Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 8 - Evidence - November 24, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday November 24, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:02 p.m. to study the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, to veterans, to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honorable senators, since we have quorum, I would like to call this meeting to order. Thank you for being here for the continuation of our study.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming Ms. Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission of Canada.
We are delighted to have you here, Ms. Barrados. You have held your current position for some time now and your expertise will undoubtedly help us with our study.
Next, we will hear from Colonel Gérard Blais, who is Director of Casualty Support Management at National Defence and also the new on-base multi-service Integrated Personnel Support Centres.
We are delighted to welcome you, Mr. Blais, because you are involved in the two fundamental issues of charter use and casualty reintegration.
Ms. Barrados, I see that you have one of your colleagues here with you. Welcome. Ms. Barrados, you now have the floor.
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: I am pleased to be here today to talk about the initiatives of the Public Service Commission of Canada aimed at enhancing opportunities in the federal public service for current as well as former members of the Canadian Forces.
I am accompanied by Janelle Wright, Director, Delegation and Reporting, Policy Branch.
The PSC is an independent agency reporting to parliament, mandated to safeguard the integrity of the public service staffing system and non-partisanship in the public service. We have been in existence for over 100 years, and are proud of our contribution to building a merit-based, non partisan federal public service.
The PSC reports annually to Parliament on its activities and results. Its 2009-10 Annual Report was tabled on October 5.
During the course of its history, the PSC has made an important contribution to the rehabilitation and reintegration of Canada's war veterans into civilian society. Some form of veterans preference has been part of federal legislation since the Civil Service Act of 1918. Following the Second World War, more than 55,000 veterans found jobs in the federal public service.
More recently, we have collaborated with Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence in the development and implementation of the New Veterans Charter.
I would now like to speak to some of the initiatives taken by the PSC.
[English]
I will begin with priority entitlements that the Public Service Commission of Canada, PSC, is responsible for creating and administering under the Public Service Employment Act and the federal Public Service Employment Regulations. These entitlements provide persons with the right to be appointed ahead of all others to any position in the public service for which they meet the essential qualifications. These entitlements are for a specified period of time. Information on the list of priority entitlements has been distributed to the committee.
A priority entitlement has existed for certain Canadian Forces members since 1997. Initially, the entitlement was for members who were released as a result of injury in a special duty area. It was expanded in 2004 to include those who became disabled as a result of special duty service.
On December 31, 2005, the entitlement was expanded again to include former members of the Canadian Forces, CF, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, who are released or discharged from service for medical reasons. Once medically released, these former members have five years to activate their priority entitlement, which then lasts for two years.
We have been working closely with National Defence, DND, and Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, to help provide former CF members with information on priority entitlements and to ensure that they maximize their public service employment opportunities.
Let me now turn to our 2009-10 annual report. I understand that table 21 from our report has been distributed to the committee.
We have seen a significant upward trend in the number of priority entitlements for CF and RCMP members who have been medically discharged. For 2009-10, we have had 301 new entitlements, up from 259 in the previous year. We have also seen a corresponding increase in the number of indeterminate appointments. For 2009-10, some 215 former CF and RCMP members were appointed to positions in the public service as compared to 205 in the previous year.
That brings me to the more recent amendment that extends priority entitlement to surviving spouses or common law partners of public service employees, members of the CF or RCMP who lose their lives in the line of duty. The surviving spouse, if qualified, would be granted a priority entitlement for up to two years for appointments to externally advertised positions.
We are providing information and assistance to organizations to implement the new spousal priority. Given that the priority applies retroactively to October 7, 2001, when Canada began its military actions in Afghanistan, we have worked with DND and VAC to identify those who are affected and to ensure that they are made aware of their priority entitlement. I can now report that the PSC has confirmed one of these new priorities and is currently referring this person to positions in the public service.
To date, we have been able to maintain a steady increase in the number of appointments of former CF members with priority entitlements. Overall, the number of entitlements registered in our system jumped by 31 per cent in 2009- 10 as compared to the previous year.
At the same time, the number of requests received for priority clearance, which are required to staff available positions, has dropped by 10 per cent. Given the current context of fiscal restraint, however, it is anticipated that the upward trend in the number of priority persons, coupled with decreased staffing actions, may present challenges to the placement of priority persons.
[Translation]
Now, I would like to turn to other changes that were made to the Public Service Employment Act to provide increased opportunities for Canadian Forces members in public service staffing. Unlike civilian Department of National Defence employees, Canadian Forces members were neither employees nor persons employed in the public service. Consequently, Canadian Forces members were not eligible to participate in advertised internal appointment processes.
However, as a result of an amendment which took effect December 31, 2005, Canadian Forces members can apply for advertised internal appointment processes where they have been identified as being eligible by deputy heads and their hiring managers. All departments and agencies governed by the PSEA have the option of identifying Canadian Forces members in the "open to" statement on internal job notices.
[English]
Finally, Bill C-40, which came into force in 2008, protected the jobs of public service employees who serve in the reserve force. The new section 41.1 was added to the Public Service Employment Act, providing federal public servants who are members of the reserve force with the right to return to their position at the end of a leave of absence taken in order to participate in certain military activities and operations in Canada and abroad.
Let me assure your committee of our strong commitment to implement the initiatives that have been taken to support the men and women of our Canadian Forces and our veterans.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have after the presentation by Colonel Blais.
