Government Operations Committee on May 1st, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order. I have one quick housekeeping item before we commence with our witnesses.

We anticipate bells to start ringing at 5:15 this afternoon. Normally, our practice, once the bells start, is to immediately suspend or adjourn and go to the vote. However, since we have a full complement of witnesses, both in person and by video conference, I'm looking for unanimous consent, if we can achieve that, to extend our meeting by perhaps up to 10 minutes. In other words, to go from 4:30 p.m. to 5:25 p.m. That should still give us 20 minutes to get from our meeting room here to West Block for votes.

Do I have unanimous consent to extend the meeting, if needed, for an extra 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we do have a number of witnesses in both our first and second hour, some by video conference and some in person. Without further ado, I would ask our first witness, Mr. Brian McKenna, from Equitas to give an opening statement.

Gentleman and lady, I understand your statements will be approximately five minutes in length.

Mr. McKenna, the floor is yours.

[Brian McKenna, Director, Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society]

Thank you for the opportunity.

I'm Brian McKenna and I'm a retired warrant officer. I'll offer my advice, but I'll describe a situation first.

I have a friend who was in a reconnaissance platoon in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. He taught on mountain operations courses. I watched him once for over an hour, as he and three others built a rope installation over a river that would eventually be traversed by a company. More than a hundred soldiers would cross that. That responsibility was enormous.

His ability to do math during his inspections and figure out which riggings could handle which number of kilonewtons of force, while he was harnessed and suspended in air, was impressive. This is all on top of his ability and proven capacity to lead a group of eight men and a multi-million dollar fighting vehicle in a war zone. He has administered health care to them, counselled them on shortcomings and supported warriors in their family struggles. He has led them in every aspect of their 24-hour lives in combat, for six months straight. He has a high school education.

Every department of this government that deals with stress, risk assessment and personnel management should ideally be fighting over who gets him. We spoke last week. He's still looking for work. What are we going to do about it?

I think one of the issues for transition, and in this regard, possibly transitioning to a job in other federal departments, is often that the policy seems to create a two-team presentation. There's the civil service and there's the Canadian Forces. Whether true or not, it can appear that a transition from fisheries to CBSA, or for someone working at the Canada Revenue Agency who decides to join, and is hired by, the Mounties, is done one way, with benefits and time served counted one for one.

Yet for someone transitioning from the military to another department of the federal civil service, there are formulas, considerations and decisions to be rendered. One of the things that would ease transition would be to ease peace of mind on transfer values. If working at Foreign Affairs for eight years means eight years of civil service time if you get taken on by Health Canada, service in the military for a continuous eight years should require no more calculations than that. Yet there are calculations and formulas, and that creates doubt and hesitation.

Next, I'd like to speak about equivalency, or in this regard, the objective versus the subjective. A natural place for hiring veterans, for example, should be Veterans Affairs. When veterans look at hiring opportunities, often their biggest hurdle is education. Certainly, we have folks in the military with multiple diplomas and degrees, but we also have folks who have managed some of the toughest and most challenging situations in life and may have actually taken more courses in the military than most civilian programs. On paper, though, they have a high school diploma.

Job descriptions generally say that you need a degree, with some mention that military experience may be considered equivalent. However, coming from the government, soldiers know that the objective is easier to score than the subjective. Who decides if a 20-year warrant officer in the infantry has the experience necessary to meet an unknown person's subjective standard of what “may be equivalent”?

I suggest to you that for releasing members of the Canadian Forces, particularly the injured, part of the release six months out should be an assessment and a real answer to that question. Exactly what is it that I have? Exactly what does someone reading my application believe I have? Where do I score on the “may be equivalent” chart? Perhaps this solution exists.

There's a post-secondary institute in B.C., BCIT, which has a program working with the Legion to assess a soldier's current skills and see what credit they can write off for their business program. That soldier is then advised of how many more credits are needed. This idea would be a great start, but embedded in the military chain of command, through the chief of military personnel.

I think our goal should be that the retiring soldier and the hiring staff of the department know exactly what it is this soldier's experience and training are worth before the soldier applies.

I'll make one more point before I end. It's on terminology.

As a soldier, I hated it when a concept would stay the same, but the next year it was called something different because someone had a great idea about terminology. If you ask an infantryman and an engineer and a chemical weapons detection specialist to clear a building, you'll get different action on the word “clear”. Lexicon matters, especially in the world of human resources vetting and algorithms, some of which is done by machines.

Perhaps military courses such as the advanced leadership qualification should be called project management, because that's one of the things it is. The military prefers the term “leadership” over “management”, because that's what commanders do; they lead. However, “management” is the term the real world uses when it describes a capacity to supervise, teach and administer subordinates.

