Evidence of meeting #173 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ron Rea  As an Individual
Morgan Gay  National Negotiator, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Baxter Williams  Executive Director, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat
Sandra Hassan  Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order if I may. Thank you very much.

I just have a quick housekeeping note before we get going.

We'll have a one-hour panel. We have three witnesses today, one by video conference and two in person. We thank you all for being here.

I believe, colleagues, that I'll go with five-minute interventions, so we'll have time for a total of nine questions.

Mr. Masse, that means that rather than a seven- and a three-minute question, you'll get two fives.

We also have with us, via video conference from Edmonton, Alberta, Mr. Ron Rea.

Mr. Rea, can you hear us?

May 15th, 2019 / 3:30 p.m.

Ron Rea As an Individual

Yes, I can.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much for being with us.

Colleagues, I think you all know the drill.

Mr. Rea, you'll have an opening statement, hopefully of five minutes or less. After all of the witnesses who are with us in person complete their statements, we'll go to questions by our committee members.

Mr. Rea, without further ado, the floor is yours.

3:30 p.m.

As an Individual

Ron Rea

Thank you very much.

Good day, members of the committee, and thank you for inviting me to attend and speak on my own behalf and that of other Canadian Forces veterans with regard to the government's strategy for hiring veterans for public service positions.

I am a seventh generation Canadian, a 21-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, a 12-year corporate executive, and I have been unemployed for 18 months. In 2006, after 21 years of distinguished service, I was 3b medically released from the Canadian Forces, a medical release classification placed upon me for a lifetime due to the numerous operational injuries I sustained during my air force career in domestic search and rescue operations. I retired with the rank of sergeant as a SAR tech team leader.

I was fortunate that, due to the economic boom in Alberta at the time of my medical release, I secured a very good middle management position with a very large corporation in Edmonton that sought to exploit my military expertise in critical thinking and problem solving. I went seamlessly from working with the military one day to civilian work the next, due to the successful application of the SISIP vocational rehabilitation program.

Due to the quality of my military training, I consistently scored the highest yearly evaluations among 1,200 employees and was described as a valuable asset to the executive branch in my civilian occupation.

When the economic downturn hit Alberta in 2015, the effects finally hit me directly in November 2017, when the company I worked for began to significantly downsize. My position was eliminated after 12 years of service. I was very confident that I would find employment quickly because of my extensive experience and background and because I was a veteran. I knew that I would not be eligible for the priority entitlement program, but that did not mean I was any less a veteran. I decided to apply to every Government of Canada job that was appropriate to my level of experience, and in doing so I applied to more than 30 positions.

Applying for any position through the Government of Canada website meant potentially spending an entire day filling out a single application online. It is a very exhaustive process and pulls no relevant information from a well-prepared and detailed resumé commonly accepted by most non-governmental job postings.

I passed all but two screening processes for all 30 jobs I applied for. Ironically, after serving 21 years in the military, the two jobs I was screened out of were for Veterans Affairs Canada. For all the others, I was informed through the Government of Canada website that my application was being retained until a position was available.

After one year, I was finally selected to attend two separate RCMP interviews at the CR-4 entry level. These were exhaustive interviews conducted by three HR staff. I passed both, only to be advised by email that I was a successful candidate and, although I was not being offered a position, I would be added to a pool of qualified candidates and that this pool would only be valid for a three-month period, at which time I would have to restart the process from the beginning.

At the end of my last RCMP interview, I asked the RCMP HR staff, if they were only conducting these interviews to fill a pool of qualified candidates, how often did they conduct interviews? Their response was that it was their full-time job. Every response I provided during the interview was recorded in writing by each person on the panel and I had to speak very slowly. I personally found this to be very labourious and inefficient.

In August 2018, I applied as an integrity services investigator with Employment and Social Development Canada. This was a very long, full-day online application. After waiting a few weeks, I was informed by email that I did not meet the required criteria, even though it was detailed in my application that I had extensive related experience, both military and corporate. This was the catalyst that forced me to contact my member of Parliament to seek guidance on this matter. I felt that I had been dismissed prematurely from this application.