The Chair: Ms. Barrados, thank you for being succinct and clear, covering all the bases. If you do not mind, I will ask the colonel to make a short presentation and then we will go to questions.
[Translation]
Colonel Gérard Blais, Director, Casualty Support Management, National Defence: I am the Director, Casualty Support Management for the Canadian Forces as well as the Commanding Officer of the Joint Personnel Support Unit and its network of Integrated Personnel Support Centres.
[English]
The responsibilities associated with these positions include the development of policies and programs to support both regular and reserve force ill and injured personnel and their families, as well as the families of the fallen. These programs encompass the entire range of support services available to the ill and injured but do not include clinical or medical support, which is the responsibility of the Canadian Forces Health Services system.
Some of the programs and services available to the ill and injured, and for which I am responsible, include but are not limited to the Return To Work Program; outreach and information services; the provision of home and vehicle modifications; peer support for those suffering operational stress injuries and their families; transition assistance for those leaving the CF for medical reasons; disability compensation for injured reservists; funeral and burial benefits; bereavement peer support for families of deceased personnel; and the Soldier On program that provides opportunities for severely injured personnel to continue an active lifestyle through sports.
[Translation]
In addition, approximately 700 ill and injured personnel are under command of the Joint Personnel Support Unit and another 2,700 or so are actively tracked and receive services from the unit.
[English]
As an example of the success of that unit, Ms. Barrados indicated that in the last year there has been an increase of approximately 30 per cent in the number of applications from injured CF personnel to the public service. I believe that, in large measure, that is because of the stand-up of the Joint Personnel Support Unit, JPSU, and the direct intervention we now have with the ill and injured.
[Translation]
I am here today to respond to any questions that you may have pertaining to the services available from the Canadian Forces.
The Chair: Very brief and to the point. Thank you for providing an inventory of the services provided.
[English]
If I may, I will turn now to my colleagues for questions. I will start with the deputy chair, Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: I pass my time over to Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: Thank you. It is nice to see you again, colonel, and to see this program is progressing, and you are now up to 700 people as part of this unit. Is it too early for you to tell what you think — or what you can see from the numbers — will be an average length of stay or service as part of one of these JPSUs?
Col. Blais: I would say that it depends on the type of injury. For some of our more seriously injured, it could be a period of five or six years from the moment the injury occurs to the moment the person either returns to full-time service or the person decides to leave the Armed Forces. In many cases, however, it could be as short as six months or so to give them the time to convalesce and return to their duties.
Senator Wallin: Have you had time to assess some of the additional new government funds targeted toward some of these issues rather than specific programs? I am thinking even of the $100 a day for a family member that takes a day off to spend time with their injured CF member. Have you been able to see where that will impact and where it will have the most impact?
Col. Blais: Not yet because there are certain legislative changes that have to occur before the funding is available.
Senator Wallin: I understand that. I am just wondering if you are looking forward with that and seeing if it is targeting the right programs.
Col. Blais: Yes, most definitely. One of the areas of greatest concern was family members having to attend to the ill and injured — in many cases, having to leave their employment. There is no doubt that that benefit will go a long way to assisting them.
Senator Wallin: One of the issues that I discovered when I went out to talk to the members of a JPSU was that they wanted to stay longer as part of the military family rather than be transitioned out and back to civilian life because of the nature of their injury. Is there more flexibility on that front now?
Col. Blais: Yes, as much as possible. We have a principle known as universality of service. Everyone has heard of that. We must respect that. However, through any measure possible, be it through a return to their former employment or if we have to train a change of military occupation — any possible method to retain someone who wants to stay — we will look into that.
I have one question for Ms. Barrados. We have had a debate in the Defence Committee and taken some testimony on the question of subsidy to employers who employ reservists. The public service is always set aside as a special case because you probably would not receive any additional compensation on that.
Do you have a view on the issue, about whether or not we should go down that road, and if we do, in what way — through a cash transfer or a tax credit? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Barrados: I do not have any views outside of the public service. I have not given that a great deal of thought.
In the case of the public service, no issues have been raised with me with the kind of guarantees that have been given for reservists. If I do not hear any problems, then I assume it is working the way it is intended.
Senator Wallin: I will come back again, if I can.
Senator Plett: Thank you, witnesses. Your reports are both, in my opinion, very positive. You are telling us, sir, what you are in charge of.
Of course, as part of the Conservative government, we have stood shoulder to shoulder with our Canadian men and women in uniform, and certainly our veterans. Over the last years, we have increased spending on veterans programs by over $2.5 billion on a variety of programs, some of which have been touched on.
My question is fairly general in nature. I am curious as to whether you see specific problems with some of the programs that we have initiated and what we could do to improve them. The question is for both witnesses. I do not see anything in the reports that indicate there are any issues, and if there are not, I, along with many, will be very happy. I am sure there are some challenges and some issues. It is a rather general question, I know, but I would like you to touch on that.
Ms. Barrados: I described all the different opportunities and initiatives that are in place. My concern is, frankly, that members may not be sufficiently apprised of all of these things.
We are concerned that people do not really understand that all of this is available to them; hence, they do not make use of it. We have been working with the CF and have been doing much more in communication, particularly for that spousal benefit, because that goes way back.
