Evidence of meeting #171 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was military.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Director of Education and Collaboration, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
They are.
3:55 p.m.
Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
I would like to add that the third recommendation recommends that it's at that point—at the start of those six months or nine months, or however long that period is—that the veteran, in our eyes, should be fully informed and all of the authority should be in place. It shouldn't be the day after they're released that they're able to apply for a federal public service position.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
That's for obvious reasons and I appreciate that.
I have a couple of points. This is a question that applies to both of you, as you both raised it.
Mr. Lick, you indicated that not enough people are aware of the vocational rehabilitation program for serving members, even though it's a successful program.
Mr. Dalton, you mentioned that one of the obstacles is that a lot of CAF members aren't aware of this program, which is out there.
What can we do as a federal government to improve that awareness?
4 p.m.
Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
I'll make a quick response.
To me, it starts with targets. It involves three departments: the Public Service Commission, VAC and CAF-DND—and then all departments across government, ultimately. They are large bureaucratic organizations. Putting targets out there and helping people understand how to achieve those targets or why they're not achieving those targets will focus attention on the processes that are currently in place. I think focusing on the myriad processes that are there will have some marginal benefit, but it really starts with targets, making people accountable and then understanding why we are or aren't achieving those targets.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Welcome, everyone. I appreciate your comments so far. They've been very helpful.
A lot of what we're hearing is similar to what we've heard before, which is both good and also distressing.
Mr. Lick, you mentioned the U.S. program. What we've heard repeatedly from our veterans is that they have all these incredible skills, but as soon as you present them to the public service they're told they may have driven a tank or driven a multi-million dollar vehicle, but they're not qualified to drive a shuttle bus because it's not equivalent. How much have you looked into the U.S. system?
I understand that BCIT has a similar program that translates the skills over. Is it a matter of just buying the licence to the U.S. program or is it more complicated than that?
4 p.m.
Interim Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I haven't looked into it that deeply as to whether it's a contracting or procurement option. There certainly have been some initiatives within the federal government to try to create that system for us.
The one that's available now, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, simply translates the military code into a civilian code. In fact, I tried it this morning for myself. I was a marine engineer with the naval reserves beforehand, so I tried it. It simply gave me more marine engineering jobs and civilian jobs. It didn't accommodate the leadership skills and the other courses and the work in environmental response that I might have taken that could then translate into another type of job. That's the sophistication that I would suggest is needed.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Is this issue of the skills translation an impediment?
Maybe I'm being blunt, but is it being used by the public service hiring managers as a tool not to choose veterans?
4 p.m.
Interim Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
For last part of your question, I can't say. I don't believe it is.
Mr. Dalton and I have said in our remarks that, more than anything, it is a lack of awareness of what military members do in their day-to-day jobs and the types of skills that they obtain throughout their careers that are not simply in a code or in a job description. It's those types of skills that are available in the United States' example. You plug in not only your occupation but all the courses you take, all the experiences you had and all the deployments you've had. They then translate that into job opportunities.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Would something like that be a priority for any government wanting to fix this issue?
4 p.m.
Interim Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
It would definitely be one of the tools that would help, not only to educate hiring managers about what's available in the military but also to help military members understand the huge amount of opportunity that their skills could translate into in the civilian world.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I want to read you an article. It was updated on May 16 from The Globe and Mail. It says, “Successive federal governments have said they would help disabled veterans get public-service jobs...a long-time advocate says the civil service is not co-operative and he questions whether anyone ensures that discharged military personnel are considered when openings arise.” The gentleman says, “The public service is against this...they are not going to help the injured veteran get there. So who is getting him [or her] that job?”
This is what we're actually hearing from the witnesses and the veterans. It's similar along these lines, yet when we have Veterans Affairs or government officials sit in front of us, they seem to be patting themselves on the backs, saying everything is fine and there's nothing to worry about.
How do you view this? Why is there such a disconnect between what the veterans are saying and what the bureaucracy is saying? When we talk about comments about successive federal governments, I don't look across at my colleagues here or to the left. I don't look at it as a partisan MP thing. It seems to be in the bureaucracy.
4 p.m.
Interim Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I will comment on my experience. I can't comment on the whole public service and what every public service manager is doing.
In my—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Can I interrupt you there, though?
If you cannot comment on the others.... This is what's happening: “Well, I can't comment on the others. I can't talk about this.” Bureaucrat after bureaucrat sit before us: “Well, I can't speak for anyone else.”
If everyone just sits and says, “Well, it's some other department, not mine”, who is speaking for the veterans, then, who are trying to get jobs in the public service? I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be critical of you. I'm trying to get an answer. How do we address this when everyone from the government side, the bureaucracy side, seems to say, “Well, it's someone else. We can't help them”?
4:05 p.m.
Interim Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I will answer your question.
In my experience, it is not about hiring managers' deciding that, because they are military members, they don't want to hire them. That is not my experience.
My experience is that there is truly a lack of awareness, particularly among those who have not had reserve time, regular force time or a large amount of exposure to military members. It is really a lack of awareness of those skills, competencies and leadership qualities that military members have. They simply don't understand. That is why I don't think it's in the realm of hiring managers' saying, “No, because they're military members, we don't want to hire them.” I actually do not believe that.
I really believe that if we can provide people, through either mentoring or coaching, with information about what a military member can do for them, that would be the best thing we could do.
4:05 p.m.
Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Could I possibly add to that?
I just wanted to add that I think—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Quickly, I'll go back again to targets. I think that we need to hear from veterans. Where are the measures today?
I agree with Mr. Lick. I don't think that there's a lot of untoward action being taken out there. I think that it's an unconscious bias in a lot of cases.
We have an intent in legislation. We don't have a program with clear targets that says, “Achieve this, and if you don't achieve it, understand why.” A big part of that would be interviewing those veterans.
When we look at the stats today, for the 58% who were not selected, do we know why? Did they deselect? Were there issues with their applications? I think there's a lot of information that we don't have at hand because we're not managing this like a deliberate program. It's an option among many.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
That was one of my other questions for later. Should we have a reverse onus, then, for the hiring of veterans, such that if they apply for the job and are genuinely qualified, we have to prove why someone else was chosen?
It goes back to your question. You mentioned that the manager had it down to the veteran and two others, and that he went with his gut check. With priority hiring, if all three are equal, why would a hiring manager even have to consult you or go for a gut check if he was qualified?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I'm afraid that this will have to be a question left unanswered for now.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
You have the bureaucracy going against what the law is.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us.
I'm not a permanent member of this committee. I actually just came from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Interestingly enough, one very good employer for veterans and reservists is VIA Rail. I know that VIA Rail isn't a department, but I still want to point this out.
Is there a way to promote the best practices of these employers, in order to create a ripple effect on other organizations? We're currently only discussing problems, but we must also talk about solutions. Could we create a ripple effect by promoting employers that have understood the expertise and experience of our former members?
4:05 p.m.
Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Thank you for the question.
I think that we should establish accountability. The function that you suggested could be assigned to the organization responsible for managing the priority hiring program.
I'll add to that in English because I'm not sure if I got to your point.
I think that the more we approach this like an employment equity issue, with clear targets and outcomes that cause us to look at whether or not we're succeeding, at why we are or are not, at high performers.... If one department is doing exceptionally well and another isn't, sharing those best practices across government will aid everybody in moving toward those targets.
I read the testimony that VAC provided. It's doing some of that on its own initiative with other departments to help it get at some of the understanding that Mr. Lick mentioned is not always there. I think that formally having somebody clearly accountable for this, leading this effort and fulfilling the function that you've shared would be a good idea.