Debates of Nov. 20th, 2013

Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-11, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This is only the second bill since the Conservative government came to power. That is very little considering all the issues that have been raised, including in the ombudsman's reports, and the recommendations on how to improve the new veterans charter.

It is a little disappointing that our government has so often ignored our national heroes over the past six years. The worst part is that the new veterans charter was supposed to be a living document, but the bill we are about to debate does not deal with the new charter. Contrary to what the minister was saying in response to the parliamentary secretary, the new veterans charter has not been routinely improved; it was improved only once.

When the charter was adopted in 2006, the concept of a living document meant that the charter would be amended as problems emerged. In the mission in Afghanistan, our troops suffered heavy losses. There were 158 deaths, and over 2,000 wounded soldiers came back, not to mention those who will be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in the coming years. According to a recent study, that is 14% of our troops, but we suspect that the number of injured soldiers and soldiers affected by stress is much higher.

It is against that backdrop that the new veterans charter was adopted by Parliament on the condition that it be a living document. That meant that it was going to be amended a number of times if required, as needs arose, or if the charter proved to be inadequate, as has been shown by the issues and comments raised in the past two years.

Since they came to power, the Conservatives have not kept that promise. The charter was amended only once in 2011, by means of Bill C-55. After seven years, a minister has finally decided to review the new charter in its entirety. It is not official, however, because the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has not yet begun the official review. As specified in Bill C-55, that study was supposed to have begun on October 4. Today is November 21 and the House adjourns on December 11, so we will have hardly any time to begin studying the new charter before the House adjourns for the holidays, and we will not be starting again until next February.

That leads us to today's debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act. Essentially, this bill seeks to give priority to veterans and members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service. If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. They will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority.

A second provision of the bill deals with the extension of the entitlement to priority, from two years to five. At the moment, veterans are in a regulatory category whereas public service employees are protected by the act. The government has therefore decided to include veterans in a category that is protected by the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund, and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half-measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

We will therefore support this bill at second reading, but we consider that it does not go far enough and that it raises questions that the government will have to answer. Moreover, in a climate of budget cutting, where we are seeing massive layoffs in the public service, this bill unfortunately will not really help veterans to get jobs in the public service, at least in the medium term.

This bill is actually a reaction to poor human resources management. The Conservatives have laid off so many public servants that veterans are no longer successful in being hired from the priority list.

What is most disappointing about the measures this government has introduced is the little impact they have had. I will not start listing off everything from 2006 on. I will only go back as far as the last budget, tabled in 2013.

The Conservatives announced with great fanfare that they were going to improve the Last Post Fund and double the refundable amount from close to $4,000 to a little under $8,000. An ombudsman, Patrick Stogran, had been mentioning this problem since at least 2009. The government waited some three or four years before addressing it. I would like to point out that it was a Liberal government that gutted the program in 1995 or thereabouts.

More recently, the Conservatives announced that they were increasing aid for training and post-secondary education, with maximum funding of $75,800 per veteran and a maximum envelope of $2 million over five years. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Although I do not know exactly how many veterans will apply for assistance under the program, let us take the amount of $2 million, for example, and divide it by $75,800, which is an accurate amount for someone going to university. If veterans receive the maximum amount, only 27 of them will have access to the program over this five-year period. Therefore, a little over five veterans a year will have access to the program.

I do not see how these measures will help our veterans. The Conservatives say they are increasing aid, but the criteria are often so strict that no one qualifies for it. It is easy to pull numbers out of the air and then make sure the criteria are so restrictive that the government will not be out of pocket at the end of the day. That is what the Conservatives are doing. They are using these tactics and saying that they are helping veterans, when what they are really doing is balancing the budget at their expense.

Now there is this bill that gives veterans priority for appointment to public service jobs. At first glance, it is a wonderful measure. However, on closer inspection, this bill is much less attractive because few public service jobs will be available in the coming years.

From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans made use of this priority entitlement. Of that number, 1,024 veterans secured a job in the public service. Of those 1,024 veterans, 739—72%—got a job with National Defence.

At Veterans Affairs Canada, the situation is somewhat more dire. Between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans got jobs at VAC, which corresponds to only 2% of all jobs.

However, our veterans, who have experienced the difficulties involved in the transition to civilian life, should be ideal candidates for jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. They should play a key role in the development of VAC policies to ensure that those policies are designed for them and meet their needs.

The second-largest employer of veterans in the public service is the Correctional Service of Canada, which hired 54 veterans during that period, or 5% of all veteran hires. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is not very far behind with 44 hires, or 4% of the jobs obtained during this period.

When we look at these figures, it is clear that not all departments are making the same effort to hire veterans. Indeed, most departments have hired fewer than ten veterans, while others have hired none.

Therefore, these departments would have to undergo a major culture change to ensure that such measures actually help our veterans. As things stand right now, I am not sure that this will help even things out in terms of hiring more veterans in our public service.

The Ombudsman has found that about 4,500 veterans per year participate in vocational rehabilitation services. On average, 220 veterans put their names on list of those eligible for job priority status, and, as a result, 146 veterans on average get a job in the public service. This is a very small number. This does not make much of an impact on the majority of veterans or even on many of them.

Moreover, the job priority status for veterans applies only to a very specific group.

The vast majority of jobs in the public service require bilingualism, a post-secondary diploma or even university education. Two to four years of experience is often also required.

Under current regulations, veterans are given a two-year priority entitlement. The veteran must already have a diploma in hand because there is not enough time to start a university degree. Even now, with the new deadline, there is not enough time for a veteran to go to university, if he so wishes, and be available within the time prescribed.

