Bill C-27 (Historical)

Veterans Hiring Act

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces)

This enactment amends the Public Service Employment Act to provide increased access to hiring opportunities in the public service for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces and to establish a right of appointment, in priority to all other persons, for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines are attributable to service.

Veterans Hiring Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The use of that terminology in that context is unparliamentary. Therefore, I will ask the member to withdraw it.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I appreciate that, and I will withdraw it. It was an absolute fabrication. In fact, the envelope was so stretched that it was incredible.

This is a disabled veteran from Niagara Falls who runs the Canadian Veterans Advocacy, and what does he do? The disability scooter that he has is paid for the Department of Veterans Affairs. He plugs it into a socket in my office so his battery is charged every time he comes up to Ottawa.

I have offered him the opportunity to put it in the hon. member for Durham's office, who has a much larger office than mine two doors down. However, I do not see the hon. member for Durham offering the same opportunity for a disabled veteran to park his scooter in his office.

That is quite offensive. For one veteran to attack another is simply unconscionable and he should be ashamed of himself. As a person who was born in Holland and whose parents were liberated by the veteran community, I have always thought that every veteran, regardless of when he or she served or how, should be treated with the utmost respect. Just because certain veterans disagree with other veterans who happen to be on the government's side, the disagreement should not result in slander in the House of Commons.

I invite the hon. member, whenever he wishes, either privately or publicly, to apologize to Mike Blais and the Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

There is another thing going on that is simply unconscionable. We heard the member say that the Canadian Veterans Advocacy actually accepted funding from “unions”. The fact is that it is an Internet veterans group that gets its funding from all kinds of people. One union gave it $2,000. That was one union, one time, yet the member said “unions”, which basically tried to make the slant that the Canadian Veterans Advocacy was just a union front. If, indeed, it is a union front, long live the union movement. However, the fact is, nothing could be further from the truth.

I only wish the hon. member for Durham, for whom I have great respect, could get his facts straight and understand that when veterans disagree with the government, it does not necessarily mean they disagree with him personally. It just means they disagree with the policies coming from his government.

That is fair. That is why they wore the uniform. That is why they stood on guard for thee. It was to be able to tell Canadians that even though we might disagree on political fronts, we at least had the right to agree to disagree.

Without hesitation, the last couple of months have not been a very good time for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. First, there was the meeting that he blew off and then came to Room 130-S. He completely embarrassed himself, the Government of Canada and all parliamentarians, for that matter, when he literally verbally abused veterans.

Then there were the events of the other day. The reality is that we heard the excuses that he did not hear the woman or that he was late for a vote. It was absolute nonsense. The reality is that I left the room five minutes after the minister and got here six minutes before the minister and still had ten minutes to spare.

He could have stopped and said that he was sorry, that he had to go to a meeting or a vote. He could have given her his card and suggested they meet in the future, but no. Not only did he not do that, but the parliamentary secretary rushed right past her. We can see that in the video.

During her press conference, two members of the minister's staff were watching her speak. The deputy minister walked by. Other staffers walked by. We would think that for one second, one member of the government or the department would have stopped and asked if there was any way that they could help her. However, no, they completely brushed her off.

What an absolute embarrassment. I, as a member of Parliament, was absolutely embarrassed that our government, even though I did not vote for it, treated her in this fashion. That is twice. Those members do not get a third time.

I can assure members not to worry. There will not be a third time, because when the election comes around, this party, the NDP, will be over on that side and we will ensure that veterans get treated with the respect they so rightfully deserve.

For example, every time I ask the minister a question, I give him the question well in advance. Today I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who I have great respect for, if he would he you at least meet with this woman at a time that was convenient for both of them for her to discuss her issues about her husband. The answer was that he would take it under consideration. In the House of Commons, the question was not answered. A member of Parliament from the opposition has the courtesy to give a minister the question in advance but does not even get a response.

What are people watching this expected to believe? I was not playing for political points. I was not playing any opportunism. I gave the minister the question in advance, as I always have done for 17 years. All I asked for was a respectful answer, and I did not get it. What is Jenifer supposed to think now? Her husband has severe post-traumatic stress disorder, and all she has asked for is a little help. Did she get it? No. She got the back of the hand of the Government of Canada, and that is shameful. Every member over there should hang their head in shame for that despicable behaviour. It is unbelievable and it goes on and on.

I have so many files on my desk from veterans across the country who are disappointed with the government.

