# CDS to CTV:  Canada "Well ahead of many of our NATO allies" on vets



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2013)

From CTV.ca:


> Amid renewed criticism over the treatment of Canadian veterans, the country’s top soldier defended the system in an exclusive interview with CTV News, saying the government has worked hard to provide a “security net” for ex-soldiers.
> 
> Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, told CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson that “fewer and fewer people are falling through the cracks” thanks to the efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the military.
> 
> ...


Full interview viewable here


----------



## sappermcfly (4 Oct 2013)

Another politician in the making primping his future.

I call bs


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Oct 2013)

Just because we're better than everyone else, doesn't mean we're good enough. If everyone in a class failed a test, but one person got 49%, you wouldn't call that person a success story.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2013)

;D

We have been in a "Feel Good" society for the past decade or two.  What we as Canadians have done to pump up our psyche's is quite common.  We wouldn't want to be known as "Losers" now would we?  No one wants to be a Second Class citizen; not in Top Ten; or a Third World ____________.

 >


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Oct 2013)

> Lawson said he’s been “very impressed with the creativity and the dedication and sincerity of those over at Veterans Affairs.



I wonder if he has ever put a claim in to VAC.

sappermcfly:



> Another politician in the making primping his future.
> 
> I call bs



Agree.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2013)

Whether General Lawson is toeing the party line or not, it is not his job to publicly criticize another government department and/or a policy enacted by Parliament. Having said that, I feel that his statement "is well ahead of many of our NATO allies" is irrelevant. The CAF is not in a contest with the rest of NATO; the CAF is in a contest to meet its obligations to its members, past, present and future, especially those who suffered grievous injuries.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (5 Oct 2013)

One could argue by the same logic that he shouldn't be praising another government department and/or a policy enacted by Parliament either.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2013)

I'd love to see someone email him and ask him what his experience working with VA is.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Oct 2013)

I feel the same sentiment most of you do.  This is a distraction or a deflection. 

It's like  saying "but the other platoon doesn't do what we do". 

I used to and still say "I could give a rats ass what "they" do, it's what we do that counts."


----------



## Lightguns (5 Oct 2013)

I call BS as well. Recently the CF has gone on a medical entitlements reduction blitz. My blood pressure was ordered returned because they are reducing care to that the provinces according to med supply civie


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Whether General Lawson is toeing the party line or not, it is not his job to publicly criticize another government department and/or a policy enacted by Parliament.


That's very true - it would have been interesting to hear more about something more _directly_ under his control, like, say, "So, whazzup with the JPSU's/ISPC's?  How do you think the work of helping wounded troops either get back into the system or move into civilian life has been going?"

That said ....


			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This is a distraction or a deflection.


.... one man's "distraction/deflection" is another man's "positive messaging"  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Oct 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Whether General Lawson is toeing the party line or not, it is not his job to publicly criticize another government department and/or a policy enacted by Parliament. Having said that, I feel that his statement "is well ahead of many of our NATO allies" is irrelevant. The CAF is not in a contest with the rest of NATO; the CAF is in a contest to meet its obligations to its members, past, present and future, especially those who suffered grievous injuries.



His statement sounded like your (whinny)  kid playing off their (bad) behavior against your other kid or little Johnny down the street. Not what I would expect from senior leadership let alone the CDS. He just lost a lot of credibility.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> His statement sounded like your (whinny)  kid playing off their (bad) behavior against your other kid or little Johnny down the street.


Or a variation on the government's line on how it treats vets, as shared by the Minister about 8-9 weeks ago (highlights mine):


> .... "Our Government continues to demonstrate its strong commitment to caring for, supporting and honouring Canada’s Veterans and their families. Since implementing the New Veterans Charter in 2006, our Government has invested almost $4.7 billion in new funding to enhance Veterans benefits, programs and services. Put simply, the Government of Canada has substantially increased its support to Veterans.
> 
> "Just as importantly, this new spending is built upon the fundamental principles of respect and support for Veterans. That foundation of respect is spelled out in the New Veterans Charter, and the Prime Minister of Canada reinforced it when he announced the New Charter’s implementation as the first step toward according Canadian Veterans the dignity and support they deserve.
> 
> ...


