# Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2015)

I'm placing this in Military Affairs opposed to politics because of the strong military connection.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of all these veteran groups speaking on behalf of all veterans. Specifically as of late, the 'Anyone But Harper Veterans'.

Lots of us have different definitions for what a veteran is. WW1&2 Vets, Bosnia & Afghanistan Vets, retired members.
The definition of a veteran is basically anyone who's served in the military. You could serve a week and get kicked out, you're a veteran. You're not special.

It really irks me how these guys, specifically the Anyone But Harper Vets, are suggesting they're speaking on behalf of all vets. They're not. Their whole platform reeks of using their "veteran card" to sway votes.  Canadian Soldiers are the 4th or 5th most trusted profession in Canada. We have an extremely good rapport with Canadians. These guys are trying to use that trust and faith, and the ol veteran card, to sway votes. Sadly it's working for some.  Social Media is full of Canadians chiming in to support them to the song of "help our military, help our soldiers".
It looks to me like most of the ABC vets are retired members. They sound more like pissed off teenagers trying to strike out against and punish Harper rather than caring about our present Military.  Voting for the Bloc will make our army stronger? Sure it will. 

Worst of all are the POS's planning this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/17/veterans-launch-anyone-but-conservatives-campaign-during-harper-stop_n_8001188.html


> Veterans wearing their uniforms will be stationed near polls on election day in an effort to dissuade voters from supporting Harper


Pathetic.
Voters shouldn't be intimidated nor should someone be sitting by the polls trying to coheres voters.


----------



## McG (19 Aug 2015)

What does it mean when it says "wearing their uniforms"?
I should hope this is not retired guys in thier pre-retirement military uniform.

Is political messaging (either protesting or campaigning) allowed at the polling stations on election day?


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2015)

Good post Jarnhamar.  The backlash has begun, and Veterans are becoming divided.  There are two sites I have seen today:

https://www.facebook.com/veteransagainstABC

https://www.facebook.com/vetsfortheCPC?notif_t=fbpage_fan_invite


Divided we fall.


----------



## Tibbson (19 Aug 2015)

Who I vote for is really relevant only to me and it's not something I normally discuss openly however which ever way I may choose to vote I certainly object to those who try to speak for me one way or the other.


----------



## MJP (19 Aug 2015)

I dislike the entire notion that one group can speak as a whole for all veterans especially when it comes to politics.  The fact they sound like clowns and look like North Korean Generals doesn't help.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good post Jarnhamar.  The backlash has begun, and Veterans are becoming divided.  There are two sites I have seen today:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/veteransagainstABC
> 
> ...



I was on the veterans against ABC FB today.  Same sort of crap you see all over the net.  Their top banner says "we believe in bringing our veteran community together, not dividing us".  What do they have posted but a bunch of photos making fun of veterans belonging to other groups.


----------



## McG (19 Aug 2015)

So, they are he other side of the same coin.

I would rather not see veteran's groups taking sides.  If they want to take a position on policy related to veterans, then I suppose they can argue the merits of that position.  Attacking or supporting specific politicians or parties can be left to individuals or the parties themselves.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Who I vote for is really relevant only to me and it's not something I normally discuss openly however which ever way I may choose to vote I certainly object to those who try to speak for me one way or the other.



As it should be.  I find it offensive that organizations and unions have become so politically vocal in their attempts to influence which way people vote.  The Ontario Election was really a shyte show in my opinion, with all the partisan politics being played out by the Civil Servants, the OPP, Teachers and other such organizations.  I don't agree with that type of tactics.  These Veterans groups are no different.  Leave the 'politicking' to the political Parties.  Leave the voting to the individuals.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2015)

Thank you George.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> I dislike the entire notion that one group can speak as a whole for all veterans especially when it comes to politics.  The fact they sound like clowns and look like North Korean Generals doesn't help.
> 
> I was on the veterans against ABC FB today.  Same sort of crap you see all over the net.  Their top banner says "we believe in bringing our veteran community together, not dividing us".  What do they have posted but a bunch of photos making fun of veterans belonging to other groups.



These guys are using honourable service as a political-card and for me they're ont he same level as soldiers sleezing around for free beer on rememberence day or free coffee at tim hortons.
Just looked at that other site and I agree, so far it seems just to be pictures ridiculing the other.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is political messaging (either protesting or campaigning) allowed at the polling stations on election day?



I would think that's highly illegal as well, I've never seen a candidate sign within a block of a polling station...


----------



## Teager (19 Aug 2015)

I read an article about these guys a week or so ago. They are still calling for pension instead of a lump sum. Sorry but lump sum is here to stay no matter what party is in charge. They did not seem to be up to date on veterans issues and where things are at now. Are there still issues? Yes, but these guys don't speak for me either. 

Hopefully Canadians will form there own opinions without the influence of all these groups who all have there own agendas.


----------



## Pusser (20 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Voters shouldn't be intimidated nor should someone be sitting by the polls trying to coheres voters.



Which is why it's illegal to campaign within a certain distance of polling stations.  

These guys could also run afoul of the National Defence Act if the uniforms they intend to wear are their CF uniforms:

   1)  if they're serving, they would be taking part in a political act, which is prohibited; or

   2)  if they're retired, they require written permission to wear a uniform (something they are unlikely to receive in this circumstance).


----------



## Jed (20 Aug 2015)

Any group that advocates for Veteran's rights (privileges?) must be apolitical to maintain the public's respect for the Veteran.

One of the key tenants in AA (besides anonymity) is that you do not advertise your politics or affiliate with other organizations such that the main purpose of why people are a part of that organization do not lose sight of their goal of sobriety.

Veterans certainly do not need or want any of these destructive and divisive groups attempting to speak on behalf of all veterans.

the ABC Veteran group are a bunch of clowns, in my opinion, and I am ashamed to stand beside them.


----------



## SteadyPolaris (20 Aug 2015)

Having been robocalled last election and sent to the wrong polling station I may disagree with the ban on polling station protests. I reported it to both the police and Elections Canada. As did people in 280 ridings and most especially roughly 100 close ridings where it was widespread. This was the most massive election fraud in Canadian history.


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2015)

SteadyPolaris said:
			
		

> Having been robocalled last election and sent to the wrong polling station I may disagree with the ban on polling station protests. I reported it to both the police and Elections Canada. As did people in 280 ridings and most especially roughly 100 close ridings where it was widespread. This was the most massive election fraud in Canadian history.



That's a completely different issue than what is being discussed here.


----------



## SteadyPolaris (20 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That's a completely different issue than what is being discussed here.



Not to me. There was widespread cheating that I saw personally. It was never even investigated. It was covered up. Since people cannot get justice through the courts they should protest.

I always thought my party right or wrong was a Liberal thing. Cheating is not a Conservative value. White washing this was a huge mistake. Many in our local riding assoc have quit over it.


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2015)

SteadyPolaris said:
			
		

> Not to me. There was widespread cheating that I saw personally. It was never even investigated. It was covered up. Since people cannot get justice through the courts they should protest.
> 
> I always thought my party right or wrong was a Liberal thing. Cheating is not a Conservative value. White washing this was a huge mistake. Many in our local riding assoc have quit over it.



Again, that issue is not what the OP or the others contributing are discussing.  Go back, read.  Go back again if necessary.  This is about the appropriateness of veterans and possibly serving members acting in a way that may be unbecoming and possibly illegal.

Robocalls, and electoral fraud or whatever is something else.  I'm pretty sure we have another thread for that.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

(Putting on my Nomex coveralls here)

I'm personally in favour of the ABC campaign.

I see people quite often come out with this "veteran groups speaking on behalf of all veterans" claim.  When you challenge them on it, and ask them to cite an instance where any of these types of groups have claimed to speak on behalf of all veterans, you always get silence in response.  Nobody is speaking on behalf of all veterans, including the Royal Canadian Legion - although they may be the biggest offenders when it comes to claiming they and they alone represent veterans.

I'm also quite certain that the author of the HuffPost article took some literary license when stating that veterans would be showing up in their uniforms.  Vets know the rules and their "uniform" is a beret and medals with varying types of outfits, such as blazers, motorcycle vests, etc.

What I'm finding is that the people who have a problem with the ABC-Veterans campaign are of the "C" persuasion.  Not all, but most.  Looking at the offshoot groups that were quoted earlier opposing the ABC campaign, I see quite a few familiar faces that I've encountered in other contexts, and are going to vote "C" even if you had a gun to their head.

The ABC - Veterans campaign is not telling anyone how to vote.  They're making it perfectly clear what you're going to get if nothing changes.

As for unions telling their members how to vote, I call BS.  The following is the last statement my own union made on the subject (in regard to the passing of C-59, and the included provisions to unilaterally impose changes to the sick leave system):  "There is little more to say at this stage.  I only hope all members have long enough memories to remember this day when the time comes to vote in the next federal election".  Now I'm a member of a small union, but even the big guys know better than to tell anyone how to vote.  Most union members are able to perform target identification quite well without any assistance.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> The ABC - Veterans campaign is not telling anyone how to vote.



If "Anyone But Conservative" is not telling anyone how to vote, then I failed English in school.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If "Anyone But Conservative" is not telling anyone how to vote, then I failed English in school.



You can vote Lib.
You can vote NDP.
You can vote Green.
You can vote Independent.
You can vote Rhinoceros.
You can vote Conservative...and here's what you're going to get...etc.

How is that telling someone where exactly to put the X on their ballot?


----------



## Jed (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> You can vote Lib.
> You can vote NDP.
> You can vote Green.
> You can vote Independent.
> ...



You are telling them DO NOT VOTE CONSERVATIVE. Kind of comes off like an order or at the very least, firm direction.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> (Putting on my Nomex coveralls here)
> 
> I'm personally in favour of the ABC campaign.


Fair enough. And like the majority of the ABC vets you're retired and not directly affected by changes to the Canadian Forces anymore.  Budget cuts, equipment shortfalls, shitty rules of engagement, not your problem.



> I see people quite often come out with this "veteran groups speaking on behalf of all veterans" claim.  When you challenge them on it, and ask them to cite an instance where any of these types of groups have claimed to speak on behalf of all veterans, you always get silence in response.


Check their delivery.  

Help your Veterans. 
Support your Veterans.  
Veterans against Harper. 
During the Afghan war 178 Canadian Soldiers committed suicide compared to 158 soldiers killed in Combat (So Harper is now some how responsible for soldiers killing themselves from a number of reasons including bad relationships, including soldiers who killed themselves who didn't even deploy to Afghanistan. right)
We support our Veterans, Anyone But Conservatives.

These guys are a small minority of mostly retired members who are playing the Veteran card to try and sway voters.




> Nobody is speaking on behalf of all veterans, including the Royal Canadian Legion - although they may be the biggest offenders when it comes to claiming they and they alone represent veterans.


No love from me for the Legion and I think they're guilty of the same thing but ABC is a lot louder and more direct.



> I'm also quite certain that the author of the HuffPost article took some literary license when stating that veterans would be showing up in their uniforms.


We'll see at election time.



> Vets know the rules and their "uniform" is a beret and medals with varying types of outfits, such as blazers, motorcycle vests, etc.


Now you're speaking on behalf of vets 

I'm going to disagree and suggest there's a lot of vets out there who don't know the rules, just like I'm sure a lot of serving members don't.



Speaking of uniforms this looks ridiculous. I really hope this doesn't pass as a uniform.










> The ABC - Veterans campaign is not telling anyone how to vote.  They're making it perfectly clear what you're going to get if nothing changes.


They ARE telling you (us) how to vote. They're saying don't vote for the conservatives. They may not be telling you a specific party TO vote for but they are still campaigning against one party, ergo trying to persuade your vote. 
Especially so if they sit outside voting booths in some semblance of a uniform trying to use their Veteran Cards.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> You are telling them DO NOT VOTE CONSERVATIVE. Kind of comes off like an order or at the very least, firm direction.



Illustrating what will happen if they do vote Conservative is kind of the point, no?  

No guns are being held to anyone's head.  If people don't like the message that's being conveyed, nobody is holding them hostage to being a member of the group.  The fact that there are over 11,000 members of the ABC-Veteran Facebook group says to me that the message is resounding with a lot of people.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fair enough. And like the majority of the ABC vets you're retired and not directly affected by changes to the Canadian Forces anymore.  Budget cuts, equipment shortfalls, shitty rules of engagement, not your problem.



I wouldn't be too sure of that.  I may be retired from the CF, but I can assure you that I'm more familiar with the first two issues you mentioned than I ever was in uniform, and that's all I can say about that.   ;D



> These guys are a small minority of mostly retired members who are playing the Veteran card to try and sway voters.



You're certain of the demographic makeup of the group?  I'm in the group, and I can't even give you that.  The people speaking publicly on the issue are extremely familiar with veterans issues, and speaking to the topic of why veterans (and those who support veterans) should be unhappy with the level of performance of the current government.  I can tell you firsthand there's at least one member who previously voted blue (several times) and it's not happening again.  The campaigning would be going on regardless of which party was in power, if the quality of performance were the same.



> Now you're speaking on behalf of vets



No, I can assure you that anyone who showed up at an event in their former uniform would be ushered away.  If anything, retired members are more likely to think that they can't wear their former uniform when current regs actually permit it - such as Supp Res members on Remembrance Day, for example.



> Speaking of uniforms this looks ridiculous. I really hope this doesn't pass as a uniform.



He's a veteran.  I agree the beret is askew, but is it really necessary for that to be the issue?  With all the other issues at hand, his beret is a topic of discussion?


----------



## Jed (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be too sure of that.  I may be retired from the CF, but I can assure you that I'm more familiar with the first two issues you mentioned than I ever was in uniform, and that's all I can say about that.   ;D
> 
> You're certain of the demographic makeup of the group?  I'm in the group, and I can't even give you that.  The people speaking publicly on the issue are extremely familiar with veterans issues, and speaking to the topic of why veterans (and those who support veterans) should be unhappy with the level of performance of the current government.  I can tell you firsthand there's at least one member who previously voted blue (several times) and it's not happening again.  The campaigning would be going on regardless of which party was in power, if the quality of performance were the same.
> 
> ...




His actions and deportment are opening up all veterans for mockery.  Read my original points about taking political stands and how that casts disparagement on all veterans.  I would feel the same way if ABC meant Anybody But Commies (NDP and lefty Liberals).


----------



## Haggis (20 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is political messaging (either protesting or campaigning) allowed at the polling stations on election day?



It is, under the Canada Elections Act, S.166(1)c:

"166. (1) No person shall

(a) post or display in, or on the exterior surface of, a polling place any campaign literature or other material that could be taken as an indication of support for or opposition to a political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate or the election of a candidate;

(b) while in a polling station, wear any emblem, flag, banner or other thing that indicates that the person supports or opposes any candidate or political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate, or the political or other opinions entertained, or supposed to be entertained, by the candidate or party; and

(c) in a polling station or in any place where voting at an election is taking place, influence electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate."


----------



## R.KIRK99 (20 Aug 2015)

I have to agree with the majority, I dislike anyone saying they speak on my behalf, dislike whatever political party you want to, but do it under your name not all veterans...