Having said that, I hope tomorrow will be a very proud day for Canada. The Veterans Affairs committee, which I have been member of for many years, is releasing its report tomorrow. Although I cannot divulge what is in that report, I have to give the parliamentary secretary, the members of the Conservative Party, my colleagues from the Liberals and my hon. NDP colleagues as well, kudos for working together to come up with recommendations that hopefully the government will accept and move on very quickly.

This will be a start. If the government accepts and adopts the recommendations, then the committee has done its work. The Veterans Ombudsman has done his work. The Canadian Veterans Advocacy, the Legion and the vets, all those other groups that have come forward to the government over the last eight years with recommendations to improve the new veterans charter have done their work.

This will require an investment from the government not only financially, but personnel as well. I cannot say if the report is unanimous or not, but I am very proud of it. I am very proud of all the members who serve on that committee. I am very proud of all the witnesses who came before us. We heard some very heartfelt stories.

One story on the public record is about Corporal Mark Fuchko, a double amputee who took over nine months to get the paperwork done for renovations to his home. Brian Forbes of the National Council of Veterans Associations said it very clearly and succinctly: “A double amputee shouldn't have to fill out any forms”. Think about that. It should not have taken him nine months to get the help he needed; it should have taken nine minutes. The minute he was a double amputee, the department should have asked him what he needed. It should have said that it would get his house renovated and ensure that he would get everything he needed so he could move forward to a positive life.

If after the report is tabled tomorrow, we can see that kind of action, the committee under the great chair, the member for West Nova, then we will have done something really well. I, and I am sure all members of the committee, will be very proud of that.

However, as I have said before, I have been here for 17 years. I have been on a lot of committees and I have worked on a lot of recommendations. An awful lot of them are still sitting on the shelf. Just because these are recommendations does not necessarily mean the government will adopt them.

However, it will be our job in opposition, and I would hope that of the members on the back bench of the Conservative Party, to encourage their government to listen to these recommendations, to understand what was said, and be able to adopt them in a sincere and expedited manner so that those most seriously disabled and their families will get the help they need, and get it right away. We will wait and see how it turns out in that regard.

Getting back to the bill, it is a noble effort for the government to introduce legislation for the priority hiring of veterans. Again I say that I hope the government will accept the NDP's recommendation in committee to include disabled RCMP members as well. We also have to look at the fact that in many cases there are spouses of veterans who may also want to work in the public service because of their experience. I am not saying that is something we need to adopt, but it is something we should seriously look at. Many spouses of veterans have a lot of experience dealing with disabled members, whether it is psychological or medical. I believe that an awful lot of family members can provide an awful lot of assistance to us as members of Parliament, to senators, or to the Government of Canada. Hopefully, this is something the government will look at when this bill eventually gets to committee.

At the end of the day, the reality is that we need to treat every single member of the military and the RCMP and their families with the utmost respect. Bearing in mind that not every Legion, not every individual member of the military, not every member of the RCMP, or their families, are going to agree with the government of the day. I can tell the Conservatives that as a member from 1997 to 2006, I received just as many complaints when the Liberals were in power about veterans' issues and benefits, access to them, and everything else. The reality is that the complaints have not gone away.

There are new complaints, but there are some similarities. One similarity is access to benefits. When people becomes disabled, either psychologically or medically, they go through what I call the Gordian knot of bureaucracy in order to achieve those benefits in a timely manner. That is one of the biggest problems within the Government of Canada. This is why the hon. member who spoke before talked about reducing bureaucracy, basically saying 1,500 public servants will be laid off by the time the government is done.

It has only barely touched the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. This is my hobby horse that I have been on for many years. If I were sitting in the minister's chair right now, there would be no Veterans Review and Appeal Board and there would be no Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Why? It is because veterans are the only citizens who get a lawyer from the government to fight for a benefit against the government.

There is something called benefit of the doubt, the compassionate clause. We respect our veterans. An entire system is set up that costs millions of dollars to catch the possible 3%, 2%, or even less, who are trying to cheat the system. Every veteran is included in that. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board, in my 17 years, is one of the biggest problems the minister and the Government of Canada has. I hope that they will seriously look at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and understand very clearly that if a veteran comes forward with a concern of some kind, has a doctor's note that says his or her condition may be related to military service, has a second note from a specialist that qualifies and quantifies the first note and says, yes, there is a high probability this condition may have been caused by military service, that veteran should be entitled to the benefit.

