Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[Remius]

I find it amusing that the "Harper Haters" are so keen on pointing fingers at the Conservatives and stating that they have been in power for such and such a length of time and have had many opportunities during that time to change things.  That is rather naive.  The Conservatives have had two successive "MINORITY" Governments, and now have the NDP forming the "LOYAL" Opposition to their "Majority" Government.  Do you seriously think that the points that these Veterans' groups have been protesting about have been high on the Government agendas, and if brought up, had a good likelihood of being passed?  The business of the nation does not revolve solely around perceived issues of Veterans, or any other interest/minority group.

The problem is the CPC looked almost as if they wanted to show people they didn't care.  They mismanaged the message when they shut down those offices, Fantino being the face of it all only exasperated the issue, Cheryl Gallant telling soldiers it's all in their heads etc etc.  I think they have done a bit better since then but the CPC shot itself in the foot on an issue that should have been a no brainer for them. 

Edited for spelling 

 

[George Wallace]

The problem is the CPC looked almost as if they wanted to show people they didn't care.  They mismanaged the message when they shut down those offices, Fantino being the face of it all only exacperated the issue, Cheryl Gallant telling soldeirs it's all in their heads etc etc.  I think they have done a bit better since then but the CPC shot itself in teh foot on an issue that should have been a no brainer for them.

I tend to agree.  Both of those characters have been prime examples of making poor decisions in both their actions and speech.  I believe, the only reason those two are members of the Party, is because of die hard Conservatives in their Ridings not wanting to nominate a dog or cat.  >

The member from Pembroke/Renfrew has had excellent and knowledgeable advice given to her, but she and her right-hand person, have failed to follow it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Truer words were never spoken.  I love how the NDP party has hoodwinked all these younger disaffected veterans in to thinking that they are the party that really cares about our concerns. That is utter nonsense, this party has never truly cared about veterans, it is all about lip service so they can grab the big brass ring of power.  To be fair, I do not feel any of the political parties put veterans concerns near the top of the 'must make it' happen list.

The NDP do not likely care about veterans, but they DO care about union jobs, of which the VAC offices are a part of. Do I think that the NDP would keep offices open to save union jobs under the guise of helping vets? Probably (for the same reason that the conservatives got rid of offices to eliminate union jobs). So there's that I guess

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The liberals hardly rammed it through,  all parties supported it and the conservatives embraced it while blaming the previous goverment. Never making a change to it.

So the NDP have said nothing about veterans, which sucks seeing as they will most likely win.

The conservatives say that they are better than the 90s liberals which is akin to a stripper saying they are better than a prostitute. Setting the bar low and then being proud of it. Proud and fighting for it. Going to court and fighting vets to keep them from getting the policy reversed. Then blaming the liberals for the policy.

And the liberals who while they were the ones who put the policy in place, are proposing changing it. The liberals who ae nine years and two leaders removed from the guys who put that policy in place, even longer than the guys who brought the CF the decade of darkness.

Which brings me to a point that I brought up earlier. How far does go back into a political party's history to look at wrong doing?  5 years? 10 years? 25 years? 50? 100?

I could like to believe that the Liberals would improve the situation, but Trudeau has already starting offsetting promises with, "we'll, have to see how poor the finances are when we get into power", which always means that the promises are, at best, not set in stone by any mean. Once the enormous bill for reverting back to the old system is known than we'll see how committed they are to fixing the mistakes (though being able to say the CPC cost the taxpayers xxx dollars would be good political theatre, though not 100% accurate as the Liberals, NDP, and CPC are equal parts responsible for the passing of the veterans charter).

Also remember that to the average tax paying Canadian veterans rights are treated the same as the lion that was killed.... a story comes up, there's a bunch of uproar, than people forget because it doesn't affect their lives. Losing a program to put x billion dollars into veterans programs at a time when the number of veterans is at its lowest point since 1913 will not sit well with the average person and at the end of the day the government does the will of the people.

 

[Occam]

Make of it what you like, but perhaps a Veteran's Group or two should read this:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Embedded links in article and more on LINK.

Sure, but if they should read that, they should also read this:  Bruce Moncur to run for NDP candidacy in Windsor-Tecumseh

He failed in his bid for nomination.

