# Here‘s how one MP treat war vets



## bossi (10 May 2001)

(I‘m not confident any petition would even catch the attention of arrogant people in power ...)

Thursday, May 10, 2001 
Grit MP refused to help WWII vet
OPPOSITION CALLS FOR HIS RESIGNATION
By STEPHANIE RUBEC mailto:stephanie.rubec@ott.sunpub.com
AND ROB GRANATSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

OTTAWA -- A Grit MP who brushed off an 81-year-old blind war vet because he didn‘t vote Liberal should resign because he‘s failing his constituents, says the opposition. 

But Prime Minister Jean Chretien dismissed calls to sack Scarborough Liberal Tom Wappel, although he said his actions were "unfortunate." 

Chretien told the Commons he‘d spoken to Wappel and was satisfied by his promise to help Jim Baxter if the veteran calls back. 

"This letter was written, and it‘s unfortunate." 

Wappel responded to Baxter‘s request for help in obtaining veterans benefits by whipping off a letter demanding he explain himself for not voting Liberal in the last election. "How is it that you are writing me for help if you did not think enough of my abilities to justify voting for me?" he asked. 

In their Scarborough apartment, surrounded by pictures of their four children and 11 grandchildren, Baxter and his wife Mary said they couldn‘t believe the response from Wappel. 

Mary Baxter, who worked as a secretary for the provincial Liberals for 15 years, called the response "outrageous" and "insulting." 

Baxter said he isn‘t looking for an apology from Wappel. "I‘m glad I didn‘t vote for him now," he said yesterday. 

Baxter who is legally blind and has trouble hearing, served in World War II then came back to Toronto as a stationary engineer, where he helped dig part of the original TTC subway. 

Baxter is not eligible for the demobilization benefit because he already received the benefit for his service in the armed forces, said Janice Summerby, spokesman for Veterans Affairs. 

Wappel said yesterday in New Brunswick that he‘s offended Baxter took his letter to the media but is willing to help. "I‘m quite willing to talk to him when I‘m back in my riding," he said. 

Canadian Alliance MP Peter Goldring called on Wappel to resign because he no longer has the credibility to continue as an MP. 

"It‘s absolutely unspeakable that an elected official could stoop to that level to put cheap politics in front of trying to help a veteran of World War II," Goldring said. 

Tory Leader Joe Clark said Wappel reflects the Liberal party‘s arrogance.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (10 May 2001)

Mr. Baxter is a a hero to any Canadian who values the society we were born into.  They paid for it while we enjoy it.  He did more than any MP I can think of for the Canadian people.  I think the MP should be fired, but then again the Liberals have done everything they can to deep-six Canada‘s military, so his actions are in keeping with party conventions.


----------



## the patriot (12 May 2001)

May. 11, 2001. 07:20 AM 


War veteran not satisfied by MP Wappel‘s apology 
Senior Liberals rush to aid of elderly man 

Andrew Chung and Tim Harper
STAFF REPORTERS 

BERNARD WEIL/TORONTO STAR 
END RESULT: Jim and Mary Baxter read the apology from Liberal MP Tom Wappel, who‘d scolded Jim for not voting for him. 

War veteran Jim Baxter sat in his tiny Kingston Rd. flat yesterday listening to his wife Mary read an apology from Liberal MP Tom Wappel. He leaned back, sighed - and said he wished it were all over.

Then he added, scowling: ``When he answers the question I asked him, then I‘ll accept his apology.‘‘

Wappel‘s apology came riding a wave of national outrage, after the Scarborough Southwest MP found himself scorned by politicians of all stripes, veterans‘ organizations coast-to-coast, the butt of wrath in newspapers - and at the business end of a dressing down by his boss, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

‘I accept the criticism levelled against me.‘ - Liberal MP Tom Wappel 

The controversy erupted Wednesday when The Star published a letter from Wappel, spurning Baxter‘s question seeking help in securing government benefits because the veteran had not voted for the Liberals in the last election.

``How is it that you are writing to me for help if you did not think enough of my abilities to justify voting for me?‘‘ Wappel said in a brusque letter. 

