Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 9 - Evidence - February 18, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12 p.m. to study Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are beginning our study of Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).
[English]
We have with us today a very high-packed panel, and we're very pleased that you are able to be with us: Mr. Gary Walbourne, Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces; and Mr. Guy Parent, who is Veterans Ombudsman. Mr. Parent is accompanied by the Deputy Ombudsman — we don't change that to ombudswoman — and Executive Director of Operations, Sharon Squire.
I should ask you if you were able to shovel out of Charlottetown.
Sharon Squire, Deputy Ombudsman and Executive Director of Operations, Veterans Ombudsman: I had a hard time.
The Chair: We have many senators from P.E.I. who have not been able to get off the Island. The airport was closed because of snow and the bridge was closed because of wind. We understand the difficulties that sometimes are posed, but we're glad that you're here.
We will also be hearing from two representatives of the Public Service Commission of Canada: Ms. Christine Donoghue, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch; and Mr. Michael West, Director General, Delegation and Accountability.
We'll start with Mr. Walbourne. I would propose we then go to Mr. Parent and finally to Ms. Donoghue. Once we finish your opening remarks, a copy of which we have in front of us, we'll go to questions and answers. We have senators who are arriving, and I hope that won't disrupt your presentation. They will be arriving from other committees as we go along.
Why don't we begin, Mr. Walbourne? I wonder if either you or Mr. Parent could explain to the public who is watching why we have two ombudsmen, one for veterans and one for our armed forces. Do we happen to have two ombudsmen because we have silos in terms of the activities of Veterans Affairs and National Defence? Could you do your job as effectively or better if you had one?
Gary Walbourne, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces: For job security reasons, the answer would be no.
As the DND Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, I'm an organizational ombudsman. I deal with the serving members and former members who have issues with the department. My constituency is bigger than that. It also includes civilian employees, cadets and those seconded to the Department of National Defence. The constituency base is different. As I say, I'm an organizational ombudsman, and Guy's mandate is a little different.
Guy Parent, Ombudsman, Veterans Ombudsman: Yes. Basically, my responsibility is to look after the fairness of the service delivery of all benefits and programs of Veterans Affairs Canada that are accessed by veterans and their families. My population is mostly people who have left the Armed Forces. However, there are some situations where serving members are drawing benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. In those circumstances, I'm responsible for them as well as far as delivery of programs and services.
The Chair: The Public Service Commission is here to explain part of your role as the overseer of hiring within the public service.
Christine Donoghue, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: That's right.
The Chair: We're pleased that you're here as well. We'll start with Mr. Walbourne.
Mr. Walbourne: Good day, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you, first of all, for my having the opportunity to be here to discuss Bill C-27.
[Translation]
Bill C-27 could be an effective tool and could reduce the length of the transition process for soldiers who are ill or injured because of their service.
[English]
First of all, I would like to say that we support this initiative and the opportunities it will afford our service members who are releasing from the Canadian Armed Forces due to medical reasons. In August of 2014, we jointly launched a systemic review into the transition with the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. The timing of Bill C-27 aligned with the launch of this transition review, and therefore it was the logical first piece to review in our process. Our intent is to assist the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs' lawmakers with observations and considerations that we, as ombudsmen, are in a unique position to share.
Bill C-27 offers two significant opportunities, most importantly to soldiers who are being forced to medically release from the Canadian Armed Forces because they no longer meet universality of service standards due to medical conditions attributable to service. Secondly, it's an opportunity to streamline a new transition tool and minimize any red tape from the outset.
As Bill C-27 is currently written, Veterans Affairs Canada is being given the authority to determine attribution of a medical condition to military service. This determination will decide who gets on the priority list and the type of priority they will be given. As ombudsman to the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence, I can tell you that half of the complaints that come to my office have to do with end-of-career issues.
Honourable senators, I would be remiss in my duty as ombudsman if I did not state before you that I'm concerned that creating a new process to determine attribution to service of an illness or injury is introducing another layer of bureaucracy. As it currently stands, the Canadian Armed Forces decides for reservists whether or not the medical condition for access to reserve force compensation is attributable to service.
Given that there is a current process in place, why create another? The Canadian Armed Forces does not take lightly the decision to release any member and, because of this, carefully reviews all files and evidence required throughout the process of release. This thorough review is completed by those who will determine if the release is appropriate for any serving member.
If a system currently exists, why would we not consider the proper resourcing of this workable solution versus the introduction of another process? Any new process will use the same evidence that has already been considered to come to the same conclusion.
The Canadian Armed Forces, in my opinion, is best positioned to determine the cause, as they know when, where and how the member has become ill or injured.
A certain percentage of cases — those presenting late — will be a little more difficult. However, I contest that this also goes to the point of proper recordkeeping and management as the relationship between the illness or injury to the decision to release should be within the purview of the Canadian Armed Forces, as they hold the information required to make a decision and will have reviewed this information multiple times throughout the process prior to release.
In consultation with the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, my office has produced a fairly extensive analysis of issues to consider before implementing new departmental processes.
It is neither our intent to delay nor slow down the implementation of Bill C-27, as we understand the benefit it will bring to our releasing members. However, given that the transition process currently suffers from undue complexity, at least from the perspective of releasing service members and their families, we have an opportunity to get this initiative right from the outset.
It is incumbent upon all of us to take the time to ensure that the accountabilities are clearly understood and the responsibilities are delegated to the right organization at the right level. We feel that the Canadian Armed Forces, as the employer, should determine cause, and Veterans Affairs Canada, as the service provider, should determine impact.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I stand by for your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This issue of determining whether an individual is being medically released — that determination that you've just spoken at length about — was a matter of some debate. I've read the debates in the House of Commons and proposed amendments. You're directing your comments to that same issue?