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> His actions and deportment are opening up all veterans for mockery.  Read my original points about taking political stands and how that casts disparagement on all veterans.  I would feel the same way if ABC meant Anybody But Commies (NDP and lefty Liberals).



Which actions and deportment, exactly?  His beret?  You can't seriously believe that the 34.46 million Canadians who have no prior service in the military actually know the difference between a properly worn beret and what you see here?  The sign that he's carrying?  Lots of people carry signs.  His 3XL t-shirt?  He's on a cane, and I'll cut him some slack on his level of exercise, and point out that 1 in 4 Canadians are obese.  

John Q. Public doesn't care about any of that - they care that he's a veteran, period.


----------



## Jed (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Which actions and deportment, exactly?  His beret?  You can't seriously believe that the 34.46 million Canadians who have no prior service in the military actually know the difference between a properly worn beret and what you see here?  The sign that he's carrying?  Lots of people carry signs.  His 3XL t-shirt?  He's on a cane, and I'll cut him some slack on his level of exercise, and point out that 1 in 4 Canadians are obese.
> 
> John Q. Public doesn't care about any of that - they care that he's a veteran, period.



You just made my point crystal clear.  The public sees him as a veteran. Myself as a veteran, do not want to be seen in the same light. I never want anyone to view me as a sign waiving, slovenly appareled, protester begging for attention. I think there are many veterans out there that feel the same way.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> You just made my point crystal clear.  The public sees him as a veteran. Myself as a veteran, do not want to be seen in the same light. I never want anyone to view me as a sign waiving, slovenly appareled, protester begging for attention. I think there are many veterans out there that feel the same way.



I'm puzzled.  You said "{I} do not want to be seen in the same light. I never want anyone to view me as a sign waiving, slovenly appareled, protester begging for attention".

I said the public is looking beyond the appearance and seeing a veteran.

If it's not the public seeing him in that light, which group of people are you being concerned about who may see you in the same group as he?

(As an aside, this photo garnered lots of positive comments in the ABC group...and only one reference to his beret)


----------



## Acorn (20 Aug 2015)

Veterans' issues should be election issues, IMO, and the current government has some issues that they ought to be called out on. I'm with Occam on this one.

Jed, when you are retired or released you'll be in the same group as that guy, whether you like it or not - a veteran. Don't worry, you get used to it. You even get used to the young guy who served his three years and got out without ever doing a tour being called a veteran - because he is.


----------



## Jed (20 Aug 2015)

Acorn, I can buy the sentiment that Veteran's issues should be election issues.

Because I am a Baby Boomer, that does not make me a long haired, pussy eyed, dope smokin' hippie.  I don't like seeing any of this protest crap from anyone. People can be constructive and actually do something positive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Aug 2015)

Let's be clear: so long as they don't break any laws, these veterans have the same rights as any other _special interest_ group that opposes the government, normally because of one specific policy, or advocates for some specific policy or programme ~ and there are, literally, thousands of such groups. These veterans, those in ABC and those in groups (there's more than one) specifically against ABC are nothing special; most _special interest_ groups, large and small, claim to speak for the masees; most _special interest_ groups are full our outrage; few have any impact on any political discussion.

I agree that some veterans have a legitimate grievance. Ten or so years ago, when the government of the day (a Liberal government led by Paul Martin) introduced the New Veterans' Charter (NVC) they could have, and _in my opinion_ *should have* added a "grandfather" clause because the NVC changed some _implicit_ terms of service and, usually, when that's done ~ to pensions, for example ~ members serving on the day before the legislation is made law are offered a choice: old system or new system. That wasn't done in 2005/06; it wasn't done by the Liberals when they passed the legislation and it wasn't done by the Conservatives when they took power, before the NVC came into force. That was, in my considered opinion, *immoral* because we had troops in contact with the enemy, being killed and wounded when the system was changed. Members of the CF who were serving before the NVC was passed should have been offered a choice: old system or new. But it wasn't done ... it could still be done, if it became a real issue, but:  :dunno:

My _guess_ is that neither ABC nor the vets against ABC are going to have any significant impact on any result in any of the 338 ridings: it, your pensions, is not something about which 98% of Canadians care.

There was, as I have explained before, a consensus in _official Ottawa_, back _circa_ 2005 that veterans benefits were too generous ~ the benefits which had been voted to HUGE numbers of Canadians in the 1920s and 1940s reflected wars that are pretty much forgotten and societies without much in the way of social or medical support for anyone but the really rich. It is understandable that Canadians, in the 1920s and 1940s, voted for generous benefits for the 1 in 10 or 12 of them, their family, friends and neighbours in most cases, who went to war. Times have changed: Canadians in the 21st century don't see you (us, I'm a veteran, too, if it comes to that) in the same light; they are not inclined to be that generous anymore. The Liberal government passed the NVC with both CPC and NDP support: while the Liberals, now, and the NDP, may attack the CPC for being niggardly to veterans they are not going to change much, if anything at all.

So protest away, one way or the other; it's your right in a free and democratic society ~ just don't kid yourselves into believing that anyone is listening.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It is, under the Canada Elections Act, S.166(1)c:
> 
> "166. (1) No person shall
> 
> ...




So it would be an offence to walk into a polling station with any campaign button on your person.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So it would be an offence to walk into a polling station with any campaign button on your person.



In previous elections the local staff of Elections Canada have interpreted this section "b) while in a polling station, wear any emblem, flag, banner or other thing that indicates that the person supports or opposes any candidate or political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate, or the political or other opinions entertained, or supposed to be entertained, by the candidate or party;" to include coloured file folders, e.g. blue, red or orange.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> You can vote Lib.
> You can vote NDP.
> You can vote Green.
> You can vote Independent.
> ...



I can't believe you just posted that.  Seriously.  "How is that telling someone where exactly to put the X on their ballot?"  Well, for starters, ABC does not stand for "You can vote Conservative...and here's what you're going to get...etc."; but vote for "Anyone But Conservative".  That means that they are INDEED TELLING US where NOT TO PUT AN "X".  That is telling us how to vote.


----------



## Acorn (20 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can't believe you just posted that.  Seriously.  "How is that telling someone where exactly to put the X on their ballot?"  Well, for starters, ABC does not stand for "You can vote Conservative...and here's what you're going to get...etc."; but vote for "Anyone But Conservative".  That means that they are INDEED TELLING US where NOT TO PUT AN "X".  That is telling us how to vote.



Everyone with an axe to grind in this election is telling you how to vote George. So what? They aren't at the polling place plying you with booze or threats as was not uncommon in elections long past (and if they do that, they'll be arrested, as it should be). If they try to disenfranchise you by underhanded means (robocalls, rides to the wrong polling place) they should be taken to task (or if they form a party, get elected, and try to disenfranchise you by passing laws - see what I did there?), but otherwise they're just another voice in the chorus.

I sympathize with the "they don't speak for me" sentiment. I felt that way years ago about the RCL.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> . . . . . but otherwise they're just another voice in the chorus.



And while there are many chorusing in the background adding to the noise of this election, at least these "clowns" are abiding by the law and are registered as third parties.

http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=thi&dir=42ge&document=index&lang=e


> Registered third parties – 42nd general election – October 19, 2015
> 
> Updated on August 20, 2015
> Total: 32 . . .
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Aug 2015)

I think the real sad part is, most of these guys served in the 90s getting shafted by the Liberals on a daily basis. Now they'd like to see them in power.

Morons.  :facepalm:


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think the real sad part is, most of these guys served in the 90s getting shafted by the Liberals on a daily basis. Now they'd like to see them in power.
> 
> Morons.  :facepalm:



Can't speak for anyone else, but I served in the 80's, 90's, and into 2011 - and I remember the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Conservative Party of Canada quite well.  I try not to predict future performance from past performance, but for many of us "morons", at the present time, change > status quo.  

I'm sure somewhere on the site, you'll likely find me posting about how great it will be for the CPC to get a majority.  I make mistakes, but I try not to make the same ones twice.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Aug 2015)

My problem is not with their ABC stance; they're entitled to whatever position they choose to adopt. My problem is their contention that this is being done on my behalf. It's not. Very early on this specific veteran's group was co-opted by PSAC and the NDP and used for purely partisan purposes; you could all but see the marionette strings. I sense the same manipulation at work now.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Everyone with an axe to grind in this election is telling you how to vote George. So what? They aren't at the polling place plying you with booze or threats as was not uncommon in elections long past (and if they do that, they'll be arrested, as it should be). If they try to disenfranchise you by underhanded means (robocalls, rides to the wrong polling place) they should be taken to task (or if they form a party, get elected, and try to disenfranchise you by passing laws - see what I did there?), but otherwise they're just another voice in the chorus.
> 
> I sympathize with the "they don't speak for me" sentiment. I felt that way years ago about the RCL.



Well said.

And to avoid this being simply a "+1" comment, I still feel the RCL doesn't speak for me - and that's unlikely to change.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My problem is not with their ABC stance; they're entitled to whatever position they choose to adopt. My problem is their contention that this is being done on my behalf. It's not. Very early on this specific veteran's group was co-opted by PSAC and the NDP and used for purely partisan purposes; you could all but see the marionette strings. I sense the same manipulation at work now.


Absolutely. This would be just as shameful if they were ABL or ABN, and attempted to look like a united front of veterans.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be too sure of that.  I may be retired from the CF, but I can assure you that I'm more familiar with the first two issues you mentioned than I ever was in uniform, and that's all I can say about that.   ;D



Hey Occam
I re-read my post. I apologize if I came off as an asshole or attacking you.

What I meant by that retired comment was that I'm guessing your life (assuming here) won't be directly affected, as in placed in danger, if a political party bones us with shitty equipment, ROEs or anything like that. If I'm wrong it's on me.



> You're certain of the demographic makeup of the group?  I'm in the group, and I can't even give you that.  The people speaking publicly on the issue are extremely familiar with veterans issues, and speaking to the topic of why veterans (and those who support veterans) should be unhappy with the level of performance of the current government.  I can tell you firsthand there's at least one member who previously voted blue (several times) and it's not happening again.  The campaigning would be going on regardless of which party was in power, if the quality of performance were the same.



These people are platforming on the treatment of vets by the government which I'm not disagreeing is shitty. The government really cares about us when there is a war going on and especially when the public loves us. That interest goes away when the war is over and people aren't so excited about Red Fridays and yellow Ribbons. Groups like ABC lashing out against the conservatives aren't taking into consideration the health of our armed forces.  

Maybe I'm in the wrong here but I feel trying to use ones military service to sway public opinion on anything is pretty shitty. ABC and groups like them have narrow arcs with what they are fighting, there's bigger issues.  



> He's a veteran.  I agree the beret is askew, but is it really necessary for that to be the issue?  With all the other issues at hand, his beret is a topic of discussion?


Yes because he's using it as a symbol of his veteran status. He can wear whatever he wants. He wants to make sure everyone knows he was int he army, he could at least put effort into wearing it properly. After all thats what we do in the military. It's hypocritical in my books.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> The fact that there are over 11,000 members of the ABC-Veteran Facebook group says to me that the message is resounding with a lot of people.



Of course it does. It pits all party followers against one party. The same party all those other parties want to dispose of.
If you had anyone but liberals they would have a lot of likes too, especially so if they were the king of the castle.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My problem is not with their ABC stance; they're entitled to whatever position they choose to adopt. My problem is their contention that this is being done on my behalf. It's not. Very early on this specific veteran's group was co-opted by PSAC and the NDP and used for purely partisan purposes; you could all but see the marionette strings. I sense the same manipulation at work now.



Right on the ABC-Veterans page, under "About":  "The Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015 is not associated in anyway with any other veterans groups. We stand alone in our venture to defeat the conservative party in the upcoming 2015 Canadian federal election"...so I'm not sure what "specific veteran's group" you're referring to.

And again with the "they don't represent me" bit.  They haven't claimed that they do represent you, or all veterans.  I'm more than willing to take a look at anything that can be produced that proves otherwise.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Hey Occam
> I re-read my post. I apologize if I came off as an ******* or attacking you.
> 
> What I meant by that retired comment was that I'm guessing your life (assuming here) won't be directly affected, as in placed in danger, if a political party bones us with shitty equipment, ROEs or anything like that. If I'm wrong it's on me.



No offence taken; I have a pretty thick skin.  The answer is no, my life won't be directly affected.  I do have a vested interest (more so than John Q. Public) in making sure the guys in uniform do get the right equipment, though.



> These people are platforming on the treatment of vets by the government which I'm not disagreeing is shitty. The government really cares about us when there is a war going on and especially when the public loves us. That interest goes away when the war is over and people aren't so excited about Red Fridays and yellow Ribbons. Groups like ABC lashing out against the conservatives aren't taking into consideration the health of our armed forces.



No arguments here, but unless I've misunderstood the part in yellow, you're claiming that an ABC campaign that was successful in ousting the Conservatives would be detrimental to the CAF?  I would argue exactly the opposite, and the ABC campaign very much takes into consideration the desire for a well-equipped, well-trained and capable CAF.



> Maybe I'm in the wrong here but I feel trying to use ones military service to sway public opinion on anything is pretty shitty. ABC and groups like them have narrow arcs with what they are fighting, there's bigger issues.



Why is it shitty?  There's a reason why we say that we're our own best recruiters - nobody else can speak to what CAF members go through better than CAF members, or former CAF members.  Like I see here quite frequently, support for the CAF is a mile wide and an inch deep - and sometimes I don't even think it would be that deep if it weren't for retired members being able to speak out about what their careers were like, and why we need a strong CAF.  I agree ABC has narrow arcs; that's why it'd be very unlikely to see anyone from the ABC campaign hollering about environmental issues, or native issues.  But on the other hand, the ABC campaign isn't trying to sway anyone away from the Conservatives because of their stance on the environment - they're being transparent.



> Yes because he's using it as a symbol of his veteran status. He can wear whatever he wants. He wants to make sure everyone knows he was int he army, he could at least put effort into wearing it properly. After all thats what we do in the military. It's hypocritical in my books.



Both you and I and 700,000 other people know his beret looks like it's inflated to 30 PSI.  In the grand scheme of things, I think its importance is being overstated.  YMMV.


----------



## Altair (21 Aug 2015)

I like that veterans are getting involved. This goverment wraps itself on the flag, gets photo ops with serving members all the while nickel and diming them and taking them to court fighting about benifits. 

This evens out the playing field some.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It is, under the Canada Elections Act, S.166(1)c:
> 
> "166. (1) No person shall
> 
> ...



Hohne Ranges, early '70s. We were filling out our ballot in a tent on the range. One particular MCpl was being very vocal about who he was voting for and why, while trashing the other parties. He was basically told to shut up or he would be charged under the NDA and the Elections Act. He stopped talking, about parties and voting, in a hurry. Although the arguing about his civil rights afterwards, brought him a number of extras.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> ....(As an aside, this photo garnered lots of positive comments in the ABC group...and only one reference to his beret)



 And a lot more derision and ridicule both for his stance and his dress and deportment on several dozen Veterans groups and pages elsewhere on Face book and other social media  outlets whose membership numbers are probably more representative of the total Veteran population in this country than the ABC/CVA site.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So it would be an offence to walk into a polling station with any campaign button on your person.



