to find out, because individuals in uniform were not briefed on this situation.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service to our country as well. I thank him also for his question, because it is very pertinent.

He is right. When military members decide to retire from serving their country in the Canadian Armed Forces, there is almost too much to think about, yet not enough information to help with decision-making.

The most fundamental piece of information that people leaving the Canadian Forces need to know is what the government will provide to them to help them transition to civilian life.

I am the father of five children. Although I left the military at the age of 37, in no way, shape, or form was I retiring from the workforce. I absolutely needed to transition to civilian life. Every type of benefit that is offered by the government to help veterans do this smoothly and in a positive way needs to be communicated. How is it communicated? It is done through a variety of mechanisms, including advertising.

I will pick up on one last point that my colleague brought up, which is that is not just veterans who are informed through advertising. Canadians across the country see that veterans who have served their country in uniform are also able to transition into civilian life and they see what the government is doing to help with that transition. That makes Canadians proud of their government and it makes them proud of their veterans. Advertising plays a key role in that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given earlier this evening by my hon. colleague from Durham. He spoke about the Canadian Veterans Advocacy group and said that he was quite offended by the work that the group does and that it is not sincere.

I have also been listening to my colleagues on the other side. They are always saying that they are on the side of veterans, except, it seems, when these veterans disagree with them.

I would like to ask my colleague about the government's insincerity toward these veterans: David MacLeod, who was 27 years with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and served in Afghanistan; Mark Campbell, who was severely injured by an IED in Afghanistan and is now involved in the class action lawsuit; Mike Blais, who is a veteran of the Royal Canadian Regiment.

Why is it that when veterans embarrass the government and reveal the incompetence of the minister, they are considered insincere? They are only considered sincere if they tout the line that is being promoted on the television ads that the government wasted this month—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Are they a member of staff? Do they work in Stoffer's office?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the hon. member for Durham shouting out, but I would like an answer as to why the Conservatives would attack the integrity of these veterans who served our country.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely must reject the premise of the member's question. Members who have served their country need to be respected for their service. That member has to realize as well that every case is unique and that the details of certain cases cannot be discussed in Parliament or with the media or in public. The government is at somewhat of a disadvantage, but it is at a disadvantage because it respects the privacy of veterans and their families.

One of the things I would like to highlight for all veterans who might be watching this debate is this government's commitment to them. For example, the base funding for Veterans Affairs Canada has increased by roughly 30% over the last 10 years. It is at a record level. On top of that, this government added an additional $5 billion for pensions and for benefits, which is another record amount in terms of funding.

We have been trimming the administrative costs to ensure that 90% of the funding that has been allocated for veterans actually delivers services to veterans themselves. I do not think any Canadian would accept 50¢ on the dollar being delivered to veterans. They would ask, “What happened to all the administrative costs? Why are they so high?” We do find efficiencies, but to the benefit of veterans, to ensure that 90% of funding allocated for veterans actually serves veterans and their families. That is a positive message for veterans.

I hope that the ones watching today hear me say this, because they will not read about this in the media and they certainly will not learn about it from the opposition parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was having a nice quiet time in my office today when I was asked to come and speak to this important legislation. I want to point out that we in the NDP will be supporting the legislation, but let us go over a little history of this.

I am probably one of the few members of Parliament in the House who was here in 2004 and 2005 when work on the new veterans charter started. One of the parameters of the new veterans charter was that priority hiring for veterans would be a key aspect of the charter. What happened was that after eight years, DND and DVA were the only two departments hiring. The other departments were simply not. Now the government is forced to bring in legislation to do such a thing.

I already said in my question that the government wants to hire veterans, but on a premise that they have to be qualified. They have to meet the test of whatever it is they applying for. It does not necessarily mean that as veterans they get jobs. It means that as veterans they may apply for a job in the public service.

Let us not forget that 30 veterans were recently released from the Commissionaires out of the Fire Watch Service at Cape Scott, Halifax. Now the government is saying it wants to hire veterans, but DND is saying it is going to lay them off. In addition, many veterans have been laid off because they were last in, first out, with all the cuts the government has made to the public service across the country. Therefore, the Conservatives are saying to all the veterans out there that they should not to worry, that if they exit the military on a medical premise of any kind, if they meet the qualifications, they may get a job with the public service. That is “if, if and may”. There is no guarantee that will happen.

However, we hope to improve the legislation because we notice that in all the discussions of the Conservatives over there, they have not once mentioned the RCMP. Why should RCMP veterans who apply for their benefits from DVA be excluded from priority hiring when they become disabled and exit the RCMP? We would like to see RCMP disabled veterans included in the legislation.

By the way, there are a lot of Conservatives over there whom I respect tremendously. Today marks the 17th anniversary of my being elected to the House of Commons. I congratulate all those from the class of 1997. I see there is a Saskatchewan member from the class of 1993, a decent guy.

The hon. member for Durham, whom I respect, served his country very well for 12 years. He said the following, and I am quite offended by this because he is absolutely wrong. I will give him a chance to apologize either publicly or privately. He said this of Michael Blais of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy, “who works out of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore's office”. That is a blatant fabrication. It is an outright lie. Because he is—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member may have slipped. We definitely heard some unparliamentary language over there. I wonder if you will be asking the member to retract that or apologize. How we should handle that?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The use of that terminology in that context is unparliamentary. Therefore, I will ask the member to withdraw it.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I appreciate that, and I will withdraw it. It was an absolute fabrication. In fact, the envelope was so stretched that it was incredible.