In addition, veterans who do not have a university degree are not overly interested in going to university for the extended period required. As I said earlier, 4,500 veterans participate in the vocational rehabilitation program each year. Only 63 veterans chose university-level programs; 32 received support from Veterans Affairs Canada and 31 received support through the service income security insurance plan. The other participants chose vocational training or college-level programs that lasted anywhere from 12 to 24 months.

That number, 63, caught my attention. Is it true that only 63 veterans chose university-level programs, or are people being discouraged from choosing such programs because of the severely restrictive criteria?

The Ombudsman wrote the following in his report:

While...Veterans Affairs Canada profess[es] to consider the needs of the client/Veteran, they normally do not permit training or education in a new career field if, at the time of release...the client...has skills that are transferrable to the...workforce....

They are required to take a job that does not interest them or one that pays less than a career requiring post-secondary education, simply because they have skills.

The government does not want to do anything that will cost a lot of money. That is the conclusion. In the end, it is not need that influences the decisions, it is the cost of funding education.

The government is putting a lot of focus on the helmets to hardhats program, as though the construction industry were the miracle cure for job transition for our veterans. I agree, it is a good program, but it is not available in every province and it does not cover all trades. As I said, it is not available in Quebec, unfortunately. I have received calls from veterans who are disappointed that they cannot access this program because it is not available in Quebec.

I believe this restricts our veterans' ability to improve their quality of life and their job prospects. For example, the ombudsman recommends entering into partnerships with other industries and organizations, such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian defence and security industries and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. We have to have more collaboration from private sector players, who are not always aware of veterans' skills. Unfortunately, human resources departments do not know how to interpret the CVs of military candidates. A recent study revealed the scope of the task. The Navigator study, conducted for the Veterans Transition Advisory Council in late August, found that most of the 850 employers consulted have little or no understanding of veterans' skills. Only 16% of employers make a special effort to hire veterans.

Almost half of employers believe that a university degree is more important than military service when hiring. Only 13% said that their human resources department knows how to interpret a resumé from a military candidate. We have to do more in this regard.

To my mind, this bill has a major flaw. First, we have to remember that only Canadian Forces members medically released for service-related reasons will have access to the program. Previously, to be given priority, members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP had to be released for medical reasons, whether they were service-related or not. That is also the spirit of the new charter. To qualify for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits and services, the injury has to be service-related. If the department ruled otherwise, the veteran could appeal the decision to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and then the Federal Court. Unfortunately, this is no longer clear.

In addition, if a veteran needs to appeal a decision before a Canadian Forces tribunal or the VRAB, the procedures involved in these administrative tribunals can be very long. Does this mean that the duration of the priority, which begins the day the soldier is released from duty, continues to run out while these administrative procedures drag on? The ombudsman had this to say recently on his blog:

However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release.

Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated “service-related medical release” or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by VAC or the VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.

This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans. That is not what this bill does.

Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Now members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons attributable to service will have this priority entitlement and others will not.

This bill should have gone further. One major problem facing the Canadian Forces is the principle of universality of service, which requires members who cannot be deployed to be dismissed from the Canadian Forces. This is not entirely fair. We understand the importance of this principle to cohesion and morale, but would it not be possible to include the duty to accommodate principle?

Do those who served their country not deserve to be given a job where they could continue to serve? That is what the RCMP does for its members. The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that the Department of National Defence wanted to maintain the status quo on this. However, would it not be possible for the Standing Committee on National Defence to study this issue? Does this government not owe it to our troops and our veterans?

For months now we have been asking the government whether it realizes that it has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation toward injured veterans. The government's lack of response would suggest not. The NDP has said time and time again that it will honour this century-long commitment made by successive Canadian governments, except for this one.

Again, the NDP will support Bill C-11, but the government will have to address our concerns in committee and make the necessary changes to ensure that this bill benefits the largest possible number of veterans who need this priority entitlement for a smooth transition and a better quality of life for them and their family.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me in a way to hear so much negative focus on the work that we have been doing.

To be perfectly candid and up front, I do not agree with the member's assertion that nothing has been done with the new veterans charter. Almost $5 billion in enhancements to the new veterans charter in the last few years is nothing short of remarkable.

I want to ask the hon. member opposite why his party has consistently voted against such things as $8.5 million in funding to support service enhancements for the new veterans charter and almost $700,000 in funding to improve service for severely injured veterans. There were monies to promote the well-being of current and former members of the navy, $4.6 million to veterans' assistance programs to pay for health care costs not covered by the provincial health program, and I could go on.

I find it difficult to hear all this concern and all this criticism when in actual fact, year after year, budget after budget, that party has voted against our efforts to increase benefits, support, and services to veterans and their families.

Ultimately, the only thing I would like to ask is whether the member and his party are not in sync with our efforts to improve the quality of life for veterans and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always have a good laugh when ministers and the members opposite say that the NDP or the opposition is always against their measures. Of course, their measures are 500 pages long, reams and reams of paper, and 80% of the content is bad. They ask us to vote for measures that we cannot even examine properly.

It is funny when the minister says that he has invested $5 billion. He is so far from being transparent in his management that it is hard to figure out if all the money was spent. Recently, we were asked to vote for a budget that will grant more money, while the department has probably not even spent all the money that Parliament granted it in the last budget.

It is somewhat inflammatory to say that we are against their measures when those measures are buried deep in omnibus bills. They should stop doing that. Canadians understand very well that we cannot support such bricks.