Mr. Walbourne: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Parent might have a view that doesn't entirely agree with your point of view, but we'll find out.
You have the floor.
Mr. Parent: Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank honourable members of the subcommittee for the good work they do for veterans and their families. It's well appreciated. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you today on this very important matter.
[Translation]
Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces) could play an important role in the financial security and quality of life of members of the armed forces discharged for medical reasons because of service-related injuries, because it could increase hiring opportunities.
[English]
The bill honours the sacrifices made by serving members and their families and is good news for medically releasing members and their families. The expansion of eligibility to all reservists, including cadet organizations, administration and training service personnel, as well as Canadian Rangers, is particularly encouraging as it supports our theme of "One Veteran" where all veterans are treated equitably regardless of when, where or how they served.
[Translation]
By placing the status of members of the Canadian Armed Forces discharged for medical reasons or for service-related injuries at the highest legal priority level, the government is making a solid commitment towards its veterans.
[English]
It should also enable more appointments for former military members in the public service in the future, as well as greater access to public service competitions. Taken together, these proposed actions should offset the decline in military public service appointments in recent years, which has dropped from 158 three years ago to 43 last year. Let me clearly make three points.
First, Bill C-27 is a good initiative for veterans and should be passed expeditiously. Second, providing service attribution earlier in the process and closer to the point of injury or illness is a positive step in the right direction. Third, the processes to administer priority hiring need to be clearly articulated and designed in concert with the Veterans Affairs disability and rehabilitation programs so that there are no negative follow-up consequences for veterans. For example, could an unfavourable decision regarding priority hiring preclude a veteran from accessing rehabilitation benefits later on? We need to look at this initiative from the veterans' perspective. Its success will depend on the fairness and transparency of the application, adjudication and review processes.
Over a year ago, I raised concerns about the complexity of the process and potential delays associated with the bureaucracy that administers the process to determine service relationship. For example, the draft legislation proposes that Veterans Affairs Canada adjudicate the service relationship of the injury or illness. However, one must keep in mind that determining service attribution of a medical release is not the same as determining disability benefits for a specific, chronic illness or injury. Not meeting universality of service requirements may be a result of many factors and not just a specific medical disability or diagnosis. When the legislation comes into effect, it is important that the application package, evidence requirements and adjudication process clearly reflect such potential differences because, as we all know, the processes put in place are going to determine the success of the initiative, and of course the devil is in the details.
[Translation]
I raised the following questions in November 2013, and I am presently working with the department to address them.
[English]
First, how long will the process take? Will the program be transparent to the veteran and will all documentation be disclosed to the veteran? How will the process be communicated to ensure all medically releasing Canadian Armed Forces members can benefit from priority hiring? Will there be a timely formal or informal appeal process? If a decision is made that the medical release is not service-related, will it affect the decision making for any other benefit programs, such as the disability award or entry into a vocational rehab program?
In conclusion, I re-emphasize to you that I believe the proposed "Veterans Hiring Act" is a good bill that needs to be passed expeditiously because giving ill and injured soldiers speedier access to potential jobs in the public service is important to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. I encourage you, in your deliberations, to view it from the perspective of veterans.
In addition, if you decide to append observations to the bill when you send it back to the Senate Chamber for third reading, I would appreciate if you would note my concerns as stated, as well as my readiness to help the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Canada advance Bill C-27's regulatory and business process developments.
When implemented, it is important that this legislation is not diminished by narrow policy interpretation or unnecessary red tape. Its implementation must be simple, open and generous for the benefit of our veterans and their families.
The Chair: It's not clear to me from your presentation, but do you believe that attribution of injury to service and service-related activity should be determined by Veterans Affairs or by the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Parent: My answer would be as early as possible in the release process.
The Chair: By whom?
Mr. Parent: By whoever is in position at that time to do so. Right now we are doing a transition review in conjunction with the ombudsman of National Defence, as Gary mentioned. The preliminary findings of our particular review indicate that it would probably be beneficial for DND to be making that decision.
The Chair: Thank you. I just wanted that for the record.
[Translation]
Ms. Donoghue: Hello to everyone and thank you for having us. It is a pleasure to be here with you today.
The expertise of the Public Service Commission resides, among other things, in the administration of programs under the Public Service Employment Act in order to support the staffing system. In the bill, three mechanisms have been proposed which support hiring veterans and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
Today, I will walk you through the proposed changes to these mechanisms.
First, there are two priority entitlements for medically released veterans. These entitlements provide persons with the right to be appointed ahead of others to any positions in the public service for which they have been assessed and deemed qualified.
Second, there is a preference in a competitive process to appoint qualified veterans to jobs that are advertised externally.
Third, there is the eligibility of current Canadian Armed Forces members, as well as veterans, to participate in all advertised internal processes, which we call the mobility provision.
[Translation]
Under the present legislative regime, the PSC is responsible for administering priority entitlements that apply to jobs in all regions of Canada, but only in the case of organizations regulated by the Public Service Employment Act.
[English]
Before filling a vacant position, a manager must first consider priority persons. Managers are provided with a clearance to proceed with an appointment process only if the commission is satisfied that there is no one in the priority system who meets the essential qualifications of the position.
There are two different types of priority entitlement. There are statutory priorities, which take precedence over the second type, which is a regulatory priority. Under the current system, surplus employees occupy the top statutory priority for appointment in their organizations. This means that they must be appointed to vacant positions for which they are deemed qualified before persons with a regulatory entitlement, therefore, ahead of medically released veterans in the current system. The current system attributes regulatory entitlement to veterans.
From 2008 to 2012, the appointment of medically released veterans had the highest rate of placement — 72 per cent — of all priority groups. However, the implementation of Spending Review 2012 resulted in more surplus employees entering the system that have a statutory priority, therefore displacing veterans with the regulatory priority.