I also think we need an honest review of education requirements and whether they match the job description or prohibit application from veterans who've served since they were 18. Does every job you are advertising really need that education qualification that is specified, or is there a chance it needs updating?

For example, again at Veterans Affairs, the job of a veterans case manager requires a degree in the study and assessment of human behaviour, whereas their biggest role is understanding military medical information and helping that veteran access benefits from the federal government. A qualification as a military medic or a military resource management specialist ought to be the most highly sought after qualification for that job. Those that have worked in the joint personnel support unit, for example, have worked with these exact clients, these exact veterans and their issues in uniform. Why is a social work degree considered better than that qualification?

There are around 100 different jobs in the military. The human resource specialists in the other federal departments should be ordered to look at each of those job tasks to see if it is the mirror image of a job in their own department. If so, an exemption for those personnel should be granted.

Currently, there seems no shortage of places that a colonel or an admiral can get hired. Everyone seems to grasp what they do. We need to develop realistic goals to have the same opportunities for healthy master seaman who have led boarding party teams and wounded sergeants who have cared for and led soldiers as they build rope bridges and breach wire obstacles. We need the human resources departments to understand why they want that veteran, and we want that veteran to retire from the forces knowing exactly what it is the rest of the federal government thinks they are qualified for.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Before we go to our next testimony, I want to ask all of our witnesses to keep their opening statements to approximately five minutes if possible—and I'm going to give some latitude here. That will allow our committee members more opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. McKenna, there's no malice intended here, but that was considerably more than five minutes. I'll just issue this suggestion to all of our witnesses for their opening statements.

We'll now go to our second witness here with us in person, Monsieur Fauteux from VIA Rail Canada.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Jacques Fauteux, Director, Government and Community Relations, VIA Rail Canada Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jacques Fauteux and I am the director of government and community relations at VIA Rail. I am also a lieutenant-commander in the Canadian Forces. I have also had the honour and pleasure of serving other veterans in the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I am pleased to appear today with my colleague Ziad Nader, director of human resources and information. He is joining us in this session by videoconference.

As a non-agent Crown corporation, VIA Rail provides Canadian travellers with a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible rail service. Thanks to our customer-centric approach, we've seen unprecedented revenue and ridership growth. I would say that some of this is by virtue of the work we do with the military and the veterans community.

In 2018, more than 4.8 million Canadians chose to leave their cars behind to take the train, a million more than four and a half years ago. This increase of over a million passengers, or 30% in ridership growth, is directly related to our commitment to employees. I would again include people like me, who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces and are veterans. Last year, we celebrated our 40th anniversary of service to Canadians, and service is what brought me to VIA: serving my country.

Since the beginning, VIA Rail has maintained a tradition of supporting our military community, and these ties grow stronger every day. Today, VIA works to improve the well-being of active military members, veterans and their families, and members of the defence department, with a strategy that is based on three pillars: train ticket-based rebates, partnerships and veteran and reservist employment, on which I will speak.

These three pillars are supporting each other with respect to the strategy for us to improve the state of those people who protect our values here at home and abroad. This strategy is how we deliver concrete actions to make a positive impact for that community.

The first pillar is to provide a 25% discount on the best available fare to Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families so they can travel anywhere in the country at a lower cost. The result is that 300,000 trips have been completed since the initiative was launched. In 2018, there was a 25% increase across the country.

With respect to our partnerships, which is our second pillar, VIA Rail actively participates in the activities of the approximately 40 organizations with which we work. Some of them, including Treble Victor Group, help military members find jobs, while others, such as Wounded Warriors Canada, help them make the transition to civilian life.

The missions of these groups are diverse. They range from promoting the development and well-being of military families to training and transition to civilian life. There is also the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, which promotes the advancement of women in the Canadian Forces.

In the spirit of the chair's desire to get to the point, I will point to the fact that we've recently been awarded a celebration of service award from a multi-parliamentarian group that recognized the work we do as tangible steps in helping military community members join our ranks, the ranks of a civilian organization that still serves Canadians.

Today, VIA Rail is proud to report that we have four times more military members and veterans than we had in 2014. Whether veterans or reservists, these 87 VIA Rail employees—and I'm one of them—form a true community within our organization.

These military members and veterans are making a difference. My colleagues, and I'm talking about my civilian, non-veteran, non-military colleagues, have nothing but praise—and I would hope you would ask questions to Monsieur Nader about this—as far as their performance is related.