This is a disabled veteran from Niagara Falls who runs the Canadian Veterans Advocacy, and what does he do? The disability scooter that he has is paid for the Department of Veterans Affairs. He plugs it in to a socket in my office so he his battery is charged every time he comes up to Ottawa.

I have offered him the opportunity to put it in the hon. member for Durham's office, who has a much larger office than mine two doors down. However, I do not see the hon. member for Durham offering the same opportunity for a disabled veteran to park his scooter in his office.

That is quite offensive. For one veteran to attack another is simply unconscionable and he should be ashamed of himself. As a person who was born in Holland and whose parents were liberated by the veteran community, I have always thought that every veteran, regardless of when he or she served or how, should be treated with the utmost respect. Just because certain veterans disagree with other veterans who happen to be on the government's side, the disagreement should not result in slander in the House of Commons.

I invite the hon. member, whenever he wishes, either privately or publicly, to apologize to Mike Blais and the Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

There is another thing going on that is simply unconscionable. We heard the member say that the Canadian Veterans Advocacy actually accepted funding from “unions”. The fact is that it is an Internet veterans group that gets its funding from all kinds of people. One union gave it $2,000. That was one union, one time, yet the member said “unions”, which basically tried to make the slant that the Canadian Veterans Advocacy was just a union front. If, indeed, it is a union front, long live the union movement. However, the fact is, nothing could be further from the truth.

I only wish the hon. member for Durham, for whom I have great respect, could get his facts straight and understand that when veterans disagree with the government, it does not necessarily mean they disagree with him personally. It just means they disagree with the policies coming from his government.

That is fair. That is why they wore the uniform. That is why they stood on guard for thee. It was to be able to tell Canadians that even though we might disagree on political fronts, we at least had the right to agree to disagree.

Without hesitation, the last couple of months have not been a very good time for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. First, there was the meeting that he blew off and then came to Room 130-S. He completely embarrassed himself, the Government of Canada and all parliamentarians, for that matter, when he literally verbally abused veterans.

Then there were the events of the other day. The reality is that we heard the excuses that he did not hear the woman or that he was late for a vote. It was absolute nonsense. The reality is that I left the room five minutes after the minister and got here six minutes before the minister and still had ten minutes to spare.

He could have stopped and said that he was sorry, that he had to go to a meeting or a vote. He could have given her his card and suggested they meet in the future, but no. Not only did he not do that, but the parliamentary secretary rushed right past her. We can see that in the video.

During her press conference, two members of the minister's staff were watching her speak. The deputy minister walked by. Other staffers walked by. We would think that for one second, one member of the government or the department would have stopped and asked if there was any way that they could help her. However, no, they completely brushed her off.

What an absolute embarrassment. I, as a member of Parliament, was absolutely embarrassed that our government, even though I did not vote for it, treated her in this fashion. That is twice. Those members do not get a third time.

I can assure members not to worry. There will not be a third time, because when the election comes around, this party, the NDP, will be over on that side and we will ensure that veterans get treated with the respect they so rightfully deserve.

For example, every time I ask the minister a question, I give him the question well in advance. Today I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who I have great respect for, if he would he you at least meet with this woman at a time that was convenient for both of them for her to discuss her issues about her husband. The answer was that he would take it under consideration. In the House of Commons, the question was not answered. A member of Parliament from the opposition has the courtesy to give a minister the question in advance but does not even get a response.

What are people watching this expected to believe? I was not playing for political points. I was not playing any opportunism. I gave the minister the question in advance, as I always have done for 17 years. All I asked for was a respectful answer and I did not get it. What is Jenifer supposed to think now? Her husband has severe post-traumatic stress disorder and all she has asked for is a little help. Did she get it? No. She got the back of the hand of the Government of Canada, and that is shameful. Every member over there should hang their head in shame for that despicable behaviour. It is unbelievable and it goes on and on.

I have so many files on my desk from veterans across the country who are disappointed with the government.

Having said that, I hope tomorrow will be a very proud day for Canada. The Veterans Affairs committee, which I have been member of for many years, is releasing its report tomorrow. Although I cannot divulge what is in that report, I have to give the parliamentary secretary, the members of the Conservative Party, my colleagues from the Liberals and my hon. NDP colleagues as well, kudos for working together to come up with recommendations that hopefully the government will accept and move on very quickly.

This will be a start. If the government accepts and adopts the recommendations, then the committee has done its work. The Veterans Ombudsman has done his work. The Canadian Veterans Advocacy, the Legion and the vets, all those other groups that have come forward to the government over the last eight years with recommendations to improve the new veterans charter have done their work.

This will require an investment from the government not only financially, but personnel as well. I cannot say if the report is unanimous or not, but I am very proud of it. I am very proud of all the members who serve on that committee. I am very proud of all the witnesses who came before us. We heard some very heartfelt stories.

One story on the public record is about Corporal Mark Fuchko, a double amputee who took over nine months to get the paperwork done for renovations to his home. Brian Forbes of the National Council of Veterans Associations said it very clearly and succinctly: “A double amputee shouldn't have to fill out any forms”. Think about that. It should not have taken him nine months to get the help he needed; it should have taken nine minutes. The minute he was a double amputee, the department should have asked him what he needed. It should have said that it would get his house renovated and ensure that he would get everything he needed so he could move forward to a positive life.