The commission shared information with Veterans Affairs on the impact that the influx of surplus employees and the decrease in staffing were having on the placement of medically released veterans. At the request of Veterans Affairs, the commission provided technical options to address issues for their consideration.
[Translation]
Since April 2012, more than 2,000 priority persons have been appointed to vacant positions. The majority of these appointments were surplus employees. During that same two-year period, 67 medically-released veterans were appointed, compared to 307 during the two previous years.
[English]
Under the proposed changes to Bill C-27, qualified veterans who are medically released would become the top statutory priority with an entitlement period that would be extended from two years to five years. In other words, they would be considered and, if qualified, would be appointed before all others.
The legislation would also amend the existing regulatory priority for those veterans medically released for non-service-related reasons to extend the current entitlement also to five years. The early determination of whether a medical release is attributable to service or not is critical in allowing veterans to maximize the value of their entitlements and ensure that the commission can provide them with accurate information and services.
Should the legislation come into force, the changes to the priority entitlement would apply retroactively to April 1, 2012. Once medically released, veterans have five years in which to activate their priority entitlement. The amendments to the priority entitlement proposed in Bill C-27 will make a difference.
I would now like to turn to the veterans' preference, which is the second mechanism. It is a different type of mechanism that is allowed under the Public Service Employment Act.
[Translation]
The proposed amendment would update the definition of "veteran" to add modern day Canadian Armed Forces members who are honourably released and have at least three years of service. This change would grant preference to veterans deemed qualified for the purpose of any appointment open to the public.
[English]
In this case, veterans would access the website jobs.gc.ca, where public service jobs are advertised externally, and apply for positions through a competitive process. This preference means that if these veterans enter a competitive process, are assessed and meet the essential qualifications, they must be appointed ahead of others in the appointment process. The ability to benefit from such a preference would be, in effect, for up to five years following their release from the Canadian Armed Forces.
This brings me to the third mechanism, mobility, which would allow current Canadian Armed Forces members, as well as veterans, to participate in all advertised internal appointment processes of the public service. Since 2005, deputy heads and their hiring managers have had the option of giving members of the Canadian Armed Forces access to internal jobs. The proposed amendment would make it mandatory.
[Translation]
In other words, veterans and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces would have access to employment opportunities, but they would be evaluated the same way as other candidates who have applied. They would, therefore, have access to vacant positions.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I reiterate that these provisions apply only to organizations which come under the Public Service Employment Act. Discussions are under way with several organizations that are not subject to the PSEA. These organizations, which have important regional operations, are exploring administrative ways in which they can meaningfully participate in these efforts to find employment for veterans.
[Translation]
Our experience shows a high rate of success in placing medically-released veterans in large operational departments with a broad geographic footprint.
[English]
The involvement of these organizations would increase the number of employment opportunities for veterans. The commission is committed to supporting this process in any way we can.
Mr. Chair, as the administrator of the public service staffing system, the commission will continue its effort to ensure that the entitlements of medically released Canadian Armed Forces members are fully respected, and to support veterans as well as current members in bridging their valuable experience and skills to the federal public service.
We will be happy to respond to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you for outlining in such clear terms the different categories because it is a bit complicated.
Who is it that helps the prospective retiree from the Armed Forces to determine just where he or she should go to see which one of these categories he or she might fit into? Do you do that?
Ms. Donoghue: We offer all the advice that is necessary to departments and all employers. However, at this point, at the commission we are considering the hiring of veterans themselves in order to create a unit that we would call "Navigators." That would help Canadian Armed Forces members or veterans to understand the language, which is very different between the systems that they're used to in the army or the public service. It is sometimes extremely complex to go from one system to another. So we are definitely looking to assist them and help them navigate their way through these types of priorities.
Of course the status by which they are released is the primary information that is necessary for us to make the right determination as to which entitlement they will receive.
The Chair: Thank you.
I will now turn to senators who are on my list and expressed an interest in participating. I'll go to the deputy chair of this subcommittee, Senator Stewart Olsen, who is a senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you all for coming. It's most appreciated. I do hear and take very seriously your comments on this bill. I think it's pretty clear that we're all trying to do our very best for veterans.
All of you have mentioned the status of release in one way or another and the absolute imperative to eliminate the red tape, to move forward with whoever assigns the status and whoever does that, that it must be done expeditiously so that everything can proceed without the gap that we see now.
Mr. Walbourne, I hear what you're saying, and Mr. Parent as well. We're all saying pretty much the same thing. I think moving forward with this legislation is good. Would you be okay if we mention your absolute information on that status and moving expeditiously towards assigning the status?
Mr. Walbourne: I'm not quite sure if I understand your position. The position that I've taken, as the Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, is prior to release when a soldier becomes ill or injured, a process then starts. It can go on — some say it is six months — in some cases for years.
How is the member managed throughout that process? When the final decision to release has been made, attribution to service is known. My concern is: Are we going to start at that point and give it to another group to review yet again to determine attribution to service?
I'll go to Guy's point: This determination made by Veterans Affairs, will it impact access to disability benefits? I'm a little worried that we're going to confuse the lines of responsibility. But to have a process to determine what has already been determined, for me, defies logic.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I see. Thank you for that clarification.
I am hearing that both departments are now working together before the actual release so that the red tape will be eliminated. This committee would certainly encourage any methods by which we could all work together to eliminate the red tape and make this happen. Thank you for that. You were very clear on your positions, and most informative. I think my questions are at an end. Thank you.