Yup a point I once made in a downtown Toronto polling station several years back, and noticed most of the staff manning the polling station wearing them. I was told it was okay because the staff were wearing NDP buttons.  Attempting to point out the relevant parts of the election act quoted elsewhere in this thread was entertaining to say the least.   :



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Right on the ABC-Veterans page, under "About":  "The Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015 is not associated in anyway with any other veterans groups. We stand alone in our venture to defeat the conservative party in the upcoming 2015 Canadian federal election"...so I'm not sure what "specific veteran's group" you're referring to.



Both Mike Blais Ron Clarke of the ABC and the CVA have admitted to receiving cash from the PSAC,  Blais I believe received $3,000.00 and Clarke $25,000.00 They've also receives support in kind ( office space etc) from the NDP… yeah not affiliated

Sorry this clown and his fellow travellers in no way represent me or my interests/concerns.


----------



## Occam (21 Aug 2015)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And a lot more derision and ridicule both for his stance and his dress and deportment on several dozen Veterans groups and pages elsewhere on Face book and other social media  outlets whose membership numbers are probably more representative of the total Veteran population in this country than the ABC/CVA site.



Not that I've seen, though obviously I'm not a member of every veteran-related group...but I'm in quite a few of the bigger ones.



> Both Mike Blais Ron Clarke of the ABC and the CVA have admitted to receiving cash from the PSAC,  Blais I believe received $3,000.00 and Clarke $25,000.00 They've also receives support in kind ( office space etc) from the NDP… yeah not affiliated
> 
> Sorry this clown and his fellow travellers in no way represent me or my interests/concerns.



Ah, someone dared to say it.

Mike Blais has nothing to do with the ABC campaign.  Ron Clarke, I believe, speaks to the press in support of the ABC campaign.

Mike Blais received $2000 (not $3000) from the Union of Veterans' Affairs Employees (UVAE), which is a component of PSAC.  The funds were for the express purpose of transporting VAC employees of the the closed VAC offices to the location of the press conference held concerning their closure.  Full disclosure of this information was made.  Parm Gill tried to make an issue of it at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in an attempt to discredit.  Blais did not receive in-kind office space from the NDP; he was allowed to charge his disability scooter in Peter Stoffer's office on the Hill, and to catch brief rest periods there between meetings - another distortion of fact by a small group of people with an axe to grind.  Blais and the CVA have nothing to do with the ABC-Veterans campaign.

I can't speak to any money given to Ron Clarke, but if you're inferring that Clarke is giving union-donated money to ABC-Veterans, that's a pretty serious allegation.

ABC-Veterans is run by Tom Beaver, as disclosed on the Elections.ca website listing registered third parties.  Note that you will not find either Mike Blais' or Ron Clarke's name on that listing.

Hate to burst your bubble - ABC-Veterans may be a lot of things, but it's not propped up by unions, a political party, or any veterans groups.


----------



## Strike (21 Aug 2015)

From his own mouth on FB...


And he has been part of the movement for some time, even if someone else registered the organization, as both the images and link can attest to.  The fact that union money is involved just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

As for the threat of veterans being present as polling stations on Election Day, that reeks of intimidation, and is something that the CAF has worked to prevent from happening in other countries when they vote.  I can't believe anyone would ever think this is in any way okay in Canada?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-veterans-want-voters-to-think-anyone-but-harper-1.3193469


----------



## Occam (21 Aug 2015)

I've been saying "ABC" since last year.  Does that mean I can claim founder status?  :  Part of the campaign is irrelevant.  Right now, there are 11,956 people who are part of the campaign.  Some of them might be union members.  Some might be RCMP.  Some might even be serving CAF members.

I'm still not seeing where this supposed union money is coming from.  The only union money to speak of was donated over three years ago, pushing four, and was to an organization that has nothing to do with the ABC campaign.

I read the comment made about veterans at polling stations, and I don't agree with it either.  My bet is that it's either a fire & brimstone speech gone awry, or he doesn't understand the law.  I do plan on asking about it.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Aug 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> As for the threat of veterans being present as polling stations on Election Day, that reeks of intimidation, and is something that the CAF has worked to prevent from happening in other countries when they vote.  I can't believe anyone would ever think this is in any way okay in Canada?



Actually, it reeks of old time politicking.  While it may not be seen often in this day and age, there is nothing new about individuals standing outside a polling place to get in a last reminder of their political message before a voter casts a ballot.  It falls into the same category as calls on election day to remind voters to vote (and by the way - consider "numbnuts" when you do) or offers of transport to polling stations.  To compare what these veterans promise with shenanigans seen in some of the shitholes where the CAF has served (including some of these clowns) is somewhat disingenuous.   If there is any "intimidation" in the ABC Veterans' campaign it is a standard garden variety and generally accepted political intimidation that any voters' group can direct at a governing party with whom they have a grievance.

I haven't followed the antics of this group (or ones similar).  I didn't need to be told that a politician (any politician) is an opportunist and would praise me on one hand for my service while at the same time ignore me because it fit their agenda.  However, what seems to bug most about these people is the obstreperous manner in which they have launched their campaign.  It is unusual in Canada (at least for us old Cold War types) to be very publically vocal (in a group) about a political issue.  We spent careers during which our "outraged" political opinions were either kept close to home or (for those in higher echelons) were cause for public resignation (though that usually only reverberated in the military community).  Now, along come a group who are seemingly loud and obnoxious, unruly and rowdy - "unmilitary" - it's not the DS solution.  Well, they don't have to abide by the DS solution, which for many years was the quiet (ineffective?) campaign? of the Legion.  I seem to recall a comment during phase training that you "can't argue tactics" especially if effective (though the DS still dinged you if you failed to follow the conventional methods).  As for these guys, they don't have to follow the conventional methods of other groups.  Their  tactics are working, they are getting some publicity which is the aim.  Whether it is effective can only be determined after the ballots are counted.  There is no DS other than Elections Canada and so far they seem to be abiding by the rules.

Oh, by the way, the beret on the ex-RCR (?) in the red t-shirt - I had an RSM decades and decades ago who wore his beret in a similar fashion (alright, I'm exaggerating . . . but not by much - he would occasionally catch me mimicking his stance and beret - I've done a few extras in my time.)


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Does that mean I can claim founder status?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-veterans-want-voters-to-think-anyone-but-harper-1.3193469

It clearly states that:





> Army veteran Ron Clarke of North Sydney decided to start the ABC campaign last year, with the intention of mobilizing veterans after an election call.



Right there in Black and White.


----------



## Occam (21 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Right there in Black and White.



And I said I started saying last year too.  Tom Beaver put his name on the official paperwork.  What does Clarke being a part of the campaign have to do with the price of tea in China?  He's a spokesman for the campaign, just like almost 12,000 other people are.

You're picking flysh*t out of pepper.  Really.  This is what I was talking about in regards to a small group of people with an axe to grind trying to link the campaign to anything they don't personally like in an effort to smear the whole thing.  You're dividing veterans, and that's being part of the problem, not of the solution.


----------



## Strike (21 Aug 2015)

We're dividing veterans?

Any group that supports (or shows lack of support) for one political party over any other is the one doing the dividing, because it is telling those veterans who may still consider voting for the non-favoured group that they are not welcome in that club.

And it's not nitpicking. Clarke didn't say that he decided to vocalize his ABC beliefs or use any other wording that would make it seem like an individual effort. The article says he decided to start the campaign.

Definition of campaign as a verb: work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one.
And as a noun: an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal.
That certainly doesn't give the impression of one person acting, but more like organizing and encouraging a group of people.

Your reply seems more like nitpicking, whereas the rest of us are taking the FB posts and news articles at face value.

Oh, and the claim of union funds comes straight from Clarke's own FB post from June. I seriously doubt he would bring up any sponsorship that was given 3 years ago (which by your reasoning, ABC didn't exist so I don't even know why you brought up that comment) which was likely spent some time ago.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> And I said I started saying last year too.  Tom Beaver put his name on the official paperwork.  What does Clarke being a part of the campaign have to do with the price of tea in China?  He's a spokesman for the campaign, just like almost 12,000 other people are.
> 
> You're picking flysh*t out of pepper.  Really.  This is what I was talking about in regards to a small group of people with an axe to grind trying to link the campaign to anything they don't personally like in an effort to smear the whole thing.  You're dividing veterans, and that's being part of the problem, not of the solution.



Guess you should have copyrighted your idea.


----------



## Occam (21 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Guess you should have copyrighted your idea.



Oh, I'm kicking my own ass over missing out on Velcro and Post-it Notes too, trust me.


----------



## Happy Guy (21 Aug 2015)

I have been following the news with regards the antics of the ABC groups and I must admit that while it got my attention I find their tactics distasteful and vulgar.  Being an old guy (I joined in 1978) and firm believer in some traditions - keep yourself respectable looking, always maintain your dignity in public, be stoic and be politically neutral.  The noisy and at times rowdy behaviour of these spokespeople for veterans really offends me.

To the ABC groups,
Yes, please air your complaints about the NVC and inadequate medical treatment of veterans but do not display such contempt for beret, cap badge and medals as you wear them during your protests.  Do not wear your "uniform" in front of the voting stations.  To do so, in my opinion, will undermine the dignity of the military attire that you choose to wear.  Yes, I am still serving.  I have deployed overseas.  I have been injured while in uniform but not to the grievous extent as some of my comrads.  I too have honourably served my country that I love to the best of ability and heart, but don't you bloody dare think that you represent me.

I will vote for the political candidate in my riding that I think best represents the needs of MY RIDING and my country.


----------



## Occam (21 Aug 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> We're dividing veterans?
> 
> Any group that supports (or shows lack of support) for one political party over any other is the one doing the dividing, because it is telling those veterans who may still consider voting for the non-favoured group that they are not welcome in that club.



I seriously doubt anyone is losing sleep over not being a member of that club.  If you like the campaign, you join it.  If you don't, you move on.  Seems pretty simple to me.

The dividing veterans part comes from the fact that we're 58 posts into the discussion on a mostly military/veteran occupied forum, discussing a group of other veterans (as many as 12,000, but obviously somewhere less due to some of them being civilians), and yet the topic of the thread remains "ABC Veteran clowns".  Nice to know that we're all one big happy family!  The ABC campaign isn't calling you any names for choosing to not subscribe to the ABC campaign.  Doesn't bother me any (the clowns reference), but it's a pretty good example.



> And it's not nitpicking. Clarke didn't say that he decided to vocalize his ABC beliefs or use any other wording that would make it seem like an individual effort. The article says he decided to start the campaign.
> 
> Definition of campaign as a verb: work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one.
> And as a noun: an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal.
> ...



Okay, take this at face value - http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.ca/2011/06/conservative-change-08-11.html

There's a reference to an ABC campaign in the 2008 election.  Seems Mr. Clarke wasn't the brainchild after all.  Now I ask you - what does that change, now that you know that?



> Oh, and the claim of union funds comes straight from Clarke's own FB post from June. I seriously doubt he would bring up any sponsorship that was given 3 years ago (which by your reasoning, ABC didn't exist so I don't even know why you brought up that comment) which was likely spent some time ago.



You'll have to refresh my memory if it's been posted already (I don't see it, but I do see Danjanou claiming he saw something about $25K), but which FB post from Clarke in June referred to union funds?  The union funds I referred to were over three years ago, from UVAE to CVA for a specific purpose, and I highly doubt UVAE had the foresight to donate funds almost four years before an ABC Veterans campaign.

I think the problem is that people have gotten a little too much sixth and seventh-hand information, and the story's gotten more distorted every time it gets told.  How about we stick to what we know and can be proven?  The ABC campaign is not affiliated with any other veterans group or union.  If having Clarke or Blais as a member of ABC adds up to an affiliation with another veterans group, then I guess I'm affiliated with Mötley Crüe then by virtue of being a member of their FB group.  I'll be sure to say hi from everybody here to Vince, Tommy, Mick and Nikki at the show on Sunday night.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> You'll have to refresh my memory if it's been posted already (I don't see it, but I do see Danjanou claiming he saw something about $25K), but which FB post from Clarke in June referred to union funds?  The union funds I referred to were over three years ago, from UVAE to CVA for a specific purpose, and I highly doubt UVAE had the foresight to donate funds almost four years before an ABC Veterans campaign.



Three years ago.  OK.  I'll accept that.  How many years ago was this "Duffy affair"?  OH!  That was two or three years ago as well.  Yet that is still being pulled forward as an "election issue".  And don't pull the "Oh, but Duffy is on trial card, and the others are not."  Perhaps there should be charges laid for them as well (and perhaps there are already, but not yet public.)  When someone holds one person to account, but ignore others, and I will include Mulcair in this one, over questionable finances, then something is seriously wrong with their thinking.


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

Duffy was charged with fraud, breach of trust and bribery.

What criminal acts are you alleging here, in the context of the ABC campaign?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Duffy was charged with fraud, breach of trust and bribery.
> 
> What criminal acts are you alleging here, in the context of the ABC campaign?



Just wondering why you excuse some of questionable finances, yet open to accuse others?  Is it really appropriate that CDN25K was given to Mr Clarke in the same time-frame?


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just wondering why you excuse some of questionable finances, yet open to accuse others?  Is it really appropriate that CDN25K was given to Mr Clarke in the same time-frame?



One, I don't know if it actually happened or not - nobody's provided anything in the line of proof.

Two, why are we even discussing this?  I don't know what organization Mr. Clarke is alleged to have been running at the time of this supposed transaction, but is it illegal or even questionable for a union to donate funds to an organization that shares a common goal or two?  I personally don't have a problem with a union backing any group working towards sacking the Conservatives, or any other worthy cause.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> One, I don't know if it actually happened or not - nobody's provided anything in the line of proof.
> 
> Two, why are we even discussing this?  I don't know what organization Mr. Clarke is alleged to have been running at the time of this supposed transaction, but is it illegal or even questionable for a union to donate funds to an organization that shares a common goal or two?  I personally don't have a problem with a union backing any group working towards sacking the Conservatives, or any other worthy cause.



And I personally don't have a problem of someone paying back a (supposed) debt to the Government.  Yet, the ABC crowd are crying that the Government is corrupt and voters should vote for anyone but them; all the while we have questions being raised about monies being given to their ranks.  Meanwhile you feel free to defend the ABC crowd, ignoring those accusations, but accepting the accusations laid against others.


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

I've asked this several times now, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

What accusation are you making against ABC?  Be specific, and provide proof.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Aug 2015)

:bigfight: op:


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

I think it's rather amusing, JJT...we have several people all making innuendo and accusations of something that nobody has proof of, and even if they did, it doesn't even qualify as "questionable".

I think I'll just sit by and wait for some proof to get offered up, and then for someone to explain what's questionable about it.


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I think it's rather amusing, JJT...we have several people all making innuendo and accusations of something that nobody has proof of, and even if they did, it doesn't even qualify as "questionable".
> 
> I think I'll just sit by and wait for some proof to get offered up, and then for someone to explain what's questionable about it.