Yesterday, Wappel changed his tone: ``With the benefit of hindsight, I accept the criticism levelled against me, that the letter showed lack of judgment,‘‘ he wrote. ``I should not have sent it.

``I sincerely regret any distress that my letter has caused Mr. Baxter or anyone else.‘‘

Wappel added he is now ready to help Baxter in his bid to get a federal veterans benefit.

But Baxter made clear he is no longer interested in Wappel‘s help. He says the MP only apologized because ``the media and other members of Parliament were putting pressure on him.‘‘ The apology was made ``under duress,‘‘ adds Mary.

Other Liberals, however, stepped in.

The Prime Minister sent his own letter to Baxter yesterday. An aide said Chrétien wanted to reassure the veteran it is his right to expect government services whatever his political affiliation.

Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel had an official call Baxter offering help and the minister followed up with a letter.

Duhamel initially refused to apologize to Baxter, saying that responsibility rested with Wappel.

`The member has apologized and offered to help.‘- Prime Minister Jean Chrétien 

``Obviously, I don‘t do business that way. We respond to veterans with a great deal of kindness and sensitivity and we treat them with the dignity they deserve,‘‘ he said.

Pushed by reporters for an apology, Duhamel said: ``I‘ve never acted like that to any human being. I‘m sorry he has received treatment that is not the kind of treatment you would receive from Veterans Affairs Canada. I am truly sorry for that.‘‘

Wappel was also taken to task by the country‘s privacy commissioner, George Radwanski, who called the MP‘s actions ``regrettable and reprehensible.‘‘ Wappel asked why he should help because Baxter had switched his allegiance to the Canadian Alliance in last autumn‘s election.

Chrétien again had to defend his government in the wake of the Wappel letter yesterday.

``The member . . . has apologized and offered to help,‘‘ the Prime Minister said. ``The minister of veterans affairs made sure the person in question received an offer of help no later than (Wednesday).‘‘ But opposition MPs continued the attack.

``The pattern here is pretty obvious,‘‘ said Alliance deputy leader Grant Hill, who represents the Alberta riding of Macleod. ``Vote Liberal and you can get help from your MP.

``Vote Liberal and there might be some money for your business. Don‘t vote Liberal and you‘re shunted aside.‘‘

Peter Goldring, the Alliance‘s veterans affairs critic, questioned the sincerity of the Liberal backbencher‘s change of heart.

`We respond to veterans with a great deal of kindness.‘- Veteran Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel 

``He‘s apologizing for the fact he got caught,‘‘ said Goldring, the Edmonton East MP who believes Wappel should be ``drummed out of his caucus and Parliament.‘‘ 

Wappel again refused to be interviewed yesterday. But an aide called Baxter and his wife before the MP‘s letter was released.

The couple were not home, but Wappel‘s aide read the letter over their answering machine and the aide said he believed the MP would personally call the war veteran and his wife yesterday.

Wappel also dealt with the question of how he knew which party Baxter supported.

``During last year‘s election, my supporters called all people who had been identified as my supporters in 1997, to ask for their continued support in 2000,‘‘ Wappel wrote.

``Mr. Baxter was one of these. He advised the caller of his intentions, which were duly noted by the volunteer.‘‘

That aspect of the Wappel saga sparked Radwanski‘s interest.

One of Radwanski‘s investigators spoke to Mary Baxter yesterday, who corroborated Wappel‘s version so the privacy commissioner was satisfied there was no breach of the privacy provisions of the Elections Act.

However, Radwanski said Wappel is in violation of the spirit of the Privacy Act for maintaining voting records.

The act specifically states that information garnered for one purpose - in this case, identifying supporters during a campaign - cannot be used subsequently for another purpose, such as a cross-reference to determine who should receive help from the MP.

MPs are not covered by the privacy act, Radwanski said, but they should act in an exemplary fashion.

``In this case, that standard was clearly not met,‘‘ he said.

``This was a violation of the spirit of the act which was both regrettable and reprehensible.‘‘ Liberal MP John Bryden (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough) first raised the privacy concern, saying most MPs keep voting records away from their office between elections.

Radwanski said they should at very least be kept locked away in storage, but added that he didn‘t necessarily see this as a cautionary tale for other MPs.