The other initiative is that all competitions can be broadened to allow in any member of the Canadian Forces. In considering this and in coming to you today, I feel that it is time to remind everyone about this again. That is my preoccupation. We have, to this point, put quite a bit of effort and resources into supporting medically released or discharged veterans; we have been able to do that within our resources. We would expect to be able to continue to do that unless we have a big change in numbers.
Senator Plett: I agree that communication is always a challenge. Personally, I have always been frustrated, with these programs and others, that we are not getting the message out enough. Certainly, if you have specific suggestions, I would be willing to listen to those and to try to implement that. I certainly concur that communication is an issue.
Ms. Barrados: If I may, I think anything this committee can do to draw the attention of not only the CF members but also the public service managers to these initiatives that are available would be helpful. Any kind of reminder to the commission to do more on communication never hurts.
Col. Blais: I am happy to say that within DND, there is an assistant deputy minister responsible for civilian human resources. We are working closely with them to ensure the programs available through the public service are well announced. For the spousal priority appointment, for example, we have sent letters to the spouses of all deceased personnel informing them of that entitlement. They are also now connected into the Integrated Personnel Support Centres, IPSCs, and are obtaining information through there.
As far as all the ill and injured military personnel are concerned, they are getting that through their Return to Work Program coordinators and through their case managers at the IPSCs. This is definitely one program that is specifically brought to their attention.
On the other part of your question about the programs, again, communication is a big part of the issue for the serving veteran population about what is out there for them. Right now there is an aggressive program taking place. VAC is going to every CF base, accompanied by the chief of military personnel and people from my organization. We will visit every base, and VAC will go over what is available to people. Families are invited to this, as well as veterans. They will receive the information and the opportunity to ask questions.
We have had one session already in Gagetown, New Brunswick, about two weeks ago, and will be heading to Winnipeg in a week or so. I think that will go a long way toward increasing the understanding.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. Being from Winnipeg, I certainly welcome you coming out there.
The Chair: All the documentation reflects former members of the Canadian Forces and has evolved from special duty areas, which essentially would be qualifying them as veterans because they would, if injured, fall under VAC. We are talking about all former members of the Canadian Forces are now admissible, but they are now also admissible to internal competition at the interest of the individual managers, such as deputy ministers, DMs, and so on, to want to open that door.
Do you believe that now that the old "khaki parachute fear" is gone and that we are now willing to open it completely that possibly the emphasis on veterans or injured veterans or injured members of forces is being lost and that not all the departments are necessarily reflecting the desire to hire these injured personnel?
Ms. Barrados: There are two different things operating here. One is the medically discharged or released veterans, and that is a priority system. A priority system means that a public servant cannot staff a job until they have satisfied the commission that they have gone through the priorities. The people with the entitlement must convince us that that person can do the job. That is not a choice.
I receive complaints that my staff is too vigilant and are slowing down the staffing system, but on the other side there are these rights that we are protecting and working on.
An important consideration for the committee is we gave that right through regulations. If Senator Downe were here he would be raising this. It is a regulatory priority, which means it sits below the statutory priorities. We are very vigilant about that.
I am satisfied that people are not ignoring that, because they do not have any choice. They cannot staff until they come to the commission.
The other provision I talked about, which is the provision that managers can open their internal competition to any member of the Armed Forces, I am not sure that that is as consistently used. Now that you pose the question, I will have my staff go back and take a look to see if we have any information on how much that is used.
When I was speaking of communication, I was thinking that is one we have to remind people of.
The Chair: DMs have been given a lot of delegated authority on hiring in their departments now. Do you have a mechanism to ensure that that prioritization is being applied for veterans, for example, within all the departments and that they are all demonstrating that same desire? I gather there are certain departments where we seem to see these veterans gravitating more than others, or possibly the doors are not necessarily opened.
Ms. Barrados: I do have a mechanism, and I enforce the use of the priority entitlement. We looked at how well that is working, and we are placing about 70 per cent of the people. We run into some specific issues with the others. One is that they are not always mobile, so they do not want to move from the area in which they are living. That is their choice. Federal government jobs are only available in some places. We do run into that situation.
We have run into a few situations where people were not interested in the jobs for which we thought they were qualified. We lose about 15 per cent that are really not interested. We have to talk more about those people because I worry about them. Are they not interested because they have consciously made a decision that they are not interested, or are they still not well enough to make that kind of decision? That is something we have to discuss.
The Chair: That is an outstanding response.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: I had a question relating to military spouses, but you have already answered that one. I was wondering whether the federal public service could not, with the help of the Canadian Forces, get in touch with the provincial and municipal public services to find jobs for reservists. Is this something that has already been done?
Ms. Barrados: Your question is a very good one. As a federal agency, we do not have a formal relationship with the provinces. However, we do have a lot of informal discussions. We have exchanges and meetings but we have never talked about employment for members of the Canadian Forces or reservists. It is not something I had considered but it is a good suggestion nevertheless.
Senator Pépin: Do you have any solutions?
Col. Blais: Unfortunately, at our level, no. That would be the physician's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, I think it is an excellent idea.
Senator Pépin: It might open new doors.
Ms. Barrados: It might be something that I could raise in a letter to my provincial counterparts.
Senator Pépin: That might help. It might lead to additional opportunities particularly, as you mentioned earlier, given the fact that you receive a lot of requests from people who want to stay in their own areas.
I had a another question on spouses but you have already answered it. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Can you confirm that you do not have any formal staff transfer structure for federal and provincial employees? Is there currently a transition process or methodology, or pension?