If after the report is tabled tomorrow, we can see that kind of action, the committee under the great chair, the member for West Nova, then we will have done something really well. I, and I am sure all members of the committee, will be very proud of that.

However, as I have said before, I have been here for 17 years. I have been on a lot of committees and I have worked on a lot of recommendations. An awful lot of them are still sitting on the shelf. Just because these are recommendations does not necessarily mean the government will adopt them.

However, it will be our job in opposition, and I would hope that of the members on the back bench of the Conservative Party, to encourage their government to listen to these recommendations, to understand what was said, and be able to adopt them in a sincere and expedited manner so that those most seriously disabled and their families will get the help they need, and get it right away. We will wait and see how it turns out in that regard.

Getting back to the bill, it is a noble effort for the government to introduce legislation for the priority hiring of veterans. Again I say that I hope the government will accept the NDP's recommendation in committee to include disabled RCMP members as well. We also have to look at the fact that in many cases there are spouses of veterans who may also want to work in the public service because of their experience. I am not saying that is something we need to adopt, but it is something we should seriously look at. Many spouses of veterans have a lot of experience dealing with disabled members, whether it is psychological or medical. I believe that an awful lot of family members can provide an awful lot of assistance to us as members of Parliament, to senators, or to the Government of Canada. Hopefully, this is something the government will look at when this bill eventually gets to committee.

At the end of the day, the reality is that we need to treat every single member of the military and the RCMP and their families with the utmost respect. Bearing in mind that not every Legion, not every individual member of the military, not every member of the RCMP, or their families, are going to agree with the government of the day. I can tell the Conservatives that as a member from 1997 to 2006, I received just as many complaints when the Liberals were in power about veterans' issues and benefits, access to them, and everything else. The reality is that the complaints have not gone away.

There are new complaints, but there are some similarities. One similarity is access to benefits. When people becomes disabled, either psychologically or medically, they go through what I call the Gordian knot of bureaucracy in order to achieve those benefits in a timely manner. That is one of the biggest problems within the Government of Canada. This is why the hon. member who spoke before talked about reducing bureaucracy, basically saying 1,500 public servants will be laid off by the time the government is done.

It has only barely touched the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. This is my hobby horse that I have been on for many years. If I were sitting in the minister's chair right now, there would be no Veterans Review and Appeal Board and there would be no Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Why? It is because veterans are the only citizens who get a lawyer from the government to fight for a benefit against the government.

There is something called benefit of the doubt, the compassionate clause. We respect our veterans. An entire system is set up that costs millions of dollars to catch the possible 3%, 2%, or even less, who are trying to cheat the system. Every veteran is included in that. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board, in my 17 years, is one of the biggest problems the minister and the Government of Canada has. I hope that they will seriously look at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and understand very clearly that if a veteran comes forward with a concern of some kind, has a doctor's note that says his or her condition may be related to military service, has a second note from a specialist that qualifies and quantifies the first note and says, yes, there is a high probability this condition may have been caused by military service, that veteran should be entitled to the benefit.

What happens is veterans go through the appeal board and are denied, they go again and are denied, they go again and are denied. It is called the no-go policy. We know it very well. If the board says no long enough, the veterans go away. There is old 3D policy that I have witnessed many times. It is called the delay, deny, and then die policy. Mr. Art Humphreys of Musquodoboit Harbour had to go through that experience. Get this. He was an 87-year-old veteran who lived in his house for many years. All he asked for, because he could not go down the 13 steps any more, was a lift for his house, so he could go down to his basement to be entertained. It was where his big screen was and his friends would come.

They sent in a 25-year-old VON nurse on contract to DVA, who said, in her opinion, that all the qualities of life he needed were upstairs and that he did not need to go downstairs anymore. He was denied the lift.

I made the argument to the minister of the day and unfortunately on the day of my argument, that veteran passed away. For $425 and $30 a month rent, they could not give a World War II veteran a lift. Let us think about that.

Having said that, we will support the legislation. Hopefully our amendments will be brought in. I plead with the government and I plead with the minister to streamline the bureaucratic process to ensure that when a veteran calls in, the only thing that person on the other end of the phone should say is “How can we help you?”

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I was an officer at 12 Wing Shearwater 17 years ago when this hon. member was elected. I enjoyed meeting him. I know he has a passion for veterans. I have spoken about his passion for veterans in this House, so his unparliamentary language directed at me is disappointing.

The very concerns I have raised here tonight, I have raised with Mike Blais and Jerry Kovacs directly. They are nice guys. I get along with them. What I have said to them and to any group that wants to advocate is they have to be an independent and sincere voice. They should hold the government's feet to the fire, that is the job of an advocacy organization.

However, they have to maintain that independence. My concern was when I heard that those members worked out of offices in Sackville—Eastern Shore and of the member for Toronto Agincourt at the time, which I said to them was inappropriate. They should also reveal their funding sources and their memberships, and hold an AGM, like any regular group.

I meet with veterans organizations all the time. A lot of them have serious concerns. However, they have to be serious advocates.

My question is for that hon. member, who I know is passionate. He seems to suggest that the organization really just charges a chair in his office. Is the member telling this House today that that group, and Mr. Blais, have never used the phones and the computers in that office, have never had meetings in that office, and do not hold security passes or parking passes for the office of the MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore?