``I‘ve never heard of anything like this before,‘‘ he said.

Baxter had written to Wappel in a last-ditch plea for help after Veterans Affairs Canada twice refused to grant him the special benefit which compensates merchant navy mariners not eligible for the same post-war benefits as armed-forces personnel.

He was turned down because he served in the regular armed forces for more than a year during the war. He felt this was unfair ``for a person who served his country not once, but twice.‘‘

Baxter was discharged from the navy in 1943 after he was injured, thrown into a railing as a violent storm rocked his ship.

The next year he joined the merchant navy - which transported desperately needed fuel, equipment and other goods to Allied forces around the world - as a steam engineer. Again he was injured falling down a cargo hold. The war ended while he was still in hospital.

Wappel maintained yesterday that in 12 years in Parliament he has always tried to assist all constituents no matter how they vote.

``It has never been a requirement of my help to pledge allegiance to me, nor will it be in the future.‘‘

That appeared to contradict an earlier statement in which Wappel said the Baxter case was not the first in which he had questioned the political background of somebody seeking aid.

``I can decide who to help or not to help,‘‘ Wappel insisted at that time.

Wappel‘s constituents were also angry. In the Brenda Crescent neighbourhood, on which Wappel‘s constituency office fronts, many said they were angry enough not to vote for Wappel come the next election.

``He should resign. 

``If he doesn‘t he‘ll surely be out next time,‘‘ said Al Amory, 69, who voted for Wappel in the last election. The apology, Amory said, ``was just to get people off his back and to let them forget the whole thing.‘‘

``If he was the only guy in the running,‘‘ said Bill Ray, 73, ``I‘d stop voting all together. His attitude is pompous and dictatorial.‘‘

Ray and his wife, Wanda, 73, said although Wappel has written letters on behalf of their son, who they say is being mistreated in prison, he treats them as if they were a ``nuisance.‘‘ 

***********************************
***********************************
So he made his pathetic attempt of an apology.  This is really pissing me off!!!  Holding back assistance to a man who laid his life on the line  so that Mr. Tom Wappel could exercise his abuse of "freedom of speech" for a goddamn vote?!!  Mr. Wappel looks like a weeney who probably got his head kicked in when he was in grade school.  If I‘m correct the 48th Highlanders are marching through Toronto tomorrow.  This politician is an eyesore and an insult to every veteran, serving member, and relative of anyone who has ever worn the Canadian Armed Forces uniform with pride.  Where is Don Boudria the party disciplinarian?! Why doesn‘t he kick Tom Wappel out of cabinet and the bloody Liberal Party.  Lester Pearson is rolling in his grave as we speak!!!!!!!!  John Nunziata never insulted or spit on any living war veteran and yet he was turfed by his party for doing the right thing (opening his mouth about repealing NAFTA and the GST).  In closing, if a soldier ever questioned a lawful order, it would be an automatic charge of treason.  Meanwhile, this son of a bitch lives everyday knowing that our sons and daughters are putting their very lives on the line overseas so that he can sit on his velvet padded bench in the House of Commons and enjoy a chauffered limo along with all the ammenities of being a Cabinet Minister.  I just hope when he‘s home away from Parliament when it‘s not in session, that Police Chief Julian Fantino doesn‘t answer the distress call if Mr. Tom Wappel dials up 911.  "We know where you live Tom.  We know... where you live!!!!!"

-the patriot-


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 May 2001)

Oh blah blah blah.  Instead of wasting everybody‘s time with all these lame verbatim postings out of the newspaper (one of the reasons nobody bothers to come here anymore), how about writing your MP, or the MP in question, or signing the online petition?  I got a very interesting reply from the Liberal Party of Canada in response to my email.  If anybody want to participate in a real discussion, check out the thread at Maple Leaf Up. 

Could we PLEASE use quotes only when trying to make a point?  Reciting an article verbatim is not a point.