Thanks to the June 2016 adoption of a policy for military reservists, which we have also won an award for from the Canadian Forces, we've been able to bring some of that expertise to serving members who will eventually become veterans when they decide to leave the reserve force.

These benefits and this investment in our men and women are unparalleled. I'll give you one example. We have one person who is a reservist, who works in Montreal with vehicles. He works on tanks and armoured personnel carriers. He brought us this small technology. He basically said it's an iPhone. It has open software technology that enables us now—after we transferred it to VIA Rail—to better manage our fleet of trains. It gives our locomotive engineers all the data they could have had previously in a legal-sized case, which any military or political staffer brings on Parliament Hill, in an iPhone.

Guess what. That was $300,000 in savings for a $50,000 investment in technology. That one week of leave that we gave to that person cost us $1,200. The return on investment is unparalleled.

Our staffing needs are considerable and we are looking to hire 600 to 800 new employees per year. Given the nature of our operations, we value military skills in several positions that are a great fit for veterans who want to continue to serve Canadians.

I would like to highlight our recent partnerships with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Women in Defence and Security, and the new Canadian Armed Forces Transition Group led by General Misener.

Together with them and with the Department of Veterans Affairs, we can make a difference. We have already begun to encourage other crown corporations to do the same, and we are working with BDC and EDC to share our knowledge.

As a veteran, I'm very grateful that the Crown has given me an opportunity to serve, and on behalf of all the employees at VIA Rail and my colleague Ziad Nader, I'd like to thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Again, if possible, I'll remind all our witnesses that if they could to keep to five minutes or less for their opening statements, that would be extremely appreciated by the chair.

We'll now go by video conference to Mr. Matthew Harris in St. Catharines, Ontario.

Mr. Harris, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Sergeant Matthew Harris, As an Individual]

Good day and thanks for having me. I am truly humbled.

I'll begin by saying a few things about myself. My name is Sergeant Matt Harris. I'm 47 years old. I'm married with two teenage children. I'm currently a reservist and a veteran. I joined the reserves right after high school. My plan was to be a reservist in college, and I was going to join the regular force or get out of the army all together after college.

About 27 years later, I still serve as a reservist. I'm an infanteer and I began instructing when college was over in 1995. I did class A and class B work for the military. I then deployed to Bosnia for six months in 1998 after completing four months of selection, which was for class C. I came home after that tour, taught some more in the infantry to pass on my experiences and got married.

In March of 2001 I was hired on by CCRA, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, now known as CBSA or Canada Border Services Agency. I also remained a reservist, being promoted to the rank of sergeant. I like to believe that my experiences in the reserves and my time in Bosnia helped me get the job as a customs inspector, although I'm not entirely sure.

The leadership at CBSA had no issues with my maintaining my second job as an infantry sergeant. They allowed me to change shifts and take military leave from time to time to maintain my skill set.

In September 2007 I asked for extended military leave to go on tour to Afghanistan. I had no problems at all getting that leave. I returned home in April 2009 and went right back to work with CBSA. Then in May 2010, I left again to go back to Afghanistan. I returned from that third tour in December 2010. CBSA seemed proud of my time away. My leaders and colleagues kept in touch and helped out my wife during Christmas. I maintained my seniority by paying for benefits and my pension.

I continued my military training as a class A reservist and still do this to this day. I do still get support from CBSA. The support I've received and continue to receive from my CBSA family, peers and managers alike, has been great. I like to believe that my experience with the military has not only helped me but has also helped out CBSA.

In 2012, your soldiers were given a bit of a bonus when we were told that some of our time as class B or class C reservists was added on to our time and we were granted more vacation and seniority. However, in June 2018, seniority for your soldiers was taken away. Your former and current soldiers serving in the CBSA have all been affected.

For me as a soldier, serving my country has always seemed like the most honourable thing to do. It gives me great pride to continue to serve, regardless of my age and my weary bones. As a soldier, I've seen and experienced great inspiration, gut-bursting laughter, incredible fear and soul-destroying sadness.

I tell people that I've served with the military and that being part of CBSA has been fantastic. If there is one area in which I believe it could improve and it could bring in more veterans to serve in the public service, it would be to respect the time we have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, which means regular force and classes A, B or C, and by allowing us to have that time recognized for vacation, as well as seniority. The public service seems like a natural extension of the service we provide Canada. One of the biggest incentives for veterans would be to have that time recognized.

There are hundreds of former and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have dedicated and continue to dedicate their lives and free time to contribute to the safety and security of Canadians at home and of our interests abroad. All we ask for is a small but important change to the policy that allows us to be equals with our colleagues within the public service who can carry over service and seniority.