Ms. Barrados: We have the same structures in place for other levels of government as for the private sector. We have exchange programs. Transfers are possible where a process and provisions exist in the pension systems, but there is no formal relationship.
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification.
Senator Pépin: I have a follow-up question. You operate in the federal sector and therefore, are there any specific departments which employ our veterans or war casualties? Is it easier for specific departments to hire people with health problems?
Ms. Barrados: I will ask Janelle to answer that one. It also depends on the type of work. I cannot really say whether it is an issue of some departments being more accepting. It really depends on the type of job for which the person has training and experience.
Janelle Wright, Director, Delegation and Reporting, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: Ninety- five percent of appointments occur in the six largest departments, including National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada, Correctional Services Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada. These departments have significant operations in the regions. It is a fact that 95 percent of appointments are in the regions where people live. Most candidates live where the jobs are. So, some departments do hire people with health problems.
Ms. Barrados: Nevertheless, I do think that it is related to job type.
Senator Pépin: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Day: My apologies for being late. I was tied up with something else. I will start with a couple of questions to Colonel Blais, more in terms of clarification.
You indicated that you are the commanding officer of the Joint Personnel Support Unit — I presume that is a national unit — and its network of Integrated Personnel Support Centres. Are these centres located in various places across Canada?
Col. Blais: Yes, that is exactly right, senator.
Senator Day: Is there a network of JPSUs across Canada as well? If I go to Bagotville, Quebec, or Gagetown, New Brunswick, will I find a unit there?
Col. Blais: It is more of an organizational issue, because you have to stand up a unit in the Canadian Forces. The Joint Personnel Support Unit was stood up; however, the unit itself is located across the country.
We are in 19 locations. The JPSU is there, but the commanding officer is in Ottawa. At each of these sites, there is an IPSC, and that is where all the services are given, but the two are intertwined.
Senator Day: Does the sign over the door have both names?
Col. Blais: Yes, it does.
Senator Day: Can service personnel who want to find these centres easily find them at those spots?
Col. Blais: Absolutely.
Senator Day: You mentioned that approximately 700 ill and injured personnel are under your command of the JPSU, and then you spoke about the 2,700 personnel who you are following.
Col. Blais: Yes.
Senator Day: Are the 2,700 personnel all in uniform?
Col. Blais: Yes, they are.
Senator Day: What is the difference between the 700 who are under your command and the 2,700 who you are following and to whom you are providing some services but not health services?
Col. Blais: The 700 personnel who are physically posted to the unit are those who have an illness or injury that will be somewhat longer term. Between the person's commanding officer and the medical officer, a determination is made about the employment limitations. For example, if an infantry soldier has a problem with his legs and will not be employable with the infantry for a period of six months or so, or greater, then that person will be posted to us, and we will find other suitable employment for him.
The remainder are those to whom we actively provide services but who are not posted to the unit per se because they still report to their other unit on a daily basis. However, they receive all of their services from us.
Senator Day: How are you keeping in touch with them, and how do you determine that they can fall off the list?
Col. Blais: On the military side, we have a series of section commanders and platoon commanders in each one of the areas. They speak with these people a minimum of once a week to ensure that they are going to their medical appointments, that they are getting the help they need, et cetera. When the time comes, as the medical evaluations are ongoing, the medical officer can either reduce or take away the medical limitations. At that point, we ensure that the person is posted back to their employment.
On the return-to-work side, for example, that is another area where we have had great success. We already have well over 100 people who were on the Return to Work Program through the JPSU and who have gone back to full-time duties in their own military occupation.
Senator Day: If it is decided that they cannot go back to full-time military occupation, is there a transition then to Veterans Affairs? Is that when that takes place?
Col. Blais: The official transition with Veterans Affairs begins in the following manner: Before a person is released for medical reasons, they are given six months' notice that that will happen. Once that has occurred, at that point, immediately the case managers from DND and VAC in the IPSCs start to hand over the file with the individual to ensure that at the end of that six months the transition is smooth.
Senator Day: Would those case managers, both DND and VAC, be well aware of the priority entitlements in the public service?
Col. Blais: They certainly are.
Senator Day: Are they well briefed by you or by the Public Service Commission?
Col. Blais: They are briefed by us, but we get the information. As I said, there is an assistant deputy minister in National Defence who is responsible for our civilian component, and through them, we get all the information. We ensure, through our transition assistance staff, that that information is clearly passed on.
Senator Day: When you say "civilian component," you are talking about not only non-uniformed employees of National Defence but also former uniformed personnel who are no longer able to serve in National Defence.
Col. Blais: Those I do not have contact with. We do keep in touch. We stay in touch with anyone who has been medically released, for a period of about two years after they leave, in case they have any lingering needs. After that point, in most cases, we lose contact.
Senator Day: I have a final question on this line, if I may. With the whole-of-government approach that we have been taking in Afghanistan, people who are not in uniform and not part of DND become injured. However, they might need many of these same services that you are providing. How does the coordination take place, or do other government departments and agencies duplicate the services provided by DND?
Col. Blais: I do not have the mandate to provide those services. For example, in cases of those from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, if we are asked to help, we will go in and provide whatever expertise we have. Certainly, if we can help any of our peer support programs, we will do that.
Senator Day: Are you asked to help out from time to time?
Col. Blais: In certain cases, yes, we are asked.