Probably wouldn't hurt to read this, either: 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Liberals Shouldn't Play Politics With Military Leaders
The Huffington Post
Bruce Moncur
Former Soldier, PSW, B.A. History, Windsorite
Posted: 09/02/2015 5:55 pm EDT

Last week on Power and Politics, retired general and star Liberal candidate Andrew Leslie chided the Minister of Veterans Affairs "to lead or get out of the way." His tone and mannerisms were that of a general berating a captain. Gruff and unrelenting it was Fantonian in its delivery, the very mannerisms the Tories have had to reject with the removal of O'Toole's predecessor. It is an unwritten rule within the forces that Leslie being a former commanding officer of a Canadian institution that produced him and by definition should remain apolitical.

A former U.S. marine lieutenant general stated "a senior officer should realize that by lending his name or title, he or she is being 'used' by a politician . . . . [T]o lend one's name and title to a political campaign is a form of prostitution.

A former U.S. commanding officer pointed out commanding officers "never really 'retire' but, like princes of the church, embody the core culture and collectively represent the military community as authoritatively as the active-duty leadership."
Steve Corbett and Michael J. Davidson write:

"As an institutional norm, political neutrality is essential to the military's ability to survive in its present form. When retired military officers publicly enter the political fray through endorsements or other forms of involvement, they trigger several concerns that the military as an institution should not take lightly. The prospect of retired officers endorsing competing candidates runs the risk of undermining the confidence that the public has in the military's political neutrality."

Samuel Huntington has said, "Politics is beyond the scope of military competence, and the participation of military officers in politics undermines their professionalism, curtailing their professional competence, dividing the profession against itself, and substituting extraneous values for professional values."

Retired officers who achieve command positions have usually spent the great deal of their adult professional lives in the armed forces. They have incorporated the military's culture into their lives and should be sensitive and responsive to disapproval levelled by colleagues with respect to their behaviour after retirement. While serving in the forces all soldiers have to remain apolitical and are not permitted to publicly endorse a candidate or party. It is also seen to be in poor form when retired officers of high rank attempt to use the position obtained to their advantage. Especially if it is to settle a score.

Just like Eve Adams and Belinda Stronach, this is not the first time that the Liberal machine has used a conduit to settling scores. Recent failures by the current Conservative government have led to many former soldiers into joining the Liberal party as candidates.

Retired Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie is the most high profile of the Liberal nominees in the upcoming federal election. If his party is to form the next government then his name is surely to be at the top of a short list to be named the next Minister of Defence. He will then be the boss of the chief of defence staff and the boss of the man he was passed over for promotion.

Here is a story of a soldier that was earmarked for greatness. Promoted early and often, those that have met him were awed by his charisma and intelligence. His ascension seemed destined to end with the most coveted of positions, chief of defence staff (CDS). It was only after he published the controversial Report on Transformation 2011 that his career screeched to a halt. Had the Conservatives appointed him as CDS, he would have implemented the plan to give the forces "more bite and less tail" -- a plan that general Hillier and many others went on the record as saying would have done irreparable damage to the forces.

Ergo the Conservatives not wanting divisiveness within its military -- Leslie was passed over as CDS and subsequently retired.

Leslie was offered various positions by the Conservatives post-retirement, but the damage had been done. The Liberals were all too happy to welcome the disgruntled general into the party and some even accused them of "back-room" politics at his nomination.

Our nation's military must not be held hostage to anyone's motives and for all of our sakes, I hope the Liberals never get to implement their plans, and the fact that they would allow themselves to get involved in a vendetta is indicative of the quality of their leadership.

Hate to say it, but Mr. Moncur's bias is showing.

 

[George Wallace]

Hate to say it, but Mr. Moncur's bias is showing.

So, what you are saying is that Mr. Moncur should not be biased in any way, and fall into lock step with the ABC crowd? 

 

[Occam]

So, what you are saying is that Mr. Moncur should not be biased in any way, and fall into lock step with the ABC crowd?

Still trying to put words in my mouth, eh? 

No, I'm simply saying that he's biased.  I doubt we'd have been reading that article had Andrew Leslie joined the NDP party, or if the NDP made offers similar to what the Liberals are offering.

 

[Edward Campbell]

LEGION magazine has a lengthy and interesting article about veterans' benefits. One of the sections features Maj Mark Campbell (no relation, as far as I know) and his ongoing struggle with the system and the NVC. He's pretty much a poster child for what I think is wrong ...

