Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Michael West, Acting Director General, Delegation and Accountability, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Thank you for the question.

With regard to surviving spouses, we do have a priority for them in the public service employment regulations currently. It applies to the spouse of an employee of the public service, or a member of the RCMP, or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces whose death is attributable to the performance of duties. In this case, the priority entitlement, which would allow them to be appointed ahead of others if they're found qualified, would be for a period of one year, and it applies to all positions staffed through an external competition open to the public.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I assume that I don't get a second question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

You assume correctly. Thank you.

Mr. Hayes, please.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask a question specifically related to priority 1 hiring, so that's armed forces personnel, medically released. Let's assume we have a member who has served three years and a member who has served 10 years competing for the same position. The skill sets are 100% identical.

Is preference given to the Canadian Forces member who served longer? How is it determined in that situation? Has that been considered in any way, shape, or form?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

As far as I understand it—I'll have Michael correct me if I'm wrong—the duration of their service is not considered directly in the appointment process. However, as part of their experience, of course, that would be evaluated through an appointment process. In terms of priorities, we get to know the veterans when they register in our system, and then we refer them to jobs that come to us through departments, basically by matching their skills to the requests from departments.

In the case of a preference, for example, which is the second mechanism that's in the bill, if you have an external competition and there are one or more medically released veterans who qualify, a veteran would be appointed ahead of all others in that competitive process. If there are two or three veterans who are equally qualified, then the manager would use what we call “asset qualification”: additional qualifications to assess which person is appointed in a competitive process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think you were listening when I asked the previous panel about the five-year limitation. I had expressed concern about what I really thought was a reduction in the number of job opportunities because they're cutting back in the public service. I think 27,000 was the last number I heard; it could be more. Frankly, the manifestation of people's problems could occur after a five-year period, not having manifested before that, in which case I'm told they're entitled to regulatory but not statutory priority.

Now I'm reading something here that gives me even more concern, unless I'm reading this wrong. It says that it's retroactive to April 1, 2012. Looking at it, that means they could already have been within one of those five-year periods back in 2012. It might be their second five-year period. Let's say they've already been released for medical reasons before that, they've recovered, and they might be in their second five-year period in 2012, which leaves them only a couple of years. I may be reading that wrong and you can correct that, but it does cause me concern. But why five years? Why not just say “you assumed unlimited liability for us”?

It's unlimited, which is more than most around this table, although there are some at this table who have served and have assumed unlimited liability, Laurie.

Why five years? It sounds arbitrary to me.

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.

For the reasons I just mentioned, I can't comment on the five-year period, but what I can say about the retroactivity is that my understanding is that the retroactivity was there.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there were a number of veterans who had been registered in the system in 2012 and 2013-14. Because of the way the current legislation works, when we had a large influx of surplus workers into the system, our rate for appointment of medically released veterans went from a normal rate of about 150 per year down to a range of 30 per year. I think the retroactivity in part is to allow those people whose entitlement may have expired in the last two years, or been impacted through that difficult period, to have an additional five years of entitlement.

I'll ask Michael to confirm that, because it's an important part of this bill.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Can he talk about the five years?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

No, I don't think he can.

[Michael West]

The important thing about the duration of the priority entitlements of the second five-year period is that by making it retroactive it is a completely new period. So if somebody already has had their priority entitlement period, and it came to an end in April or May or June of 2012, and they couldn't have been placed because of the influx of the surplus priority people from the public service, these people will now be entitled to a completely new priority entitlement of five years. So the retroactivity doesn't hurt anybody. It's an advantage for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you for that. I would just point out that I appreciate the clarification on the five years. Our learned friend over here knows that his messaging is just going over to people sitting somewhere on this side here, so he doesn't really expect you would be able to give the policy answer. We appreciate your answer in that regard. I think I got that correct. I hope I did.

Mr. Galipeau, please.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if I have a short question, can I have a second?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Probably after supper, yes. Okay.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much for coming, and thank you for being here even during the first witnesses.

My short question is this. Given the spirt of Bill C-27 could you talk about how it would enhance the employment opportunities for our veterans in the public service.

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Thank you very much.

Prior to 2012 when we had, as I said, an influx of surplus workers and saw the rate of medically released veterans' appointments fall, this was in fact the group in the appointment system that had the highest rate of appointments. I think it's because veterans and medically released veterans have the skills and experience the public service needs. So I think this mechanism will help meet the staffing needs in the future public service.

I would also say that notwithstanding the downsizing that's been going on in the past couple of years, the numbers in the priority system have almost returned to pre-2012 levels, and as I just reported in my annual report released last week, staffing activity picked up last year. The Treasury Board estimates there are in the range of 8,000 public servants who are eligible to retire each year. So even if the public service remains the size it is today, we will still need to recruit people into public service jobs. So all of these provisions are very helpful to the public service in providing

pools of candidates available to staff positions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all very much for coming. I do get a bit of a kick out of it when I see reference made to creating new employment opportunities for the federal public service, because this was discussed in 2005 with the late Jack Stagg. In fact, prior to his service, hiring veterans was one of the key components of the New Veterans Charter. Unfortunately, not many departments picked up on this, except for DND and DVA, so I'm very pleased to see this is happening now.

But my question for you deals with the following scenario. Say I have 22 years in the public service and I get laid off because of downsizing by a federal government. A position opens up that I'm equally qualified for. A veteran who has five years of service, who say has an injury and is medically released, applies for the job and has five or six years of service within the government by having been in the military. They apply for the job and have similar qualifications to mine. I've served 22.5 years, and I'm qualified. This person served some five odd years with the military. Even though by law they are not considered to be public servants by virtue of that service, it says here that they would be appointed over and above me.

I wanted to verify if indeed that is correct, and if it is correct has it been discussed? I say this because I hope they are going to come here.

I don't know what the view of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union, is of this. I haven't asked them because I don't know, but has the commission talked to them, or do they know of any conversations with the alliance in this regard to see if it supports this type of legislation? I hope they would, but it would be interesting to see what they said.

Have you had that conversation, or are you even entitled to that conversation with them?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

As I mentioned previously, the policy authority rests with the Department of Veterans Affairs, so I think they may be able to speak to that issue.

Having said that, I think it's important as well to look at the numbers. Typically, at least up to 2012, we had in the range of several hundred, maybe 150, 200, 250, medically released veterans in the priority system at any given time. When the downsizing exercise happened, we had an influx of thousands of surplus workers. That had the effect of almost entirely displacing the appointments of medically released veterans. If that had been reversed, because there were fewer medically released veterans than workers declared surplus, it would have resulted, and will result in the future, if this law is adopted, in more of a rebalancing of the system. There would still be much opportunity. If this had been reversed at the time, we still would have appointed many surplus workers. In fact, we're proud to say that since April 1, 2012, we've appointed almost 2,500 surplus workers and other people in the priority systems. So there is a demand for people in the priority system and, as I said, staffing activity is picking up.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

I should point out, by the way, that the union was invited and declined to attend.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

They declined?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Yes. The clerk just confirmed that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

That's so sad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We're interested in their views, but we can't force people to come.