What happens is veterans go through the appeal board and are denied, they go again and are denied, they go again and are denied. It is called the no-go policy. We know it very well. If the board says no long enough, the veterans go away. There is old 3D policy that I have witnessed many times. It is called the delay, deny, and then die policy. Mr. Art Humphreys of Musquodoboit Harbour had to go through that experience. Get this. He was an 87-year-old veteran who lived in his house for many years. All he asked for, because he could not go down the 13 steps any more, was a lift for his house, so he could go down to his basement to be entertained. It was where his big screen was and his friends would come.

They sent in a 25-year-old VON nurse on contract to DVA, who said, in her opinion, that all the qualities of life he needed were upstairs and that he did not need to go downstairs anymore. He was denied the lift.

I made the argument to the minister of the day and unfortunately on the day of my argument, that veteran passed away. For $425 and $30 a month rent, they could not give a World War II veteran a lift. Let us think about that.

Having said that, we will support the legislation. Hopefully our amendments will be brought in. I plead with the government and I plead with the minister to streamline the bureaucratic process to ensure that when a veteran calls in, the only thing that person on the other end of the phone should say is “How can we help you?”

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I was an officer at 12 Wing Shearwater 17 years ago when this hon. member was elected. I enjoyed meeting him. I know he has a passion for veterans. I have spoken about his passion for veterans in this House, so his unparliamentary language directed at me is disappointing.

The very concerns I have raised here tonight, I have raised with Mike Blais and Jerry Kovacs directly. They are nice guys. I get along with them. What I have said to them and to any group that wants to advocate is they have to be an independent and sincere voice. They should hold the government's feet to the fire. That is the job of an advocacy organization.

However, they have to maintain that independence. My concern was when I heard that those members worked out of offices in Sackville—Eastern Shore and of the member for Toronto Agincourt at the time, which I said to them was inappropriate. They should also reveal their funding sources and their memberships, and hold an AGM, like any regular group.

I meet with veterans organizations all the time. A lot of them have serious concerns. However, they have to be serious advocates.

My question is for that hon. member, who I know is passionate. He seems to suggest that the organization really just charges a chair in his office. Is the member telling this House today that that group, and Mr. Blais, have never used the phones and the computers in that office, have never had meetings in that office, and do not hold security passes or parking passes for the office of the MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore?

If they do, I think that is highly inappropriate for a group that should be an independent advocate.

However, I am glad the member is here, because he can clarify whether any security passes and all these sorts of things, the trappings of an office, were supplied to that group.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a lob ball is thrown, it is gets batted out of the House.

I can guarantee there are no security passes. Many constituents, including the Legion and the vets, including some Conservative members of Parliament, have been in my office, and they have had to use the phone. Oh, what a shock, that Conservative members of Parliament would be in my office and happen to make a phone call. In fact, they cannot live without their BlackBerrys constantly going off in my office.

The reality is Legion members have been in my office, and they have used the phone. I am a member of the Legion and the ANAVETS and nine other veterans organizations. Does that mean every single one of them should be tainted by the fact that maybe they have been in my office, but only one of them should get to plug in their chair because he is a disabled veteran?

The reality is I really quite get a kick out of this, to be honest. If that is the extent of the hon. member's question, it is unbelievable. That shows the state of affairs in the Conservative Party of Canada. If that is the type of question we get from an hon. member of Parliament, who I have great respect for, who has served his country with great respect, something has happened to him now that he is a member of Parliament. To ask that type of question is really incredible.

I hope the member has a good night's rest and that tomorrow he understands that tomorrow should be a very good day for all of Canada's veterans.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his impassioned speech.

I would like the member to answer a question. If somebody is up in the gallery and has been listening to the debate for the past two or three years, whenever it touches on the issue of our veterans, they will have noticed something unusual.

One is that every time the government gets up and speaks about our veterans, they speak about, in their terms, the glowing work that they have done for our veterans, and in fact how proud our veterans are of the work that the government has done for them. That is on the one hand.

On the other hand, it seems to me that almost every day we are reading, in the newspapers, stories about veterans who feel that the government has let them or their families down. Something is not right here.

There are two totally different perceptions. One, when members on that side of the House get up and read the canned speeches that have been prepared for them and, two, what we read about in the newspaper, where people are really hurting and suffering.