   

    "Retired Major Mark Campbell has spent years fighting the government in court to
      establish better treatment for veterans. With the appointment of Veterans Affairs
      Minister Erin O’Toole, Campbell says he is “cautiously optimistic” they can work together
      to resolve shortcomings in the system."

It was someone like Maj Campbell that I had in mind when I said, a week ago, in another thread, that:

I would sympathize with ABC if its spokesman was a Canadian soldier who enrolled in, say, the 1990s and who was grievously wounded in Afghanistan: (s)he could make a compelling case from a wheelchair. Why aren't they out there? Do they, perhaps, consider ABC to be "clowns," as the other thread's original title suggested? Or would they be ashamed to be associated with the ABC's public face?

The article in LEGION suggests, to me, that at least some of the people with the greatest stake are looking to the CPC to make the kinds of changes they need.

My views (on ABC and the anti-ABC groups) from two weeks ago are unchanged ...

         

Edit: typo

 

[McG]

I find it amusing that the "Harper Haters" are so keen on pointing fingers at the Conservatives and stating that they have been in power for such and such a length of time and have had many opportunities during that time to change things.  That is rather naive.  The Conservatives have had two successive "MINORITY" Governments, and now have the NDP forming the "LOYAL" Opposition to their "Majority" Government.  Do you seriously think that the points that these Veterans' groups have been protesting about have been high on the Government agendas, and if brought up, had a good likelihood of being passed?  The business of the nation does not revolve solely around perceived issues of Veterans, or any other interest/minority group.

You are being an apologist.  As a majority the Conservatives legislated what they wanted, and if they wanted it they got it.  The fact that the NDP was official opposition to the Conservative majority is irrelevant; the NDP could not stop legislation that the Conservatives wanted.  What was the likelihood of changes to the Veterans' Charter being passed?  If the Conservatives wanted it, then 100%.

 

[George Wallace]

Still trying to put words in my mouth, eh? 

No, I'm simply saying that he's biased.  I doubt we'd have been reading that article had Andrew Leslie joined the NDP party, or if the NDP made offers similar to what the Liberals are offering.

Of course he is biased.  We all are.

As for Andrew Leslie; that is questionable.

 

[George Wallace]

You are being an apologist. 

Just a realist.  The Liberals have done much the same, if not worse, while they were in power.  The NDP have never had the chance Federally, but I highly doubt that they would actually be any form of improvement over the others. 

What I continually find amusing, though, is how much the "Harper Haters" blame Harper for.  Some of their accusations are absolutely ludicrous.  Blaming Harper for the Blue Jays breaking their winning streak, because he visited the team prior to a game, and attended the game, is just one such example.     

 

[Altair]

You are being an apologist.  As a majority the Conservatives legislated what they wanted, and if they wanted it they got it.  The fact that the NDP was official opposition to the Conservative majority is irrelevant; the NDP could not stop legislation that the Conservatives wanted.  What was the likelihood of changes to the Veterans' Charter being passed?  If the Conservatives wanted it, then 100%.

Do not forget, they have gone to court and spent god knows how much FIGHTING veterans to keep the current system. Like it or not, they own this now.

 

[George Wallace]

Do not forget, they have gone to court and spent god knows how much FIGHTING veterans to keep the current system. Like it or not, they own this now.

Pretty hard not to go to court when a court case is brought against you.

 

[Remius]

Pretty hard not to go to court when a court case is brought against you.

I suppose, but when your argument is that there is no social contract or covenant with your vets...

 

[Occam]

I suppose, but when your argument is that there is no social contract or covenant with your vets...

...and then turn around and support an NDP motion that there is a “covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation” - but not abandon your fight against the Equitas group.  Very puzzling indeed.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The article in LEGION suggests, to me, that at least some of the people with the greatest stake are looking to the CPC to make the kinds of changes they need.

And if a majority government (no matter what colour the party letterhead) doesn't make a change when it's in their power to do so, that suggests to me:
1)  it would cost way too much money, compared to other things the government of the day wants to spend on, and/or
2) doing the right thing would not be a big "vote-harvester" and/or major appeal to the base.

From "Yes, Minister"....