----------



## chrisf (5 Oct 2013)

Always love to hear we're doing better than the rest of NATO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha91X0cojI&feature=player_detailpage#t=429


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Oct 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> His statement sounded like your (whinny)  kid playing off their (bad) behavior against your other kid or little Johnny down the street. Not what I would expect from senior leadership let alone the CDS. He just lost a lot of credibility.



Ever think maybe he is supportimg the government publicly while working issues facing vets in the background.  It is generally easier to accomplish things when you don't make enemies with everyone  :nod:


----------



## Teager (6 Oct 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Ever think maybe he is supporting the government publicly while working issues facing vets in the background.  It is generally easier to accomplish things when you don't make enemies with everyone  :nod:



This may be true except he could have chose his words better like "We are leading the way with support for our vets but are continually trying to improve the system and any problems that occur."

This way he would still be supporting the government but leaving the door open to changes. 

I'm sure any vets will figure out pretty quickly if he's trying to sort issues out in the background or not.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Ever think maybe he is supportimg the government publicly while working issues facing vets in the background.  It is generally easier to accomplish things when you don't make enemies with everyone  :nod:


Or he didn't go down that road because there's only so much the CDS can do to twist arms in the internal workings of another department.

If he is trying to do internal things, then he could have thrown in something to give some hope to internal audiences like, "Is the system perfect?  No - that's why the vets' ombudsman looks at these things, and why the Charter's going to be reviewed."  Heck, he could have been daring in sharing hope with the internal audience and say "I know VAC's doing hard work in this area, and I'm happy to have my team help out however we can to ensure the troops get the treatment they deserve."

Or, to prevent even the _slightest_ negative reference, "Any system, no matter how well it's working, needs to be monitored and reviewed from time to time to make sure it's still working - for example, the Minister's committed to have the Charter reviewed."

Then again, greater minds than mine are (hopefully) at work at levels I can't even fathom, so his answers may have been the best to be said in the current situation, and I've been watching too much "Yes, Minister" and "The Thick of It".  So who knows?   :dunno:


----------



## maniac (6 Oct 2013)

Why is the CDS making comments on veterans at all?  His gig is the serving soldiers,  the day the CDS is leading or speaking for us (veterans) is going to be a sad day.


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Oct 2013)

maniac said:
			
		

> Why is the CDS making comments on veterans at all?  His gig is the serving soldiers,  the day the CDS is leading or speaking for us (veterans) is going to be a sad day.



That's a valid point -- and the members of IPSC/JPSU/SPHL ARE serving soldiers, and their treatment IS the responsibility of the CDS. So there are certainly areas under the command of the CDS where he can attempt to sort out the situation.

Veterans Affairs is a separate, major, issue.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2013)

> “fewer and fewer people are falling through the cracks”



In Ottawa-speak, this is acknowledgement that there are still SOME people who are falling through the cracks, and that while there has been improvement in a number of aspects of veteran treatment, there is still room to go.

Agree that comparatives with other nations are of less value than the issue at hand demands, but does serve to provide some backstop for those who critique that nothing is being done.  The irony is that much of the critique comes from many of the very people who voted for the New Veterans Charter back in '05.

If the CDS works with the Veterans' Ombudsman, Mr. Guy Parent, to address a number of the recognized shortcomings to the NVC, as noted in the Ombudsman's January 2013 report (link), then this will go a long way to ensuring that injured Veterans are provided the best support possible to deal with post-CAF life.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Oct 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> In Ottawa-speak, this is acknowledgement that there are still SOME people who are falling through the cracks, and that while there has been improvement in a number of aspects of veteran treatment, there is still room to go.
> 
> Agree that comparatives with other nations are of less value than the issue at hand demands, but does serve to provide some backstop for those who critique that nothing is being done.  The irony is that much of the critique comes from many of the very people who voted for the New Veterans Charter back in '05.
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting this, it mirrors what I think about the present situation. 

You don't air your dirty laundry in public, especially when you are in the military.  I would rather have someone that works issues in a background, especially in Ottawa, where a little tact goes a long way to making things happen.

Question for some:  Would you rather have the equivalent of a loud-mouthed union rep championing our cause?  I know I wouldn't because these types of people only serve as a distraction from the real people who can make things happen.

By the way, VAC has some very capable members of the CAF embedded in their organization who I know will not be afraid to drop the gloves and throw-down with bureaucrats. So to say Gen Lawson doesn't have a voice within the organization isn't exactly correct.


----------