If they do, I think that is highly inappropriate for a group that should be an independent advocate.

However, I am glad the member is here, because he can clarify whether any security passes and all these sorts of things, the trappings of an office, were supplied to that group.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a lob ball is thrown, it is gets batted out of the House.

I can guarantee there are no security passes. Many constituents, including the Legion and the vets, including some Conservative members of Parliament, have been in my office, and they have had to use the phone. Oh, what a shock, that Conservative members of Parliament would be in my office and happen to make a phone call. In fact, they cannot live without their BlackBerrys constantly going off in my office.

The reality is Legion members have been in my office, and they have used the phone. I am a member of the Legion and the ANAVETS, and nine other veterans organizations. Does that mean every single one of them should be tainted by the fact that maybe they have been in my office, but only one of them should get to plug in their chair because he is a disabled veteran?

The reality is I really quite get a kick out of this, to be honest. If that is the extent of the hon. member's question, it is unbelievable. That shows the state of affairs in the Conservative Party of Canada. If that is the type of question we get from an hon. member of Parliament, who I have great respect for, who has served his country with great respect, something has happened to him now that he is a member of Parliament. To ask that type of question, it is really incredible.

I hope the member has a good night's rest and that tomorrow he understands that tomorrow should be a very good day for all of Canada's veterans.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

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

I would like the member to answer a question. If somebody is up in the gallery and has been listening to the debate for the past two or three years, whenever it touches on the issue of our veterans, they will have noticed something unusual.

One is that every time the government gets up and speaks about our veterans, they speak about, in their terms, the glowing work that they have done for our veterans, and in fact how proud our veterans are of the work that the government has done for them. That is on the one hand.

On the other hand, it seems to me that almost every day we are reading, in the newspapers, stories about veterans who feel that the government has let them or their families down. Something is not right here.

There are two totally different perceptions. One, when members on that side of the House get up and read the canned speeches that have been prepared for them and, two, what we read about in the newspaper, where people are really hurting and suffering.

I would like to hear from the member what kind of perception he has. What kind of feedback is the member getting from veterans in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I do not just deal with veterans in my riding. I deal with them right across the country. On any given day, I receive 50 to 60 phone calls, emails, faxes, and letters from veterans, not only in my own riding but right across the country, with concerns and issues.

That is not to say that some veterans are not getting very good service. I can assure members I have spoken with many veterans who are getting very good service from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is the way it should be.

For the hon. member who asked the question, who by the way I think is one of the finest MPs in the House of Commons, all I want is for every veteran, every RCMP veteran, and their family members to receive the same quality service.

Today, I received a call from a gentleman in the Saint John Regional Hospital. There are 14 veterans' beds that are closed. They are not open. He knows of three veterans who served in World War II but because they did not serve overseas, they do not get access to those long-term care beds.

I just want to say, while I am on my feet, to the minister, for whom I have great respect, I am hoping that eventually we can have that conversation about long-term health care for the modern-day veterans and their families to ensure that they indeed get the same access to services that our World War II and Korean veterans received, as well.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He is very knowledgeable, and I really respect what he has done for veterans. I used to be in the union world—the Conservatives often accuse me of being a union leader—and I worked with him back in the day. We did amazing work to help veterans.

For me, this bill raises questions about veterans' needs and their transition, especially the younger ones who come back after several years, look for a job and have a hard time reintegrating into society in general.

Does this bill meet expectations? Does it provide the financial means to help veterans find decent work that meets their expectations and their needs, as well as those of their families? Will they find work that will help them complete the transition and cope with the health problems, both physical and psychological, that they have developed during their years of service?

I would like my colleague to answer my question and talk some more about this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the government credit. It has moved the yardstick ever so slightly on the helmets to hardhats, for example, which was an American initiative brought into Canada, and there is some progress working on that.

However, let us not forget what the legislation says. The legislation says, for priority hiring, “If you meet the qualifications of the job. If you have psychological or physical problems, you may not be able to”.

We are hoping that with our recommendations tomorrow and with the government looking at an overall view of this, it will look at these veterans who are medically released from the military and understand that in order to place them in a public service role they may need additional training, they may need additional rehabilitation, or something else, in order to fit those needs. They may not meet the needs right away, on a résumé, but with time and training, they be able to do that.

I was recently in the United States for a one-day symposium on what the U.S. government is doing in hiring veterans. The State of Virginia, alone, in two years, hired over 50,000 veterans. One state and that many veterans. The way it did is was quite remarkable and I hope to be able to share that with my government colleagues in the committee when the bill comes to committee.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support our government's efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans as well as those still serving and their families.

I am not here to fight with anybody or to pick a fight with anyone because I think everybody in this House is motivated to do the right thing for our veterans. We can disagree about measures taken being too much, too little, the wrong way, or whatever. Our government and the opposition in committee, particularly the members for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Guelph, and others, have been sitting very diligently for some time now, and the results will come tomorrow. I think all members in the House will be pleased with what they see. Inevitably, there will be some who say it is not enough. That is just the nature of the beast.

This is a very big story. It is a very long story. It is not a perfect story. It never will be a perfect story. That is why we have to take measures as we find them, one at a time, preferably more at a time if we can, and hopefully tomorrow will be an example of that. However, we have to keep moving forward. That is what the veterans hiring act does. It is not a panacea. It is not a silver bullet. There is no such thing. It gives our veterans, who have obviously sacrificed, who have put themselves in the line on our behalf and on the behalf of others around the world, in Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else, access to jobs in the federal public service. This is enhanced access to rewarding and meaningful jobs that will allow them to continue to lead and serve their country.