I would like to hear from the member what kind of perception he has. What kind of feedback is the member getting from veterans in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I do not just deal with veterans in my riding. I deal with them right across the country. On any given day, I receive 50 to 60 phone calls, emails, faxes, and letters from veterans, not only in my own riding but right across the country, with concerns and issues.

That is not to say that some veterans are not getting very good service. I can assure members I have spoken with many veterans who are getting very good service from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is the way it should be.

For the hon. member who asked the question, who by the way I think is one of the finest MPs in the House of Commons, all I want is for every veteran, every RCMP veteran, and their family members to receive the same quality service.

Today, I received a call from a gentleman in the Saint John Regional Hospital. There are 14 veterans' beds that are closed. They are not open. He knows of three veterans who served in World War II but because they did not serve overseas, they do not get access to those long-term care beds.

I just want to say, while I am on my feet, to the minister, for whom I have great respect, I am hoping that eventually we can have that conversation about long-term health care for the modern-day veterans and their families to ensure that they indeed get the same access to services that our World War II and Korean veterans received, as well.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He is very knowledgeable, and I really respect what he has done for veterans. I used to be in the union world—the Conservatives often accuse me of being a union leader—and I worked with him back in the day. We did amazing work to help veterans.

For me, this bill raises questions about veterans' needs and their transition, especially the younger ones who come back after several years, look for a job and have a hard time reintegrating into society in general.

Does this bill meet expectations? Does it provide the financial means to help veterans find decent work that meets their expectations and their needs, as well as those of their families? Will they find work that will help them complete the transition and cope with the health problems, both physical and psychological, that they have developed during their years of service?

I would like my colleague to answer my question and talk some more about this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the government credit. It has moved the yardstick ever so slightly on the Helmets to Hardhats, for example, which was an American initiative brought into Canada, and there is some progress working on that.

However, let us not forget what the legislation says. The legislation says, for priority hiring, “If you meet the qualifications of the job. If you have psychological or physical problems, you may not be able to”.

We are hoping that with our recommendations tomorrow and with the government looking at an overall view of this, it will look at these veterans who are medically released from the military and understand that in order to place them in a public service role they may need additional training, they may need additional rehabilitation, or something else, in order to fit those needs. They may not meet the needs right away, on a résumé, but with time and training, they be able to do that.

I was recently in the United States for a one-day symposium on what the U.S. government is doing in hiring veterans. The State of Virginia, alone, in two years, hired over 50,000 veterans. One state and that many veterans. The way it did is was quite remarkable and I hope to be able to share that with my government colleagues in the committee when the bill comes to committee.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support our government's efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans as well as those still serving and their families.

I am not here to fight with anybody or to pick a fight with anyone because I think everybody in this House is motivated to do the right thing for our veterans. We can disagree about measures taken being too much, too little, the wrong way, or whatever. Our government and the opposition in committee, particularly the members for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Guelph, and others, have been sitting very diligently for some time now, and the results will come tomorrow. I think all members in the House will be pleased with what they see. Inevitably, there will be some who say it is not enough. That is just the nature of the beast.

This is a very big story. It is a very long story. It is not a perfect story. It never will be a perfect story. That is why we have to take measures as we find them, one at a time, preferably more at a time if we can, and hopefully tomorrow will be an example of that. However, we have to keep moving forward. That is what the veterans hiring act does. It is not a panacea. It is not a silver bullet. There is no such thing. It gives our veterans, who have obviously sacrificed, who have put themselves in the line on our behalf and on the behalf of others around the world, in Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else, access to jobs in the federal public service. This is enhanced access to rewarding and meaningful jobs that will allow them to continue to lead and serve their country.

There were questions about qualifications. Of course, somebody has to be qualified to do any particular job. Anything else would make no sense at all. This act will help to ensure that veterans have access to job opportunities, by making an amendment to the Public Service Employment Act.

First and foremost, the five-year hiring preference will be extended to those who are medically released for service-related reasons. This will help to give those veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs in the federal public service. This is a long-term picture. It is not about what is going on in the public service now, or any kind of cutbacks, such as we saw in 1995, such as we have seen more recently in response to economic situations. Governments do what governments have to do. The Liberals did it in 1995, and there was massive criticism then. That is politics. They did what they felt they had to do. This government has done what it felt it had to do, although much less than the previous government did. That is not to say one was good or one was bad. It was different circumstances, with a different reaction by different governments.