After I contacted Employment and Social Development Canada, they got back to me to ask if there had been an oversight in my application. They stated that I was an unsuccessful candidate because I lacked investigative experience, even though my online application clearly detailed that I had thousands of hours performing that task. They then concluded that I would not be contacted further.

To my complete surprise, just this past month I was contacted by this same department that had dismissed me. Suddenly I was now deemed qualified, even though I had not reapplied. I attended a three-panel interview and an in-depth security screening process within a week and passed all levels of the screening.

I have now been advised that they are pleased to inform me that I am part of yet another pool of qualified candidates and that I may be offered a position in the future. However, the application will expire on September 4, 2019, with the possibility of extension.

In conclusion, my value as a veteran is no different from any other veteran, regardless of how long I have spent away from the forces. Canadians have invested millions of taxpayers' dollars in training me to be a critical thinker, to make life-and-death decisions and to operate a business with the same fiduciary and human resource responsibilities as a civilian executive. One would think that hiring a highly skilled veteran, regardless of their entitlement priority, would be the most prudent financial option since the return on investment is significant. This is especially true in my case, with my additional years of executive/corporate experience.

From a strictly a human resource standpoint, I am surprised that the Government of Canada has not adopted this common sense, logical approach to the strategy of hiring a veteran first.

Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

Our next witness will be Mr. Morgan Gay from the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Mr. Gay, the floor is yours.

3:35 p.m.

Morgan Gay National Negotiator, Public Service Alliance of Canada

I'm a negotiator with PSAC. I've been with the union for about 12 years.

I'm here today because, as I understand it, there are members of the committee who may have some questions or are interested in what the union has bargained for with respect to years of service accrual for members of the union who work in the border services group.

PSAC represents about 8,000 workers in the border services group. It consists primarily of law enforcement personnel who work for the Canada Border Services Agency, but we bargain with the Treasury Board.

I'm going to be talking a bit about seniority. I'll be using that term. In our collective agreement with Treasury Board, it's referred to as “years of service”.

In the first contract we bargained for the border services group—this was in 2009—we negotiated seniority rights for shift scheduling and for vacation scheduling. Seniority is based on an employee's years of service in the public service.

In 2011, we negotiated with the employer because the union had been lobbying for years for military service to be recognized for vacation accrual. We negotiated with the Treasury Board language in our collective agreement, which says that vacation accrual will include former military service. The parties have never been in dispute on that matter.

When we reached settlement on that collective agreement, the one that got implemented in 2013, there was a dispute. We had started to hear from members of the union in the workplace, a number of different places. In Windsor, for example, we heard a lot from folks in the Windsor local that CBSA had come out with two separate seniority lists, one for vacation scheduling and one for shift scheduling, which is not what we agreed to. So, we filed a grievance.

We lost the grievance, and so we then went back into negotiations for the last round of bargaining, which resolved in 2018. This is the collective agreement that was ratified last year. In negotiations, we raised the issue with the employer again of years of service accrual. We took the position that we wanted to fix the collective agreement so that it would reflect the intent of what the parties originally negotiated and what we had expected. Our position was always the intent, which is that years of service are based on your time as a public servant in the public service and that military time counts for vacation accrual only.

We reached a settlement, and that's what the new collective agreement actually says. It says that seniority is based on your time as a public servant. Of course, under the law, if you are non-civilian military personnel in the Canadian Forces, you are not an employee. You are not considered an employee. You're under a separate pension regime. You are under an entirely separate employment regime than that of the public service.

As we prepared for this round of negotiations, the union went through what's called an “input call”. What we do is we ask the members what they want to see addressed in this round of bargaining. Every local talked to the membership. We had hundreds of suggestions from the membership about what they wanted to see addressed, and we had contradictory input from the membership.

Some members of the union said, “We think our military time should count for seniority for vacation scheduling, for shift scheduling and for other matters”; and we had other members who said, “No, we want to keep the definition exactly the way it is now.” In light of the fact that there was no consensus on this matter, and it was a contentious issue, the bargaining team, with the support of the elected leadership of the union, put this to a membership vote. We had a plebiscite. It was an online vote. People were mailed packages. It was explained to folks what they were voting on. The leadership of the union and the bargaining team took no position on the issue. People had two choices when they voted. Members could vote either in favour of the status quo, which is that, for scheduling, years of service are based on your time as an employee in the public service, or in favour of wanting the bargaining team and the union to advocate for former military service to also be included in the seniority definition for shift scheduling and vacation scheduling.