I'll sign off by quoting my regimental motto, Non nobis sed patriae, which is Latin for “Not for us, but for our country”.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

Finally, we have via video conference from Fort Erie, Ontario, Madam Emily Rowe.

Madam Rowe, the floor is yours.

[Emily Rowe, As an Individual]

First and foremost, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

My name is Emily Rowe. I've been employed by CBSA for the last five years.

At the end of my grade 12 year, I witnessed a Griffon helicopter land on the football field of my high school as part of a recruiting campaign for the infantry reserves. It didn't take a month before I convinced my mother to sign on the dotted line to allow me the honour of becoming an infanteer. I stayed in the reserves for five years, after which I joined the Royal Canadian Navy regular force and was employed as a naval combat information operator. I completed 12 years of service and received a Canadian Forces Decoration medal for service.

In 2014, I made the move from the military to the public service. This transition was not easy, nor was the decision to leave the military. I was in search of a more stable life and being closer to family, and I had a desire to have a career that would be an extension to my service in the military.

I've noted some issues that would make hiring CAF members less stressful and entice great candidates to the CBSA.

The hardships of training in Rigaud are a turnoff for many people. To leave a $70,000 to $80,000 career is a risk. People in dual-income families cannot afford the sacrifice. Unpaid training is very difficult, and the $125 per week allowance that the recruiting promises comes only every six weeks, so it is very misleading and prevents recruits from being able to plan financially for a period of absence from their families. Also, the random process for port selection is intimidating for members who are striving to achieve more stability for their families.

In the Canadian Armed Forces, 25 years of service provides a full pension with no penalty. This was a huge consideration for me. I had to give up many years of pensionable time to transfer. As well, I am five years in with the public service and I was told that my transfer was not a priority as I will not be retiring soon. Knowing the amount of time transferred is valuable for me in creating a financial plan for my future.

I have always been proud of my military service. When I arrived at my port of entry, I learned that I could submit my MPRR—record of service—to receive the same level of vacation that I had worked for in the military and to enhance my seniority number on the vacation leave and line selection bidding lists. This was a huge bonus, as I had worked very hard to achieve a rank and record with the federal government.

What I'm about to share with you now is the most egregious of all deficiencies. In 2014, I was hired with someone with whom I've become friends. He transferred from the Coast Guard. He and I were afforded the same respect, and I took my place right behind him on the seniority list. Four years later, in June 2018, seniority for soldiers was taken away. My peer retains his position on the seniority list, but I have fallen over 50 positions on a list of 120 people.

I am constantly approached by comrades I served with who are looking for more information about my new career with CBSA. I tell them that I am happy with my career change. I also have to tell them, with shame, that their service doesn't count. It doesn't count for seniority and it doesn't equate pension-wise, and they may be uprooted once again, with their families, to a remote isolated port.

I have recommendations.

Provide an environment for solid candidates to learn in and to not have worry about incidental costs while training. At a minimum, pay the indicated $125 per week every week.

Entice members of the Canadian Armed Forces with an edge on port selection. Signing bonuses are often offered in lower-staffed occupations within the government. Offer the first three choices to veterans.

Realize that CBSA is a law enforcement service and our pensions should be in line with those of other law enforcement services. Strengthen the response to pension transfers to allow responsible financial planning for Canadian Armed Forces members who have a transfer value.

The main reason why I have made this committee appearance a priority is to ask for respect for our time that we served in the Canadian Armed Forces—regular forces and reserve classes A, B and C—by allowing us to have the time recognized for vacation and seniority. We have served and continue to serve this country. A change in policy would allow us to feel equal to our peers, those who transferred from other departments of the public service and can carry over their service and seniority.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of our witnesses who are here today.

Colleagues, because of the shortness of time, we won't have enough time for a full round of questions, but we certainly will have at least a complete first round of seven-minute interventions. We'll play it by ear after that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Can we do five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

If the wish of the committee is to cut it down to five minutes each, we might get—

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

That's so everybody gets a chance.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

It will be five minutes then for interventions and we will start with Mr. Drouin.

You have five minutes, please.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and for those who have served, I want to thank you for your service.

Mr. McKenna, you've enumerated some recommendations that we can make, and I'm hearing a theme, first, to recognize one for one, so that one year in the military should equal one year in the public service. I'm just wondering what you heard on the ground from some of your other colleagues about their experiences in trying to reintegrate into the public service for jobs, and whether they've received any help from the military, knowing that once it's their time they will either move on. Has there been any help?

We've also heard about skill sets, understanding and transferring the skill sets to new terminology so that the public service understands what you guys do. Has there been any help for this in terms of your experience and your colleagues' experiences?