Senator Day: For example, we are seeing and will likely see even more trainers, educators, correctional services people and border services people serving outside of Canada, most likely in Afghanistan. Are you working on any type of coordination in that regard, or is that being left to the various silos with the periodic solicitation for help back and forth?
Col. Blais: Yes. Most organizations do not want us meddling in their business, to be very specific. If we are asked to help them, we will be happy to do so, but that request has to come from the other organization.
The Chair: It has become specific. We have the answer from your perspective. Ms. Barrados, apparently special provisions were created for diplomats, people from the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, or other government employees who are deployed to a dangerous area for their continued care or concerns. First, in your estimation, is there anything in the Public Service Employment Act or its regulations that allows public service personnel to be deployed to dangerous areas, given the security risk? Second, would the continued care provided post-deployment resemble the care provided to the military because these operational theatres require development people, diplomats and all other personnel to face significant risks to achieve the missions that are required of these complex operations?
Ms. Barrados: I cannot say much about the assignment in areas where there are security risks. My understanding is that this is the nature of a discussion with managers and their employees and that there has to be an agreement on both sides that this is a reasonable thing to do.
Public servants, however, have much more protection and many more provisions than members of the Armed Forces have. If someone is injured, many insurances and programs are in place to reintegrate people back into the workforce. The same requirements of being fully fit to take on all the requirements of the job do not apply. Many other jobs are available that people would work very hard to give them. As well, they have other rights and entitlements that come through this. Much would take place in the public service before they would end up on a disability priority, which they would have.
The Chair: Essentially, you are saying that the public service is able to respond to people deployed to risk areas, and those provisions are equivalent or better than what the military can expect from VAC for the long-term care of their needs.
Ms. Barrados: My understanding of the military, and I stand to be corrected by Col. Blais, is that there is an expectation that people will be able to carry out fully their duties. In the public service, we have many different types of jobs. We do not have a perfect world; we all have difficulties taking people who have been disabled to have the pension provisions and the insurance for disability and reintegrating people back, particularly with mental illness. We have difficulty doing that in the public service. There is a great deal of initiative to do that, but if there is a will on the part of the managers, we have much more flexibility because of the many different types of jobs. We have obligations to find people work in the public service.
The Chair: I am looking at the regulations and the Public Service Employment Act. Perhaps those who are in uniform or who are veterans of the CF should not have to apply to the public service but could see their career in service of the Canadian people to the Canadian government by the public service seeking them out for employment. That would be a continuum versus going through the application process. They simply would be moved into the public service and benefit from that extraordinary flexibility you talked about.
Ms. Barrados: That definitely is the case for people who are medically discharged or released. They have to tell us they want to exercise that right, and if they do so, the Public Service Commission is busy trying to find them a position.
We do the marketing. All the individual has to do is respond to us. When we ask whether they are interested in a particular job, they have to tell us whether they are or not. For the medically discharged, we are doing a lot, and they have quite a status.
If the question is about other members of the Armed Forces who might be normally coming to the end of their career, are we using fully the investment we have made in training those individuals? A great deal of investment is made, as you know better than anyone, in the training of those individuals. Those people are put into the competitive process. We do that in large part because of our concern about ensuring that we match the requirements of the job with the skills of the individual to impose that merit test. I make a big distinction between the two types of populations.
The Chair: That is as the documentation shows. Thank you very much.
Senator Wallin: Continuing on that theme, some of us are of the view that we do not need this paternalistic approach, namely, to go out and kind of collect people. We assume that somehow they would not have the will or desire to do that. Certainly, the people who I have met do have that will. If they are interested in work, they will look for it.
I have a couple of points to follow up. Do you impose and expect a consideration of merit in hiring people?
Ms. Barrados: Absolutely. We make the judgment. We have a list of people who have the priority entitlement; and we look at their skills. We look at the jobs and ask whether the individual is interested. The hiring managers have to tell us whether they feel that the individual meets the merit test. The merit test is always met; but we scrutinize it to ensure that another individual is not preferred over the one presented.
Senator Wallin: This is very important because whatever their status is — ill or injured — they have to believe they are getting the job because they deserve it and because they earned it, not because they are a charity case.
Ms. Barrados: They get the job because we and the managers feel that they can do the job. They are ahead of the line.
Senator Wallin: Yes, I understand the priority, but that is different than giving someone a job that they are not qualified to do, which simply sets the person up for failure.
Ms. Barrados: We would not do that. It is not allowed in the act.
Senator Wallin: I will return to the 301 people who have been placed and your comments that about 70 per cent who accept and stay on.
It is obvious that that sentiment expressed by those in the category of the non-geographically mobile — those not wanting to relocate — would be true of the regular workforce as well. Another category is those who are not interested in the job because they might not psychologically be ready or prepared. How large is that category do you think?
Ms. Barrados: It was my comment about whether they were psychologically ready or prepared.
We did this analysis of 64 members whose priority entitlement expired. They had a priority entitlement for two years at the end of which, it expired. Overall, we had a placement of, as I said, around 27.5 per cent. What happened to them? We had 19 who just gave no response. We sent them information on a referral; we notified them and got nothing back. I am not sure what happened. They may truly not have been interested; that is possible.
Senator Wallin: They might be in this second category of people who are not interested in the job; that is your three points, the informal category.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, but I do ask the question. This is something we would have to work on.
Are these people perhaps really not well enough to engage in the workforce? It is a small number, but I think we have a responsibility there.