In addition, the ombudsman reviewed the new veterans charter and said that there were a number of problems with it. According to him, compensation is quite inadequate for many wounded soldiers, compared to regular workers who can challenge the decisions of workers' compensation boards and will receive a much higher amount than wounded Canadian Forces members.

A lot of improvements need to be made, and I hope that the minister will listen to the measures that we are going to propose during the study of the new charter.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for his speech and ask him a question.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the situation of veterans, given what the minister told the public about them, namely, that veterans do not play a special role, that they are just like any other member of society, and that the government and Canadians do not have a sacred duty to treat them differently. Veterans' representatives and veterans themselves were very disappointed to hear that this government had broken this historic promise here in Canada.

Does the hon. member believe that this bill will undo the damage done by government lawyers and the minister himself? They broke this sacred contract between veterans and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Quadra for her excellent question.

Veterans have been forced to file numerous class action suits against the government, such as the veterans' suit in British Columbia.

Government attorneys deeply shocked veterans because they denied this social and moral contract, this moral and social obligation to take care of our wounded veterans.

The attorneys said that Canada had no duty to its veterans, even though this principle has been recognized for 100 years, since the beginning of the Canadian federation. It has never been questioned by any government.

We have had the opportunity to ask the minister countless times, and he refuses to recognize this sacred duty to take care of these veterans. That is scandalous, and my colleague is right to bring it up.

Veterans have been deeply shocked by the minister's attitude. He refuses to recognize this sacred obligation to take care of our country's wounded veterans. It is completely unacceptable.

Will this bill fix that problem? Absolutely not. It is not being addressed.

I ask the minister to recognize Canada's sacred obligation to take care of its veterans, because this is a given. I do not understand why this sacred obligation is being called into question. The minister should be ashamed that he will not recognize it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his excellent speech and his remarkable work on the veterans file. I know he is very passionate about it and knows the file very well.

It is unfortunate to see the continued intellectual dishonesty of the Conservatives, who think that Canadians can be manipulated. They say that we voted against this and that and against so much money, when the Conservatives know very well that things do not work that way.

In their 500-page omnibus budget bill, there was hardly more than a few million dollars for veterans. For a file as important as the veterans file, it is unfortunate that we continue to hear their old rhetoric that does not hold water.

Our party will work with the other parties and try to improve the bill in the next stages.

We intend to work very hard to improve it, even though we sometimes have difficulty being heard by the government side. Although we have a government that is always unreceptive to our ideas, we will try to improve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his question and his comments.

We remind Canadians that the minister has once more accused the opposition of not supporting his measures. Some of them are good, perhaps, but burying so few good measures deep in mammoth bills is not the way to do things.

The minister said that they have spent more money,but if we look at the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we see that it has been reduced by tens of millions of dollars. They tell us that they are pouring in more money, but that is not the case. They are balancing the budget on the backs of our nation's heroes.

We have certainly seen some shortcomings in the bill, as I mentioned. I am not sure that it is going to help a lot of veterans in the medium term.

We are in a climate of budget cuts; thousands of public service jobs are being eliminated. I do not see how this bill is going to help many veterans, at least in the medium term. When we come back in 2015, when we can start hiring again and stop cutting services to Canadians, perhaps this bill will help. Until then, it needs a number of improvements.

We must improve the situation of the veteran whose injury is not immediately attributable to service and who, after going to the VRAB, gets a ruling in his favour two or three years later. This is a shortcoming that certainly needs to be corrected because that veteran will only have one or two years left in which to get a job in the public service. That is one of the things that needs to be improved.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you were sitting in the chair yesterday when there was an exchange between this side of the House and the government side about medical records that have gone missing.

I understand the parliamentary secretary has said something to the effect that after looking into it, there could be some people whose files could be missing.

I want to quote from an article that appeared today in The Globe and Mail on page A4. It is headed “Veteran continues to search for missing medical files”, and it reads as follows:

Former infantry corporal Kenneth Young tried for years to obtain the medical records related to his treatment at a now-closed veterans’ hospital only to learn they had been destroyed in 2009, along with more than 27,000 boxes of other veterans’ medical files.

That is 27,381 medical boxes of files to be exact.

The article continues:

He kept pestering the bureaucrats to find them “and it got to the point where they said ‘don’t write us any more. If you have any other problems or questions, contact the Privacy Commissioner.’ Which I did,” he said. “A few months later [the Privacy Commissioner] called me up and said ‘well, your files were destroyed.’” The Privacy Commissioner’s office sent Mr. Young an e-mail from 2009 in which Valerie Stewart, the supervisor of national information holdings for Veterans Affairs, explained to department staff that Library and Archives Canada had “reviewed the hospital patient files and determined that they do not have archival value.” Ms. Stewart went on to say that officials at the Veterans Affairs department had “determined there is no potential research value in these files,” and urged that “we proceed with the destruction of these files ASAP.”

The article goes on to quote the parliamentary secretary, mentioning him by name, which I shall not do because I know we cannot in this House, who said, “Indeed, no active, living veteran's file was involved in this process.”

There we have it. I know I am not supposed to show this to the House, but here is the picture of the veteran. He is alive. He is 65 years old, yet the department had him as dead.

There are many other such veterans whose files have gone missing, have been “plucked”, if I may use that word, as a lot of veterans are saying. There are even orderlies coming forward saying that they were ordered to cleanse the files and encouraged to pull stuff out of the files.

I accept my hon. friend's view of his mistake, and I hope we both wish Mr. Young to live to be a very old man.

That said, in the spirit of friendliness, allow me to speak to Bill C-11 and say that we will be supporting it.