There were questions about qualifications. Of course, somebody has to be qualified to do any particular job. Anything else would make no sense at all. This act will help to ensure that veterans have access to job opportunities, by making an amendment to the Public Service Employment Act.

First and foremost, the five-year hiring preference will be extended to those who are medically released for service-related reasons. This will help to give those veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs in the federal public service. This is a long-term picture. It is not about what is going on in the public service now, or any kind of cutbacks, such as we saw in 1995, such as we have seen more recently in response to economic situations. Governments do what governments have to do. The Liberals did it in 1995, and there was massive criticism then. That is politics. They did what they felt they had to do. This government has done what it felt it had to do, although much less than the previous government did. That is not to say one was good or one was bad. It was different circumstances, with a different reaction by different governments.

This single change in the veterans hiring act demonstrates our understanding that while these men and women may not be able to serve in the Canadian Forces anymore, they still have a lot of things that they can offer to Canada. Whether it is in the public service or other professions, they are still capable of making great contributions in service to their country.

It is the same principle behind our proposal to extend the existing hiring preference for all medically released veterans from two years to five years.

We will take this even further by increasing access to public service jobs for honourably released and still-serving members. It will allow a greater number of veterans and still-serving military to participate in the hiring process for advertised positions in the federal public service. It will give honourably released members, who have at least three years of military service, a preference in advertised external hiring processes for five years from the date of release. This means that they can be appointed if qualified, and obviously it has to be “if qualified”, over other qualified candidates.

In order to ensure that veterans are offered employment opportunities, it will also establish a hiring preference for veterans over other applicants for externally advertised hiring processes. Simply put, if the veteran is equally qualified and has been honourably released with at least three years of service, the veteran will get the job over anyone else.

I believe our veterans and still-serving personnel are ideal candidates for careers in the public service, and many other professions. Their experience has taught them how to organize, prioritize, manage, and make decisions under pressure, all of which are assets in the public service.

After I left the military, it dawned on me more and more that servicemen and women sell themselves short in the military. Whether flying airplanes or loading armaments, fixing electronics or radars, or being a midshipman, whatever they are, they sell themselves short because they focus on the specific skills they have to do that military job.

They very often do not appreciate the transferable nature of those specific skills but, more importantly, the personal qualities they bring from the military to civvy street. These are qualities of integrity, teamwork, leadership, discipline, life experience, and the experience they have dealing with people and incredibly difficult situations, where lives are at stake, the lives of those they are saving.

It can also be a simple quality like showing up on time. One of the things I hear a lot from people on civvy street is that if they could get people who would show up for work on time every day, they would be further ahead. This is a quality of anybody coming out of the military. I often jokingly get criticized for always being early, although it is true that I have been late once or twice. However, it is a habit. In the military, being on time means being five or 10 minutes early.

These are the kinds of qualities that civilian employers value. For anybody in the military who is listening, they should not sell themselves short. They may have a specific MOC in the military, a specific trade, but they can do much more than that, just with the human qualities they have developed in the military and their ability to learn and develop new skills.

I am proud to support these amendments. This is not a panacea. It is not a silver bullet. However, it is one set of measures for one set of conditions, and there are many more that need to be addressed.

As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, there is a tremendous resource here. We have 7,600 people being released from the military every year on average, and about 1,000 medically released, at an average age of 37. When I was released, I was only 47. That may be old by comparison, but it seems young now.

As I said, this is just one measure. There are many other measures and significant investments that our government has delivered, and there is more to be delivered. There will always be more to be delivered.

Since being elected, our government has invested more than $5 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services that we provide to veterans and their families. We have committed much more in the 2014 budget in support of Canada's veterans.

The federal budget, delivered this past February, also pledged a further investment in the funeral and burial program, totalling $108.2 million over the next three years. Specifically, the new funding will expand the program's eligibility criteria to ensure that more modern-day veterans of modest means have access to a dignified funeral and burial. This new money is in addition to the $65 million that was announced in last year's budget to simplify the program and increase the reimbursement rates from $3,600 to over $7,300.

As well, budget 2014 commits the Government of Canada to investing almost $2.1 million this year to enhance the Veterans Affairs Canada My VAC account. For those who do not know, My VAC account is a web-based tool, not like monster.com, that allows users to conduct business online with their department at any time of day or night. This means that one can complete a variety of transactions with the government when it is important and convenient for one to do so, such as applying online for the full range of benefits, updating contact information, or tracking the status of a disability program application. Do all of these things need to be made more simple? Yes, they do, and Veterans Affairs is working on that as we speak.

This kind of thing is clearly something that veterans have been waiting for. We already have more than 9,000 registered users on My VAC account, and we expect that number to grow to 25,000 by about 2017.

In short, this investment builds on our efforts to eliminate unnecessary red tape so that veterans can access the programs, services, and benefits they need as quickly and painlessly as possible. I totally agree that over the years we have sometimes made it too difficult to access some of these services and benefits, with too much red tape, too many hoops to jump through, and too many people along the way giving the wrong answer, that being “no”.

We have done a number of things. For example, we introduced up front payments for the veterans independence program, or VIP program, for housekeeping and grounds maintenance. We have made changes to simplify reimbursements for travel costs to and from medical appointments. We have done away with having to submit receipt after receipt. We give them funding up front and then let them go about their business.