Senator Wallin: I have a question for the colonel to clarify because we are in the process of preparing a report on all of this. The JPSU is not for other civil servants. This is for members of the CF; is that correct?
Col. Blais: Absolutely.
Senator Wallin: Are the IPSCs for present and past members of the CF?
Col. Blais: Yes, because VAC is embedded in the IPSC, so they do see veterans there. The other civilian component where we do assist is the families of the fallen.
Senator Wallin: We need to make it clear for the viewing public that it is not your responsibility to deal with civil servants from other departments.
Col. Blais: No, it is not.
Senator Wallin: If they seek your advice, will you offer some so that they might set up equivalent programs?
Col. Blais: Yes — we have no mandate or funding to deal with others.
Senator Wallin: Thank you; that is just to clarify.
The Chair: What is the proportion of those who are psychologically affected by operational stress injuries compared to the physical injuries that you have in your database?
Col. Blais: I cannot tell you that, sir. The doctors give us only the medical employment limitations because there is confidentiality with the patient. I just know what the person cannot do, and we have to respect those limitations. We do not ask whether the illness or injury is physical or mental.
The Chair: In this era, as in other eras, but we recognize it even more today, the occurrence of operational stress injury is exponentially higher than that of physical injury. That data is coming from all our colleagues in the United States.
Operational stress injury does not necessarily appear within the two-year time frame, nor within the five-year time frame. I had a colleague who killed himself 14 years later due to that.
What is the fallback on ability of an injured person five or six years down the road of re-entering the exercise?
Col. Blais: The exercise being the priority hiring, do you mean?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Barrados: We set a limit of five years, and we did that in consultation with the Canadian Forces on what would be a reasonable time limit. We wanted to impose some time limit. Five years is much longer than anything else, so any time within those five years. For example, you could exercise your priority entitlement toward the end of the five years, and because it expires after two years, that period would actually become seven years.
Certainly if the evidence demonstrates that that is not a reasonable time limit, we can review it through the regulatory process. That is a Public Service Commission regulation, so it is within the powers of the commission to make those changes.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Is there a charter for priority cases? For example, a severely disabled single person or a seriously injured soldier with a family who is unable to work. Are these criteria taken into account in helping them find jobs?
Col. Blais: We do not. People apply based on their skills and aptitude for a specific job. Then, if I am not mistaken, the hiring manager and the physician select the most appropriate candidate from among the priority applicants for the job available.
Ms. Barrados: We do not make a distinction. It is an individual decision as to whether to use the priority entitlement provisions. There is no other consideration involved. It is a personal choice.
Senator Pépin: You have used the term suitable employment several times. What is suitable employment? Is it something to do with salary, skills or the field the soldier previously worked in? Many CF staff have gone to work for the public service.
Ms. Barrados: Suitable employment means being qualified for a job. Two types of qualifications exist in the public service: essential and asset. Priority entitlement candidates must have the essential qualifications.
Senator Pépin: Following the Second World War, 55,000 veterans found employment with the federal public service, did they not?
Ms. Barrados: Indeed.
Senator Pépin: Does that mean that they all possessed essential qualifications?
Ms. Barrados: That was a benchmark program for all members of the Canadian Forces.
The Chair: However, at that time they were all veterans, were they not?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Pépin: Indeed, they were all veterans.
The Chair: It was clearly a benchmark program for veterans.
Senator Pépin: There were 55,000 of them.
The Chair: They were all Second World War veterans. The public service set up a program for veterans. Out of a total of 1,000,000, they hired 55,000.
Colonel, do you or your partner departments have tools to assist people in understanding and meeting the requirements of public service exams? Is there a program to educate, prepare and make candidates competitive for public service positions while they are under your command?
Col. Blais: Yes, each base has personnel selection officers specialising in the preparation and drafting of resumes. They cover all areas of education, help prepare resumes and direct people to the appropriate skill-enhancement training. Financial assistance is also available to help people attain their goals.
The Chair: Do you mean to be more competitive for public service jobs?
Col. Blais: Jobs in either the public service or in other sectors.
The Chair: The other sectors are not the issue. We are dealing with the public service here today.
Col. Blais: Indeed.
Ms. Barrados: Senior experts from our team sit down with candidates to provide them with information on and assistance with the relatively complicated federal process. They focus on job requirements and how to fill in forms. They are a real help.
The Chair: As you are aware, all eyes are on us and we are seeking clarification for people. That is in fact part of the reporting process. I have another question for you Colonel.
[English]
Are the 700 positions under your command held against the workforce level of the Canadian Forces, or is that completely separate and is not held within the operational numbers of the Canadian Forces?
Col. Blais: They do count against those numbers, but they are accounted for distinctly. It was known previously as the Service Personnel Holding List, SPHL.
The Chair: That is the supplementary holding list.
Col. Blais: Yes, exactly.
The Chair: Would you not think it would be appropriate and put less pressure on you and the people involved with respect to the universality of service if those positions were outside of the required number of the Canadian Forces to meet their operational requirements?
Col. Blais: Again, that becomes a complex exercise because, if you look, we have approximately 1,200 medical releases in any given year from the Canadian Forces. If you start cumulating the numbers from year to year, it would become a substantial and expensive exercise to do that. However, in an ideal world, yes.
The Chair: We are talking about veterans and casualties in special duty areas in particular, and that is what you take care of principally. Is that right?