However, I will start off by proposing a change straight off the bat. Maybe the minister will take this as an offer that we on this side of the House would like to work with him.

I could be mistaken, but in looking carefully at this bill, I did not see any funds allocated in order to provide a bridge for the veterans so that they can learn the job they are applying for or to give them training for the job they are applying for.

A lot of the veterans were in the army. We taught them one skill: to kill or be killed, to survive in order to be able to kill tomorrow, if I can put it bluntly. From the stories they have been telling us, not only have they learned how to do a lot of things, but many have said that they were trained to provide us the democracy we have here today.

I am sure that the minister, in his previous life as an officer, was also trained in some of these very skills. However, we also have to provide the necessary tools to apply those skills in new jobs that have supposedly been opened in the department.

That said, I hope the minister will take this as an offer and say that the government will provide the training and the money that are needed. Since this is a bill from the government, with changes that require money, this is something the minister can certainly look into.

There are two small problems. Placing injured veterans at the head of the hiring line is an empty pledge unless money for readjusting and retraining comes with it, especially in an era when the federal government is laying off government workers and there is a hiring freeze. On one hand, we are saying that we are going to give veterans the right to be at the front of the line, and on the other, we have hiring freezes. I still have a little bit of difficulty comprehending that.

Bill C-11 should not replace the government's obligation to help Canadian Forces members stay in the forces, if that is their wish. I keep referring to Corporal Dave Hawkins and Corporal Glen Kirkland. I will get to them in a few seconds.

Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan are coming forward about being discharged from the military against their will and before qualifying for their pensions. This breaks a Conservative government promise that service members injured in the line of duty should serve as long as they want in the Canadian Forces.

According to the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, soldier support centres have been left acutely understaffed and unable to provide for troops dealing with physical and psychological injuries. The purpose of the centres is to help injured soldiers and members of the forces return to active duty and transition to civilian life.

This brings me to the issue of the nine centres the minister is so bent on closing. I would invite the minister, if he wishes, to take a trip. As a matter of fact, I will go with him to see the veterans. I am sure that the NDP and everybody here would go and meet the veterans.

Look at Ron Clarke, who for years has been a Conservative member. If I were to repeat in the House what he said about the minister in that part of the world, I would probably get kicked out. He says, “my royal...” whatever. It is unparliamentary so I will not repeat it. Maybe I will let the member or somebody tune into YouTube to see it.

I will say, though, that they want to close nine centres. That is 26,788 veterans who will have to drive. Veterans will have to drive from Windsor, Ontario, to London, Ontario. That is a two-hour drive. Veterans will have to drive from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Halifax, Nova Scotia. If it is winter, and they have to go over Kellys Mountain, it is not a pleasant drive. It can take a veteran five or six hours to get across. If some of the veterans are 80 years old, are we asking them to do that drive? Is that what this country is asking a veteran to do? The veterans fought to put us in front of the line. These are the veterans who fought for us to have the democracy we have in the House. I am sure that is not what the minister wants.

Here is an opportunity for the minister to say that yes, he might have made a mistake. Yes, we are going to wait another 15 years until the Second World War veterans and the Korean War veterans, who are the primary people using the centres, have left us behind. We are not going to ask an 80-year-old man or woman to fill in a form with somebody on the line at the 1-800 number. We are not going to ask a veteran to be at the back of the line at a government services office, when he or she fought to keep us in front of the line.

I am sure that the minister, being a veteran of the Toronto, London, and Markham forces and the OPP force, knows for a fact that not only veterans have fought to protect this country. Police officers who risk their lives in duty on an everyday basis need to be respected and in front of the line.

Maybe the minister wants to reconsider the judgment made. Maybe it was made before he got there. Maybe he wants to consider that having the veterans go through all those hoops is not the Canadian way. When the minister swore an oath to protect some of us who live in Toronto, London, or York Region, and the majority of the members of Parliament in this House who live in Ontario, we needed to respect what he did for us.

Why, in the same breath, are we disrespecting the thousands of veterans who were not hesitant for 30 seconds to give up their lives for us in World War II, Korea, the United Nations, NATO, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Croatia? The list goes on and on.

The minister might have a change of heart and when he goes home tonight will say that we will keep those nine centres open for the next couple of years, especially for World War II and Korean War veterans.

In the past year, the Canadian Armed Forces has been forcing personnel with service-related injuries to leave the Canadian Armed Forces before they qualify for their pensions. Corporal Glen Kirkland, who suffers from physical and emotional wounds as a result of a Taliban bomb that killed three comrades, was being forced to leave the CAF because he did not meet the military universality of service requirements.

Last June, the Minister of National Defence said in the House of Commons that any Afghan vet injured in combat would not be released as a result of these injuries.

Recently, Corporal David Hawkins, a reservist from St. Thomas, Ontario, with post-traumatic stress, was forced out a year before he was able to collect a fully indexed pension. On October 30, 2013, the Minister of National Defence said in this House of Commons, “...we want to thank Corporal Hawkins...”. That is a great opening. He continued, “...for his service and sacrifice for Canada”. That is outstanding. He continued, “Before being released, members of the Canadian Armed Forces work with the military on a transition plan. Ill and injured Canadian Forces members are provided with physical, mental and occupational therapy services for their eventual transition to civilian life. Members are not released until they are prepared”. Well, Corporal Hawkins was released before he was well prepared.

If Corporal Hawkins were to apply to get a job with any department, he might have to get a bit of training. He might need a couple of bucks to get retrained in order to apply. Maybe some money will have to be allocated in the department so that this injured vet, suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, is able to qualify to do that job. Corporal David Hawkins was not prepared to be released.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs is trying to find a way to show that the Conservative government is caring for injured veterans while not coming clean on a lot of these issues.