Maple Leaf Up messageboard


----------



## bossi (12 May 2001)

Au contraire, mon esteemed chum.
Point #1 - sometimes I get so angry I can‘t trust myself, and therefore offer up a somewhat more objective observation upon a given issue by illustrating what the mainstream media has had to say on the given topic.
Point #2 - under the guise of professional development, I believe it behooves a "military audience" to maintain awareness of issues addressed by the mainstream media (heaven forbid any of us Neanderthals shouldn‘t be contstantly aware of what the press is saying about us ... )
Point #3 - not everyone has the time to read every article in every newspaper, or access to journals from opposite ends of Canada.  Thus, there may actually be some who find it useful.
Point #4 - I am quite annoyed at the smart-ass, know-it-all tone of your insulting post.  As such, I find solace in the fact that I avoid similarly denegrating the contributions of others by simply stating the facts, and then allowing discussion to take place unfettered, and uncensored.  It irks me when some pissante exercises his freedom of speech to slag others - oh, how clever.


----------



## ender (14 May 2001)

I kind of find the verbatim articles annoying too.  Is there any way you can post a summary and then a link to the related article for those who want to read it?


----------



## Andyboy (14 May 2001)

Here‘s a better idea, if you don‘t want to read the article then don‘t. Personally I find it interesting to see articles that I don‘t get in the local paper, the one‘s I have read already I skip. It‘s not all that difficult and usually the discussions that follow are enlightening. 

As for the reason why people stopped posting here Dorosh lets not throw stones...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 May 2001)

I agree with andyboy, I don‘t get all the articles in my local paper either. So it‘s good to read them here and get a full perspective. As for the rest that find them too long or boring, two words ............scroll mouse.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (14 May 2001)

1.Using links to the article makes sense to me. you must have the link to copy/paste the article, right?
2. Bossi- I take it your point#4 is , just as easily, addressed to Patriots "end of post rant". Bias, anyone?


----------



## bossi (14 May 2001)

Several good points - I will give the "summary and URL" a try (when I‘ve got time, which isn‘t often).

As for bias - another good point, JR - as long as patriot was enjoying a "righteous" vent and directing it outside of the War Diary readership at a mealy-mouthed, bullying, weasel politician, I didn‘t mind.  
However, it ticked me off when we started slagging each other ... and just lost it.
And so, you can see why I bide my tongue so often and just let things flow ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2001)

When posting a link, it‘s a good idea to provide a summary of the document to help others decide whether to view it.  Most news agencies have an explicit policy against copying and posting their articles elsewhere, which is another reason to use links.  Unfortunately, some news servers only seem to maintain links for a day or two.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (15 May 2001)

Bossi- 





> as long as patriot was enjoying a "righteous" vent


 "righteous" or "bombastic"!
HEY--Patriot_





> you can see why I bide my tongue so often and just let things flow ...
> 
> --------------------


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (15 May 2001)

Just a few notes on posting the entire article vs. a link. These are all "technical" in nature, and I‘m not going to interject my opinion (this is your forum).

1. Links to offsite pages often become dead links, and the source material then goes missing.

2. Posting a link to information that is not already on the web means that someone has to create and host that page. Not always an option.

3. Posting the entire article takes up more bandwidth and server space, though at the moment, we‘re OK on both.

Cheers


----------



## the patriot (15 May 2001)

This is extremely odd!!!!  This is a place where all opinions are welcome.  Now, a few among the group want to put a cap or limit on how and what is placed in the discussion forums?! JRMacdonald and Michael, as educated degree holding individuals, I believe you recall defending your thoughts and arguments with concrete sources  when you wrote essays in university.  An opinion without an informed source is baseless and a waste of all of our time.

Furthermore, a veteran‘s pride and reputation was insulted and meanwhile here are all of you "Soldier Citizens" bashing each other over the head.  No one on this forum even comes close to that vet in terms of "seeing any action" or watching their friends die.  As usual, the whole thread digresses into tangents and the original intent of individual who started the thread is completely lost.  For anyone who "cares" at this point, Mr. Tom Wappel will be having an interview tonight on one of the major networks (CBC/Global).  Tune in or tune out.  It‘s your call.

-the patriot-


----------



## JRMACDONALD (15 May 2001)

Mike- wasn‘t aware of limitations of "links". thanks.
 Patriot-1. WHOA! take an intellectual pill last night!!!? 2. never suggested"putting a cap on" or "limiting" discussion.3.  