This single change in the veterans hiring act demonstrates our understanding that while these men and women may not be able to serve in the Canadian Forces anymore, they still have a lot of things that they can offer to Canada. Whether it is in the public service or other professions, they are still capable of making great contributions in service to their country.

It is the same principle behind our proposal to extend the existing hiring preference for all medically released veterans from two years to five years.

We will take this even further by increasing access to public service jobs for honourably released and still-serving members. It will allow a greater number of veterans and still-serving military to participate in the hiring process for advertised positions in the federal public service. It will give honourably released members, who have at least three years of military service, a preference in advertised external hiring processes for five years from the date of release. This means that they can be appointed if qualified, and obviously it has to be “if qualified”, over other qualified candidates.

In order to ensure that veterans are offered employment opportunities, it will also establish a hiring preference for veterans over other applicants for externally advertised hiring processes. Simply put, if the veteran is equally qualified and has been honourably released with at least three years of service, the veteran will get the job over anyone else.

I believe our veterans and still-serving personnel are ideal candidates for careers in the public service, and many other professions. Their experience has taught them how to organize, prioritize, manage, and make decisions under pressure, all of which are assets in the public service.

After I left the military, it dawned on me more and more that servicemen and women sell themselves short in the military. Whether flying airplanes or loading armaments, fixing electronics or radars, or being a midshipman, whatever they are, they sell themselves short because they focus on the specific skills they have to do that military job.

They very often do not appreciate the transferable nature of those specific skills but, more importantly, the personal qualities they bring from the military to civvy street. These are qualities of integrity, teamwork, leadership, discipline, life experience, and the experience they have dealing with people and incredibly difficult situations, where lives are at stake, the lives of those they are saving.

It can also be a simple quality like showing up on time. One of the things I hear a lot from people on civvy street is that if they could get people who would show up for work on time every day, they would be further ahead. This is a quality of anybody coming out of the military. I often jokingly get criticized for always being early, although it is true that I have been late once or twice. However, it is a habit. In the military, being on time means being five or 10 minutes early.

These are the kinds of qualities that civilian employers value. For anybody in the military who is listening, they should not sell themselves short. They may have a specific MOC in the military, a specific trade, but they can do much more than that, just with the human qualities they have developed in the military and their ability to learn and develop new skills.

I am proud to support these amendments. This is not a panacea. It is not a silver bullet. However, it is one set of measures for one set of conditions, and there are many more that need to be addressed.

As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, there is a tremendous resource here. We have 7,600 people being released from the military every year on average, and about 1,000 medically released, at an average age of 37. When I was released, I was only 47. That may be old by comparison, but it seems young now.

As I said, this is just one measure. There are many other measures and significant investments that our government has delivered, and there is more to be delivered. There will always be more to be delivered.

Since being elected, our government has invested more than $5 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services that we provide to veterans and their families. We have committed much more in the 2014 budget in support of Canada's veterans.

The federal budget, delivered this past February, also pledged a further investment in the funeral and burial program, totalling $108.2 million over the next three years. Specifically, the new funding will expand the program's eligibility criteria to ensure that more modern-day veterans of modest means have access to a dignified funeral and burial. This new money is in addition to the $65 million that was announced in last year's budget to simplify the program and increase the reimbursement rates from $3,600 to over $7,300.

As well, budget 2014 commits the Government of Canada to investing almost $2.1 million this year to enhance the Veterans Affairs Canada My VAC account. For those who do not know, My VAC account is a web-based tool, not like monster.com, that allows users to conduct business online with their department at any time of day or night. This means that one can complete a variety of transactions with the government when it is important and convenient for one to do so, such as applying online for the full range of benefits, updating contact information, or tracking the status of a disability program application. Do all of these things need to be made more simple? Yes, they do, and Veterans Affairs is working on that as we speak.

This kind of thing is clearly something that veterans have been waiting for. We already have more than 9,000 registered users on My VAC account, and we expect that number to grow to 25,000 by about 2017.

In short, this investment builds on our efforts to eliminate unnecessary red tape so that veterans can access the programs, services, and benefits they need as quickly and painlessly as possible. I totally agree that over the years we have sometimes made it too difficult to access some of these services and benefits, with too much red tape, too many hoops to jump through, and too many people along the way giving the wrong answer, that being “no”.