Last October, the minister announced similarly important and time-saving changes to the vocational rehabilitation program. By making the program more flexible, we are now able to respond faster and more fully to the specific needs of the more than 1,300 veterans who are currently eligible for the $75,800 in training. We need to further improve that system and streamline access to it, and we are in the process of doing that.

We have also established the veterans bill of rights, something that veterans have been asking for since the 1960s. We created the office of the Veterans Ombudsman to ensure the fair treatment of veterans, their representatives, and their families, in accordance with the veterans bill of rights.

The ombudsman is in a difficult position. He or she is obviously an advocate for veterans and spends a lot of time listening to the issues of veterans, talking to them, trying to make a connection between those issues and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the bureaucracy. That person is in a very important but very delicate situation, so it is important that the office be maintained, and obviously it will. It was very important that it was established.

We are also addressing mental health issues that our returning men and women may face, and that is a difficult challenge, as it is for all of our allies. The mental health of Canada's veterans is and has to be a top priority for our government, or any government, particularly those who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. That is why, in 2007, we doubled the national network of operational stress injury clinics. The innovative personnel support units have sprung up across the country to address the growing number of veterans suffering from PTSD and other mental health conditions.

This weekend, I was in Edmonton. There is an event called “Clara's Big Ride”. That is Clara Hughes, the sixth-time Olympic medal winner in both summer and winter games. She is cycling 12,000 kilometres around the country, counterclockwise, to bring attention to mental health, to the stigma, and getting people to talk about it. That is so important. People in the military are like Clara Hughes. They are A-type personalities, and it is very difficult for them to talk about having a problem.

As I told the crowd then, and it applies equally to the military, it is okay to have a problem. That is normal. One in five Canadians has a mental health problem. It is not okay to not do something about it. It is not okay for any government or any organization that cares about veterans to not try to do something about it. That is what we are trying to do.

In fact, the minister just announced a plan, a pilot project, to assess the benefits and risks of psychiatric service dogs to assist in the treatment of PTSD in veterans. It is a two-and-a-half year pilot project to place about 50 veterans with dogs, to the tune of about $500,000 to cover expenses and new research. Research is extremely important.

Many veterans have called on us to evaluate the benefits of service dogs and other animals, horses, for example, in the treatment of PTSD. I am proud that we are taking steps down that road, and more steps need to be taken.

We continue to work ambitiously to create new employment opportunities for veterans. That is why we have been a proud supporter and financial partner in the Helmets to Hardhats program. That program is providing veterans with opportunities for employment and apprenticeship in the construction industry. That program is relatively new. It will take time for the program to fully develop and reach its full potential.

We heard some criticism that we think the soldiers are only good for turning wrenches or pounding nails. Those jobs are very high tech, very highly skilled, and very highly paid.

That is why we are working with corporate Canada and the Canadian Forces, in partnership with employers across the country, to assist veterans in transitioning into civilian careers, working with companies like 3M, Synovus, Intuit Canada, and many more.

That is why we brought forward the veterans hiring act. It builds on of all these investments and initiatives. It establishes an unprecedented level of commitment to hiring veterans into the federal public service. It delivers real and meaningful new opportunities for Canada's veterans and military personnel who want to start new careers. It is another way that Canada can express its gratitude and respect for these men and women.

As I have said a couple of times, and as others have tried to say, it is only one measure. It is not a panacea. It is not a silver bullet. However, it is one measure. I am pleased to see that the opposition will support this as a step forward. There are many more steps that need to taken, some larger, some smaller. This is just one, but it is an important one.

It is a good piece of legislation. We will take it to committee. If there are amendments that make sense, I assume it would probably go to the Veterans Affairs committee. I am hoping it does. This is the kind of legislation that I can certainly get my head around in terms of pushing it forward, but also in terms of making meaningful amendments to make it even better.

It is all part, in a small way—and the military will not take over the public service—of getting some of the mental capacity, some of the qualities of individuals, into an area where they can benefit, not just their unit in the military, not just a local organization that they might join afterwards, but in service to the entire country through the public service.

Therefore, it is important that we create these job opportunities for our brave men and women to assist them in transitioning to civilian life.

That said, I am not going to dwell on this. It is a little disappointing that a union has spoken out against the initiative. It does not seem to believe that our veterans should be at the front of the line but should be at the back of the line, behind the civil servants. I understand unions supporting their members. That is what unions do and what they should do. However, I think there is a bit of a breakdown in understanding. If retired veterans become members of the public service through those jobs, then they will be members of that union. My advice to the union is to let it happen. They would be new members for the union, and very qualified members. The union would be supporting veterans along the way. It really is the best of both worlds.

I know that the NDP will vote for the bill, so I will not dwell on that anymore. I know that the NDP will support it and that the Liberals will support it, and that is what everyone in the House should do.

We talked a bit about the veterans affairs committee report that will be tabled tomorrow. We would love to tell the member for Guelph, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and others about it tonight, because we are justifiably proud of what we have done. Will it answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction? No, there is probably no way we could possibly do that. Will it take some significant steps forward? I think it will.