> An opinion without an informed source is baseless and a waste of all of our time.


 Take ahard look at any of your posts on C7/C79! 4. Never said Ihad a degree,and certainly, don‘t confuse formal education with wisdom or strong personal character 5. 





> a veteran‘s pride and reputation was insulted and meanwhile here are all of you "Soldier Citizens" bashing each other over the head.


 Not each other, just you! By the way, sent a letter/email to Wappel, with your thoughts on his conduct, yet! Dorosh and I have!


----------



## RCA (15 May 2001)

This is a forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If that happens to be that we should cut down on verbetium newspaper articles, so be it. If you willing to put your opinions out here be prepared to defend them not put up smokescreens such as accising your opposite number trying to limit discussion. And as for going off on tangents, we are all different and see differently, so if we don‘t follow YOUR thread, tough thats the nature of the beast.

As for using newspaper articles, you are just agree with someone else instead of para- phasing the article into your own thoughts. And in defence of yourself you accuse others of intellectual snobbery ("as educated degree holding individuals"). 

As to the matter at hand, backing up facts, Tom Wappel is not a cabinet minister and to clarify the point, he didn‘t deny the veteranthe benifets, just denied assisstance in appealing the decision to the DVA.

Wappel is an idiot and will (should) get his in the next election as the way things are done in this country (fought for by our vets) not by threats of we know where you live. (smacks of vigilantism-lets go find the nears tree.) If his riding re-elects him, gthey get what he deserves. 

And to clarify another point Wappel actions are inexcusable not that he denied help to a 81 yr old veteran (spices up the story which would have been a non-story if it had happened to a 20 yr old sqeege kid) but that he failed to help a human in need of help. as an aside will this veteren now receive benfits whether he is entitled to them or not because of the kaffle (he was turned down by the DVA valid reason or not) Thats the problem of the media in that we don‘t get the entire sort but on going off on another tangent.

An one lat point, I firmly believe most politians (including gov‘t ones) are not evil and do the best job they can. The military is in the predicament its in because the politians precieve that what the public wants.

Those are my thoughts and opinions and some are not based on fact but on gut instinct and if you don‘t like them........


----------



## the patriot (15 May 2001)

JRMacdonald,

I‘m sure Mr. Wappel is well aware of what I think of him.  As for my discussions on the C7 and C79 sight, POINT IS SOMEONE DIED. IT WOULD TOTALLY SUCK IF YOU WERE THE VICTIM OF THAT C9 WOULDN‘T IT!!!!?????  Nice to know that your years of experience have done you good.

RCA,

Like it has been mentioned many times, you‘re entitled to your opinion.  We all have different ways of expressing our ideas.  And yes, I agree that  Tom Wappel is an idiot that makes a rediculous amount of money for doing nothing.

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (15 May 2001)

Furthermore, here is the Petition for the Resignation of MP Tom Wappel.
http://www.petitiononline.com/prtw/petition.html 

-the patriot-


----------



## RCA (17 May 2001)

So how much does an MP make. Not as much as you think. And almost all of them earn no matter how we like to bash politians.

However another point in the Wappel affiar has been hightlighted the was lost in the race to save the poor veteren. I didn‘t know but the point has been made that MPs are not bound by the Privcy Act. 

As anyone who has taken the Harressement advisors crse knows, any inforamtion gather on an individual can only use for the purpose it was gather for and the member is entitled to see it at any time. (so tell that to the OR when you want to see your Pers File). Members of Parliment are immune from this and I think that has potential for misuse. In the Armed Forces a lot (if not majority) of SIs and complaints deal with privcy issues.

And my last point is war veterans deserve our admiration and respect for all that they have done for us. But I get upset when the immeadiate knee jerk reaction is the veteran is always right and woe to anyone who precieves to wrong them ( I still think it stinks that the Legion still does not recognize  Canadian Vietnam Vets- I guess they get to pick the wars). Lets get the whole story  first before burning someone at the stake. And before anyone gets me wrong, Wappel WAS WRONG in this instance, but the wrong was for not helping a human.(vet just made for a better story). He was not the one to deny the benefits in the first place. That was the  beaurcracy not the politicians.