We have done a number of things. For example, we introduced up front payments for the veterans independence program, or VIP program, for housekeeping and grounds maintenance. We have made changes to simplify reimbursements for travel costs to and from medical appointments. We have done away with having to submit receipt after receipt. We give them funding up front and then let them go about their business.

Last October, the minister announced similarly important and time-saving changes to the vocational rehabilitation program. By making the program more flexible, we are now able to respond faster and more fully to the specific needs of the more than 1,300 veterans who are currently eligible for the $75,800 in training. We need to further improve that system and streamline access to it, and we are in the process of doing that.

We have also established the veterans bill of rights, something that veterans have been asking for since the 1960s. We created the office of the Veterans Ombudsman to ensure the fair treatment of veterans, their representatives, and their families, in accordance with the veterans bill of rights.

The ombudsman is in a difficult position. He or she is obviously an advocate for veterans and spends a lot of time listening to the issues of veterans, talking to them, trying to make a connection between those issues and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the bureaucracy. That person is in a very important but very delicate situation, so it is important that the office be maintained, and obviously it will. It was very important that it was established.

We are also addressing mental health issues that our returning men and women may face, and that is a difficult challenge, as it is for all of our allies. The mental health of Canada's veterans is and has to be a top priority for our government, or any government, particularly those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. That is why, in 2007, we doubled the national network of operational stress injury clinics. The innovative personnel support units have sprung up across the country to address the growing number of veterans suffering from PTSD and other mental health conditions.

This weekend, I was in Edmonton. There is an event called “Clara's Big Ride”. That is Clara Hughes, the sixth-time Olympic medal winner in both summer and winter games. She is cycling 12,000 kilometres around the country, counter clockwise, to bring attention to mental health, to the stigma, and getting people to talk about it. That is so important. People in the military are like Clara Hughes. They are A-type personalities, and it is very difficult for them to talk about having a problem.

As I told the crowd then, and it applies equally to the military, it is okay to have a problem. That is normal. One in five Canadians has a mental health problem. It is not okay to not do something about it. It is not okay for any government or any organization that cares about veterans to not try to do something about it. That is what we are trying to do.

In fact, the minister just announced a plan, a pilot project, to assess the benefits and risks of psychiatric service dogs to assist in the treatment of PTSD in veterans. It is a two-and-a-half year pilot project to place about 50 veterans with dogs, to the tune of about $500,000 to cover expenses and new research. Research is extremely important.

Many veterans have called on us to evaluate the benefits of service dogs and other animals, horses, for example, in the treatment of PTSD. I am proud that we are taking steps down that road, and more steps need to be taken.

We continue to work ambitiously to create new employment opportunities for veterans. That is why we have been a proud supporter and financial partner in the Helmets to Hardhats program. That program is providing veterans with opportunities for employment and apprenticeship in the construction industry. That program is relatively new. It will take time for the program to fully develop and reach its full potential.

We heard some criticism that we think the soldiers are only good for turning wrenches or pounding nails. Those jobs are very high tech, very highly skilled, and very highly paid.

That is why we are working with corporate Canada and the Canadian Forces, in partnership with employers across the country, to assist veterans in transitioning into civilian careers, working with companies like 3M, Sanovas, Intuit Canada, and many more.

That is why we brought forward the veterans hiring act. It builds on of all these investments and initiatives. It establishes an unprecedented level of commitment to hiring veterans into the federal public service. It delivers real and meaningful new opportunities for Canada's veterans and military personnel who want to start new careers. It is another way that Canada can express its gratitude and respect for these men and women.

As I have said a couple of times, and as others have tried to say, it is only one measure. It is not a panacea. It is not a silver bullet. However, it is one measure. I am pleased to see that the opposition will support this as a step forward. There are many more steps that need to be taken, some larger, some smaller. This is just one, but it is an important one.

It is a good piece of legislation. We will take it to committee. If there are amendments that make sense, I assume it would probably go to the Veterans Affairs committee. I am hoping it does. This is the kind of legislation that I can certainly get my head around in terms of pushing it forward, but also in terms of making meaningful amendments to make it even better.

It is all part, in a small way—and the military will not take over the public service—of getting some of the mental capacity, some of the qualities of individuals, into an area where they can benefit, not just their unit in the military, not just a local organization that they might join afterwards, but in service to the entire country through the public service.

Therefore, it is important that we create these job opportunities for our brave men and women to assist them in transitioning to civilian life.