Ms. Donoghue: I would like to add that the determination and timing of determination is extremely crucial, which I mentioned. It is also important to consider that there is retroactivity in the context of this legislation. So we have to think about those who have already been determined in some ways and ensure that if there are changes, they are taken into account for those that are already determined and have not yet changed their status, and those that will be determined in the future. So the preparation, whether it's at the coming into force of the act or at a certain point, will be extremely important for the commission to be able to have a clear sense of the status that we can attribute to these veterans.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for that.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, to begin, I have an observation. It's certainly nice to have a good-news story with respect to this overall file. It's hard to believe we're spending in the neighbourhood of $5 billion a year and there's so much controversy at one time or another when it comes to what's happening with respect to our veterans. It's not fair to them and the taxpayer is kind of wondering exactly what we're doing.
Mr. Parent, in your opening remarks you mentioned the complexity and the various programs provided. I'm hoping your office is working towards providing some recommendations on how, within existing budgets, some of these particular responsibilities can be combined to simplify it, as opposed to strictly the criticism that government is doing things wrong. We have to look at how to make these programs work in the best interests of those we are trying to help. This is a non-partisan issue in so many ways because we're all concerned about our veterans being treated fairly in view of what they've done for our country.
I have a few questions. Perhaps in a context that the viewer can understand, I want to get back to the number of positions we're dealing with. First, on average generally, how many veterans are medically discharged annually from the services?
Second, how many positions are open on an annual basis generally in respect of the number of positions that come available over a five-year average that these veterans would be able to apply for and compete for and be in a priority position if they meet the qualifications?
Third, I think Ms. Donoghue mentioned being under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but there are other agencies and organizations that the federal government is responsible for. Perhaps you could give us an outline of how many positions, if they were available to them, would come available on average?
Fourth, as a general question to everybody, would you support a broadening of this statutory requirement to go to those organizations that right now are excluded, such as corporations and other federal organizations?
Mr. Walbourne: I can answer the first question. There are about 5,000 to 6,000 members released every year, about 1,000 because of a medical issue or injury.
Ms. Donoghue: I'll turn to my colleague because Michael has the numbers on the jobs we have.
Michael West, Director General, Delegation and Accountability, Public Service Commission of Canada: Over the last five years, we've seen an average of slightly more than 5,500 people hired permanently per year into the federal public service. That includes the two years with the reductions. During the same period, we saw, on average, just over 31,500 internal staffing activities.
The Chair: Is that 31,000?
Mr. West: That's right.
Senator Lang: To put this in context, if I were an injured veteran who met the qualifications, I would be able to apply, on an annual basis, for 31,000 in a year?
Mr. West: The 31,500 internal staffing activities would include things that are not appointments. The ones that are appointments you would be considered for, yes. Transfers or deployments are not subject to the —
Senator Lang: It's the 5,500 that I would be eligible for.
Mr. West: The 5,500 are all appointments, so they would definitely be included.
Ms. Donoghue: We put a lot of emphasis on the priority, which is important, but there is the notion of preference. Of all jobs open to all Canadians, veterans who would qualify would have to be appointed prior to anybody else. That means they would definitely be preferred candidates in the context of an external competition.
In the context of an internal competition, they would have mandatory access to the internal competition. They would have to compete like any other public servant, but they would be given the same status as any other public servant competing for an internal position — coming back to the senator's third question — in the departments that are part of the Public Service Employment Act.
We definitely are getting in a state of readiness. As I indicated, we are talking to separate employers in the broader picture of the public service that have their own enabling legislation to try to see whether they want to work in an administrative manner.
Now, the decision as to whether this bill should include those departments is within the policy authority of the people responsible for this, and that would be a consideration for Parliament to determine. At this time, the public service is considering everything possible to try to bring these important departments — we're talking about departments as self-employers that have important geographical footprints in areas and domains that could be extremely attractive to veterans. We're talking about the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Parks Canada and others, where we see some potential jobs. Veterans in the past have been positioned in some of these departments and have been extremely successful.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on those agencies you referred to because it's important to the veterans who are listening. Do you have any understanding of the number of positions that would be made available for competition for veterans, if that were to happen?
Ms. Donoghue: I don't have a sense of those numbers, but with our colleagues in the departments, we could see about sending the information to the committee. At this time I don't have the numbers available.
The Chair: I'm a little confused about all these numbers being thrown about, so it would be good to have a chart. We can forget about the 31,000 because you said it includes transfers. We would be interested in knowing how many retiring veterans this impacts, those released for medical reasons where the injury occurred on military time, and those released for medical reasons where the injury occurred outside military time. Then there is top priority, preference and another one.
Ms. Donoghue: Mobility.
The Chair: If you could just give us the numbers and how many positions would be coming up across all the departments you have responsibility over, it would help us to understand the potential impact of this bill.
Ms. Donoghue: We will be able to provide some numbers, but other numbers we do not have because not all the mechanisms are in place. We have historical data as they pertain to the regulatory priority for veterans. But since this bill is creating new mechanisms, such as the statutory priority, we would not have those numbers.
We will send you the historical data and the placements we are aware of and what we've been doing to date. I'm not sure to what extent we can do the projection as to what it could mean in terms of the future. However, we can give you the analysis on the impact that we've seen when other statutory priorities took precedence over veterans. We will be able to give you that. I'm not sure we have all the numbers that you're seeking, but we will give you everything we can provide.
The Chair: We wouldn't want to think that we're passing a bill when we don't know what impact it will have. We must have a pretty good sense of where we're going with this legislation and why it is necessary. That's what I think all of us are looking for here.
Ms. Donoghue: We could probably give you a sense of those numbers, for example on preference. In the past, legislation defined a veteran as being a veteran from World War I or World War II or the Korean War. Preference has not been a modern instrument in the context of the actual legislation. With the changes proposed here, it will become something that will be of benefit. We have a sense of the number of people in the system, so we could do some kind of correlation, but it would not necessarily be exact because it hasn't been practised. We could give you a sense of what it could entail.