Members of the committee, on all sides of the House, worked extremely hard together and extremely collaboratively. We all put water in our wine. We all backed off here and there. Everyone got something that most people will applaud. We will see tomorrow. It will be significant progress. The government has to implement it, and I for one will pledge to do my part as a member of the government to get that done. There will be bumps and grinds along the way. We know that. It does not happen overnight. However, it will set the framework for some significant change, and I think most people will enjoy what we present tomorrow.

I retired 20 years ago now. It seems like yesterday. The new veterans today are more educated than they were even when I retired and are certainly more educated than a lot of folks at the end of the Second World War. They are younger, by and large. There are a lot of twenty-somethings coming back from Afghanistan. They are much more aware of their rights and their power, their power to band together in various advocacy organizations and their power to put pressure on government. That is totally what they should be doing. We should do it on all sides, respectfully, based on facts. It is invigorating.

One of our witnesses, Sergeant Bjarne Nielsen, had a wonderful attitude. I know for my colleagues in the House who sat on the committee that it was one of the things we remarked on. He had an IED incident where he lost a good part of one arm. His side was completely opened up. It was many months of surgeries, rehab, and so on, but he had come back. He was starting a very meaningful life for himself and his family, who went through a lot of problems and heartache, but he is coming back. He praised the government programs, admitting that obviously people would like to see more. His point was that government programs can only bring 49%. The other 51% has to come from the veteran. That was a tremendous attitude, and we were all gobsmacked, frankly, by his testimony. He was so positive and so determined that there was no doubt in our minds that there was a young man who was going to succeed in whatever he did because of his attitude.

Attitude goes a long way in all things. Attitude goes a long way in the House when we deal with each other, good or bad. Attitude goes a long way for people in duress or distress and getting them out of that.

We are here to provide the framework to do that through things like the veterans hiring act and other measures we will bring in as time goes by. However, it really is a collaboration, a co-operation, a partnership between us here, veterans, and all the organizations out there committed to doing the right thing, and that is the right thing for our veterans.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech even though we do not necessarily agree.

As he said, and as members of both sides of the House have said, we can agree that there is a problem here, even though we disagree on how to solve it. My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore said something to that effect too.

However, I want to look at one specific part of the problem, and I would like my colleague opposite to correct me if I am wrong. Unless I am mistaken, when he talked about the creation of the veterans ombudsman, there was a similar bill. It was Bill C-11, which died on the order paper, and Bill C-27 is the new version.

The government dropped the first version of this bill because it had some problems. In the summer of 2013, the ombudsman pointed some of them out, and in 2012, the Auditor General also conveyed his concerns about all of these programs.

Can my colleague comment on the fact that the ombudsman's recommendations were ignored? Will the committee look at that? Even if we support the bill, more can be done, and we want to do more on this issue.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this whole issue has a whole lot of moving parts. We are a moving part. The Veterans Ombudsman, Veterans Affairs, and the Auditor General all play a role in issues like this and others that are similarly complex.

We listen to the ombudsman. We have been very active with the ombudsman. The ombudsman does not get everything he recommends sometimes, because sometimes it is, frankly, too tough, for a variety of reasons.

However, I will point out that there were about 250 recommendations. There were about 50 regulatory and legislative recommendations and about 200 recommendations that were administrative. Virtually all of the 200 administrative measures that were recommended were implemented by the government. About eight or 10 of the 50 legislative and regulatory recommendations were implemented as well. There is more to do.

I can not remember, and I could not tell the House anyway, what the connection is between some of the standing recommendations and some of the things we will be proposing tomorrow. However, this is a continuous work in progress. It will always be a work in progress.

The fact that the ombudsman may be frustrated that things did not happen as quickly as he wanted in some areas is natural. I would expect him to be. I would want him to be. I would want him to keep pushing us. I would want him to keep raising more issues and considerations for us to look at. Maybe there is another way of doing it. If we cannot satisfy it this way, maybe we can satisfy it another way.

It is a very important part of the process. We have responded to roughly 210 of 250 recommendations.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for Edmonton Centre for the thoughtful approach he brought to the speech, for his tone, and for his conciliatory approach to this. I know from my colleague, the member for Guelph, just how facilitative a role he has played at committee and how constructive and positive he has been. In fact, I have constituents who served with him in the air force who speak glowingly and highly of his record and his character.

I would like to pick up on one of the last points he made, which I think is an offer or an appeal for ways we can improve this legislation. We have a way, as my colleague, the member for Guelph, put forward some time ago, to improve this bill. It deals with a few things.

First, in his heart of hearts, I think the member would admit that the $75,000 program the government is offering is now limited in amount and limited in accessibility.

Second, I think he would also have to admit that there have been tens of thousands of jobs cut. There is a hiring freeze, and not all veterans can meet the requirements to achieve a lot of these public sector jobs.

The opportunity in front of us is this. Would the member countenance amendments at committee so that a skills translator system could be implemented in the bill? It would determine the skills and aptitudes of veterans as they depart. It would line up with both public sector and private sector job opportunities. It would give them more choice, which is something I always believed the Conservative Party believed in. It would give them more choice in terms of moving forward.

Finally, in his heart of hearts, does the member not agree that perhaps the $4 million being spent on advertising today during hockey playoffs could be better spent and more wisely invested in enhancing these skills and aptitudes so that we can do right by our veterans?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Ottawa.

This bill is just one measure. The member talked about vacancies or a lack of vacancies at the moment in the public service, and that is a legitimate point. This is a long-term program. This is not catering to the situation today; it is catering to 20, 30, 40, and 50 years to forever, whatever forever is.