That said, I am not going to dwell on this. It is a little disappointing that a union has spoken out against the initiative. It does not seem to believe that our veterans should be at the front of the line but should be at the back of the line, behind the civil servants. I understand unions supporting their members. That is what unions do and what they should do. However, I think there is a bit of a breakdown in understanding. If retired veterans become members of the public service through those jobs, then they will be members of that union. My advice to the union is to let it happen. They would be new members for the union, and very qualified members. The union would be supporting veterans along the way. It really is the best of both worlds.

I know that the NDP will vote for the bill, so I will not dwell on that anymore. I know that the NDP will support it and that the Liberals will support it, and that is what everyone in the House should do.

We talked a bit about the veterans affairs committee report that will be tabled tomorrow. We would love to tell the member for Guelph, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and others about it tonight, because we are justifiably proud of what we have done. Will it answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction? No, there is probably no way we could possibly do that. Will it take some significant steps forward? I think it will.

Members of the committee, on all sides of the House, worked extremely hard together and extremely collaboratively. We all put water in our wine. We all backed off here and there. Everyone got something that most people will applaud. We will see tomorrow. It will be significant progress. The government has to implement it, and I for one will pledge to do my part as a member of the government to get that done. There will be bumps and grinds along the way. We know that. It does not happen overnight. However, it will set the framework for some significant change, and I think most people will enjoy what we present tomorrow.

I retired 20 years ago now. It seems like yesterday. The new veterans today are more educated than they were even when I retired and are certainly more educated than a lot of folks at the end of the Second World War. They are younger, by and large. There are a lot of twenty-somethings coming back from Afghanistan. They are much more aware of their rights and their power, their power to band together in various advocacy organizations and their power to put pressure on government. That is totally what they should be doing. We should do it on all sides, respectfully, based on facts. It is invigorating.

One of our witnesses, Sergeant Bjarne Nielsen, had a wonderful attitude. I know for my colleagues in the House who sat on the committee that it was one of the things we remarked on. He had an IED incident where he lost a good part of one arm. His side was completely opened up. It was many months of surgeries, rehab, and so on, but he had come back. He was starting a very meaningful life for himself and his family and went through a lot of problems and heartache, but he is coming back. He praised the government programs, admitting that obviously people would like to see more. His point was that government programs can only bring 49%. The other 51% has to come from the veteran. That was a tremendous attitude, and we were all gobsmacked, frankly, by his testimony. He was so positive and so determined that there was no doubt in our minds that there was a young man who was going to succeed in whatever he did because of his attitude.

Attitude goes a long way in all things. Attitude goes a long way in the House when we deal with each other, good or bad. Attitude goes a long way for people in duress or distress and getting them out of that.

We are here to provide the framework to do that through things like the veterans hiring act and other measures we will bring in as time goes by. However, it really is a collaboration, a co-operation, a partnership between us here, veterans, and all the organizations out there committed to doing the right thing, and that is the right thing for our veterans.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech even though we do not necessarily agree.

As he said, and as members of both sides of the House have said, we can agree that there is a problem here, even though we disagree on how to solve it. My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore said something to that effect too.

However, I want to look at one specific part of the problem, and I would like my colleague opposite to correct me if I am wrong. Unless I am mistaken, when he talked about the creation of the veterans ombudsman, there was a similar bill. It was Bill C-11, which died on the order paper, and Bill C-27 is the new version.

The government dropped the first version of this bill because it had some problems. In the summer of 2013, the ombudsman pointed some of them out, and in 2012, the Auditor General also conveyed his concerns about all of these programs.

Can my colleague comment on the fact that the ombudsman's recommendations were ignored? Will the committee look at that? Even if we support the bill, more can be done, and we want to do more on this issue.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this whole issue has a whole lot of moving parts. We are a moving part. The Veterans Ombudsman, Veterans Affairs, and the Auditor General all play a role in issues like this and others that are similarly complex.

We listen to the ombudsman. We have been very active with the ombudsman. The ombudsman does not get everything he recommends sometimes, because sometimes it is, frankly, too tough, for a variety of reasons.

However, I will point out that there were about 250 recommendations. There were about 50 regulatory and legislative recommendations and about 200 recommendations that were administrative. Virtually all of the 200 administrative measures that were recommended were implemented by the government. About eight or 10 of the 50 legislative and regulatory recommendations were implemented as well. There is more to do.