Col. Blais: No, sir. We make no distinction. We look after anyone with an injury or illness, and we care for them all in the same manner.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Day: I am still concerned about those who are part of the mission who are not members of the Canadian Forces. Let us talk about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who might have been injured. They fit into all of the programs that we have been studying here from the point of view of Veterans Affairs. They have fit into the programs for priority entitlements since 2005 or so. Do you provide any services to that federal group of people in any of your IPSCs?
Col. Blais: No, we do not.
Senator Day: The answer is probably the same for this scenario: let us say at Gagetown CFB, someone from the police force in Fredericton or Oromocto, New Brunswick, might have served overseas, accompanied many military personnel and was injured; do you provide any of the same services through the IPSCs?
Col. Blais: No, we do not.
Senator Day: It would be helpful, Ms. Barrados, to talk about the priority entitlement. Let us assume that someone in uniform has been given six months' notice. I am assuming that the initial determination of whether that person fits within the statutory requirements for priority entitlement would be done in the military not within the Public Service Commission.
Ms. Barrados: They would need to have something that gives them the medical release or discharge from the military. Everything we do depends on that. It is the Armed Forces that gives it. In the case of the RCMP, we need something that gives that medical report.
We did recently amend our regulations because of the way we first drafted the regulation. It is the little details that sometimes catch you in these situations. We had stated that the entitlement begins from the time the medical release is signed. Therefore, when we realized that some of those medical releases might say, "Yes, this person is medically released but will not be ready to go back to work until a much later date," we changed it so that it kicks in once that date is met.
A medical decision is made, and then they can talk to us about the process. The entitlement kicks in when the individual says, "Yes, I am ready now to do this." They have a five-year period, which begins on the date that the medical release says that they will be ready to go back to work. That is where Ms. Wright and her team spend time with people and follow up with them.
Senator Day: They have a six-month notice. The medical release is signed at the end of the six months, so do you not talk to them during those six months at all?
Ms. Barrados: They can talk to us; we are there to help them. However, they would not be put on the priority list until such a time that they are ready to go back to work medically and want to go back to work.
[Translation]
Senator Day: Ms. Wright, is it your group that decides whether the legal test has been met.
Ms. Wright: Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct. The RCMP or National Defence provide us with evidence indicating that a person has been discharged on medical grounds. This is the way we ensure the regulations are respected. Once this has been established, we can enter the person into the system and start introducing them to potential employers.
[English]
Senator Day: That is like you had described earlier. You have now determined that this person could fit in under the priority entitlement.
Ms. Barrados, you have spoken on this before, namely, that certain departments take up this project much better than other departments. We can understand someone seeing the civilian side of National Defence saying, "Hey, I can do that job," and therefore National Defence is way up there in terms of hiring these priority entitlement people.
Apart from education — you have talked about it earlier — what other ways do we have to see that this happens right across the board and that all departments and agencies take up this priority hiring?
Ms. Barrados: I have a broader preoccupation about the integrity of the priority system at the commission. This is beyond the Armed Forces members because we have surpluses, layoffs and other provisions here.
Senator Day: There are various priorities.
Ms. Barrados: There are different priorities, the statutory ones being the highest and the regulatory ones coming next.
I have asked for an evaluation, and an evaluation is being done on the priority system because there are more and more pressures on that system. I have asked my internal audit to look at it because I want to ensure that we are being efficient, both in how we are measuring the performance of the system and how we are following it up. There is a tendency on the part of the civil service to do things that sometimes work around. You have seen my reports. It is a good public service; I am very proud of the public service.
Senator Day: As am I.
Ms. Barrados: It is not perfect. We have to maintain a vigilance. That is every bit the case for the medically released military people as it is for some of the other priority entitlements.
As Senator Pépin said, we really must to have an application of the merit test, and people must have the qualifications to do the job. If you come from medical service, for example, you have certain skills and training for certain jobs that do not find themselves in all parts of the public service. That is why you see some situations where you say, "Why not in one place and not in the other?" I ask the question all the time of whether people are using that system with complete integrity. The pressure is on the system as the government downsizes. We are following up on that.
Senator Day: It was pointed out earlier that with the change in the hiring practice — at one time you did all the hiring — it has now been delegated down to the various departments and agencies, and you provide an overseeing audit-type review. I suppose that makes this job even more difficult because you have to rely on the department or agency hiring to follow your suggestions or recommendations.
Ms. Barrados: We have delegated just about everything in the spirit of the legislation, but we have not delegated the priority system. The priority system has stayed with the commission. It is our people providing the clearances to go ahead and staff. With any discussion that we have had about potentially delegating that system, we have concluded that it is not reasonable and would not be effective. Two big areas have not been delegated: the priority system and that everyone must put their jobs that are advertised on the jobs website. You can advertise in other places, but it must be on the jobs website.
Senator Day: When you say that you have not delegated the priority system, does that mean you hire these people and then place them?
Ms. Barrados: No. I give the authority to go ahead to hire someone because I am satisfied that they have reviewed the lists available, the people available and the priority system, and they would either not meet the needs of that job or are not interested.
Senator Day: You have a list of priority personnel, and you say, "I would like you to look at this list." They come back to you saying, "I am sorry; none of those people fit what I need." You say, "All right. Go and hire someone else, then." Is that how it works?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, as long as we are convinced. For example, if someone has been a driver, they were a driver in the Armed Forces, and a government department is looking for a driver, but I am told that the person does not meet the criteria, then a good explanation is necessary as to why the person does not meet the requirements.
