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 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.

Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. House leader of the official opposition made on Friday afternoon.

I was quite prepared to see the House advance Bill C-17. I was prepared to leave it at that and take the victory for what it was and move on. However, since the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster confirmed at that time that he wished to continue with his point of order, I do want to supplement my hon. friend's intervention on it.

First, I did want to make this point, that the NDP House leader told the House that the hon. member for Oakville made comments in the House, “With the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement”. I appreciate my counterpart's sense that my powers are all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. However, I can assure the House that in this case my hon. friend from Oakville proceeded entirely on his own initiative in the comments on Bill C-17 that he made, as every MP has the right to do.

That being said, I do wish to congratulate the hon. member for Oakville for his very successful efforts. I am proud of him as a colleague for having taken the initiative, even if I cannot share in any credit or blame for his having done so. His persistence last week in seeing the bill through to committee clearly paid off, given that the NDP did change its tune late on Friday afternoon on this matter.

Turning to the substance of his point of order, the opposition House leader claims that the time allocation notice, which I gave on Thursday evening in relation to Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, should be rescinded because he alleges there were no consultations on the bill.

As the deputy government whip said on Friday, our party does not reveal the content of the discussions of the House leaders' meetings.

It is common knowledge around here that the recognized parties' House leaders and whips, their deputies, and staff gather every Tuesday afternoon to discuss upcoming parliamentary business, along with the Clerk or her representative in attendance. Some weeks, such as last week, the House leaders will even gather for a second meeting. That is on top of the innumerable exchanges that take place by email, informal meetings, and phone conversations among these various actors.

Last week's House leaders' meeting would have been held on the heels of the NDP's Tuesday filibuster of Bill C-17, when it has been the expectation and hope of all other parties that the second reading debate would wind up that morning.

Astute observers of the business of the House would conclude that it was not in isolation that I gave time allocation notices on Thursday evening for Bills C-17 and C-27. Indeed, I only gave those notices once it had become obvious that no agreement for a time allocation motion under Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2), let alone any other firm agreement, could be reached among the required parties with respect to those two bills.

I can absolutely assure the Speaker and the entire House that both myself and my staff did put proposals on Bill C-17 to the NDP House leader and his staff, both verbally and in writing, last week. I have no difficulty whatsoever in assuring the Speaker that the requirement for consultations contemplated in the standing orders was fulfilled.

As to what that requirement is, I would refer the House leader of the official opposition to a ruling of the Deputy Speaker on March 6, 2014, at page 3598 of the Debates, in response to a point of order raised by the previous NDP House leader, where he opened by making reference to page 667 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward: The notice in question is to state that the agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion... The hon. government House leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)... That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.

In this case, while I might welcome such an investigations and Canadians, I can assure the House, would be most interested in its findings and I would be most satisfied for them to receive those, I do also understand the policy rationale for not conducting them. That is a policy rationale of encouraging full-ranging negotiations without a concern for potential investigations like that.

Finally, I would like to note the significance of the point of order raised by the opposition House leader. He has, however, inadvertently, given Canadians an insight into how the NDP approaches the business of managing the progress of legislation in the House of Commons.

The NDP members make a great deal of fuss every time the government makes use of time allocation to ensure MPs can get to vote on a bill. The NDP members keep track of how often it happens and make a big deal about that statistic. I have been heard to remark myself that often they seem to enjoy compelling us to run up that statistic.

Why does that happen? The NDP has now finally told Canadians why it happens. In raising this point of order it has asked that a notice of time allocation be rescinded or withdrawn on the basis that it is not necessary. The NDP is prepared to allow the bill to advance. This is the very first time the NDP has done that, the very first time it has told the House that it is prepared to advance a bill and thus that a time allocation motion need not be moved. Never before, since this Parliament began, some three years ago, has it taken this step. Never on any of those many occasions when New Democrats stood up to denounce the use of the scheduling device of time allocation have they pre-empted that step with a statement that they are willing to advance a bill. This, however unintended by the NDP, has given Canadians a valuable insight into the approach of the NDP and why, as a result, the government makes use of the standing orders provisions to bring some certainty to the scheduling of debates and votes.

I hope, however, that this marks the beginning of a new approach by the NDP and not merely an unusual exception to the rule, brought on by the very effective comments of the hon. member for Oakville on the matter of Bill C-17.

I hope that we will see many more occasions where the NDP makes it clear that it is prepared to see a bill advance and, as such, resorting to Standing Order 73 is not required. There are several such notices on the order paper. I invite the NDP to advise the House which of those bills it is prepared to see advanced. Such a gesture would be welcome, and I am prepared to assure the House leader of the opposition it will be received in a non-partisan and co-operative manner.

Either way, I wish to thank the opposition House leader for having done a service in revealing to Canadians how it is that the NDP approaches debate in the House. This revelation will, I am sure, help to inform the views of all those who follow the work we do.

Bill C-27—Time Allocation Motion

[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?

Bill C-27—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a 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. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Veterans Hiring Act

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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, 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.