I can not remember, and I could not tell the House anyway, what the connection is between some of the standing recommendations and some of the things we will be proposing tomorrow. However, this is a continuous work in progress. It will always be a work in progress.

The fact that the ombudsman may be frustrated that things did not happen as quickly as he wanted in some areas is natural. I would expect him to be. I would want him to be. I would want him to keep pushing us. I would want him to keep raising more issues and considerations for us to look at. Maybe there is another way of doing it. If we cannot satisfy it this way, maybe we can satisfy it another way.

It is a very important part of the process. We have responded to roughly 210 of 250 recommendations.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for Edmonton Centre for the thoughtful approach he brought to the speech, for his tone, and for his conciliatory approach to this. I know from my colleague, the member for Guelph, just how facilitative a role he has played at committee and how constructive and positive he has been. In fact, I have constituents who served with him in the air force who speak glowingly and highly of his record and his character.

I would like to pick up on one of the last points he made, which I think is an offer or an appeal for ways we can improve this legislation. We have a way, as my colleague, the member for Guelph, put forward some time ago, to improve this bill. It deals with a few things.

First, in his heart of hearts, I think the member would admit that the $75,000 program the government is offering is now limited in amount and limited in accessibility.

Second, I think he would also have to admit that there have been tens of thousands of jobs cut. There is a hiring freeze, and not all veterans can meet the requirements to achieve a lot of these public sector jobs.

The opportunity in front of us is this. Would the member countenance amendments at committee so that a skills translator system could be implemented in the bill? It would determine the skills and aptitudes of veterans as they depart. It would line up with both public sector and private sector job opportunities. It would give them more choice, which is something I always believed the Conservative Party believed in. It would give them more choice in terms of moving forward.

Finally, in his heart of hearts, does the member not agree that perhaps the $4 million being spent on advertising today during hockey playoffs could be better spent and more wisely invested in enhancing these skills and aptitudes so that we can do right by our veterans?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Ottawa.

This bill is just one measure. The member talked about vacancies or a lack of vacancies at the moment in the public service, and that is a legitimate point. This is a long-term program. This is not catering to the situation today; it is catering to 20, 30, 40, and 50 years to forever, whatever forever is.

With respect to amendments, speaking for myself personally, I am prepared to hear any amendment that makes sense that will improve the program and will improve accessibility and so on. I am not as familiar with monster.com as my friend from Guelph, so I would have to Google it to see what it really says. I am personally prepared to listen to anything that would make the bill better and that would make services to veterans better. One of the reasons I came here in the first place was to do that.

However, specifically to the point about advertising, last year we spent $1.1 billion on health care and re-establishment services. A lot of these programs are demand driven. If we want to drive up the amount of money we spend on that, get 10,000 veterans through the door to access whatever the program is, and they will get it. It is demand driven. We want those 10,000 veterans, or whatever the number is, to come through the door and say, “I want that service, because I just saw it on television, because I am a hockey fan, because I watch the Stanley Cup playoffs”. Veterans love hockey just like most of the rest of Canadians. That is a very good way to get the word out so we can get those veterans through the door to access those programs so we can drive up the amount of money so that it dwarfs the $4 million spent on that, because we are getting so many more services out to veterans. It is easy to pick on a number to make a point without looking at the whole picture.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how my colleague talked about this being one piece of the puzzle and that we need a comprehensive plan. He talked about a number of elements of that comprehensive plan. It certainly sounds like we have broad agreement for this particular piece.

Something that really piqued my interest when the member was talking earlier was a recently announced service-dog pilot project we are going to be doing. For our veterans to have benefits from the job opportunities, we need to support that journey back to wellness for those who are suffering with PTSD.

I had the opportunity in my riding to meet someone who had a service dog who was feeling tremendous positive benefits from the support and from the relationship he had with the dog.

I wonder if my colleague could talk a bit more about that program and how that actually might assist the journey of our soldiers back to wellness that we all so want to see.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question about a great program.

The military has some experience with this through Wounded Warriors. I was in Edmonton a little while ago with a young soldier who was being recognized as the 100th soldier to get a service dog. What we are missing is some research-based evidence so we can put some hard empirical data to that to say that this is a long-term program. Here is what we can do, here are the benefits, and here are the risks, and that kind of stuff.

This pilot project with 50 dogs and 50 soldiers and $500,000 over a two-and-a-half-year period is critical to putting a framework around it so we can ensure that we are getting the maximum benefit and it can continue and become a long-term, established program.