The Chair: To finish that, we understand the proposed change in the definition of "veteran"; I think we're all supportive of that. "Spouse of veteran" has not been amended, but I'm not so sure we are all supportive of not amending it. The current law gives preference or priority to the spouse of a Second World War veteran who is probably about 85 or 90 years of age. I wouldn't think you get too many of those applications these days, so that's a pretty hollow right or privilege that exists in the current legislation. Part of our role is to try and clean those things up.
Senator Lang: I want to go back. We're talking about statistics, and every statistic is a person, obviously. They all have their own aspirations and career paths. I have a question which any of the witnesses can answer.
Historically, looking back at what we're talking about here, we've been told that about 1,000 veterans a year are medically released with different degrees of injuries and disabilities. Not everybody wants to work for the federal government. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but probably where I come from it's probably positive that not everybody wants to work for the federal government. Going back to those who want to work for the federal government and have in the past applied, do we have any idea how many veterans on average in a year were applying to the federal government for employment and subsequently not considered?
As ombudsman, do you have any records or who has any record of any kind?
Mr. Walbourne: We wouldn't have any record of who has applied.
Mr. West: In 2013-14, which is the last year we have complete data, there were 105 medically released Canadian Forces or RCMP members who activated their priority entitlement.
Senator Lang: That's probably a pretty accurate figure, because in respect to those interested in coming into the federal civil service, that automatically puts you at least into the competition.
The Chair: Or 10 per cent.
Senator Lang: We're talking about 10 per cent, maybe 200, 300 vets a year applying for these positions within the civil service. That gives us context of what we're dealing with on the average.
Would you agree with that, Mr. Walbourne?
Mr. Walbourne: Yes, that would be close to right.
Senator Lang: That gives us a context of what we're dealing with, and it is great that we're doing what we're doing.
I have a question in a different context, that is, training and eligibility. It's one thing to say that I'm in the food chain and the pecking order. It's another thing to say I have the necessary credentials to compete, because to be able to compete, Ms. Donoghue, you want that individual to have the necessary background.
Perhaps you can give us a brief description. If I'm an injured vet and I'm going to be released, having applied for my release, what is provided for me to get my credentials up so that I can compete and compete successfully?
Mr. Walbourne: There are multiple programs within the department. One is a SCAN program, second career programs. Resumé writing and training sessions happen throughout the session, but I'll just take it back another step.
We've recently run some competitions in my office and it's open to serving members or veterans who have the ability to apply. One of the things we're running up against is their ability to get their capacities and abilities mapped out into what I'll call "civilian language." That has been a problem. More can be done along those lines.
We also notice when we're interviewing is that the military has a very straightforward approach to things. In the interview process, I can't take for granted what I know; I have to be told what that person knows. That sometimes is a barrier that happens, so I think more can be done along those lines. I do believe that the transfer of abilities these people have over the civilian world is easily done, but I just don't think we're making enough effort to make sure it happens seamlessly so that they know.
The Chair: We did a study on transition out of the Armed Forces, and we did some good work on that. In fact, you helped with providing us evidence there. I think what Senator Lang is trying to get to is with respect to Bill C-27, does anything in the bill relate to helping prepare people for transition?
Mr. Parent: Not necessarily in the bill, but I had discussions just this morning with senior officials at the department, and I think it's a good opportunity for the department to look forward in actually being proactive. In fact, in this particular instance, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program that exists now within VAC could very well be a good vehicle to make sure that the people released with medical releases attributable to service can actually meet the essential qualifications of the public service.
I will give you an example. For instance, a percentage of the non-commissioned officers may not have a university degree, which is not always something that you need in public service but very often it is. In this case, being proactive, the department could work with this individual to get to that point, get the essential qualifications and then apply. The five years gives a little leeway there.
I think it's a good time for the department to be proactive and to look forward in working together with their programs. Often we say the programs work in silos, that they're not integrated or harmonized, but in this case there is a good opportunity for it to be done. They are certainly looking at that.
The Chair: The ombudsman's office wouldn't do that, but would you make a recommendation to Veterans Affairs that they should be working with Public Service Commission to do what you've just described?
Mr. Parent: Exactly.
The Chair: Are you doing that now, Ms. Donoghue? Are you working in conjunction with Veterans Affairs? They have programs that could activate their priority. They can go along for five years to get themselves ready.
Ms. Donoghue: Once a person is reviewed and entered into the priority system, as part of its responsibilities the commission ensures that people are referred for jobs that we deem are aligned to their skill sets.
We have done a lot of studies in the context of our priority system and other placements with veterans and have determined that a number of jobs already exist in the public service that do actually meet the skill sets of veterans.
Yes, there is always opportunity for retraining and being able to develop different skills, but we have a high rate of success of being able to place veterans with the skill sets they have and for which they meet merit in the context of the essential qualifications of public service jobs.
The Chair: Are you aware that Veterans Affairs and various pieces of legislation do provide for training, as Mr. Parent indicated, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program?
Ms. Donoghue: Yes.
The Chair: If you work together with Veterans Affairs, we could use these programs to the advantage of the veterans.
Ms. Donoghue: Yes. We have case managers in the context of the priority system that actually take on the responsibility of dealing with veterans that are inquiring about their priority status and what can be done. Often what we do, if they question how to apply and how to make their status more aligned, we do, through case managers, work very closely with the department, VAC, and try to direct them toward the existing programs.
The Chair: Could we find out about case managers on your website? How do we find out about it?
Ms. Donoghue: Basically the veterans are provided with the information through Veterans Affairs or through DND, as an employer, when people are given a priority status. Information is available.
