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.

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.

Veterans Hiring Act

[The Acting Speaker, 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 Hardhats 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.