Frankly, I do not find any of it amusing.  I find the whole political process as putrefying. If any military personnel or previous military members are part of it, they should do so with proper decorum and respect.


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Frankly, I do not find any of it amusing.  I find the whole political process as putrefying. If any military personnel or previous military members are part of it, they should do so with proper decorum and respect.



I agree.  Other than the guy with a dodgy beret and t-shirt, and a fire & brimstone speech that went a little too far with the picketing polling stations issue, I would say the campaign is sticking to the facts and conducting themselves well.  

Somehow, I get the feeling that a certain group of people will still go out of their way to fabricate arguments against the campaign because of their own political beliefs, and not because there's something wrong with the campaign itself.


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I agree.  Other than the guy with a dodgy beret and t-shirt, and a fire & brimstone speech that went a little too far with the picketing polling stations issue, I would say the campaign is sticking to the facts and conducting themselves well.
> 
> Somehow, I get the feeling that a certain group of people will still go out of their way to fabricate arguments against the campaign because of their own political beliefs, and not because there's something wrong with the campaign itself.



It just takes one awshit to discount 20 attaboys.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I agree.  Other than the guy with a dodgy beret and t-shirt, and a fire & brimstone speech that went a little too far with the picketing polling stations issue, I would say the campaign is sticking to the facts and conducting themselves well.
> 
> Somehow, I get the feeling that a certain group of people will still go out of their way to fabricate [size=12pt]present arguments against the campaign because of their own political beliefs[/size], and not because there's something wrong with the campaign itself.




Of course they will (if you'll agree that "fabricate" is a loaded word) because it is a political campaign and_ opinions_ matter. You have an opinion, one to which you are certainly entitled; your interlocutor has a different opinion, one which he is entitled to hold, too. You're not going to convince one another, in fact you're not really trying to convince one another: neither of you wants to concede even the smallest point to the other, nor does either of you want to let the other the last word.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Of course they will (if you'll agree that "fabricate" is a loaded word) because it is a political campaign and_ opinions_ matter. You have an opinion, one to which you are certainly entitled; your interlocutor has a different opinion, one which he is entitled to hold, too. You're not going to convince one another, in fact you're not really trying to convince one another: neither of you wants to concede even the smallest point to the other, nor does either of you want to let the other the last word.



 :goodpost:  MilPts inbound


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2015)

Mea Culpa ERC and Recceguy. I will stop  :deadhorse:


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Of course they will (if you'll agree that "fabricate" is a loaded word) because it is a political campaign and_ opinions_ matter. You have an opinion, one to which you are certainly entitled; your interlocutor has a different opinion, one which he is entitled to hold, too. You're not going to convince one another, in fact you're not really trying to convince one another: neither of you wants to concede even the smallest point to the other, nor does either of you want to let the other the last word.



Opinions are fine; I have no problem with opinions when they're based on fact.

What I do have a problem with is opinions based on hearsay, innuendo, and maliciousness - and when those opinions are challenged, seldom does the requisite proof get offered up; but the lingering innuendo and maliciousness is left there to fester for all to see.

On the rest, we agree.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Aug 2015)

There are 2 things wrong with this campaign:

1. The opposition had years to introduce any veterans legislation they wanted as a private member's bill, which would have been political suicide for the Tories to filibuster or quash. They didn't, and these ABC dudes are being used by them with no concrete promises other than "trust us, we're better".

2. They've tied in all veterans with their campaign, from a profession that is required by law to be apolitical. Instead of campaigning to bring veteran issues to the forefront of the campaign, they've instantly alienated 30-30% of the voting population who vote Tory against their cause. If they came out and said "We're upset with the current government's false promises, and the opposition parties' failure to act or provide concrete policy statements to fix our issues. We want the shameful treatment of our vets as a main campaign issue." They'd get much more broad, all-party support, and very likely have much more veteran/serving member support as it is.

As well, stating their personal appearance isn't an issue, glosses over the fact that the veterans they seek to unite put great stock in one's personal appearance and professional turnout. How many times have to you just tuned out an officer because s/he looks like crap? If they're too lazy to form a proper beret after X years in the CAF which required them to do it, I'll be just as lazy and tune them out, regardless of how good a deal they struck with X party to help us out.


----------



## Occam (22 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There are 2 things wrong with this campaign:
> 
> 1. The opposition had years to introduce any veterans legislation they wanted as a private member's bill, which would have been political suicide for the Tories to filibuster or quash. They didn't, and these ABC dudes are being used by them with no concrete promises other than "trust us, we're better".



Do you even look before you make these wild claims?  https://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-stoffer/

C-633 - died on the order paper.
C-572 - died on the order paper.
C-472 - died on the order paper.
C-447 - died on the order paper.

Sorry, I only searched for 3 minutes and on one MP's website to find those.  I'm sure you won't mind me not wasting any more time dispelling _that_ myth.



> 2. They've tied in all veterans with their campaign, from a profession that is required by law to be apolitical. Instead of campaigning to bring veteran issues to the forefront of the campaign, they've instantly alienated 30-30% of the voting population who vote Tory against their cause. If they came out and said "We're upset with the current government's false promises, and the opposition parties' failure to act or provide concrete policy statements to fix our issues. We want the shameful treatment of our vets as a main campaign issue." They'd get much more broad, all-party support, and very likely have much more veteran/serving member support as it is.



Sorry, only the CAF is required to be apolitical.  Your average veteran retired from the CAF can do whatever he/she pleases politically.

There are going to be people who are going to vote Tory come hell or high water, regardless of what you tell them.  These people are not the target of the ABC campaign.  Their target is people like me, who voted Tory in the last three elections, but is open enough to realize I may have made a mistake.  I consider myself moderate right - and the CPC left me standing in the dust on their way to extreme right wing status when they got their majority in the last election.  There are a lot of people like me who have jumped ship on the party, and it's going to bite them in the butt.  If you wander over to Erin O'Toole's Facebook page, you'll get the impression that everything is rosy in Veteran land, and this flurry of pre-election activity to shore up the gaping holes in the NVC is much less about sincerely caring about veterans, and more about vote-buying.



> As well, stating their personal appearance isn't an issue, glosses over the fact that the veterans they seek to unite put great stock in one's personal appearance and professional turnout. How many times have to you just tuned out an officer because s/he looks like crap? If they're too lazy to form a proper beret after X years in the CAF which required them to do it, I'll be just as lazy and tune them out, regardless of how good a deal they struck with X party to help us out.



Still on about the beret.  Sigh...


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2015)

To contend that the CPC is an extreme right wing party is to completely misunderstand the political lay of the land.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Do you even look before you make these wild claims?  https://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-stoffer/
> 
> C-633 - died on the order paper.
> C-572 - died on the order paper.
> ...



Which of those bills were to create legislation for a convent between Veterans and the Crown? None. Which of them repealed NVC and brought back disability pensions? None. Which legislated that VAC disability awards be set to what a similar injury under WSIB would be? None.

Those 4 bills were small, incremental changes designed to die on the order paper to provide the illusion that they were doing something. If the NDP gave a  :-X about veterans, where's Muclair's private members bill and giant press conference? Not there. Where's Trudeau's policy on veterans other than "we'll do better"? Not there.

I get it, you're pissed off at the CPC. I'm sure most of us think they could do a hell of a lot better. What you're clearly missing here is that nobody else has brought out good ideas on how to fix things, only platitudes and promises.



> Still on about the beret.  Sigh...



Show up at a job interview for a bank position in ripped jeans and a mustard-stained tank top. Tell me then how dress and deportment isn't important.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2015)

2005-2006 VAC budget under the liberals was 2.8 Billion.
2015-2016 VAC budget under the Conservatives is 3.5 Billion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 2005-2006 VAC budget under the liberals was 2.8 Billion.
> 2015-2016 VAC budget under the Conservatives is 3.5 Billion.




Fair enough, but $2.8 Billion inflated at 2%, year upon year, is $3.3 Billion so the _*real growth*_ is very small.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2015)

People disappointed with the CPC performance and/or platform on this issue (or any issue) should bear in mind that there may be no alternative on the ballot which is "closer to the platform I like".  The NDP and LPC may be further away.

You can't execute a political fix from the outside.  You need to support the party most inclined to look favourably on your issue, and then work to obtain and exercise influence inside the party.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You can't execute a political fix from the outside.  You need to support the party most inclined to look favourably on your issue, and then work to obtain and exercise influence inside the party.


And hope that said party, if it gets a majority, may have to do the right thing - unlike the last majority party.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Aug 2015)

My biggest issue with the ABC group is that it is punitive politics.  It's a case of they treated us bad so let's punish them.  That never leads to a positive change. For the idea that you should vote anyone but conservative to be positive you would have to presuppose there is a better option. The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)

So the ABC vote is unlikely to make a positive difference. A better plan would be to convince political party current and former military (and their friends and family) are a voting block worth appeasing. You want the various political  parties climbing over each other to get your votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> My biggest issue with the ABC group is that it is punitive politics.  It's a case of they treated us bad so let's punish them.  That never leads to a positive change. For the idea that you should vote anyone but conservative to be positive you would have to presuppose there is a better option. The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)
> 
> So the ABC vote is unlikely to make a positive difference. A better plan would be to convince political party current and former military (and their friends and family) are a voting block worth appeasing. You want the various political  parties climbing over each other to get your votes.




 :goodpost: I agree.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2015)

Tcm621

To back up your points:  We have two recent elections, Ontario and Alberta, where we saw punitive politics in play.  Look how they both turned out.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Tcm621
> 
> To back up your points:  We have two recent elections, Ontario and Alberta, where we saw punitive politics in play.  Look how they both turned out.


I'm from BC.  It's the only way we do politics.


----------



## Teager (22 Aug 2015)

I'm pretty sure the Equitas lawyers also echoed what Tcm621 said. The fact that there both in BC might be a coincidence  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but $2.8 Billion inflated at 2%, year upon year, is $3.3 Billion so the _*real growth*_ is very small.



Touche  ;D



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> My biggest issue with the ABC group is that it is punitive politics.  It's a case of they treated us bad so let's punish them.  That never leads to a positive change. For the idea that you should vote anyone but conservative to be positive you would have to presuppose there is a better option. The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)
> 
> So the ABC vote is unlikely to make a positive difference. A better plan would be to convince political party current and former military (and their friends and family) are a voting block worth appeasing. You want the various political  parties climbing over each other to get your votes.



That's what I wanted to say, thanks.

These ABC guys are looking out for themselves and want to punish the conservatives; not strengthen our military in a national sense.  Voting ABC will degrade demoralize and damage our military.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> .... The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  *The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change.* So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)


Military spending =/= veterans spending - interesting take on the pension/social pgms, though  ;D

If anyone is interested ....

Here's what the Conservatives have said about veterans since the election campaign started (statement attributed to MP, shared the day after the Greens).
Here's what the Liberals have on their web site about veterans (no news releases yet, but a few statements through the year, and a party policy convention resolution on the "social covenant with veterans".
Here's what the NDP have have on their web page about veterans (no news releases tracked post-writ yet - a few pre-election statements here, here, a petition and a 2013 paper outlining what should be done - attached).
Here's what the Greens have said about veterans since the election started (statement attributed to party leader, first party to announce their platform after the writ was issued).
Not much said on the campaign trail yet, but there's still two months to go.


----------



## Occam (23 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> These ABC guys are looking out for themselves and want to punish the conservatives; not strengthen our military in a national sense.  Voting ABC will degrade demoralize and damage our military.



Be careful of blanket statements.  You make it sound like there couldn't possibly be people amongst the ABC campaign who are intimately aware of the damage being done to our military right now.  I can assure you that's not the case.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's what the Liberals have on their web site about veterans (no news releases yet, but a few statements through the year, and a party policy convention resolution on the "social covenant with veterans".
> Not much said on the campaign trail yet, but there's still two months to go.



Expect to see an announcement of note from Belleville tomorrow.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Be careful of blanket statements.  You make it sound like there couldn't possibly be people amongst the ABC campaign who are intimately aware of the damage being done to our military right now.  I can assure you that's not the case.



Bit lost friend, what are you saying?  That they know there is damage being done to our military and they are trying to sway the vote to parties which will further damage the military?
Or are you suggesting that the NDP and Liberals will strengthen our military?


----------



## Strike (23 Aug 2015)

Back to the uniform issue, there are some veteran organizations, like the Legion and the CAVUNP, specifically state in their charters that members will not be part of any political party or movement and will not misrepresent the involvement of these veteran groups in any such protests or party affairs by wearing the uniform of the organization.

These veteran groups do not support any one party over the other but, like the CAF, support the government in power no matter who that may be.

All that said, Mr Clarke has been featured prominently at protests while wearing the uniform of a service association, contrary to that association's charter, probably in an effort to make the general public feel that this veteran group is against the CPC.

It's actions like that which get my goat.

One could argue that the RCL is biased in that it hosts CPC delegates all the time. As a matter of fact, they host members of the current government. And many RCLs play host to local candidate debates and allow candidates from all parties access to their halls in order to show an unbiased front. At least, that's how my Legion does things.


----------



## MARS (23 Aug 2015)

Why the "uniform" matters?

Because this election...ANY election...is nothing more than a fucking sales pitch!!  We are 10 minutes in to the halftime show the Super Bowl, if you want to look at it tht way.  We have 20 more minutes of big time 'advertising' (dressed up as 'issues') to come!!

What, are you people new or something?  Y'all just wake up to the concept of an election campaign?!?  

It is sales.  24/7 for the next 9 weeks.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Which means every single aspect of the campaign, no matter where you stand, or what your cause is, must, by necessity, be designed to influence the actions (read:vote) of your target audience.  It is even evident in their damn slogan: ABC.  A fucking awesome, ideal, super kick ass slogan to be quite honest.  The best one out there. It is designed that way.  Why do you think ABC has so much more traction than ABH??  Give a Cookie to the man or Woman who came up with it.  Better yet, give em a job in sales or advertising if they don't already have one.

The fact that Jason Kenny is being the energizer bunny in the ethnic ridings, the fact that the Duffy trial Reconvened at this very moment, and that the witnesses who are being called are being called now...and every other thing that is happening is by calculated design.  Someone planned this.  And BZ to them! 

There is nothing wrong with that - all of this is simply excellent tactics.  I would kill for a staff that could influence the battlefield as well as is being accomplished right now, on all sides. But I grow so tired of people pining for a discussions on 'serious issues'.  Save that for parliament.


----------



## Occam (23 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit lost friend, what are you saying?  That they know there is damage being done to our military and they are trying to sway the vote to parties which will further damage the military?
> Or are you suggesting that the NDP and Liberals will strengthen our military?



Let's just say that having served through Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, Martin and Harper, I find it difficult to fathom us doing any worse than the status quo.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Back to the uniform issue, there are some veteran organizations, like the Legion and the CAVUNP, specifically state in their charters that members will not be part of any political party or movement and will not misrepresent the involvement of these veteran groups in any such protests or party affairs by wearing the uniform of the organization.
> 
> These veteran groups do not support any one party over the other but, like the CAF, support the government in power no matter who that may be.