[Brian McKenna]

In my personal experience and among the folks around me who I speak with there have been some advancements. I'm speaking to you today, and one of the things the veterans have been asking, for years, is for access to other departments that affect us. The fact we're here is part of that progress.

I just want to caution people whenever they have another idea for Defence that Defence is real busy. This town right now is under water. We have people all across the globe, and every time I think I know where we're going next I'm generally wrong. It might be a country we don't even have on a radar right now. Defence has to be obsessed with the next problem in that regard. To be fair to them with what they have to do around the globe, and what they're doing around the block from you right now, they're real busy and anything in this regard is going to be a distant priority.

It kind of has to be. I'm not trying to say they're giving it lip service. They're doing what they can, but they also need direction and assistance from people like us to let them know what's missing. I'm suggesting that as the process for being released happens there are noticeable benchmarks. Without knowing every case across the forces, I can tell you that they don't release people without at least six months of warning, particularly if it's a medical release. That's not a lot of time, but that is some time to do some of the things that I've mentioned. That's where I would like to see progress.

In answer to your question, sir, I have seen them do things, but I'm also very aware of where their priorities have to be. It should be managed by Veterans Affairs, but I believe this should also be something in the mandate letter of whichever minister gets the file on intergovernmental affairs. You have to see that, as a soldier, it's good that Defence is aware of us, but that's looking in the past. In helping us look to the future whether it's jobs or housing, or anything along those lines, we generally need involvement from there as well. That's my opinion on that, sir.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Fauteux, you talked about VIA Rail's success in hiring veterans. You said that there are four times more veterans in your workforce than in 2014.

How has VIA Rail been able to hire and assist veterans in this transition?

The question can be for your colleague as well.

[Jacques Fauteux]

I think it's really a matter of working with people who have already done the work in the past.

We have learned from Amtrak, from the resources the company had put in place. We have found partners such as the defunct Canada Company, which is being replaced by a group of various organizations.

We have to spread the word.

The reason we did it at VIA Rail was that VIA can't be dictated to by the government with respect to it's independent Crown corporation role. We can't dictate like the law for departments with respect to hiring of military members, but we surely can lead the way so that we can encourage, from a public policy perspective, other federal organizations to get into the same space. I think that's what's happening with other departments.

The military members normally have a pretty tight network. That's why it works in platoons, or whatever system that we have in the navy, army or air force, but when you get the word across it's just about being able to translate what a military member's expertise is. That's where Mr. Nader comes in with his team in translating that information to the HR process. There is some measure of willingness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, everyone.

Mr. McKenna, it's good to see you again.

I have a question for you. Who do you think is best to determine the transferable skills, the equivalency? This comes up. I hear it from a lot of the veterans I chat with in Edmonton. They reach a stone wall. We had Veterans Affairs here. Every government department comes forward, hand over heart, saying they're doing their best, but then we hear from the veterans that's it's not happening.

As a cynic at heart, I have a hard time believing that our bureaucracy is doing a good job getting the vets in. One of the issues is that they build up walls based on the skill set. Who's best to say that this in the military is equivalent to this in public service, so we can break down that wall?

[Brian McKenna]

I would like to see something that is a combination of specialists from admissions from post-secondary institutions, because they generally wind up working in this space. I also think that a little bit of a review, department by department, could go along with that.

I mentioned in my comments, for a reason, the advantage we see with something like the folks at BCIT, but then also there's the limitation that it is one program, one school and one province. I would data mine those people right now. That is a program that works very well, and it works very well for what it does. I think the Legion was one of the anchors behind it. I have to give them credit for that, so something along those lines....

We do need to make sure accreditation in this country is still respected. That's what the military member wants. Members want to know that their plumbing ticket counts. They're not trying to discredit the concept of accreditation in their field.

I'm reticent to hand it to business. While I respect business, often business just comes from the perspective of its own business. We've seen that before with a lot of different.... Folks come forward knowing their particular background of how to get someone hired at a sugar refinery or whatever it may be. I really think we need to combine the skill that's already there and the people who are already doing this, and approach it from that point of view.

I also think buy-in needs to be had at the unions of the different places we're looking for these folks to be hired. It is something we have to be aware of, that you can have acceptance through the hierarchy and yet push-back at that level, too.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

The hiring priority, five years from medical release, what they can activate and get in.... We've heard feedback that maybe it should be moved to 10 years. Is that something you would agree with?

[Brian McKenna]

It's not an area I have any expertise in answering, to be fair. I don't know that. That might go best to one of the other panellists.