In the context of thinking about making it easier, if Bill C-27 were to pass, we're looking at our systems to ensure we have a single window so veterans could come in and identify themselves. Their status having been determined, there would then be drop-down windows and easy access for them to be directed to the proper information.
We're also working right now to develop training modules. There are the veterans, but all the HR and the hiring managers need to be made aware of the dispositions that could come out of Bill C-27, so that they get ready to service on-board veterans within their departments. Because we administer the programs, we are definitely in the process of planning training for HR advisers and hiring managers so they understand the rights of the veterans and the obligations of employers within the system.
The Chair: Thank you.
I'm going to Senator White next. He is a senator from Ontario and a former first responder.
Senator White: Thank you for being here. I had a question because Veterans Affairs Canada also manages the post-retirement of RCMP employees. A number of RCMP employees have been in war theatres such as Afghanistan and probably 10 or 12 other countries. Would they be part of this as well if they were injured while on duty in Afghanistan for PTSD, in particular, in their case? Would they be considered as well because they are managed by VAC?
Mr. Parent: They're not part of that "veterans" definition.
Just for your information, senator, the fact is that the Vocational Rehabilitation Program that is available is under the New Veterans Charter, and the RCMP, unfortunately, has opted not to go under the New Veterans Charter.
We are working with the RCMP to try to educate them and inform them on the benefits provided. Maybe they could be provided to them not necessarily with the New Veterans Charter but in some other venue. We're working with them now, but under the present legislation, unless the RCMP were part of the New Veterans Charter, they would not.
Senator White: A number of RCMP veterans who served in Namibia and on up have contacted me about "they're in but they're out" kind of thinking, that they're in only when it comes to being told how to do things and they're not in when they're asking to get access to things. Thank you very much for that.
The second question I have refers to Veterans Affairs and maybe even to this program overall. They majority of my public service was in the three northern territories, and any veterans we had returning home didn't have a whole lot of access to federal opportunities, unless they were in Pangnirtung or maybe in Whitehorse. Have we thought about reaching out to the provinces to adopt a similar model in some way so that we share the pain? I know some would call some of this painful. Maybe it isn't 200; maybe it is 450 who are able to access.
If you're returning home to Old Crow — well, they have a national park; that's not fair. If you are returning home to Ross River, Yukon, you don't have a position up there. Have we considered reaching out to the provinces and seeing if they would adopt something similar, if not legislatively, at least regulatory?
Mr. Parent: To this point, as the Veterans Ombudsman, one thing I'm certainly interested in is making sure that all levels of government are involved in providing benefits to veterans, and that's from municipal to provincial to federal level.
In an outreach visit to Halifax recently, I met with the mayor and talked about this public service hiring and trying get at least the municipalities to look at that opportunity.
One interesting thing is that Nova Scotia is the only province that has a subcommittee on veterans, and I hope to be able to reach out to them because they actually reached out to us and said, "What can we do for veterans?" That would be an opportunity for us to look at that aspect of it.
Senator White: I'm from Cape Breton Island, which is close to Nova Scotia, a neighbouring community.
One more question?
The Chair: With that kind of preamble, yes.
Senator White: Mental illness and mental health is very challenging for people who are in this type of service, challenging to acknowledge, challenging to look for help, not always looking for help within the systems we put in place, sometimes looking for help outside of our system because they don't want it connected to them.
How would we get to a point of presumptive acceptance of mental illness, for example, or at least not having to jump through the hoops within our systems to get onto the list to be considered a priority? Is that a possibility? Do we always expect them to go to our doctor to receive supporting documentation? Is there an opportunity for them to use documentation from sources outside of our own?
Mr. Walbourne: I think all evidence is considered. Getting to that utopia that you're headed for, I think it's a great —
Senator White: I'm not very utopian-like typically, so I appreciate that.
Mr. Walbourne: Well, it's a great state to look forward to. The department is doing a lot of good things about medical health. I think the stigma is coming down and people are coming forward earlier, and these are all great things.
I think it's going to be an evolution, senator. Like you, I'm the optimist in the room. I hope to get to that point, but it's going to take us time.
The rules and regulations are that there is a certain amount of paperwork that must accompany before someone gets access to whatever that may be. I believe the desire is there, but it will take some work.
Mr. Parent: Under the New Veterans Charter, there is an opportunity for people who have not applied for benefits for, let's say, invisible injuries to actually access programs in the New Veterans Charter because of barriers to transition.
The homeless study was done by Dr. Susan Ray, and she found a lot of veterans out there were not from Afghanistan but from older missions like Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Once they identified themselves, they were able to access benefits because of the New Veterans Charter. A diagnosis is not always necessary to get the benefits under the New Veterans Charter, so that opportunity is there for everybody, including the RCMP in this case.
Senator White: Thank you for being here today.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I would like a brief response from the three of you on the elimination of red tape, in this instance trying to keep it to this legislation, a couple of suggestions from each of you as to how we could begin to eliminate the red tape.
Mr. Walbourne: I'll go back to my opening comments, senator. I do not understand the logic of putting another system in place to review evidence that's already been reviewed. That is adding a level of bureaucracy and red tape that need not be there.
This evidence has been reviewed and a decision of termination is made. The same evidence will be used to make the same determination, so I don't think we need another process to do what's currently being done.
Mr. Parent: Looking forward, whenever a veteran is deemed to be eligible for benefits, obviously now the form could be modified or have a little square to be ticked off that says "Eligible for priority hiring in the public service," not necessarily that they're interested at the time, but as a matter of fact so we can save a secondary adjudication process. It could be there and be done ahead of time. That would simplify matters. If someone decides within the five years to apply for priority public service hiring, it's already done because it's on the form already.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you.