A website was set up. Webinars were done. As the union's negotiator, I did webinars with members who called in. The vote was held between February 18 and March 1. Just under 60% of the membership voted in favour of leaving the definition the way it is, so that years of service for shift scheduling, for vacation scheduling, and for who will work on holidays and who will not are based on your years of service in the public service. Of course, as always, your vacation accrual is based on your military time.

I spent all day today negotiating with Treasury Board before I came here. The position the union is taking is that the definition should not change because that's what the membership voted on.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

Our last witnesses will come from the Treasury Board Secretariat. We have Mr. Baxter Williams.

Mr. Williams, the floor is yours.

3:40 p.m.

Baxter Williams Executive Director, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat

I'll actually turn it to Sandra to provide the opening remarks.

3:40 p.m.

Sandra Hassan Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat

Yes, I'll provide the opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us to appear before this committee as representatives of the Treasury Board.

Our sector undertakes all collective bargaining activities for the core public administration and we establish terms and conditions of employment for non-executive employees, including vacation leave entitlements. Our sector also provides interpretation services for departments when they have questions with regard to all terms and conditions of employment or the intent of the policies and directives.

In light of the prior testimony, we understand that this committee has a particular interest with regard to the policy considerations of prior service or seniority when calculating vacation leave entitlements for veterans upon hiring them in the federal public service. We can confirm that prior to April 2012, veterans' prior service was either not considered or addressed inconsistently in various collective agreements.

This inequity was identified in budget 2012 to be rectified. On June 20, 2012, the directive on terms and conditions of employment for the federal public service was amended to include service with the Canadian Forces in the definition of “service” for vacation leave purposes. That was effective April 1, 2012. This allowed prior service as a member of the Canadian Forces to be consistently taken into account in the calculation of vacation leave credits for all employees in the core public administration. This language was subsequently negotiated and added to all collective agreements in the core public administration.

Any former service in the Canadian Forces for a continuous period of six months or more, either as a member of the regular force or of the reserve force while on class B or C service, is included in the calculation of vacation leave credits.

Veterans who join the public service can contact their compensation adviser or the public service pay centre with a record of service—if they have eligible prior service—and compensation staff will review their file and make adjustments as required per the relevant collective agreement.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to questions.

Our first intervention will be from Mr. Drouin. You have five minutes, please.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.

My first question is for the Treasury Board with regard to what we've heard at committee. I know you've probably read some of the testimony delivered here.

For a lot of the veterans who want to apply, their years of service are not recognized. You've alluded to that a little bit in your testimony. Yes, vacation is recognized, but when it comes to shift scheduling and whatnot—I think Mr. Gay just mentioned it—their years of service are not being considered. Is there any leadership role that's being taken to potentially educate members of the public service to support that? I think it's pretty unanimous on this committee that we should be recognizing military service as years of public service when they apply within government.

The other issue has to do with transferring skills. Are we trying to help the military? Is there collaboration between the military and Treasury Board or the Public Service Commission? I know you can't speak on behalf of them, but is there a leadership role from Treasury Board to ensure that there is that transfer and knowledge of their skill, so that if they've served as a private or done whatever job in the military when they serve our country, they can apply for these types of jobs within the government? We've heard that consistently across testimony on our committee.

3:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat

Sandra Hassan

Baxter, go ahead.

3:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat

Baxter Williams

I'm afraid that in some respects we may not be great witnesses on this matter. I guess I should give you a little background to explain why.

Our principal function is engagement with my colleague here and other unions in negotiating collective agreements. Within that world in which Sandra and I operate, staffing considerations are specifically excluded. The Public Service Commission mainly ensures the integrity of the staffing function, and the responsibility for staffing decisions is distributed among deputy ministers and elsewhere in government. In our world anyway, that's not something we are involved in. We mainly consider the terms and conditions of employment under which employees operate.