I will continue. The Veterans Ombudsman stated in a press release, when he made the following observations on Bill C-11:

...under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual's file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release. ...it will create separate classes of Veterans for federal priority hiring...all medically releasing [sic] Canadian Armed Forces members should be treated the same way, because there is an inherent service relationship for every Canadian Armed Forces member who is medically released because the individual can no longer serve in uniform. ...losing one's career as a result of a medical condition is unique to service in the military.

Other questions were raised by the Veterans Ombudsman. Maybe the minister might want to stand up and answer them during question and answer.

Which department will do the adjudication? What documentation will be used in the adjudication process? Will benefit of the doubt criteria be established? How long will the process take? How much visibility will the member have in the process? Will there be an appeal process? If a definition is made that a medical release is not service related, will it affect the decision-making for another benefit program, such as the disability award?

I can say what is in the media. This is from November 8:

Sensing the lousy optics of unhappy vets during Remembrance Week, the government has pledged to give discharged soldiers first crack at civil service jobs. Given that the feds are cutting staff, this is an empty promise. And it’s doubtful many of those scarce jobs could actually be filled by soldiers unfit for military duty.

Here is another one from the National Post. “Ottawa fails veterans with cynical displays of show over substance”. Barbara Kay writes:

Recently the government proudly announced two new initiatives. The first pledges to give priority to veterans seeking civil service jobs. But Mr. Parent points out that thousands of veterans are incapable of working due to injuries suffered during their service. And since hiring freezes are in place over most of the federal departments,“priority” consideration for frozen jobs is not of much use. The other initiative increases funding for vocational rehabilitation programs to $75,800 per veteran. But the fine print belies the seeming generosity. The money is allocated at $2 million over five years, spread over 1,300 veterans. That comes to $1,500 each, unless 40-some veterans get all of it.

I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has paid attention and will have the generosity today to accept the amendment from this side of the House that money be allocated for veterans to be retrained and that there be a sum for each veteran. Second, I hope that the minister stands up, after my pleading with him, and says that they will keep these nine centres open, which affect 26,788 veterans, for the next 10 or 15 years. If he gets up and says anything about the 600 points and “da de da de da and we're going to their houses”, the veterans are watching. They know that it is totally bellowing. We will leave it at that.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot even begin to respond to the lack of factual data and the ongoing scaremongering that have come from the member.

Admittedly, there is always room for improvement. Perfection is not of this world. I do not profess that Canadian Forces personnel are perfect in every way. However, it is really difficult to hear that kind of rant and not have some appreciation for the men and women who work so hard to provide the best possible services they can to support our veterans. However, I will not go into that.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to respond. He talks a lot about giving money to veterans who are injured in service, et cetera. I have to reflect back on his comments:

...that's like hanging a case of beer in front of a drunk...they go and spend it, either trying to buy a house or buying a fast car or spending it on booze or addiction.

That is such an irresponsible, out-of-touch comment. I would like to give the member opposite an opportunity to relate to that particular comment and his rhetoric just now.

I also take exception to his comment that all we do with our veterans is teach them to kill or be killed. That is such an uninformed, uneducated, crass comment that I cannot even begin to express myself. I will give the member opposite an opportunity to answer.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would be polite to the minister. When the minister comes up with such rants, I am going to try to be very nice, because if I were to say that when God was giving out brains, the minister might have heard “trains”, it would be irresponsible of me.

If I were to say that for ages I was telling the minister that medical files were being destroyed, but he was in denial until it hit the press this morning, or if I were to say that 26,788 veterans would be affected and encourage the minister to look the veterans in the eyes, as I have been doing constantly, and they have not been listened to, then I might be correct in the first statement I made. I said we teach our soldiers to defend us. If push comes to shove, they will defend us.

Unfortunately, after all the accolades that I was trying to sing to the minister or say to minister for his years of service as a police officer, if he were not right now standing up to defend our veterans, it would be a disservice to the House of Commons and a disservice to his record as a police officer.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I have a last challenge for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would he do the right thing and look the veterans in the eyes? Turn around, Minister, there is a veteran up there.

I know, Mr. Speaker, I should not have said that.

Look him in the eyes, Minister—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair.

I would also remind hon. members that characterizations of individual members in the House or other parliamentarians are generally bound by parliamentary language. I did not hear anything specifically, but it was pretty close. Once we tip into that kind of discourse in the House, invariably disorder can occur and that is when we get some unparliamentary scenarios arising.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. One of the questions I have for him is with regard to the opportunity for veterans who are disabled, either physically or psychologically, to be retrained and have opportunities for them, their spouses, and their families to enter into the workforce to become productive citizens once again and to feel that they add worth to our society. That is the whole aspect of the new veterans charter.

However, the problem is that a lot of additional benefits that these veterans may require are very difficult to access. The bureaucracy to get them is quite challenging.

First, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his new post as critic for the federal Liberal Party and wish him good luck in that assumption. I would also like to let him know that I will assist him, and the government, at any time, when it comes to issues of veterans affairs

I wonder if he would comment on my comment. That would be greatly appreciated.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the NDP on being named “parliamentarian of the year”, if I am not mistaken. I am sure that everyone in the House will certainly join me in doing that.

We all bought into the new veterans charter. It was sold to all parties. We voted on it. No member from that time to now is to be excluded, myself included.