And many will argue that's what makes them largely ineffective as veterans advocates when dealing with a government such as the one we have now.



> All that said, Mr Clarke has been featured prominently at protests while wearing the uniform of a service association, contrary to that association's charter, probably in an effort to make the general public feel that this veteran group is against the CPC.
> 
> It's actions like that which get my goat.



I had no idea that the Legion or CAVUNP had trademarked their navy blue and grey/UN blue and whatever blazer/pants combinations.  If there's more to it than that (such as wearing their cap badge or crests), then I'll agree with you.



> One could argue that the RCL is biased in that it hosts CPC delegates all the time. As a matter of fact, they host members of the current government. And many RCLs play host to local candidate debates and allow candidates from all parties access to their halls in order to show an unbiased front. At least, that's how my Legion does things.



That's great, as long as it's national policy.  Either let them all have access, or none.


----------



## Strike (23 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> And many will argue that's what makes them largely ineffective as veterans advocates when dealing with a government such as the one we have now.



That's not the argument here and you know it, especially as some would say the same about the ABC groups.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> I had no idea that the Legion or CAVUNP had trademarked their navy blue and grey/UN blue and whatever blazer/pants combinations.  If there's more to it than that (such as wearing their cap badge or crests), then I'll agree with you.



Again, you're not that stupid. You know there's more to it than pants and a blazer. In fact, here's a great example, with a big fat crest taken during an ABC protest last fall with CVA.


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2015)

The Canadian Association of Veterans in U.N. Peacekeeping has put out a comminique in direct response to Mr. Clark's parading about in blue blazer with their crest:



			
				CAVUNP said:
			
		

> STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT
> Recently, a member of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping
> (CAVUNP), dressed in our blazer and crest, has been making political statements. As a Canadian citizen, and
> especially one who has personally defended its values at home and overseas, he has a right to do so – it’s
> ...


----------



## Occam (23 Aug 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> Again, you're not that stupid. You know there's more to it than pants and a blazer. In fact, here's a great example, with a big fat crest taken during an ABC protest last fall with CVA.



I don't think that was an ABC protest, but that's irrelevant - I agree, he shouldn't be wearing anything uniquely linking him to something like the Legion or CAVUNP when those orgs have regs about being non-political.  That's something those orgs need to take up with him though - it's not an ABC issue.

I guess CAVUNP is another org I can cross off my list of groups I'd want to join, eh?


----------



## TCM621 (23 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Military spending =/= veterans spending - interesting take on the pension/social pgms, though  ;D
> 
> If anyone is interested ....
> 
> ...


I understand they are not always the same but they are closely related. And any veterans group that would screw the military to advance their own cause are straight up buddy fuckers and deserve nothing but scorn (and vice versa).


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I don't think that was an ABC protest, but that's irrelevant - I agree, he shouldn't be wearing anything uniquely linking him to something like the Legion or CAVUNP when those orgs have regs about being non-political.  That's something those orgs need to take up with him though - it's not an ABC issue.
> 
> I guess CAVUNP is another org I can cross off my list of groups I'd want to join, eh?



Don't kid yourself. CVA and the 'Rock the Hill' crowd have been ABC in all but name since the outset.Mike, Sylvain et al have more of late made a bit more of an effort to keep their facebook page more celaned up, but for most of their existence there was little holding back a torrent of the usual anti-Conservative memes you find on any Canadian page that touches on politics. I credit Mike with his recent clampdown on that, but it's closing the barn door a tad late.


----------



## Occam (23 Aug 2015)

I thought it was made clear that CVA and RTH were protests against the current government, and would've happened regardless of who is in the driver's seat if they treated veterans the same way.

On the matter of treatment of the CAF, I've been quite vocal in support of the folks still in uniform.  Lots of reasons for them to be angry with the current gov't...killing local retirement moves, clawing back relocation benefits, denied HEA claims, countless other nickel and diming measures.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I guess CAVUNP is another org I can cross off my list of groups I'd want to join, eh?



So you are saying that you will only join a group that believes in agitating and is disloyal to the government in power.  A group that is "political and sectarian.”   Thanks for the insight.


----------



## Occam (23 Aug 2015)

Wow, put words in other people's mouths much?

I prefer an organization that can negotiate nicely, but can also take the gloves off when the other side digs in and refuses to negotiate.

Edit to remove quote.


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> disloyal to the government in power



Who among us swore or affirmed loyalty to "the government in power"?

My loyalty, natural and affirmed, is to Her Royal Majesty, not Stephen Harper or any of his predecessors or successors. How, then, can I, or anybody, be "disloyal to the government in power"?

Even if there was an expectation of loyalty to "the government in power", how could, and why should, any person give such to a government so free of ethics, transparency, honour, or honesty, so petty and vindictive, so propagandist, so ineffective, so wasteful, or so corrupt as this one, or the one before it, or the one before that, and so on?

Any notion of owed loyalty to "the government in power" is baseless and wrong.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2015)

MARS said:
			
		

> Why the "uniform" matters?
> 
> Because this election...ANY election...is nothing more than a fucking sales pitch!!  We are 10 minutes in to the halftime show the Super Bowl, if you want to look at it tht way.  We have 20 more minutes of big time 'advertising' (dressed up as 'issues') to come!!
> 
> ...



 :goodpost: MilPts inbound


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I thought it was made clear that CVA and RTH were protests against the current government, and would've happened regardless of who is in the driver's seat if they treated veterans the same way.
> 
> On the matter of treatment of the CAF, I've been quite vocal in support of the folks still in uniform.  Lots of reasons for them to be angry with the current gov't...killing local retirement moves, clawing back relocation benefits, denied HEA claims, countless other nickel and diming measures.



For my part, I think it's absolutely disgusting that they are wearing military uniforms for their campaign, and find them to be hugely hypocritical.

That said, are these the key issues that are harming veterans? There are many stories in the newspapers about military persons crying about some injustice, including a recent couple in Greenwood who were posted to North Bay, broke their mortgage and had to pay a $6000 fee (clearly stated in their contract). They cried foul and got the money back and people commented things such as, "how can the government do this" while not asking things like, "Did they actually lose money on their house" (they didn't) and what did they do with the thousands and thousands of dollars they undoubtedly made during their posting.

The point of this is that while there were many "ABC" type comments there were also many, "why does the military get money back? I had to move for my job and didn't get anything". Support for the military is definitely an inch deep and a mile wide, and I can't help but feeling that ABC groups and people like the ones noted above are quickly eroding that support, which will quickly put us further behind. Politicians, be they NDP, liberal, CPC, green, etc will do what the public wants- the public, by and large, see military pensions and benefits and wonder, "I put my body on the line for my job, why dont I get a 50-70% pension and paid moves?"


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Who among us swore or affirmed loyalty to "the government in power"?



I guess my wording was a bit off as to 'joining a group officially opposed in a partisan way to the government', referring to groups of activists. --  No reference to the CAF.  And not in reference to a legitimate political Party.


----------



## Harrigan (24 Aug 2015)

In reading through this entire thread, what astounds me is that so many on here are shocked...SHOCKED... that there may actually be retired veterans who consider more than one party in their voting decision.  Some veterans vote Conservative, some vote NDP, some vote Liberal, some vote Green, some will even vote Bloc.

This group can shout their choice to high heaven for all I care.  No different than the thousands of campaign signs we see every day, or the posts on this site that tell us to vote or not to vote for someone.  Everyone gets a vote, and can cast it as they wish.  What's the problem?

Harrigan


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> In reading through this entire thread, what astounds me is that so many on here are shocked...SHOCKED... that there may actually be retired veterans who consider more than one party in their voting decision.  Some veterans vote Conservative, some vote NDP, some vote Liberal, some vote Green, some will even vote Bloc.
> 
> This group can shout their choice to high heaven for all I care.  No different than the thousands of campaign signs we see every day, or the posts on this site that tell us to vote or not to vote for someone.  Everyone gets a vote, and can cast it as they wish.  What's the problem?
> 
> Harrigan



The problem is Harrigan that we have staunch card carrying members of political party's on this forum who don't see the faults in their party's that other see.  

Just like real life.  I have some very good friends who are as red a liberal as you can get and they cannot see any wrong in their party's performance. 

Really it just makes for entertaining threads and conversation.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The problem is Harrigan that we have staunch card carrying members of political party's on this forum who don't see the faults in their party's that other see.
> 
> Just like real life.  I have some very good friends who are as red a liberal as you can get and they cannot see any wrong in their party's performance.
> 
> Really it just makes for entertaining threads and conversation.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The problem is Harrigan that we have staunch card carrying members of political party's on this forum who don't see the faults in their party's that other see.
> 
> Just like real life.


True enough, with supporters of parties of ALL colours - that's why it's called "partisan".


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> In reading through this entire thread, what astounds me is that so many on here are shocked...SHOCKED... that there may actually be retired veterans who consider more than one party in their voting decision.  Some veterans vote Conservative, some vote NDP, some vote Liberal, some vote Green, some will even vote Bloc.
> 
> This group can shout their choice to high heaven for all I care.  No different than the thousands of campaign signs we see every day, or the posts on this site that tell us to vote or not to vote for someone.  Everyone gets a vote, and can cast it as they wish.  What's the problem?
> 
> Harrigan



I think I have to agree.  Feel free to join them or not.  I don't really see anything wrong with what they are doing.  

Edit to add:  All parties have used veterans and their plight to further their own agendas for a very long time now.  I see no problem with groups of veterans using political parties/elections/the system to further their own.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2015)

I see that JT is promising the return of the monthly pension if they get in.  Funny, wasn't it their party that started its removal?


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I see that JT is promising the return of the monthly pension if they get in.  Funny, wasn't it their party that started its removal?



And the CPC had 9 years to reinstate it if they were so opposed.  We can play that game all day, but I'd really rather not.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2015)

No game playing here.  As Joe Friday always said, "just the facts,  Ma'am".  

I'll leave the  :argument:  for others.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> And the CPC had 9 years to reinstate it if they were so opposed.  We can play that game all day, but I'd really rather not.



Yeah, this is political opportunism and electioneering.  All parties are doing it.  But you have a point.

Regardless of who did what and when can anyone here point out why this would be a bad thing?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (24 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I think I have to agree.  Feel free to join them or not.  I don't really see anything wrong with what they are doing.
> 
> Edit to add:  All parties have used veterans and their plight to further their own agendas for a very long time now.  I see no problem with groups of veterans using political parties/elections/the system to further their own.



Agree. 2 points though- 

1. Just dont do it in uniform or pretend to speak for all veterans. If retired Cpl/LCol Bloggins wants to protest the government of the day than he is certainly free to, just do it as Mr or Mrs/Ms. Bloggins not as "veterans"; and

2. "ABC" is extremely immature. EXTREMELY immature. Dont like the CPC? Fine, than propose a party to support that meets the objectives that you desire. To simply say that literally anyone but the CPC will support veterans without any real evidence/policy is immature bordering on idiotic. The Liberals are annoucing a plan for veterans today, so perhaps they could move from being children with an "ABC" agenda to supporting liberals? 

 :2c:


----------



## Jed (24 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Agree. 2 points though-
> 
> 1. Just dont do it in uniform or pretend to speak for all veterans. If retired Cpl/LCol Bloggins wants to protest the government of the day than he is certainly free to, just do it as Mr or Mrs/Ms. Bloggins not as "veterans"; and
> 
> ...



I am in lock step with this post.


----------



## Strike (24 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Agree. 2 points though-
> 
> 1. Just dont do it in uniform or pretend to speak for all veterans. If retired Cpl/LCol Bloggins wants to protest the government of the day than he is certainly free to, just do it as Mr or Mrs/Ms. Bloggins not as "veterans"; and
> 
> ...



Yup.

WRT point 1 though, I don't have a problem with a veterans' group protesting against or for any one party (provided they don't have anything in their charter that forbids them from doing so as part of that group) but, like you said, don't go saying that you represent the veterans because, guess what, there are veterans that probably support the political party that you oppose, so by default you don't represent them.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> WRT point 1 though, I don't have a problem with a veterans' group protesting against or for any one party (provided they don't have anything in their charter that forbids them from doing so as part of that group) but, like you said, don't go saying that you represent the veterans because, guess what, there are veterans that probably support the political party that you oppose, so by default you don't represent them.


This might just be my take on things, but I don't think they are saying that they represent all veterans.

They seem to be saying that they are a group of veterans who oppose the current goverment. Because honestly, no group on the planet can speak for 100 of that group. There will always be some who disagree. 

I don't think this group would care if another veterans group popped up and said they were for the current government. That would be nice if that happened actually. Veterans and by extension, the military don't get mentioned nearly enough on election campaigns. 

Maybe if veterans spoke up and actually engaged themselves politically, the public would actually take notice.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Maybe if veterans spoke up and actually engaged themselves politically, the public would actually take notice.



Do you see my medals? I fought for your freedom. My friends died for your freedom. Maybe you should really think about voting how I, a veteran who has fought for your freedom, think you should.  Why don't you support us veterans who fought for you and support the military who protected your freedom and listen to us? It's the least you could do.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you see my medals? I fought for your freedom. My friends died for your freedom. Maybe you should really think about voting how I, a veteran who has fought for your freedom, think you should.  Why don't you support us veterans who fought for you and support the military who protected your freedom and listen to us? It's the least you could do.


Don't give anyone any ideas.


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you see my medals? I fought for your freedom. My friends died for your freedom. Maybe you should really think about voting how I, a veteran who has fought for your freedom, think you should.  Why don't you support us veterans who fought for you and support the military who protected your freedom and listen to us? It's the least you could do.



*No*.  Absolutely not.  That is not what ABC is saying.

"I am a veteran.  I am more acutely aware of veteran's issues than the average civilian, who does not understand our language nor the bureaucracy of VAC.  Here is where the current government is falling short of its obligations to veterans, explained in terms that you, the public, will understand.  Should you agree that the current government is not addressing the various veterans issues in a responsible manner, I would appreciate that you consider supporting one of these other choices, since the current government is not getting the job done right and does not deserve a further mandate to continue throwing us scraps.  Please familiarize yourself with the other parties' platforms, and choose wisely".


----------



## TCM621 (24 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> *No*.  Absolutely not.  That is not what ABC is saying.
> 
> "I am a veteran.  I am more acutely aware of veteran's issues than the average civilian, who does not understand our language nor the bureaucracy of VAC.  Here is where the current government is falling short of its obligations to veterans, explained in terms that you, the public, will understand.  Should you agree that the current government is not addressing the various veterans issues in a responsible manner, I would appreciate that you consider supporting one of these other choices, since the current government is not getting the job done right and does not deserve a further mandate to continue throwing us scraps.  Please familiarize yourself with the other parties' platforms, and choose wisely".


That's what you're saying and it is a reasonable position. That is not what the ABC is saying.  As an organization the ABC group is saying "look at me,  I fought for you now vote anyone but conservative and repay the favour."