I'm sorry I can't answer your question, but I hope I gave you some context around where we're coming from on that.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Gay, you've alluded to the fact that the members voted against former military service being recognized in shift scheduling, and of course we respect the will of the membership, but how do we provide that education to members to say that it's just the right thing to do?

You said that the leadership did not take a position on that. Was there a particular reason why you didn't take a position on that? Does the leadership now have an official position on this issue, or do they simply say, “Well, because our membership voted to maintain the status quo we're going to advocate for this particular position”?

3:45 p.m.

National Negotiator, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Morgan Gay

First off, I'm not going to speak on behalf of the elected leadership of the union, but I can tell you my perspective as a negotiator for the union.

The union lobbied for years for military time to be included for vacation accrual. With respect to the years of service issue, it was hugely contentious within the membership. From our perspective, the only way we could resolve this issue was to let them vote on the matter. In fact, it could be argued that they already did vote on the matter because it was contained in the collective agreement that got ratified in 2018, when the definition got changed.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

For my own understanding, does the following happen? If a member transfers from PIPSC to PSAC or from another union, do they start at the bottom, or do they keep their years of service recognized?

3:50 p.m.

National Negotiator, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Morgan Gay

They keep their years of service because they were employees in the public service.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Yes.

3:50 p.m.

National Negotiator, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Morgan Gay

If Parliament decided to change the legislation with respect to who is an employee and who is not—and I'm not saying I'm advocating for that, because it's your decision as members—well, okay, but you haven't done that. Consequently, an employee is defined as an employee under the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, or whatever it's called now, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. They changed the title of the legislation recently.

We did not take a position on the issue. There was campaigning in the workplace. There were lots of people who advocated for changing the current definition, but we did not take a position because we felt that we needed direction from the membership on this. The union is a democracy. The membership has directed the leadership on what they want on this, and that's the position the union is taking in bargaining.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Welcome everyone.

Mr. Rea, I'm going to start with you. First of all, welcome to our committee and thank you for your many years of service to Canada. You made a comment that really hit to the core. You said that you're always a vet, even after the five-year priority hiring time is up.

One of the things we've heard from other vets is that perhaps we should extend the five years. Is that something you would agree with?

One of the reasons I'm asking is that we've also heard that some issues, medical discharge issues—perhaps PTSD or other medical issues—come up after the five-year period. I think you were medically discharged. Would it serve veterans better to extend the priority hiring past five years?

3:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Ron Rea

You bring up a very good point, in that a lot of medical issues are not recognized or diagnosed for many years after the fact. For whatever reason, some veterans manage to lead a perfectly functional life for many years, and then suddenly something happens that triggers something, and the next thing you know they've been diagnosed with PTSD. This could be 10 years down the road. I've seen it happen. It never happened to me, even though I was exposed to a lot of trauma while working in the Canadian Forces.

I've seen it happen personally with friends and other colleagues, but to place a time limit on it and labelling a veteran in that way I think is inappropriate.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

In your case, again—once a vet, always a vet—should the same rule apply to regular priority hiring? Right now, the highest priority are the medically discharged, and the next highest priority are those who have served at least three years in uniform. Should we just remove that five-year period for those vets as well? Again, you've served your country. Do you see a reason that we'd continue with a five-year maximum?

3:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Ron Rea

No, as I said, “Once a vet, always a vet.” I was given a 3B medical release against my will. I scratched, clawed and tried to stay in the military as hard as I could. Even if I couldn't do my chosen profession, I wanted to stay in the military, because I enjoyed the lifestyle and ethos of the Canadian Forces. I was told in no uncertain terms that a doctor had assigned me a 3B medical release and that I had to leave.

If it weren't for that, I'd still be in the Canadian Forces to this day. I never asked for that release. It was placed upon me.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

You've talked about your difficulty in applying for positions within the public service. Almost every veteran we've had appear before us has had the same issue. One of them even commented that they heard from the public service themselves that “You're not wanted here. Why are you even bothering to apply?”

Are you hearing that same information from the veteran community you deal with? Is there the same anecdotal evidence that those in bureaucracy are putting up roadblocks to stop veterans from getting in and from recognizing them in their priority hiring?