Mr. Parent: That is thinking-forward type of approach.
Ms. Donoghue: From the commission's perspective, we fully recognize that we have no expertise whatsoever in the context of deeming anybody medically released or not. What we need is a very quick, single window possibly, but a clear sense of the status that is attributed to the person so we can offer the service as quickly as possible.
The Chair: That's all very helpful.
Senator Lang: Mr. Parent, I want to go to your comments. You talked about the transparency of the process and how it's being disclosed. All those areas that you have raised are strictly a question of administrative will; there is no requirement for legislation in respect to those requests you have put forward. Is that correct?
Mr. Parent: That's correct, sir.
Senator Lang: It's a concern, but Bill C-27 is fine.
Mr. Parent: This is why we're working with the department right now to try and think ahead and see if there is any way we can make this simpler, and suggestions like saying whoever qualifies for a disability award, qualifies for public service hiring.
Senator Lang: I have another question for Ms. Donoghue. There are different ways of hiring individuals initially when they come into the civil service, and one of them is by contract, like a three- or six-month contract. Would this type of hiring in that particular category apply to this? If not, why not?
Ms. Donoghue: The contracting happens in the context of different legislation. It is not done under the Public Service Employment Act, so the commission is not in a position to respond to that. That is within the purview of each department in the context of their legislation or the FAA that basically manages contracting.
Senator Lang: To follow up on that, because it's a very significant area that is utilized within the government, going forward, would that not also be an area that legislatively we should be looking at if we're going to broaden the areas that vets can apply for and become a priority and to include that type of hiring mechanism? Otherwise it's another way of doing something and excluding others from applying.
Ms. Donoghue: Like I was indicating, I think the question is outside the scope of the mandate of the commission. However, one thing that the commission is always concerned about is ensuring that the mechanisms for hiring for the public service are based on merit.
As to the question of contracting, we do have mechanisms for the short term, but casuals and stuff like that are provided for in our legislation. But contracting, which is outside the notion of the terms that we use within the public service, is not within the expertise that I can actually bring to this committee.
Senator Lang: Perhaps it's an area that we should be looking at down the road because it's another area that's available, and I know it's utilized as a tool. It's a way of getting through the door so the next step, when something comes available, is that you could be taken as a priority.
The Chair: We'll ask the Library of Parliament to make note of that.
Ms. Donoghue: Mr. Chair, my colleague reminds me that when a person comes into contract, the person would not have an employee status, therefore not necessarily benefiting from a lot of the services offered within public service.
The Chair: I'd like you to follow through with an Armed Forces person who is injured, maybe service related, maybe not, but still in uniform. Who makes the determination that this was a service-related injury? He's still in uniform. Who makes that determination at that time?
Mr. Walbourne: The Department of National Defence is best prepared and holds the information required to make the determination. As I said, right now for the reserve force, the department does make that determination to give those members who are medically releasing access to reserve force compensation.
The mechanism and process is in place. Bill C-27 takes that authority and gives it to Veterans Affairs to do. My point and the point of contention for me is I say that the employer, the Canadian Armed Forces, is best positioned to make this determination.
Looking at the forms they use, the CF 98 for the regular force or the DND 2398 for the reserve force, there is a place on the form to talk about attribution to service of the injury. For the reserve force, I think it's a mandatory piece that must be filled in, and for the regular force sometimes it gets filled in and sometimes it doesn't. The ability is there. The information they require to make the determination is held by the Canadian Armed Forces.
Again, my point is that I believe this is who should be making this determination prior to the member releasing, because remember they are still a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Chair: Yes.
The Public Service Commission would elect and make sure that the determination is made but hasn't taken a position who makes it, but make it as early as you can.
Mr. Walbourne: Exactly.
The Chair: Mr. Parent, as Veterans Ombudsman, you have indicated that you believe the Armed Forces would be the appropriate body to make that determination.
Mr. Parent: What I stated is the fact that in our preliminary findings, our joint review, everything seems to indicate that they would be better positioned to do that.
The best way to look at that is to compare it to a case under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, for instance, where in fact the employer determines the cause, but WSIB looks after the impact and the rehabilitation of the individual. If you transfer that to the Armed Forces domain, it would make sense that the Armed Forces determines the cause and Veterans Affairs would work with the impact and rehabilitation of the individual.
The Chair: So the Armed Forces determines this person has an injury that requires him or her to leave the Armed Forces. Would the Armed Forces determine a pension at that time, or would you say, "Well, you might be eligible for a pension, but you have to get out of uniform first and go talk to Veterans Affairs"?
Mr. Walbourne: That's a Veterans Affairs issue. If the person is medically releasing due to an illness or injury attributable to service, they have access to disability benefits and so on inside of Veterans Affairs.
The Chair: Still in uniform?
Mr. Walbourne: There are some serving members who have access to Veterans Affairs services right now.
The Chair: So the determination can be made while the person is still in uniform —
Mr. Walbourne: Yes.
The Chair: — to get a pension? You can determine this person is eligible for long-term disability pension while he's still in uniform?
Mr. Parent: Yes.
The Chair: Once he's out of uniform and receiving that pension and starts activating these priorities, saying "I'd like to go work for one of the civil service positions that might be available," does the fact that person has a pension impact in any way on what he or she may receive as a result of being hired into the civil service?
Mr. Parent: No. The complexity there, Mr. Chair, is the fact that the individual might be receiving a pension let's say for a severed finger, but that doesn't affect meeting requirements of universality of service. He may be released later on for another illness that has nothing to do with his service, but he's medically released. He's medically released, and this is when we talk about the complexities of having two departments involved here. In fact, you could be released medically for injuries that are not attributable to service, but you may very well be drawing benefits for another injury. It becomes very complicated.