----------



## Strike (24 Aug 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That's what you're saying and it is a reasonable position. That is not what the ABC is saying.  As an organization the ABC group is saying "look at me,  I fought for you now vote anyone but conservative and repay the favour."



And, to further the point, they may not be coming right out and saying it, but it is the impression they give.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (24 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> *No*.  Absolutely not.  That is not what ABC is saying.



FTFY. Now "ABC" doesn't sound like my 6 year old, but rather like adults deserving more than a passing interest from the public.

"I am a veteran.  I am more acutely aware of veteran's issues than the average civilian, who does not understand care about  our language nor the bureaucracy of VAC.  Here is where we believe  the current government is falling short of its obligations to veterans, explained in terms that you, the public, will understand.  Should you agree that the current government is not addressing the various veterans issues in a responsible manner, I would appreciate that you consider supporting one of these other choices, the *insert party name here* party based on applicable veterans platform since the current government is not getting the job done right and does not deserve a further mandate to continue throwing us scraps we believe that veterans deserve more equitable treatment. Please familiarize yourself with the other parties' platforms, and choose wisely".


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That's what you're saying and it is a reasonable position. That is not what the ABC is saying.  As an organization the ABC group is saying "look at me,  I fought for you now vote anyone but conservative and repay the favour."





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> And, to further the point, they may not be coming right out and saying it, but it is the impression they give.



Exactly.


----------



## Occam (25 Aug 2015)

For the last few posters to the thread - unfortunately, I think your observations are more perspective than fact.  Generally speaking, it doesn't seem to be the opinion shared that I'm seeing on most media that I'm watching.


----------



## Strike (25 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> For the last few posters to the thread - unfortunately, I think your observations are more perspective than fact.  Generally speaking, it doesn't seem to be the opinion shared that I'm seeing on most media that I'm watching.



When it comes to politics, perception IS fact.

Occam, it's apparent from both this thread and any conversation on this forum about CVA that you closely associated with them and the ABC crowd.  Don't even try to deny it.  So no matter what any of us say, you are going to keep a hardline stance that we are wrong.  We may very well be, but again, we are just reiterating the impressions that we are getting via the media.


----------



## Occam (25 Aug 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> When it comes to politics, perception IS fact.



Oh my...is that from the PAffO handbook? ;-)



> Occam, it's apparent from both this thread and any conversation on this forum about CVA that you closely associated with them and the ABC crowd.  Don't even try to deny it.  So no matter what any of us say, you are going to keep a hardline stance that we are wrong.  We may very well be, but again, we are just reiterating the impressions that we are getting via the media.



On the contrary, I don't believe I've made any attempt to hide the fact that I support both organizations, so your accusatory tone is somewhat puzzling.

I entered this thread with the full knowledge that there are many staunch CPC supporters here, and I had zero expectation of persuading any of them to see things any differently.  Trust me, there is an abundance of lower hanging fruit in that regard.  However, the discussion seemed very one-sided, and I simply wanted to make it clear that there are a large number of veterans (some even right-leaning such as me) who see merit in an ABC campaign, or more vocal advocacy than what the Legion offers.  Once that got tossed out there, other like-minded people chimed in.  Believe it or not, sometimes the atmosphere in this forum is less than conducive to welcoming people to speak up when they feel differently than the herd.  I'm glad that others spoke up and recognized the merits of the campaign.

Some may think that the campaign will be ineffective.  I think the fact that the campaign is out there and getting more media attention than the RCL or traditional veterans advocacy groups will have a greater effect than some will give it credit for.  That said, we'll never really know how much it affected the outcome, so the question really is moot.


----------



## TCM621 (25 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Oh my...is that from the PAffO handbook? ;-)
> 
> On the contrary, I don't believe I've made any attempt to hide the fact that I support both organizations, so your accusatory tone is somewhat puzzling.
> 
> ...


It isn't about CPC support, at least not for me. I have no idea how I will vote this year due to the lack of good options. But ABC is using its status as a veterans group to influence the election.  They are attempting to punish the CPC for their treatment of veterans. 

Punitive politics doesn't work. Full stop.  If they dropped the anything but conservative mantra they would be fine in my book.


----------



## Occam (25 Aug 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It isn't about CPC support, at least not for me. I have no idea how I will vote this year due to the lack of good options. But ABC is using its status as a veterans group to influence the election.  They are attempting to punish the CPC for their treatment of veterans.
> 
> Punitive politics doesn't work. Full stop.  If they dropped the anything but conservative mantra they would be fine in my book.



I can't speak for anyone else, but my support of ABC was not solely based on the government's treatment of veterans.  I have a long memory, and a laundry list of reasons compiled over the last four years for why they don't deserve another kick at the cat.  Some of them involve poor treatment of the military.  Suffice it to say they cover the full spectrum of what the federal government is responsible for.

So in short, I'm not interested in punishing them.  They simply don't deserve another try, given recent past performance, and I'm willing to accept the risks associated with the other parties.  If I choose wrong like I did the last time, I'm sure I'll be onboard with a ABLib or ABNDP campaign in three years.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It isn't about CPC support, at least not for me. I have no idea how I will vote this year due to the lack of good options. But ABC is using its status as a veterans group to influence the election.  They are attempting to punish the CPC for their treatment of veterans.
> 
> Punitive politics doesn't work. Full stop.  If they dropped the anything but conservative mantra they would be fine in my book.



I find myself in the same boat. I don't see many options.  The CPC is trying to drum up votes by appealing to peoples latent support of the military and I find it transparent and disgusting.  They've pulled the same shit with a couple other issues I'm concerned about. I don't expect them to keep a single promise they make.

I would be just as pissed off at a bunch of conservatives trying to use their vaunted veteran status like ABC is.


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I can't speak for anyone else, but my support of ABC was not solely based on the government's treatment of veterans.  I have a long memory, and a laundry list of reasons compiled over the last four years for why they don't deserve another kick at the cat.  Some of them involve poor treatment of the military.  Suffice it to say they cover the full spectrum of what the federal government is responsible for.
> 
> So in short, I'm not interested in punishing them.  They simply don't deserve another try, given recent past performance, and I'm willing to accept the risks associated with the other parties.  If I choose wrong like I did the last time, I'm sure I'll be onboard with a ABLib or ABNDP campaign in three years.   ;D



I am of the opinion, Occam, that although you have a long memory, it is not long enough to give you a complete and unbiased perspective on this matter.  I believe the main push back you are receiving is due to the Veterans of this organization not maintaining apolitical separation and attempting to 'gang up' on one particular party.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion, Occam, that although you have a long memory, it is not long enough to give you a complete and unbiased perspective on this matter.  I believe the main push back you are receiving is due to the Veterans of this organization not maintaining apolitical separation and attempting to 'gang up' on one particular party.


Why do they need to be apolitical?


----------



## Strike (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Why do they need to be apolitical?



By being apolitical a group does not exclude ANY veteran for their political leanings.  Unlike the CVA and other ABC veteran groups, which, by their very nature, alienate any veteran who may wish to vote CPC.  It may not be written in stone, but given their activities it is very strongly inferred.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Why do they need to be apolitical?



Traditional Veterans groups have more or less strived to remain non-partisan.  This is a bit of a departure, they are not technically a traditional veteran's group so it has a some people's underwear in a knot.   Political activism is sometimes frowned upon given this portfolio.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> By being apolitical a group does not exclude ANY veteran for their political leanings.  Unlike the CVA and other ABC veteran groups, which, by their very nature, alienate any veteran who may wish to vote CPC.  It may not be written in stone, but given their activities it is very strongly inferred.



I know several Veterans who do not hold the same views of ABC and have been banned from their FB site.  Now explain to me how such a group claims to represent all or most Veterans, again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know several Veterans who do not hold the same views of ABC and have been banned from their FB site.  Now explain to me how such a group claims to represent all or most Veterans, again.



I was banned for identifying as a service member and finding the medals and buttons on display for political reasons distasteful.


----------



## Occam (25 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion, Occam, that although you have a long memory, it is not long enough to give you a complete and unbiased perspective on this matter.  I believe the main push back you are receiving is due to the Veterans of this organization not maintaining apolitical separation and attempting to 'gang up' on one particular party.



It's long enough to remember Mulroney at the helm when I joined the CF (and yes, I know you're somewhat older than I).  I remind you that I voted for the CPC three times now, and was quite happy with their performance up until the point where they got a majority, and everything has gone off the rails since.  If you go back about four years on my Facebook feed, you'll see me dismissing comments from some of my left-leaning friends warning me that I would regret Harper gaining a majority.  Since then, I've spent more than enough time with egg on my face trying to explain away boorish behaviour from MPs like Rob Anders and Julian Fantino, explain why MP Maurice Vellacott handed out QDJMs to convicted criminals, explain why F-35s that were supposed to cost x according to the gov't are now expected to cost 2x according to the PBO, explain why this gov't is infatuated with omnibus bills...I could go on, but I won't.  

I'm as comfortable in my position to oppose the CPC this time around as I was in opposing the LPC back in 2006.  If I have any failings, I don't think bias is one of them.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know several Veterans who do not hold the same views of ABC and have been banned from their FB site.  Now explain to me how such a group claims to represent all or most Veterans, again.



I was blocked from Erin O'Toole's Twitter feed within a day or so of him being appointed Minister of VAC.  Considering I hadn't interacted with him in over a year, I asked him via another means why I had been blocked.  His response?  He didn't know, and couldn't find my Twitter handle in his block list, so he recommended that I open a new Twitter account.  If he can't find my handle in his block list, I really have to wonder how large that list is...


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

Occam, I have flopped my vote back and forth as required as well. You do not have the experience of the Trudeau Sr. years or the decades of economic disaster visited upon the western part of the country by Federal Liberals and provincial NDPs. 

I do not greatly care how you personally vote. That is your business not mine. I very much care about Veterans and serving military being openly political and associating with the country's uniform. Reread my first post.

I also do not like the negative approach of attacking the ruling party wearing the uniform. Be positive and pick a party and support them but don't wear the uniform.

As an erstwhile public servant working for various provincial and federal governments with politicians of all political persuasions, it was considered extremely bad form to wear your politics on your sleeve. When the country or province was involved in an election it may even have had career implications.  When you drew your wages from the brand you rode for the brand. Probably the same in today's working environment.  Much the same as when your CO gives you direction you deliver it down as if it was your direction.


----------



## Harrigan (26 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> When you drew your wages from the brand you rode for the brand.



I trust that by brand you mean "Government of Canada" and not "Conservative Party of Canada"?  One can disagree with the latter as long as loyalty to the former is maintained.  

I agree that serving members should not - ever- be at any partisan political event in uniform.

Harrigan


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

The brand is The Government of Canada  or the provincial government, definitely not a political party. As a civi you can do whatever you want on your own time but don't bring it into the work place.

By the old code, the Regular Military is a 24/7 type of job so that should pretty much take you out of overt party politics. Reservists have more leeway but not much more.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I was blocked from Erin O'Toole's Twitter feed within a day or so of him being appointed Minister of VAC.  Considering I hadn't interacted with him in over a year, I asked him via another means why I had been blocked.  His response?  He didn't know, and couldn't find my Twitter handle in his block list, so he recommended that I open a new Twitter account.  If he can't find my handle in his block list, I really have to wonder how large that list is...



Good question.  I wonder how many TROLLS, especially from movements like ABC, have been harassing him?  Civil and legitimate communications don't get one BLOCKED for a site.


----------



## Altair (26 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> The brand is The Government of Canada  or the provincial government, definitely not a political party. As a civi you can do whatever you want on your own time but don't bring it into the work place.
> 
> By the old code, the Regular Military is a 24/7 type of job so that should pretty much take you out of overt party politics. Reservists have more leeway but not much more.


I don't see why this code needs to be applied to retired vets.


----------



## Strike (26 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't see why this code needs to be applied to retired vets.



The only vets it really applies to are those who are members of Vet organizations whose charters state that they will remain non-partisan when representing their organization (like wearing the uniform of that group).


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't see why this code needs to be applied to retired vets.



It doesn't need to be applied to Vets. It is an unwritten code, a code of honour so to speak. To be self applied at ones own discretion.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Aug 2015)

This link describes ABC and this thread.... just replace Obama with Harper

http://www.wearethemighty.com/veteran-internet-arguments-2015-08


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This link describes ABC and this thread.... just replace Obama with Harper
> 
> http://www.wearethemighty.com/veteran-internet-arguments-2015-08



Priceless.  ;D


----------



## Occam (26 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This link describes ABC and this thread.... just replace Obama with Harper
> 
> http://www.wearethemighty.com/veteran-internet-arguments-2015-08



It also works extraordinarily well if you substitute "Obama" with "ABC" in para 4.  It's all a matter of perspective, right?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> It also works extraordinarily well if you substitute "Obama" with "ABC" in para 4.  It's all a matter of perspective, right?



 :


----------



## Strike (26 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> :



Glad someone else came in first on that one.  That comment sure is giving a lot of credit to the ABC crowd.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Aug 2015)

Interesting if all the details are true ....


> An email being circulated among former Canadian soldiers suggests federal Conservatives are looking for a few happy, satisfied veterans to appear in television ads backing the prime minister, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The email appears to have been written by Kris Sims, who is on leave from her role as director of communications for Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole in order to work for the party during the campaign.
> 
> ...


So, is an NBC (Nothing But Conservatives) any more or less partisan than an ABC push?  Discuss  >


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting if all the details are true ....So, is an NBC (Nothing But Conservatives) any more or less partisan than an ABC push?  Discuss  >


No less partisan, but more obvious in its source.


----------



## Strike (27 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> No less partisan, but more obvious in its source.



Exactly.  Any advertisement would have the "paid for by..." caveat at the end (or bottom depending on the type of add).

Some in the ABC/CVA (at least one who has admitted to it anyway) have been paid by PSAC to attend protests and such, but you don't see PSAC admitting to it.  I don't think stuff like that would bother me so much if they also did adds and admitted they had a part in the funding.

Interesting though - PSAC is focusing on veterans and veteran issues, but the CPC add campaign is trying to get veterans to speak about why Harper is better based on their experience and "the threats we face in the world."

Same people, different message.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Slightly,  ff topic:  but related to the issue of "boundaries," this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, shows what can happen when one tests the limits:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/public-servant-investigated-over-political-harperman-song


> Public servant investigated over political 'Harperman' song
> 
> KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




When you "take the king's shilling" and all that ...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Slightly,  ff topic:  but related to the issue of "boundaries," this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, shows what can happen when one tests the limits:
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/public-servant-investigated-over-political-harperman-song
> 
> When you "take the king's shilling" and all that ...



But there is a difference between "taking the king's shilling" and getting a job as "a scientist in habitat planning at Environment Canada".  Those of us who have served and (especially) those still serving should be well versed in the military rules and regulations governing political activity.  I was less informed about the rules governing public servants.  Therefore, it was necessary to look up what they "actually" say.  (_Something I also noticed during my military service was that there was sometimes a difference between what someone (usually in a position of minor authority) "thought" the orders and regulations said and what they actually said_.)  As Mr. Johnson, the Environment Canada spokesman, is quoted as referring to "the value and ethics code" being the governing document, I was interested in what specifically it says about political activities. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=25049  There was no mention of political activities in that document.  However, what the law, in the form of the Public Service Employment Act says is:


> Permitted activities
> 
> 113. (1) An employee may engage in any political activity so long as it does not impair, or is not perceived as impairing, the employee’s ability to perform his or her duties in a politically impartial manner.