However, we have understood there are difficulties with it and we have seen that some changes are needed. I have heard from a lot of veterans that the old way was that they would be given a pension and there was no retraining, there were no other things available, and that maybe some of the things in the NVC should be kept, such as giving returning wounded soldiers a lump sum, but as well, giving them a monthly pension.

Just to clarify, the minister left out some of my comments when I quoted the executive director of Wounded Warriors when I was on Power & Politics.

In the letter that the Conservative Party sent out, it had “...” and left out some of what I said, which is a real shame on the Conservatives who tried to use that as a fundraising tool. Again that is certainly not respecting the veterans.

I am looking forward to working with the NDP, as well as the government, in order for us to come to some understanding that we need to make changes.

I proposed changes today. It is really a shame. Instead of hearing, “Yep, you got a good point there. We'd like to help you”, I got a personal attack again from the minister.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt for his passion and support for veterans and the hard work he has done on this new portfolio.

There have been a number of times that the government and the minister have had the answer that the minister had to my question today, which is that we will look at these issues in the parliamentary committee review that he is initiating. However, we have heard from many veterans organizations, Equitas and other representatives, that an extensive study of the new veterans charter has already taken place and the solutions to some of the things that the hon. member raised have already been analyzed and identified in a previous study.

I would like to ask my colleague whether this may be a delaying tactic, this grab bag answer for any of the concerns of veterans that we will look at it in a parliamentary committee study. Is that adequate, or are there things that could be done now to address concerns of the veteran community?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am hearing from veterans right across the country from coast to coast to coast is that they want us to hear their stories and how it is affecting their families. I have been hearing from other veterans that we need to invite the wives of veterans to come to committee to tell us how their lives have changed.

One of the things I have heard also from a lot of veterans is that the government always speaks of a couple of scenarios like Helmets to Hardhats and the hire a vet program. They are saying it is a whitewash. They say there is nothing there. The government gives $150,000 in order to create a website for Helmets to Hardhats, and wherever they go they blow it up and blow it up. We need real answers and not hot air, as it comes from the House, especially from some people on the front bench.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

It is a great pleasure and privilege to join in the debate today on our government's proposed changes to provide greater priority hiring opportunities for Canada's veterans.

These changes go to the core of so many Canadian values and priorities. We value devotion to duty. We value and salute those who are prepared to step forward and defend our way of life. We are grateful for the sacrifices of those who protect our shared values of freedom, democracy and human rights.

Of course, Canadians trust that their elected representatives will do everything they can to ensure that Canada's veterans are supported in every way during and after their military service. When we, as parliamentarians, accept that trust, we must also understand that it is not a simple promise entered into lightly. We cannot break faith with those who have displayed and continue to display the highest of ideals in the defence of our country and of our allies. Today we have an opportunity to further demonstrate that we are keeping our word.

As outlined earlier by the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs, we are introducing important changes to create a five-year priority entitlement for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service-related reasons.

Before I go any further in reviewing the details regarding the proposed priority hiring of Canada's veterans, I would like to offer my congratulations and gratitude to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who continues to build upon the accomplishments of this government and his predecessor. It is that record of action that makes me so proud to serve in a government committed to ensuring that all those who wear our nation's uniform, past and present, have the care and support they need, when they need it.

As was noted in the Speech from the Throne last month, we have invested almost $5 billion since 2006 in new funding to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services. Through the new veterans charter, we are now providing full physical and psycho-social rehabilitation services. We are providing career transition services, financial support, health care benefits, and one-on-one case management services.

What does this all mean for a veteran?

On a practical level, as the minister has said on numerous occasions, it means many things. It means we can provide up to $75,800 in training assistance for eligible veterans to start a new career. If a veteran is too seriously injured to work again, we would transfer the vocational support to his or her spouse.

There are many other things we can do for veterans, such as helping veterans with shovelling snow from their laneways or cutting their grass, having meals prepared in their homes or delivered to their front doors, having health care professionals and a Veterans Affairs Canada case manager visit them in their own homes, and reimbursing veterans for the cost of travelling to their medical appointments.

We do all these things because we are determined to help injured and ill veterans make the best recovery possible as quickly as possible. We are also committed to ensuring veterans experience a seamless transition to civilian life.

The amendments before us build on that. With these amendments, we would create a five-year statutory priority for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service-related reasons. This change would give these veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs in recognition of their sacrifice and service to Canada.

We understand that while men and women with disabilities may no longer be able to meet the universality of service provision to continue serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, they are still capable of making significant contribution in service of their country. That is what these amendments would do, plain and simple. These amendments would allow them to continue leading and serving a great country.

Additionally, through changes that would follow in the act's accompanying regulations, full-time regular, and reserve force veterans who are medically released for non-service-related reasons would see their existing level of priority extended from two years to five years. We would make the regulatory changes retroactive to April 1, 2012, so veterans who may have lost their priority status since then are eligible again for another five full years.

I do want to be clear about one thing. These amendments would not guarantee veterans a job in the federal public service. Instead, they would ensure that qualified veterans have the highest priority for new job openings. Canada's veterans understand, given the terms and conditions of their own military careers, that there can be no guarantees about what tomorrow will bring.

However, these amendments before us do offer greater certainty. They are progressive and responsible steps forward to recognize the service and sacrifice of those who serve our country so well and who wish to continue to serve Canada after their military career has ended.

These amendments send a clear signal, a clear message, to Canada's men and women in uniform that our government places a high value on their skills, their training and their experience, and we do not want to lose that. These are skills we need to promote and retain, whenever appropriate and possible.

Put simply, these amendments are a logical reflection of our desire to keep the highly qualified individuals who have received world-class training and who have consistently demonstrated the ability to apply their skills in situations that the majority of Canadians would never face or know.