Deputy Minister (DM):  ....you might create a dangerous precedent.
Minister: You mean that if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing again next time. It seems on that philosophy, nothing would ever get done at all.
DM: On the contrary, many, many things must be done...
DM & Minister: [together] ... but nothing must be done for the first time.
DM: No, no, Minister. What I mean is that I am fully seized of your aims and of course I will do my utmost to see that they are put into practice.
Minister: If you would.
DM:  And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
Minister: You mean no.  ....

Pretty hard not to go to court when a court case is brought against you.

But people can also read into the government of the day's choice of when to stop appealling or when to just hit the pause button, too.

To be fair, I don't know if the other parties would likely/probably do anything better, and maybe even worse, but if those that could have done something didn't, it's more than fair to ask why - has anyone?  The money & political will was there for buttons and bows - why not for vets?

 

[McG]

Just a realist. 

You suggested the majority Conservative government did not fix veterans' benefits because such a move would have been blocked by the NDP.  There is nothing realist about that.

The Conservatives forced through plenty of legislation against the opposition of all other parties, and they found time to pass the legislation on things that mattered to them (hell, they even found time to ammend the NDA for the sole purpose of advancing thier buttons and bows transformation).

The Conservatives shit the bed on this file.  Accepting this does not imply a belief that any other party could (or would have) done better, but blaming other parties for the last five years is farcical and being an apologist for the Conservatives.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You suggested the majority Conservative government did not fix veterans' benefits because such a move would have been blocked by the NDP.  There is nothing realist about that.

The Conservatives forced through plenty of legislation against the opposition of all other parties, and they found time to pass the legislation on things that mattered to them (hell, they even found time to ammend the NDA for the sole purpose of advancing thier buttons and bows transformation).

The Conservatives shit the bed on this file.  Accepting this does not imply a belief that any other party could (or would have) done better, but blaming other parties for the last five years is farcical and being an apologist for the Conservatives.

:goodpost:  I am a card carrying Conservative and a major financial supporter of that party and I agree with you all the way up and down this particular line. The time to solve it was in 2006, I believe that the NDP would have supported them in amending the NVC to "grandfather" some veterans. They could have solved it, again, in 2008, when they were re-elected with another minority; neither the LPC nor NDP wanted to defeat the government on veterans' benefits. They could have solved it again, in 2011, and this time there was, and remains, no excuse ... but they choose to do nothing.

 

[Acorn]

You suggested the majority Conservative government did not fix veterans' benefits because such a move would have been blocked by the NDP.  There is nothing realist about that.

The Conservatives forced through plenty of legislation against the opposition of all other parties, and they found time to pass the legislation on things that mattered to them (hell, they even found time to amend the NDA for the sole purpose of advancing their buttons and bows transformation).

The Conservatives crap the bed on this file.  Accepting this does not imply a belief that any other party could (or would have) done better, but blaming other parties for the last five years is farcical and being an apologist for the Conservatives.

:goodpost:

I have way more beefs with this government than just veterans' issues. But their handling of it has been appalling, IMO (the "owe no social contract" gaffe was mind-boggling - though I suppose not surprising given that Borden's promise was never written into Law). My problem is that it is a symptom of how this government has conducted itself across the board since winning a majority (and sometimes within a minority - where's that $50 million Mr Clement).

Defending them with "x would be worse" or "y didn't do anything when they were in government 10+ years ago" is facile. The fact is, the only way we, the people, can have a reasonable chance of changing the behaviour of a governing party is to kick their a$$es to the curb every so often. Right now I'd think a minority NDP or Liberal government would be the best result, as if it falls early, we can register our dissatisfaction yet again. And hopefully by then the Conservatives would have taken the lesson on board and changed a few things - from the top down.

 

[TCM621]

A large part of the problem with veterans issues had to do with the former minister and his behaviour.  He took an aggressive line with every criticism. The government has claimed the NVC will be a living document that changes to suit the needs of veterans.  Remember that this charter was supported by all parties and that veteran's group were not up in arms when it was being passed.

The problem came from the willingness of government bureaucrats (who won't get fired after an election btw) to deny benefits and lawyers to fight to win cases (they are paid for that).  Then when the minister was involved he reacted in typical Fantino style and angered even more people.

From what I have seen since Mr.  O'toole and uncle Walt got involved things have been much better.