Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Elizabeth Douglas]

Thank you for the question.

First, I want to go back to the terms. The terms are a five-year period for eligibility. First, we would encourage veterans to first apply for regulatory priority. They could have regulatory priority for up to five years, during which time they could be deemed fit to return to work and be registered for priority statutory. That's when this kicks in.

Your question goes to what is over and above any of those periods. At that time, we're going to have to look at other VAC programs and services that could assist those veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Mr. Hayes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make sure that none of you have any challenges in interpreting this bill. I don't want it to be subjective in any way, so I need to have some assurance that the implementation is being planned and that from your perspective this bill's very clear. We're obviously going to be considering amendments. Do you see any challenges with implementing this bill, in terms of resources, administration, and communication? Changes are expected to take place in 2015, according to your outline. I just want some assurance that those changes can take place by 2015 with the bill as it's worded now.

[Elizabeth Douglas]

Thank you for the question.

As the bill is worded now, we have been working quite closely with both DND and the Public Service Commission to ensure that there is a very robust implementation plan. On that note, and given that this is above and beyond the scope, I will close. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

That was quick.

Mr. Chicoine.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses for joining us today to provide explanations on Bill C-27.

My questions are about medical releases.

The bill distinguishes between different medical reasons. For instance, a veteran who has suffered a service-related injury would have a priority for appointment in the public service, while a veteran who has suffered a non-service related injury would always remain on the preferential list. Why has a distinction been made between the injuries?

I would like to know something else. Out of the thousands of military members released each year, how many are released following service-related injuries and how many are released for other medical reasons? Why has this distinction been made when it probably shouldn't have been, as suggested by the Veterans Ombudsman?

[Sandra Lambe]

Thank you. I'll address that question.

We do recognize, and the bill recognizes, that those CF personnel who are medically released have had their military careers end prematurely, and that is for reasons beyond their control. However, those whose military service is cut short because of a service-related injury or illness have made a significant sacrifice in service to their country, so that is why there's the distinction between those two groups.

In terms of your question on the statistics, I'm sorry, but I don't have that breakdown with me. There are approximately 1,000 to 1,200 medically released each year, but I would have to get back to you on the question of how many would be medically released with a service-related injury.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote, please. You had another question?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, thank you.

I'm not going to lie to you: there are two questions in this.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You'll catch on.

I spent very little time—five days—in the program that allowed me to join the forces out in Edmonton, and then five days in the program that allowed me to join the navy on HMCS St. John's, and I'm telling you, it was unbelievable. I couldn't believe the professionalism; I also could not believe the skills. I was overwhelmed with the skills, especially when I was in the armaments room on the ship and saw all the computers. It was just beyond me.

I look at the opportunities that our servicemen and -women are given when they leave, and I know you're only working with what you're given to work with. I understand that. But there are skills translation services out there that I know are used in the United States. I've seen them on computers in my office that have been brought to me, and they translate the skills of our servicemen and -women. When I was being shown that, I was thinking about what I saw on the ship and out in Edmonton, and my mind was shifting to materials management, leadership, human resources, logistics, computer software development, and transportation systems that school boards have to develop so their kids are moved around properly. These are skills that many people learn in our forces.

So I have to ask you about this. We're supportive of this legislation, but why would we restrict ourselves? You guys are in the position where you do this stuff. You eat, drink, and breathe this stuff every day. We don't. You do. Why would you not be looking at more effective skills translators that could be used to facilitate the proper translation and connection of those people? You mentioned it at the end in regard to the council that's looking at these four different areas, but I was listening for better skills translation as a fifth focus, and I never heard it. Why wouldn't you be looking at that so we could better help our servicewomen and -men into the skills of the present and the future?

My second question is, you didn't answer why the limitation period—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, he had two questions couched in his.

Why is it five years? Why a limitation at all? Why not no limitation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We will get to the second question after we do the other rounds. Your intro story was very cute, but it was so long—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was candid about the two questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Please answer the one question and we will get back to them if we have time.

[Sandra Lambe]

In fact, skills translation, and a variety of tools like that are among the things that the Veterans Transition Advisory Council is looking at. As Charlotte mentioned, we also partner with Canada Company, which has the military employment transition program. If you look at their site, they do have a number of tools available to veterans and employers that try to make that connection between what you did in the military and how that translates into a civilian workplace.

We are using a number of tools along those lines, and there are, of course, always new tools and initiatives that come across our desks. We do explore any new things that come along to see if there are opportunities to partner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Monsieur Galipeau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for meeting with us today.

I also have a question for you. In his Economic Action Plan 2014, the late Jim Flaherty proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act to improve employment opportunities for veterans within the public service.

Can you tell us how consistent the bill is with the efforts the government is making to support the transition of veterans to civilian life? Can you compare this with other initiatives we have implemented to make it easier for veterans to find a job?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

Thank you for the question.

There are four key changes to Bill C-27, the first of which is statutory hiring, and that is for all Canadian Armed Forces members who have been medically released and whose medical release is attributable to service. That then becomes the two five-year periods: the first one to deem eligibility and registration, after which comes the five-year period of entitlement.

Secondly, there is the regulatory priority. With regulatory priority, this bill extends the benefits from two to five years.

Thirdly, there is what we call “preference”. With preference, a veteran who has been honourably released, who also has a minimum of three years of service and is not employed indeterminately by the Public Service Commission, will receive preference for externally advertised Public Service Commission positions.

Fourthly, and finally, there is what we call “mobility”. With mobility, veterans, along with all Canadian Armed Forces members who have three years of service and veterans who have been honourably released and are not serving in an indeterminate position with the Public Service Commission, will now be able to view and apply for internally posted service positions with the Government of Canada.

That is how we meet the economic action plan 2014.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

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

With that kind of answer, Mr. Chairman, it looks as if I gave her notice of the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

That's called collusion, I think.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In reference to my previous question regarding the disabled veteran who can no longer work and their spouse, the analyst has come up with something here that I think needs clarification. If a military person dies in the line of service, is the surviving spouse entitled to that five-year limitation for priority service hiring with the Government of Canada? The analyst thinks no, but I just wanted a verification.

[Sandra Lambe]

That's correct. There is not a change in the regulatory priority period for surviving spouses. However, the bill does propose that the surviving spouses of all Canadian Armed Forces personnel who are killed in the line of duty have access to the regulatory priority—so all classes of Canadian Armed Forces personnel.