With respect to amendments, speaking for myself personally, I am prepared to hear any amendment that makes sense that will improve the program and will improve accessibility and so on. I am not as familiar with monster.com as my friend from Guelph, so I would have to Google it to see what it really says. I am personally prepared to listen to anything that would make the bill better and that would make services to veterans better. One of the reasons I came here in the first place was to do that.

However, specifically to the point about advertising, last year we spent $1.1 billion on health care and re-establishment services. A lot of these programs are demand driven. If we want to drive up the amount of money we spend on that, get 10,000 veterans through the door to access whatever the program is, and they will get it. It is demand driven. We want those 10,000 veterans, or whatever the number is, to come through the door and say, “I want that service, because I just saw it on television, because I am a hockey fan, because I watch the Stanley Cup playoffs”. Veterans love hockey just like most of the rest of Canadians. That is a very good way to get the word out so we can get those veterans through the door to access those programs so we can drive up the amount of money so that it dwarfs the $4 million spent on that, because we are getting so many more services out to veterans. It is easy to pick on a number to make a point without looking at the whole picture.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how my colleague talked about this being one piece of the puzzle and that we need a comprehensive plan. He talked about a number of elements of that comprehensive plan. It certainly sounds like we have broad agreement for this particular piece.

Something that really piqued my interest when the member was talking earlier was a recently announced service-dog pilot project we are going to be doing. For our veterans to have benefits from the job opportunities, we need to support that journey back to wellness for those who are suffering with PTSD.

I had the opportunity in my riding to meet someone who had a service dog who was feeling tremendous positive benefits from the support and from the relationship he had with the dog.

I wonder if my colleague could talk a bit more about that program and how that actually might assist the journey of our soldiers back to wellness that we all so want to see.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question about a great program.

The military has some experience with this through Wounded Warriors. I was in Edmonton a little while ago with a young soldier who was being recognized as the 100th soldier to get a service dog. What we are missing is some research-based evidence so we can put some hard empirical data to that to say that this is a long-term program. Here is what we can do, here are the benefits, and here are the risks, and that kind of stuff.

This pilot project with 50 dogs and 50 soldiers and $500,000 over a two-and-a-half-year period is critical to putting a framework around it so we can ensure that we are getting the maximum benefit and it can continue and become a long-term, established program.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate. I would like to inform the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber that he will have only seven or possibly eight minutes before the end of the debate on this bill.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague across the way for his words, particularly that he was open to hearing amendments. My colleagues will absorb that with great hope and great faith, because we have heard the government say many times that it is open to amendments and then those amendments are never accepted or adopted.

As I only have a short time, I am going to jump into the middle of what my remarks were going to be and focus on some of the recommendations from the Veterans Ombudsman, who spoke of the need for dialogue between the Department of Veterans Affairs and National Defence Canada along with organizations such as the Retail Council of Canada to cultivate relationships and develop a better understanding of their needs and the needs of our veterans.

One of the biggest issues that veterans face when transitioning into the workforce is a two-sided issue. On the one hand it is an issue where veterans have a hard time translating their military skill sets, their military abilities, their military CV if I may, into a marketable state that HR departments would understand, and on the other hand, HR departments have a hard time finding a way to translate those skills into a marketable place.

If we are considering amendments, this is one of the areas we could take a look at. We could do two things.

We could open up the accessibility of what the bill wants to cover, because right now it is limited to just the public service and that would shut a lot of doors for many veterans who may have skills that may not fit the purview of the public service but would benefit other private sector places.

We need to look at how we can help our veterans who are so deserving of our thanks and so deserving of a place in their communities, so deserving of a place in our society because they went overseas and put themselves in harm's way to protect. We need to help them adjust back into the workday world and translate their skills into a marketable fashion. On the other hand, we need to look at helping the private sector understand what their skill sets are. This is just one aspect of what the ombudsman suggested in terms of making this legislation stronger.

We need to have something that separates what we call our modern vets from the veterans who are covered by the original agreement, the gentleman's agreement, if I may.

Our sacred obligation to our veterans is an issue in and of itself.

We need to do what we can to make sure that these individuals have maximum opportunity to reinsert themselves back into the workforce, back into their communities, back into Canadian society.

One of the things that makes those who stood and served their country proud is the fact that they contributed something to their communities, either by standing as a soldier representing this country, representing our ideals, or when they come home being able to do what we take for granted, which is taking care of their families, which ensures that they are building a place for themselves in our communities.

This bill is an opportunity for the government, as well as the House, to help those individuals do that. I would like to see this bill opened up in such a way that it can include more veterans. We hear on a daily basis the listing of numbers, how much the government has spent and what it has done, and yet veterans still come to the Hill in what seems to be unprecedented numbers saying that access to the services they require does not exist. Family members looking to help their loved ones are not able to find the help in various ways, to the point of coming to see the ministers and their MPs. This bill is an opportunity to help open up that dialogue, to help begin that conversation.

I was glad to hear a number of colleagues across the way say that this is part of a larger picture, that this is a first step. Often we hear that a bill is the way it should be and it does not need any amendments. One thing we need to consider, and I hope will be considered at committee, is continuing to have dialogue with the private sector, National Defence, and Veterans Affairs to find out how we can help veterans transition more smoothly into the private sector, becoming full and complete contributors to their communities.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 9:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 3, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.