We have a potential talent pool offering demonstrated leadership and an ability to think strategically. In short, we have a group of Canadians renowned for getting the job done.

Any employer in the private or public sector would be foolhardy to ignore such skills or dismiss such potential. Our government would never make such a mistake, and we encourage other levels of government to follow our lead.

However, first we need to make good on these changes. We need to make sure they are quickly approved. We need to ensure that the Public Service Commission is a willing and enthusiastic partner, and we need to put measures in place to ensure the full intent and spirit of these changes is realized. We can do that.

Together, we can deliver further meaningful support for the men and women who have served Canada so well. I encourage everyone here to help us make it happen quickly.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we all know that the Government of Canada has a “sacred duty” to care for our injured veterans. I thank all our veterans who have served on our behalf in different wars; but also let us acknowledge the men and women who are still serving today and are looking at how we handle issues like this bill.

The question I have is a fairly straightforward one. Why did the government decide to cap training expenses at $2 million over five years? This would limit access to the program. Why is the government so determined to balance the budget on the backs of our heroes yet again? Does the government recognize the existence of a sacred duty toward our injured veterans?

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

Mr. Speaker, as pointed out many times before in the House, our government is committed to supporting our veterans and men and women in uniform. As a matter of fact, our government has invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming to office.

The question I would like to ask my hon. colleague is this: why have she and members of her party voted down virtually every single initiative that we have brought forward to support our veterans? It is about time for my hon. colleagues in the opposition parties to get on board and support the initiatives the government brings forward so we can help our veterans.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it most interesting that, when we take a look at the private sector or non-profit groups, we find they give a great deal of recognition to the types of skill sets and expertise that retiring members of the Canadian Forces have to offer. Commissionaires Manitoba is an excellent example. Many veterans serve, and serve well, within that organization.

The government has been found lacking in terms of being able to address the real need to provide funds. A good example of that was in yesterday's debate. I would encourage people to read the part of the debate in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs did not even acknowledge all the thousands of files that were destroyed. He made a very clear statement yesterday. He said they were all deceased. It is because of the work done by the Liberal critic that we found out the parliamentary secretary was wrong. We appreciate that there was an apology, but it has been recognized that there are issues.

My question to the member is this. When did he first find out that he was actually wrong, that there are in fact members alive today who had their medical records destroyed, and how many does he believe there are?

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

Mr. Speaker, the kind of rhetoric we hear from the Liberal Party is absolutely unbelievable. Let me tell the members in that corner over there, the members of the Liberal Party, that there are absolutely no lessons we need to learn from them.

This is the Liberal Party that believes that giving money to veterans injured in service of Canada is, and I quote the member of the Liberal Party:

...like hanging a case of beer in front of a drunk…. They get the lump sum, they go and spend it, either trying to buy a house or buying a fast car or spending it on booze or addiction.

I would, once again, like to give the opportunity to the member opposite to apologize for his comments.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as I did last night. I hope that when the parliamentary secretary quotes something, he quotes the whole thing. If he is not able to quote the whole thing, then maybe he should exercise the zipper right across his mouth.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As was the case last night, this is a matter of debate as to the facts that have been cited in various questions, comments, or speeches in the House on these matters. I thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for his intervention, but again, it really does not have the character of a point of order in this case.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank fellow members who have joined the debate on this important matter before the House. It is very important.

I listened closely to my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, as he outlined the rationale behind those proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act and its regulations.

I want to point out that the minister is an outstanding Minister of Veterans Affairs. He cares and he works hard. He has been on many panels. I have known him since before both of us were elected to this House, and he was on the national committee and the provincial committee for the Canadian Forces Liaison Council. What that did was help reservists and others match up with jobs, as well as get employers to release reservists for very needed deployments overseas. As we know, our deployments need between 20% and 25% reservists on a regular basis to allow our missions to succeed and to be able to top up the manpower that was so critically needed in operational zones.

I thank the minister for that, and I want to congratulate him on this initiative, which marks another step in the significant progress our government has made in supporting Canada's veterans. Like many members, I am proud of what we have accomplished, particularly as it relates to helping veterans and their families make a successful transition to civilian life. That is a sacred obligation we have, a sacred obligation on which we are following through.

Yesterday this minister tabled and outlined the 160 amendments he is making because of what veterans stakeholders and advisory groups have advised us. This government is listening very closely to what our veterans need, and we are applying that.

As the minister said earlier, nothing is perfect in life. Things change, situations change, circumstances change and we have to adapt to that. That is what we are doing right now, right this minute. We are making this program the best it can possibly be today for the veterans of Canada, as they deserve and as this government has committed to do.

For example, I was pleased with our government's launch of the veterans transition action plan last year, because it sets out a long-term strategy for supporting veterans in their transition to civilian life. That is a key component of this action plan, the cutting of red tape for veterans initiative. That is something the minister also mentioned today. We are absolutely allergic to red tape. We do not like it. Nobody likes it. It is bad for veterans, and we have to cut that out, all of it, when we find it, to make it easier for them to access the services.

We launched it in February 2012 with the single-minded purpose of providing veterans and their families with faster, hassle-free service, and that is what we have been doing. That is what we are going to continue to do.

I would like to highlight just a few things. For example, Veterans Affairs Canada's business processes are being streamlined. The department's policies and programs are being simplified. New technology and e-services are being used to meet the needs expressed by Canada's veterans. The results so far have been impressive.

