Sylvain Chicoine

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 6th, 2013]

With regard to spending on monuments and commemorative events honouring veterans, what is the total expenditure since fiscal year 2005-2006 and what is the breakdown by (i) year, (ii) year and province, (iii) year and constituency?

[National Defence, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the current system works well for healthy people. It is not designed for those who need help. The minister encourages people to seek help, but that is precisely the problem. Encouragement is not enough.

What we need is clinics and specialists in the detection of post-traumatic stress. What our veterans and military need is human resources and people who will be there to help them.

Will the minister address this significant gap by investing in these resources?

[Veterans, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, too many of our valiant veterans have to fight for the benefits and the services they are entitled to.

The Conservatives have closed nine regional offices and slashed hundreds of thousands of dollars from Veterans Affairs' budget, thus forcing veterans to use online services instead of being given the personal help they deserve.

How can the Conservatives be so indifferent towards our veterans?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 29th, 2013]

I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, Mr. Speaker.

There are several points I would like her to expand on. I am the father of three preteens. Understandably, cyberbullying is of great concern to me. Like all kids their age, my children are very comfortable with technology. Unlike us at their age, kids today can be bullied even in their bedrooms. They have computers and access to the Internet. They can therefore be bullied at home as well as in school.

It is of the utmost importance that we take measures to address cyberbullying. Like my colleague said, not many provisions in the bill actually deal with cyberbullying. When the government introduced Bill C-13, it said it wanted to address the issue of cyberbullying. However, few of the bill's provisions actually do so.

I would like my colleague to comment on the attitude of the government—I am really trying to use parliamentary language here—that often puts on a dog and pony show about bills that, ultimately, are pretty hollow.

[Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act, November 20th, 2013]

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.

[Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act, November 20th, 2013]

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.

[Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act, November 20th, 2013]

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.

[Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act, November 20th, 2013]

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.

[Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for introducing this bill to help military personnel make the transition to civilian life.

I would like to ask the minister two questions. One of them concerns his bill and the other touches on a related matter. The minister mentioned in his speech that he is proud to be able to help veterans in their transition to civilian life through the helmets to hardhats program, which helps veterans find jobs in the construction industry. However, this program is not available in Quebec. Quebec veterans are at a disadvantage compared to veterans in the rest of Canada who have access to this program.

Therefore, I would like to ask the minister if he is working on other partnerships with the private sector, as requested by the ombudsman in one of his recent reports, such as partnerships with the aerospace industry or defence industry.

Furthermore, the bill seems to have forgotten about a category of people. For example, a soldier with a non-service-related injury could ask the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) to overturn this decision. After two or three years, VRAB could recognize this.

Is the minister prepared to amend the bill to extend the deadline for someone whose appeal to the board to overturn the department's decision is successful?

[Veterans, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are against it because, for the past two years, the government has done nothing but cut services to veterans. It is closing the offices veterans had access to. That is what we are against, not anything else.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs threw out all kinds of figures to support his claim that the government is supporting veterans. It is not enough.

Let us set everything else aside and focus on the $7,300. First of all, that is not enough, even though it is better than before.

Second of all, the eligibility criteria are too narrow. When a veteran dies, he can have no more than $12,000 to his name. If he has more than $12,000, his family gets no support to cover the cost of a dignified funeral and burial service.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs said as much in committee today. He is waiting for the committee's recommendations with respect to eligibility criteria, but that was all done two years ago.

Will the minister step up to the plate and fix the eligibility criteria so that more families can afford dignified funeral and burial services for veterans?