The Chair: The bulk of the casualties are on the operational side. Infantry men and artillery men are not easily transferable. Is it the responsibility of the Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs to provide the skill sets needed to make them viable for employment to you, or should the public service join in that responsibility?
Ms. Barrados: I am outside of my mandate, but I am toward the end of my term, so I will give you my opinion.
The Chair: Do we have to wait for that to get a candid response?
Ms. Barrados: I tend to be pretty candid, anyway. I believe it is the responsibility of the Canadian government. I am not trying to hedge here as to where. We have to ask questions as to whether we are doing enough to provide the training and opportunities, as well as the tools needed to reintegrate, for the men and women who have been in the forces and have put their lives and the lives of their family at risk. Not everyone wants to be in the public service, so it may not be a public service job that is a fit for them; it may be other areas and other sectors.
Some of the people I have known in the Armed Forces are very active. They are action-oriented people. They want to do stuff and would not be happy sitting at a desk. I do not know whether you would agree with me, but I believe it is a broader responsibility to provide that training. The public service can contribute, but I do not think it is the only answer.
The Chair: Remember that they have been injured, so it makes it that much more difficult, and their options may limit them in that desire to continue being keen and dynamic.
Senator Wallin: Following up on these comments, I certainly understand your point that not everyone wants to be a member of the public service, or even the Senate for that matter.
I am reassured by your insistence that the priority list is recognized and respected. I am also reassured to hear that the merit principle must be respected. These are very important. We owe our soldiers and veterans so much. In keeping that respectful approach, we also cannot be paternalistic in this because they are individuals with pride, skill and talent. I am pleased about that.
I will ask you about the opposite side because we know in other situations how difficult it is, both in the private and public sector, to get rid of someone who is not performing. This becomes more difficult when talking about a person who has given extraordinary service to their country. How do you deal with this?
Ms. Barrados: It is not as easy as for some managers, and often I would like it to be. On the other hand, we do have employees, and we must recognize their rights. Sometimes it is the fault of management and not the fault of the employee. There are obligations to ensure that when we are dealing with an employee, we ensure we do what we can for them — and this would be someone from the Armed Forces or one of the public servants — to optimize their performance. If that cannot happen, there are ways that they can be released. There is quite a bit of process and requirement, but it can be done and is done — probably not enough because it takes a lot of work.
One of the provisions available for public servants that is not used sufficiently is the probation period. When you hire someone and it does not work out, you can release an individual. Paperwork is required, but it is not onerous to release on probation. That is not being used enough. There are mechanisms there that people do not use sufficiently.
Of course, as you are downsizing, this is an area where, unfortunately, good people can be affected and can find themselves without a job. This is why I want the integrity of the priority system because these people should be able to be placed in the public service.
Senator Wallin: The priority system persists through that process as well, if there is an enforced downsizing.
Ms. Barrados: Absolutely.
Senator Wallin: It applies to some of the earlier discussion, namely, that in a probationary period — three months or six months, or maybe even a year — some of the other symptoms of a psychological illness might not be apparent, and your hands are tied further down the road.
Ms. Barrados: If we have something that is a longer-term illness, people at work get ill. There are many provisions in the public service that allow for leave. There is accumulated sick leave and disability insurance. As I said earlier, we do not do a good enough job reintegrating people, particularly with mental illness. We all know that we must do better on that, so we are working on doing a better job.
Senator Wallin: I appreciate those answers. Thank you.
The Chair: We are speaking of mental operational stress injuries versus illness in many cases, which has the impact of being an injury, the same as an arm or a leg, and so on.
With the downsizing and the pressures coming on in trying to maintain the role and meet the requirement of the whole of government, do you see value in moving any of your public service personnel into the organization of the colonel's as Veterans Affairs has done to improve on communications and the flow of opportunities?
Ms. Barrados: I have been satisfied with the initiatives that I have been told about recently from my staff and that I have heard from the colonel today, namely, that they actually have good conversations. They tend to call each other and talk. It is important that my staff maintains a link with the rest of the government, so moving them will not help that. I think communication remains very important.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Is it more problematic to find jobs for veterans with mental health issues? Are potential employers as receptive to the idea of hiring a soldier or a veteran with mental health issues?
Ms. Barrados: It is very problematic. If a candidate possesses the essential qualifications, their other health issues are not really a barrier. It is a judgment call. Very often essential skills include leadership or human resource management. I cannot really answer your question because there is always an element of subjectivity involved. We focus on qualifications.
[English]
Ms. Wright: It is difficult to know, when you are assessing someone, that they have a mental illness. It is not something that would come out unless they told the person assessing them. You would hope nothing would stand between them and the appointment.
[Translation]
Col. Blais: On the other hand, we sometimes have to be a bit creative in our attempts to find people jobs. For example, two or three of our soldiers returned with operational stress injuries. They found jobs on a farm. They work independently and are making great progress. One of them was even able to don his uniform again about a month ago when he was awarded the Sacrifice medal. This was a great stride forward for him.
We have various approaches. Creative thinking can lead to enormous progress.
The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses for your comprehensive testimony.
[English]
I received a letter in French from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and I am having that translated. I think it will be of interest to members, so I will pass that on shortly.
With that said, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)