Turnaround times for processing veterans' disability benefits have been improved, and access to rehabilitation services is now being approved in just two weeks instead of four. That is just the start of the accomplishments.

By the time this five-year initiative is fully implemented, Veterans Affairs Canada's programs, benefits and services will be the most responsive, inclusive and flexible ever seen by Canada's veterans. We will be delivering them as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Veterans are already reaping many of the benefits. In October, for example, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced a new approach to our vocational rehabilitation program, and that provides eligible veterans with up to $75,800 in training to start a new career. That is a great amount of money and that is helpful in helping them start in the new careers, new trades, new skills to which they need to take the existing skills they have, which are world-class skills they have learned in the military, and translate those to a civilian career.

That is great news for approximately 1,300 veterans presently participating in vocational rehabilitation and vocational assessment services. These changes also build on other recent enhancements.

For example, the process for reimbursing veterans for travel costs to and from their medical appointments has been simplified. That means that about 18,000 veterans no longer need to send receipts or verify their appointments with the department to cover their travel expenses. That is a big administrative burden lifted off their shoulders. This one change has eliminated a lot of cumbersome paperwork for eligible veterans and is putting money back into their pockets faster.

The same is being done for more than 100,000 veterans, widows, and caregivers enrolled in a veterans' independence program. In January, veterans began receiving upfront payments for grounds maintenance and housekeeping services. They no longer have to pay out of their pocket for these services and then wait to be reimbursed. This is yet another administrative burden lifted off their shoulders. The full suite of e-services also ensures that veterans and their families can access the relevant information that they are looking for at any time of day or night.

These kinds of changes make a real difference. That is what the proposed legislative amendments will also do. With these changes to the Public Service Employment Act and its regulations, we will create a five year statutory priority entitlement for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service related reasons. This will move qualified veterans to the front of the line for new positions in the federal public service so these remarkable men and women, these patriots, can continue to serve our great country if they so chose.

Additionally, through the regulatory changes that would follow, full-time regular and reserve force veterans who are medically released for non-service related reasons will see their existing level of priority extended from two years to five years. It will also allow them a longer period of priority access to positions that they are qualified to fill. That is an incredible improvement.

These changes are also about providing veterans with real and meaningful new employment and career opportunities and doing so in recognition of their service and the sacrifices they have made in the name of Canada. Once these changes take effect, Canadian veterans medically released for service related reasons will be able to pursue new careers in the federal public service on a higher priority and a longer term basis than ever before. This is something that we are very proud to be doing for our veterans.

I know Canadians support this kind of honourable recognition and support for Canada's veterans. It reflects our nation's gratitude for everything our men and women in uniform, past and present, have done to protect and defend our democracy and our way of life. It also reflects our collective desire to continue to have highly-qualified Canadians putting their hard-earned skills and training to work for our country and ensuring that our economy continues to grow on the strength of a well placed workforce and employees who are realizing their full potential. When employers hire a veteran, they are hiring somebody with a tremendous tool kit of skills right now.

These proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act should also be viewed as another way to strengthen overall skill sets and therefore the overall effectiveness of the federal public service. It is not only a fair thing to do; it is the right thing to do. Quite frankly, it is the Canadian thing to do. I would hope that all levels of government across the country will do the same and adopt similar policies.

Canada's veterans only want a fair opportunity to find meaningful and rewarding employment when their military service to Canada ends. However, they sometimes do not fully realize how marketable their skills are, or how to explain their experience and training to civilian employers. This is something we help with through programs like Helmets to Hardhats and other initiatives that help veterans to translate those numerous skills they have. In this job, my veteran colleagues and I, who speak about this often, always relate back to the great skills that we learned in the Canadian Forces and how applicable they are to everything we do in life.

The amendments before us are one way to tear down those barriers. They are an expression of the value we place on our men and women in uniform. It is the right thing to do.

I want to address something that a member mentioned earlier about how the two particular priorities for Canadian soldiers are to kill or be killed. Quite frankly, it is nonsense. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have a whole myriad of skills in their toolkits. For example, the most obvious right now relates to the DAR teams deployed to the Philippines. They are providing badly needed assistance to people in dire need. The people in these teams are engineers, people producing water and sanitary conditions. They are bringing food, helicopters, and other logistics to do that.

Canadian Armed Forces members aid civil authorities, such as at the Olympics in 2010. They perform diplomatic roles, for example, as attachés in our embassies around the world. They work as trainers for other armies, as our soldiers are doing in Kabul right now or in the Canadian Forces College.

In fact, some of the soldiers have continuing education. There are many members of the Canadian Armed Forces presently with master's degrees and Ph.D.s. They are a very accomplished lot.

The point of all of this is to help our veterans make that seamless transition to civilian life where they can best utilize the incredible skills they have learned through a lifetime of service to Canada.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who just spoke. Like him, I appreciate the service of our veterans.

On November 11, like many members here, I took part in Remembrance Day events. I had the chance to meet many veterans who live in my riding. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank them once again for their commitment. I also wish to commend and thank our military personnel who continue to represent Canada here and abroad.

I wonder if the member could tell me why it is that none of the recommendations made by the ombudsman and the Auditor General were included in the bill. Why is it that a report was prepared and yet none of its recommendations seem to appear in this bill?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has colleagues in her party who have served, and I applaud their service and thank them for it. They have done a tremendous job and serve in the House honourably.

Yesterday the minister tabled 160 amendments from veterans advocacy groups and advisory groups. That includes the whole gamut of people feeding into the Veterans Affairs file. If the member reads through some of those 160 amendments, she will find that many of those match up with the recommendations that are already on the table and made public.