Of course like all (most?) Canadian laws the Governor in Council may make regulations in application of the law.  They have in this case, but the PSC has also condensed the legalese into a readily available Guidance Document for Participating in Non-Candidacy Political Activities.  I accept that Mr. Turner's "performance" (though not the composition) falls under non-candidacy political activities. 



> Definition of a non-candidacy political activity
> 
> The PSEA defines a non-candidacy “political activity” as:
> •Any activity in support of, within or in opposition to, a political party; or
> ...



Since any judgement of Mr. Turner's egregious activity should be made after viewing the offending performance, it can be found here.  I will admit to being fond of folksongs, including the many that could be labeled the protest variety from the 1960s (hey, it was part of the music of my youth).  This particular performance seems to include mostly those who are of that same (or earlier) generation.


----------



## Loachman (28 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I trust that by brand you mean "Government of Canada" and not "Conservative Party of Canada"?  One can disagree with the latter as long as loyalty to the former is maintained.



Again, where is it stated that we owe any loyalty to the government of Canada?

We do not.

We swear an oath or make a solemn affirmation to Her Royal Majesty.


----------



## Jed (28 Aug 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Again, where is it stated that we owe any loyalty to the government of Canada?
> 
> We do not.
> 
> We swear an oath or make a solemn affirmation to Her Royal Majesty.



You are picking flysh!t out of pepper.


----------



## Occam (28 Aug 2015)

Offered without commentary from myself...

From http://www.veteransagainstconservatives.com/updates

Press Release - August 28, 2015

Conservative supporters reject Harper government over veterans’ cuts

Ottawa — Stephen Harper’s poor treatment of Canadian military veterans could cost him the continued support of voters who cast a ballot for the Conservatives in the last federal election, according to a national poll released today.

The Insights West poll showed that approximately one-third of respondents who said they voted Conservative in 2011 now believe Harper’s failure to support veterans is one reason to defeat his party on Oct. 19.

In addition, more than two-thirds of Conservative voters are now critical of the Harper government over its handling of veterans’ issues, according to the poll of 1,006 Canadians.

The poll found that 65 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2011 are dissatisfied with the performance of the federal government when it comes to treating injured Canadian war veterans (25 per cent “very dissatisfied,” 39 per cent “moderately dissatisfied”).

Only 23 per cent of Conservative voters from 2011 are satisfied with the way the federal government is handling this file.

Responses from all Canadians surveyed showed that 73 per cent are dissatisfied with the federal government’s treatment of injured veterans, while only 13 per cent are satisfied. In Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, satisfaction with how the government has handled this file is in single digits (nine per cent and 7 per cent respectively).

Canadians aged 55 and over are more likely to express dissatisfaction with the performance of the federal government when it comes to treating injured Canadian war veterans (77 per cent) than those aged 35-54 (74 per cent) and those aged 18-34 (67 per cent).

The poll also indicated that, when asked if “failing to support Canadian war veterans is one reason to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in this year’s federal election,” a majority of Canadians (55 per cent) agreed while one-third disagreed. This perception is shared by a majority of residents in every region, except Alberta. Critical to the re-election bid by Harper is the finding that 33 per cent of Conservative voters appear ready to vote against the government based on his treatment of veterans.

A separate question gauged whether voters would be willing to vote “for the candidate of whichever party has the best chance of defeating the Conservatives in my riding to ensure that Canadian war veterans get the help they deserve.” Across the country, 42 per cent of respondents agree with this statement, while 44 per cent disagreed.

The “strategic voters” who will be thinking about Canadian war veterans as they ponder their options include 58 per cent of Atlantic Canadians, 45 per cent of Quebecers and 41 per cent of both Ontarians and British Columbians.

Most Canadians who voted for the Liberal Party (68 per cent) or the New Democratic Party (NDP) (58 per cent) in 2011 welcome the idea, as do 21 per cent of Conservative voters.

“There is a minuscule proportion of Canadians who are satisfied with the way the federal government is treating injured Canadian war veterans, and the large group that is decidedly critical of the way this file has been handled includes two-thirds of those who voted for the Conservative Party in 2011,” says Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs, at Insights West.

“We also see that many Canadians believe that the government’s poor performance on supporting Canadian war veterans is a reason to stay away from the Conservatives and vote for other parties in this year’s election,” Canseco added.

The poll was conducted on behalf of the Anyone But Conservatives – Canadian Veterans Campaign 2015.

“This poll reaffirms our belief that Canadians are fully aware of how badly the Conservative government has treated veterans and more importantly, the group includes a majority of Conservative voters,” said Tom Beaver, ABC campaign spokesperson. “More importantly, nearly one-third of those who voted Conservative last time think the poor treatment is a reason to defeat the government in this election.”

About this Release:

Results are based on an online study conducted by Insights West from August 19 to August 21, 2015, among 1,006 adult Canadians. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error—which measures sample variability—is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Insights West Contact: Mario Canseco

Phone: 778 929 0490

Media contact information:

Phone: 778-683-0395

Email: ABCVeterans2015@gmail.com

Authorized by Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Conservative supporters reject Harper government over veterans’ cuts
> The poll was conducted on behalf of the Anyone But Conservatives – Canadian Veterans Campaign 2015.



Ya' pay your money, ya' get the poll you want....nothing to see here.....


----------



## Lightguns (28 Aug 2015)

I see the founder of Wounded Warriors Canada is recommending his group support ABC. Fella by the name of Wayne Johnston. He has been vocal on Twitter about how the Cons left him high and dry on his PTSD treatment.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Offered without commentary from myself...
> 
> From http://www.veteransagainstconservatives.com/updates
> 
> ...



I'm shocked that a website called "veterans against conservatives" would publish an article against the conservatives. 

Personally, I find the ABC campaign don't seem to ever put forward real arguments or solutions or what their meaning of "supporting vets" is. A poll that says that most people believe that vets are treated badly doesn't mean anything. A poll that says that taxpayers are willing to support veterans when they are presented with the monetary value of that support would be more convincing. Asking people if they think they should support vets without any info is akin to asking them if they like kittens... all will say we should do more until they're asked to lose a social program or pay more taxes


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> A poll that says that taxpayers are willing to support veterans when they are presented with the monetary value of that support would be more convincing.


And I'll bet a loonie that it was the $ that'll be needed that likely kept a majority government from making changes.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I see the founder of Wounded Warriors Canada is recommending his group support ABC. Fella by the name of Wayne Johnston. He has been vocal on Twitter about how the Cons left him high and dry on his PTSD treatment.



OK.  So I take it that this apology for wearing medals that he did not earn, was just Wayne Johnston's attempt to do some CYA, and actually meant nothing in the grand scheme of things.   :  This further discredits the ABC movement, with one more "CLOWN" entering the flock.  Not exactly what a reputable protest movement needs.


----------



## Occam (29 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  So I take it that this apology for wearing medals that he did not earn, was just Wayne Johnston's attempt to do some CYA, and actually meant nothing in the grand scheme of things.   :  This further discredits the ABC movement, with one more "CLOWN" entering the flock.  Not exactly what a reputable protest movement needs.



I'd tend to agree with you, but it's not like he was speaking in any capacity on behalf of ABC.  You usually can't choose your followers...look at how long Rob Anders was allowed to hang around the CPC.


----------



## Pusser (29 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> You are picking flysh!t out of pepper.



Actually, no he's not.  He's pointing out a very important distinction that a lot of folks seem to misunderstand.  As members of the CF, we do NOT swear allegiance to any government.  By swearing allegiance to the sovereign (the physical embodiment of the state) we are actually swearing/solemnly affirming allegiance to Canada and its constitution.  We owe no special allegiance to any politician.


----------



## Teager (29 Aug 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I see the founder of Wounded Warriors Canada is recommending his group support ABC. Fella by the name of Wayne Johnston. He has been vocal on Twitter about how the Cons left him high and dry on his PTSD treatment.



I'm interested in knowing what you mean by "his group"? Wayne is no longer part of Wounded Warriors. His Twitter feed has been very anti- Conservative long before the election.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And I'll bet a loonie that it was the $ that'll be needed that likely kept a majority government from making changes.



I tend to agree. I imagine that helping vets would be at the top of any politicians list if it were an affordable option- who would argue against them?

I suspect that, if the CPC is defeated than we'll see a lot of statements similar to the one I submit below:

 "I, (Justin Trudeau/Tom Mulclair), was unaware of the financial mess that was left behind by the CPC government led by PM Harper. Because of this, we are unable to (insert promise here) until (year/such time that we are able to) get the economy back on track, help the middle class, and undo the damage done by the CPC"

And with that, the election promises will be gone and it gets blamed on the last guy. It worked for the PCs circa 1981, the Liberals circa 1992, and the CPC circa 2006. And with those promises I suspect that the billions needed to enact plans for vets will be gone too. What a country! 

I certainly hope that whoever is elected does enact some changes (though keeping sattelite offices open in areas such as Sydney is a mistake, IMHO) my cynical side indicates that the above is the most likely COA. Does ABC then morph into ABL or ABN?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ...... Does ABC then morph into ABL or ABN?



Silly question.

Of course they will.


----------



## Strike (30 Aug 2015)

Working in media myself, anyone can send out a news release. That doesn't mean anything. Now, if the NP or G&M or any of those news agencies were to pick up on that news release and publish it, I would take it a bit more seriously.

The fact that they released it only to their website and NOT through any business that releases to a central news registry just lowers their credibility.

Imagine if the CAF only ever released to their own websites and never used services like Newswire.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2015)

According to this article in the _Ottawa Citizen_, ABC is getting _some_ traction with the local media, anyway.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  So I take it that this apology for wearing medals that he did not earn, was just Wayne Johnston's attempt to do some CYA, and actually meant nothing in the grand scheme of things.   :  This further discredits the ABC movement, with one more "CLOWN" entering the flock.  Not exactly what a reputable protest movement needs.



What a loser.
Wears medals he didn't earn. Lies about starting wounded warriors Canada. Even in his apology he's trying to garner sympathy.


----------



## Teager (30 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What a loser.
> Wears medals he didn't earn. Lies about starting wounded warriors Canada. Even in his apology he's trying to garner sympathy.



Jarnhamar he did start it. A lot of mis information has been going around about that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> Jarnhamar he did start it. A lot of mis information has been going around about that.



Understood.


----------



## YZT580 (31 Aug 2015)

And then of course there is the mayor of Oakville, Rob Burton, a stanch and vocal liberal supporter who has likened our vets to the Nazis and accused them of being mercenaries.  www.torontosun.com/2015/08/30/vets-blast-oakville-mayor-bob-burton  Here is the link to the article.  However, he did apologise sort of afterwards saying he was having a bad day.  Neither ABC nor Trudeau nor any of the other papers have even mentioned it that I know of.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2015)

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.



> Why the Military Should Take What the Liberals Say With a Grain of Salt
> The Huffington Post
> Bruce Moncur
> Former Soldier, PSW, B.A. History, Windsorite
> ...



Embedded links in article and more on LINK.


----------



## Altair (3 Sep 2015)

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?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2015)

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.


----------



## Jed (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.



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.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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
> ...



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


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

_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 (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (3 Sep 2015)

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.


----------



## Acorn (3 Sep 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> 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.



There were some hard questions posed to the CF/Component CWOs in the theatre at St Jean when the subject came up during my ILQ before the Charter was written into law. It was serving soldiers, sr. NCOs and WOs, questioning it at the time, but abiding by their obligations to "keep it in the family." I reckon a few have since retired, as I have, and are more vocal about the specific legislation (as I am not).



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



One hopes, but this isn't a single issue election, despite the attempts by some to make it so. If nothing else it's going to be _intereasting_.

My absentee ballot remains unmarked - someone convince me.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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.


 :goodpost:

Any theories why nothing happened, then?  Money?  Not enough votes in it?  Something else?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> _Any theories why nothing happened, then?_  Money?  Not enough votes in it?  Something else?




My guess ~ remember, please, that this is a governing party that polls assiduously: deeply and often ~ is that all that polling shows that Canadians' _GAFF_* is just too low. Remember, also please, all my admonitions about "support for the troops" being a mile wide but only an inch deep. That why I said, two weeks ago, _"So protest away, one way or the other; it's your right in a free and democratic society ~ just don't kid yourselves into believing that anyone is listening,"_ and it's why I quoted from Macbeth yesterday; with all respect to Occam and his colleagues, this is a very narrow, tiny, _wedge_ issue about which they are free to go on and on and on _ad infinitum_, but they need to understand that no one much cares and it will not change much, either.

_____
* _G_ive _A_ F_ck _F_actor


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Remember, also please, all my admonitions about "support for the troops" being a mile wide but only an inch deep.


Sounds like another symptom of the same disease you've mentioned before


----------



## Altair (4 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Any theories why nothing happened, then?  Money?  Not enough votes in it?  Something else?


they had a surplus in 2006, a couple billion if I remember and the financial crisis was not even on any bodies radar. Money was not that big of a issue.

What happened is that they supported the legislation then and they are fighting for to save it now. While blaming the liberals for introducing it in the first place.


----------



## Remius (4 Sep 2015)

I suspect it was a miscalculation about a group/segment they assumed would support them no matter what. 

I'm guessing they felt they were stronger than the other parties on the veteran's issue so took it for granted.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 Sep 2015)

By the time Prime Minister Mulcair works through funding his $18 billion of election promises, the party of pacifists is going to crash the defence budget and look at funding veterans as balanced against daycare and other more soviet promises.  Anyone voting socialist thinking they're getting on a defence gravy train slept through reality classes.  Voting for the Manchild is just as bad.  Despite the fact that the budget will balance itself, he's going to run a big deficit like his daddy.  The biggest declines in the Canadian Forces came under Trudeau and Chretien.  When junior starts looking for cash, you may get to see the 3rd race in the Liberal defence Triple Crown.  When have defence issues ever got anyone a vote?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> they had a surplus in 2006, a couple billion if I remember and the financial crisis was not even on any bodies radar. Money was not that big of a issue.
> 
> What happened is that they supported the legislation then and they are fighting for to save it now. While blaming the liberals for introducing it in the first place.



 :argument:

CPC, Liberal, NDP... if the Canadian population isn't willing to support this issue with votes and $$$ than there is a snowball chance in hades that it'll go anywhere. With Syrian refugees the hot topic du jour I can imagine we'll see all sorts of promises to feed and house refugees in the upcoming days. Where does the money/political will for veterans sit in comparison? My guess is that we all know the answer to that


----------



## Strike (8 Sep 2015)

From today's news summary:



> Page: A1,A2
> Outlet: The Guardian (Charlottetown)
> Byline: Mitch Macdonald
> Date: Tuesday 08 September 2015
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> From today's news summary:
> 
> 
> > Page: A1,A2
> ...