The Chair: I understand the complications. We're hoping that we might be able to reduce some of these complications for the client, and the client for all of us is the veteran and the person who has put his or her life on the line to help protect our security. We owe it to them to try and develop a system that is most responsive to their needs.
What I'm trying to get at is I want to make sure there isn't some clawback here that we have seen through SISIP and a lot of court cases where somebody is drawing one pension, and when he gets to 65 and starts getting Old Age Security, there's a clawback. I want to make sure that's not happening in relation to any of the hiring we've been talking about under Bill C-27.
The Public Service Commission could probably help us.
Ms. Donoghue: Not that I'm aware of either, but that is outside the scope of the mandate we have. I'm not aware.
Michael, do you any specifics on it?
Mr. West: Nothing in Bill C-27 distinguishes between veterans who have a disability pension or a regular pension and those who don't.
The Chair: I didn't see anything in there. I just wanted to make sure that you knew we were raising the issue, and this will be a matter of public record. We don't want to see a court case on this a little further down the line wondering why someone didn't think about this. You're telling us you're unaware of any clawback situation for that type of veteran who is getting a pension for some disability while in service.
The five years has been changed from two years to five years for statutory eligibility and I think also for regulatory eligibility. Was it necessary? Was there something crying out to change this? Two years isn't enough? Top priority seems to be pretty good. If you've got top priority, you'd think in two years you could land yourself a position once you're ready to apply for it.
Mr. West: When we were looking at the Economic Action Plan for 2012 that was looking to reduce the size of the federal public service, when people are declared surplus, they're entitled to a one-year surplus priority entitlement. If they don't get a job through that, they're entitled to a one-year layoff priority entitlement. Both of those would have ranked ahead of the current regulatory priority for medically released Canadian veterans.
What that meant is for a two-year period perhaps the veterans' entitlement wasn't all that valuable. My understanding is that the five-year period was expanded from two years to address that issue.
The Chair: I heard your comment on that. In part, the legislation is a reaction to the reduction of money that was available in departments and layoffs that took place, but you've changed the priority now from a regulatory-type priority to a statutory priority, so that would address that situation. But it's also been changed from two to five years in Bill C-27. So there are two things that are now addressing the government's reduction in spending during a very difficult economic time. Do we need both of them?
Mr. Parent: I have one comment on that, Mr. Chair. For military people in transition, you can pretty well say that the first two years after release are iffy. You don't know what you're going to do; you don't know what you want to do; you don't know where you're going to be, where you're going to move. Certainly, there's a period of instability. I think the life-after-service study that has been done indicates that there's always a lull of a couple of years before people really get back up to their normalcy, if you want. I would think two years is not enough and that five years is much better to have the stability, so that people know where they are, know where they will be retiring and know what they want to do.
The Chair: Help me with this. My understanding is that after you're out of uniform you have a period of five years under this legislation to activate your priority, and once you activate you have another period of five years. Is that not correct? That's correct; I see your head nodding.
Mr. Parent, now your military man in transition has 10 years.
Mr. Parent: Yes.
The Chair: Was that necessary?
Mr. Walbourne: From my perspective, I think it offers the opportunity. You have, as Guy said, someone going through two years, that's the unstable period. That's known; the life-after-service study has proved that. Also, you need to be job-ready, psychologically, education; all those things need to be done. If we lock it to two years, by the time the person is job-ready, they've lost their opportunity. There are people in transition who may want to move home. All those things take time. But having a stable person, both mentally and physically, and having them job-ready are some of the influencers that have pushed this to be 10 years. It looks like it's five years to activate.
The Chair: Should we make it 10 years to activate?
Mr. Walbourne: I'm all for that.
The Chair: Is there any reason why we didn't? Why did we make it five years to activate? If it's going to take someone 10 years to be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress, then he or she can't activate at that time because they're going through a period of diagnosis, treatment and getting themselves ready to apply for the priority position. Why did we choose five years?
Mr. Walbourne: I have no idea why five years was chosen.
Senator Stewart Olsen: They didn't write the legislation, chair.
The Chair: You must have been consulted on this.
Mr. Walbourne: No.
The Chair: You weren't consulted on these time periods?
Mr. Walbourne: No.
The Chair: Was the Public Service Commission consulted?
Ms. Donoghue: I personally am not aware. Were we involved in the five years? It was a policy decision I guess that came from Veterans Affairs in the context of the work they were doing.
The Chair: Mr. Parent, you're keeping an eye on those guys for us.
Mr. Parent: I thought five years was pretty good.
The Chair: My understanding was that the House of Commons felt there shouldn't be any five-year time limit there; there should be no time limit. What's wrong with that?
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, I know it's not for the witnesses, but in respect to the legislation, quite frankly, I think there has to be a window of some kind, whether it's five years or otherwise. I think there's a legitimate reason for that in respect to the aspirations of an individual and what the federal civil service and the government's responsibilities are.
The Chair: Your comment is contrary to what had been recommended by the House of Commons in their study. I tend to agree with the House of Commons. I don't see any reason why you have to activate your priority within a period of two years or five years. But the legislation is such that it has to be activated within five years and then you have five years to find a position. That's 10 years, in effect.
Are there any other questions that flow from that questioning?
Seeing none, on behalf of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, we very much appreciate your being here and helping us begin our understanding of Bill C-27. We'll have the department in to answer some of these questions. I'm disappointed you weren't consulted on some of these initiatives that are here, but that happens from time to time.
An Hon. Senator: They're happy.
The Chair: I gave you your opportunity, senator.
I would conclude by thanking you on our behalf for being here and for helping us understand the issues that you see that should be thought of more thoroughly.
(The committee adjourned.)