Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I'd like to welcome everybody here this afternoon. The committee is now in session and, as everybody is aware, we're here to go clause by clause through Bill C-27. There are some amendments that will come up during the process and we'll deal with them in order.

Without further ado, I welcome the staff. I'm sure, if there are any questions or help needed, you are just raring to go. Thank you for being here.

First is clause 1, which we postpone until later. This is the short title.

We'll go right to clause 2. Is there any comment before we go to the vote? There is no amendment on clause 2. It's as printed there. Is there any discussion or comment?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

Clause 4 does have an amendment. We will deal with the amendment.

I'll turn to Mr. Valeriote, if you'd like to make a brief comment on the amendment.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It is no surprise, because I spoke of this matter the last time we were at committee, and that was with respect to the limitation period of five years. We have not had an opportunity to have any answer at all, let alone a satisfactory answer, as to why it's a limitation of five years. The amendment would merely remove the limitation so that it's not limited to five years and will continue indefinitely.

That's as simple and brief a response as I can give.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

It was very precise. Thank you, Mr. Valeriote.

Is there comment on the proposed amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Gill.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

The veterans hiring act proposes to increase the current two-year priority time period to five years. This means that medically injured veterans will now have up to five years for a medical release to be designated a priority, at which time they then have an additional five years from that date to find a position in the public service suitable to their qualifications. This means that a medically released veteran may extend this time period to a total of ten years under the provisions of the veterans hiring act. Until budget 2012, the existing two-year priority time period was proved to be sufficient to enable injured veterans' employment in the federal public service. The regulatory priority afforded to Canadian injured veterans was the most successful priority created until 2012. It had at that time a 100% success rate of applicants finding positions in the public service.

By extending this priority from two to five years, and then with the option to begin the five-year clock in year five, the veteran would have up to ten years to make use of the new statutory priority provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Do you want to wait for other responses?

Mr. Stoffer has some comments.

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

I thank the parliamentary secretary for that explanation. But as you know, in every situation there are always exceptions to this. I know Mr. Hawn would know this as well. The odd time we deal with someone who's been released from the military in a particular category that he or she disagrees with and sometimes it takes years for a category to change.

For example, a person can be dishonourably discharged, when in reality it should have been a medical release for a psychiatric concern. If they're successful in getting that changed, then their official record no longer says “dishonourable”, or whatever other codes they have. They change to a 3(b) release. Sometimes that takes years, especially if it has to go to court to fight it or something of that nature. I know these are exceptions, but in that particular event, say a person's released today and then seven years later they got that release changed and now all of a sudden they're medically released, would they then be categorized as a five-year, 10-year exemption in that regard?

It's just a question I throw out. I just heard this morning from a fellow who asked about that. Otherwise, your explanation is fine. We don't have much difficulty with it. But I think Frank is right in his question, and I just wanted to know if you guys had an answer in that particular regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Hawn, do you have a comment?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, just a couple of comments.

First of all, with respect to Frank's amendment, that would become a little impractical. It would open it up to hundreds of thousands of potential applicants, which would stall the process.

With respect to Peter's point, yes, those things can happen. They are rare. This isn't an official government answer, but my answer would be, I think those could be handled on a case-by-case basis, advocating for the person in that situation. I think there would be some flexibility on the public service side to hear that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

And you would like to hear the answers—

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

When we get the chance, yes, from the people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

This is why staff are here. I think Mr. Hawn is asking if it's possible to deal with it case by case. Could I ask the staff, please?

[Sandra Lambe, Director, Program Policy and Outreach, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Yes, I think as we're working through the implementation plan for the bill, supposing that the bill will pass, we will be looking at all of those exceptional circumstances to see that we can adequately address the concerns of the individual veteran, if in fact their release status changed, or the decision from VAC was that it was not service-related, but then later on in review it was found to be service-related. We are working through all of those variations to ensure that the veterans are treated fairly and equitably.

I don't know if the Public Service Commission had anything to add in terms of that.

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

I can say that we have thought of that situation. In preparing to draft the regulations we are looking at ensuring that, if there was a determination made at a later date and the release was due to medical reasons attributable to service, the entitlement would start counting from that date not from the date of initial release.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much for that.

Are there any further comments before Mr. Valeriote wraps it up?

Okay, Frank.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

One of my concerns that I expressed was that often—not always, but often—there could be a manifestation of injury well after the five-year period has expired. I believe the answer given to me was that benefits that would otherwise be available to that candidate would still be there, but this opportunity for employment would not be available to them.

It was among those other reasons that I honestly believe that even if there are thousands of candidates, these are men and women who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. They accepted unlimited liability. Remember, they still have to qualify. Even under the best of circumstances within the five years, they still have to qualify that they should go to the head of the line.

For those two reasons, I thought it important—one, that they should be eligible to be employed, notwithstanding that they have access to the other regulatory benefits; and two, what you, I guess, can't comment on, and that is that they should have a right to that employment even if there are thousands, as Mr. Hawn has said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Normally, we'd wrap up now and go to the vote, unless there's a particular thing that's going to add to the....

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If I may, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

You can, but it opens it up for questioning. I just make that point.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

A question to these folks, would the possibility that Mr. Stoffer raised fall under the similar exceptional circumstances?

[Sandra Lambe]

Can you just repeat the circumstance that you're...?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

A manifestation of an illness, say PTSD, after the first five- and second five-year periods have lapsed.

[Sandra Lambe]

As the bill is written now—and I will ask my colleague from the Public Service Commission to comment if I am incorrect—no, there would not be that opportunity. As my colleague noted the other day, there are other programs and services through Veterans Affairs Canada, such as the rehabilitation program, where they would have access to assistance in helping them find employment.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

But there's no priority.

[Sandra Lambe]

No, not a priority entitlement through the Public Service Commission priority system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, that's pretty clear now. We know where we stand on the amendment. I think we've covered the conversation.

Frank, you're comfortable with that?