----------



## Grunt031 (18 May 2001)

The dumbass was wrong on a key point...
He is responsible to his constituants, not just his voters....
Guess thats just Liberal cronyism shining through.


----------



## ender (23 May 2001)

Patriot,

why do you take such extreme offense at everything.  And then you accuse other people of trying to limit a free forum when they merely suggest that verbatim article posts be limited. 

I‘m quoting you here
"As for my discussions on the C7 and C79 sight, POINT IS SOMEONE DIED. IT WOULD TOTALLY SUCK IF YOU WERE THE VICTIM OF THAT C9 WOULDN‘T IT!!!!????? Nice to know that your years of experience have done you good."  

Does that seem like a reasoned opinion?  Disregarding the shouting, you are not being reasonable or polite.  You do this all the time on this forum (like in the thread about women in the military) and personally I‘m sick of it.  And I don‘t give a crap if you are a moderater or not.  You are the least civil person on this board.

Cool it.


----------



## the patriot (23 May 2001)

Ender,

Extreme offense?!  If I am in favour of everyone expressing their point of view regardless of tone, I guess I have every right to express myself in my posts.  As for the quotations you are dissecting, JRMacdonald is being very irresponsible in the way he has carried himself which is also noticed by Mr. Bossi.  Others have also mentioned their own views on the aspects of "full articles" vs. "links to articles" which I believe the PRO‘s and CON‘s were already explained by Mike Bobbitt.  I do not act in an irresponsible fashion on this forum or bash contributors to this forum like JRMacdonald.  I‘m appalled that you condone JRMacdonald‘s behavior.  As for the issues regarding "Women In the Military", that was already discussed on that thread.  I explained my position and that was made extremely clear to you.  If you have followed the other posts in the threads of this forum starting from June 2000, you will note I have been extremely civil and polite.  In closing, this thread was originally started for the plight of a vet who was slighted.  He has seen more action than you, or anyone on this forum.  Do remember, this was about him.  Now go ahead and sign the petition.

-the patriot-


----------



## JRMACDONALD (23 May 2001)

Patriot-- feeling a little overly sensitive/ defensive, arewe? "if you cant take it , dont dish it out!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 May 2001)

Helllooo,
Must have been a great Victoria Day wknd!!!     Everyone feeling a little rough around the edges are we. Maybe take a pill and relax a bit    I enjoy the thoughts from everyone on this forum too much to watch it degenerate like this. When I want this stuff I‘ll visit SOCNET. Last steps back in the Hide -Maintenance, food, and rest!    
Wonder if anyone caught the mistake before the edit


----------



## JRMACDONALD (25 May 2001)

ENDER- thanks for  the back up! Don‘t take some one else‘s grief to heart. "Weak men , with small minds,and BIG egos."


----------



## RCA (26 May 2001)

(as an aside: we really need a spell checker here.)

As I sit here polishing my boots ( parade tomorrow) listnining to Boston, ABBA and Fleetwood Mac; 

I think that anyone connected to the military (cadet, reserve, regular) has a right to speak out or complain about OUR  circumstances,

Anyone not of the above has the the right to speak out, but  please don‘t  tell is what we should or could change unless you  walked a mile in our shoes.

 I‘ve had a few beer ( a forbiddebn practise now ) and feel pretty mellow. My point unless  you‘ve unless you have been here it is hard to take you seriously,

I don‘t mean to shut off serious debate but come on people if we want serious discussion here, lets get our s*** together.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (26 May 2001)

gunners shine their boots!!!!?? will wonders never cease!


----------



## RCA (27 May 2001)

Infantry WOs with a sense of humour???  The world as we know maybe coming to an end.


----------



## bossi (27 May 2001)

Members of the War Diary politely, pleasantly joking amongst themselves instead of wasting energy by bickering?

Egads - the end of the world is truly nigh!!!

Happened to catch some coverage of Memorial Day activities on U.S. TV - nice to see their armed forces getting some recognition and support - I‘d like to see the same thing happening up here, instead of petty politics getting in the way of giving our troops the best.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (27 May 2001)

BOSSI-amazing what can happen through"self-moderation" vice moderation by "pompous twit"!!!!


----------