Strangely enough, the online version of that story seems to have disappeared - but not the Google Cache version (for now, anyway)


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Sep 2015)

Atlantic Canada has 13 assorted Veteran's affairs offices.  British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have 13 total with over 4 times the population.  Basing your vote on a demand for 4 times the level of service of the rest of the country might not pass the pettiness sniff test.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2015)

The maritimes seem to provide a disproportionately large chunk of the CAF.  Should VAC office distribution be based on civil population or veteran population?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The maritimes seem to provide a disproportionately large chunk of the CAF.  Should VAC office distribution be based on civil population or veteran population?



 ???

And how many of those Maritimers have retired to Comox, or other parts of Canada?


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2015)

I don't have that information, but neither am I attempting to link VAC footprint to non-veteran populations.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2015)

I have known many Maritimers in the CAF who have found employment and retirement in Ontario and further West, only going back to the Maritimes to visit.  I would give a rough guess of the numbers being 50/50 at the very least.  It would be interesting to see if those stats are kept somewhere.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The maritimes seem to provide a disproportionately large chunk of the CAF.  Should VAC office distribution be based on civil population or veteran population?



I would say the simple answer is that you should place them where they can provide the most people with the most services, which will almost always lead to central metropolitan centres. That said, retired members choose where they wish to retire. To me, I believe that the most effective and cost efficient method is to centralize the services where the majority of people can receive them. If I choose to retire in Cape Breton Island, knowing that the nearest VAC office is in Halifax, than that is my decision and I should be advised of the potential consequences.

To offset- I also believe that persons who retired under the old system where the smaller VAC offices existed should be given some consideration for financial compensation related to costs of travel or provided with transportation/satellite services as required. Persons who retired in Sydney, NS under the knowledge that a VAC office existed shouldn't be punished because of the decision (in so much as possible). Persons who retire there now, knowing that an office doesn't exist, than should be made to accept responsibility for it.


----------



## Teager (12 Sep 2015)

And now a group of vets that supports the Conservatives opposing ABC.



> You may have heard of the much-covered, anti-Harper government veterans’ group Anything But Conservatives or ABC.
> 
> However, Canadians may not know there’s a second veterans’ group called Veterans’ For the Conservative Party of Canada.
> 
> ...



http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/11/veterans-group-lauds-harper-government


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2015)

The Minister, defending the record of the incumbents, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....:


> The Toronto Star published an op-ed by Tom Beaver and Ron Clarke, the leaders of the so-called Anybody But Conservative (or "ABC Veterans") Facebook, on Aug. 31, 2015.
> 
> On Sept. 2, 2015, I respectfully asked for equal space and submitted the following op-ed in response. Nearly two weeks have passed and the Toronto Star has declined to give me equal space to respond to the anti-Conservative group's misleading and inaccurate article.
> 
> ...


For the record, comittments to vets so far with about four weeks left before voting day:

*Conservatives*
*Liberals*
*NDP*
*Greens*

_- edited to add link to article - DOOHHHHHH!!! -_


----------



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2015)

The article about the Toronto Star not publishing the Minister of Veterans Affairs op-ed is found in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/erin-otoole/conservatives-support-veterans_b_8137352.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The article about the Toronto Star not publishing the Minister of Veterans Affairs op-ed is found in the Huffington Post:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/erin-otoole/conservatives-support-veterans_b_8137352.html


Thanks, GW - forgot to include the link.


----------



## McG (21 Sep 2015)

NDP reaches out to the disaffected veteran community.


> Mulcair promises better care for Canada's 'disrespected' military veterans
> CTV News
> 21 Sep 2015
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-promises-better-care-for-canada-s-disrespected-military-veterans-1.2573083


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2015)

And here's the news release with what few specifics they're offering right now.


----------



## Jed (21 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And here's the news release with what few specifics they're offering right now.



So will there be a political qualifying test to determine who is a 'disrepected veteran'?


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Sep 2015)

> Posted by: milnews.ca
> « on: Today at 09:42:31 »
> 
> And here's the news release with what few specifics they're offering right now.



A five page PDF with only four short paragraphs of what they will do. To me some of their announcements are a rehash of what the Conservatives are now doing. Is this "$454 million investment" new additional funding or a continuation of the program funding from the Conservatives? Is the reopening of the closed offices coming out of VAC current budget or will there be new additional money? Opening the offices will eat millions.

Note that the NDP HAS NOT promised to get rid of lump sum payments and bring back lifetime pensions. They never demanded this while official opposition either.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Sep 2015)

So as a Cole's notes for anyone wanting it, the NDP's only support for veterans is:

$454 million over 4 years ($113.5 million a year) split between:

- Treatment for PTSD and mental health issues
- Enhancements to long-term care (no details)
- Expand VIP program (no details)
- Increase survivor's pensions
- Ensure funding for Last Post Fund

So each survivor is going get a $20 increase a month for their pension, and maybe VIP will buy us a Timmies? Platitudes, and looks like a lot less money than what the Tories have already committed. This is what ABC Veterans claims is better?


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Note that the NDP HAS NOT promised to get rid of lump sum payments and bring back lifetime pensions. They never demanded this while official opposition either.


Not exactly - this, from the NDP's 2013 policy paper on the issue:


> .... New Democrats would review, improve, and update the entire New Veterans Charter (NVC) from top to bottom including the issue of lump-sum payments ....


I WILL grant you that a review =/= a commitment to change, but I haven't heard any such commitment from the Conservatives, either.  So far, the Liberals have promised a choice between lump sum & monthly payment, and the Greens have said "The Lump Sum Payment in lieu of lifetime pension for injuries sustained on duty for Canada must be scrapped ...."

The party's veteran promises, announced so far this campaign:

*Conservatives*
*Liberals*
*NDP*
*Green*
Still almost four weeks left, so loads of time for everyone to flesh out their promises.


----------



## Strike (22 Sep 2015)

Well, the PAO in me is looking at the Liberal page and wondering if that is a stock photo from a CAF databank which they are using, which would be completely inappropriate and not just a little illegal during an election campaign.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So as a Cole's notes for anyone wanting it, the NDP's only support for veterans is:
> 
> $454 million over 4 years ($113.5 million a year) split between:
> 
> ...



When you factor in the increased cost to "study" this with the appropriate NDP friendly think tanks, say Rideau Institute, and then ensure that said "improvements" must be implemented by appropriate union persons which will each need more funds, I think the extra $20.00 and a Timmies is prpbably not going to happen.  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> .... For the record, comittments to vets so far with about four weeks left before voting day:
> 
> *Conservatives*
> *Liberals*
> ...



One more plank for the Conservatives' platform - new veterans ID (release also attached in case link doesn't work for you):


> .... the Honourable Erin O’Toole, on behalf of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, announced a new initiative to recognize the service of all Veterans and make it easier to access the services they need.
> 
> A re-elected Conservative government would issue a Canadian Veterans Card (CVC) to every Veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> ...


Meanwhile, the NVC litigation remains in play while others have been dropped, even during the campaign period.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

I'm going to guess that, just like the old service pins and the more modern e.g. SSI, these will be, somehow, _coded_ ... i.e:

     1. Those with 28 or more years of service will get a Platinum card;

     2. There'll be a Gold card for those with more than 20 but less than 28 years of service;

     3. Those with more than, say, five or seven years of service will get a Blue card; and

     4. There will be a Green card for those who never managed to finish their initial engagement.

Sorta like ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                                                                                                                                                   ... but, maybe, with a picture.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2015)

And I for one as a future veteran am extremely underwhelmed by it all.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2015)

My personal fave from the news release:


> .... Every Military member who has completed basic training and who is honourably discharged will receive the CVC. This includes Regular Force, Reservists, Canadian Rangers and the Cadet Instructor Cadre.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Canada will also proactively reach out to existing Veterans to ensure they get their CVC.
> 
> The CVC will serve as official government identification ....


Good use of resources, getting "papers" to ALL vets, given the percieved shortage of front-line staff  :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Sep 2015)

Just a stupid question that just popped into my mind: What the heck was my CF 75 for then?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a stupid question that just popped into my mind: What the heck was my CF 75 for then?



1.  Not everyone got a CF 75.

2.  How could they justify keeping, or increasing, staff if they did not create another bureaucratic boon doggle ?

 >


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a stupid question that just popped into my mind: What the heck was my CF 75 for then?




I think the complaint (valid for some) is that the CF-75 is only issued after _n_ years of service (I forget how many) and there are, of course, some young combat veterans who served, very honourably, and left the CF, perhaps because of wounds, but do not qualify for the CF-75 because they didn't serve long enough.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm going to guess that, just like the old service pins and the more modern e.g. SSI, these will be, somehow, _coded_ ... i.e:
> 
> 1. Those with 28 or more years of service will get a Platinum card;
> 
> ...



So, in other words, you'll be able to tell just how old a fart someone is by the colour of their card...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, in other words, you'll be able to tell just how old a fart someone is by the colour of their card...




Yep ... a very, very attractive young lady, a flight attendant on a good, global airline, once told me that her favourite colours were grey and platinum: enough grey in the hair to indicate maturity and enough platinum on the credit cards to indicate success.  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the complaint (valid for some) is that the CF-75 is only issued after _n_ years of service (I forget how many) and there are, of course, some young combat veterans who served, very honourably, and left the CF, perhaps because of wounds, but do not qualify for the CF-75 because they didn't serve long enough.


And one hopes that the new card will get the outgoing troop connected posthaste into the VAC sausage machine, something I don't think the NDI75 does now.  

Also, the NDI is NOT an I.D. card (as it says on the back), while the new card will be - no shortage of process involved to create ANOTHER certified piece of government I.D.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And one hopes that the new card will get the outgoing troop connected posthaste into the VAC sausage machine, something I don't think the NDI75 does now.
> 
> Also, the NDI is NOT an I.D. card (as it says on the back), while the new card will be - no shortage of process involved to create ANOTHER certified piece of government I.D.



Precisely. While I'm loathe to support another bureaucratic process, there's thousands of us that are only know to VAC once we initiate contact. For many, that's too late. VAC should have the name and address of every vet at their digital fingertips. They should be proactive with periodic mailings that advise vets of the services that are available to them, and provide contact information to start the various processes. Heck, if the veteran won't intervene on their own behalf, at least family can because they have the contact information. Will it cost? Sure, but I wager it's pretty cheap, and isn't that what we're asking for anyway? A better connection between VAC and vets and their families. Establishing contact with VAC should be part of the release process.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can also check out this CTVNews.ca overview of what the parties commit to vets via their Minister or VAC critics.


----------



## dan7108 (24 Sep 2015)

Curious what you folks think of a political candidate wearing medals while campaigning (Tim Laidler). 

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/21/terry-fox-family-denies-support-for-tory-promise.html


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Sep 2015)

If they're his, he can wear them whenever and wherever he wants to.  It doesn't particularly move me on his merits one way or another.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If they're his, he can wear them whenever and wherever he wants to.  It doesn't particularly move me on his merits one way or another.


Nor me.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Sep 2015)

I would say it is "tacky".   :-\

Bad taste.   :-\


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

dan7108 said:
			
		

> Curious what you folks think of a political candidate wearing medals while campaigning (Tim Laidler).
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/21/terry-fox-family-denies-support-for-tory-promise.html




My, _very personal, opinion_ is: it's in _bad taste_ ... but, then, he's running for a seat in our House of Commons where, as far as I know, good taste is not highly valued.


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2015)

First thought was "just showing off", but if he has mentioned his service in public on record, then I don't see how wearing his medals changes anything.  If someone would be swayed by them, they would have been swayed by him saying "I was in the military doing xyz".


----------



## Danjanou (24 Sep 2015)

dan7108 said:
			
		

> Curious what you folks think of a political candidate wearing medals while campaigning (Tim Laidler).
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/21/terry-fox-family-denies-support-for-tory-promise.html



If memory serves and somewhere in this thread http://army.ca/forums/threads/99042.0.html are the details. Every sitting MP and Senator in 2012 was awarded/received a QDJM in addition to those they were allotted to hand out. So a lot could be wearing bling as they campaign. If it is considered tacky  then as Mr. Campbell many are applying for a position where tacky is often a asset.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Sep 2015)

Looks like a CD as well as GCS(SWA) curious if he still has the ISAF bar attached or a roto bar.  The middle one might be a Beiber too.


----------



## Danjanou (24 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Looks like a CD as well as GCS(SWA) curious if he still has the ISAF bar attached or a roto bar.  The middle one might be a Beiber too.



his Bio, http://www.timlaidler.ca/media/

he has both the GSC(SWA) and the QDJM


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2015)

He is in a catch 22.  He will be damned by vets for Not showing pride in his service, and pandering to Party PA officers if he does not wear them.

He wears them, and we admonish him for it, arguments aplenty; why?

Politics is war, and the one that stands is the one with the most votes.  I would rather have him use that technique and get in to parliament, than some local owner of the Cat food superstore. (I made that one up)

Good on him!


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> First thought was "just showing off", but if he has mentioned his service in public on record, then I don't see how wearing his medals changes anything.  If someone would be swayed by them, they would have been swayed by him saying "I was in the military doing xyz".



We have had numerous former Service Members elected to Parliament in the past.  Laurie Hawn is one such member, whom I am sure did not need to wear any medals to indicate that he had previous military service.  That someone thinks the wearing of decorations or displaying a Certificate of some sort is necessary to impress on the public that they are somehow qualified above their opponents for a position, seems like a weak argument and grasping at straws.  It seems to me to be a case of being a desperate "Oh!  Look at me, I am special" kind of action.  

Is it something that I would take seriously?  Nope!  I would do a  :-\ and walk on by.


----------



## Danjanou (25 Sep 2015)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> He is in a catch 22.  He will be damned by vets for Not showing pride in his service, and pandering to Party PA officers if he does not wear them.
> 
> He wears them, and we admonish him for it, arguments aplenty; why?
> 
> ...



Good points, damned if he does or damned if he doesn't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

An interesting ad from Veterans Against ABC:





Source: https://www.facebook.com/veteransagainstABC?fref=nf

That group has turned away from being just anti-ABC and is now, quite unabashedly, pro-Conservative.


----------



## MJP (30 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An interesting ad from Veterans Against ABC:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not based on this but rather the tone of their other messages, I had emailed their organizer on FB that Vets Against ABC was no different than ABC themselves if they put crap posts up.  Can see that fell on deaf ears.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Minister Erin O'Toole's comments on the ABC group are here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

The "veterans" issue has surfaced again with a lawsuit (described as "frivolous" by the defendant) against Julian Fantino for an "assault" committed 42 years ago. The complainant says that his late father was a retired solider _“and the way Fantino treated the veterans, well, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”_ :


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "veterans" issue has surfaced again with a lawsuit (described as "frivolous" by the defendant) against Julian Fantino for an "assault" committed 42 years ago. The complainant says that his late father was a retired solider _“and the way Fantino treated the veterans, well, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”_ :


Really?  Is that the best they can do?  :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "veterans" issue has surfaced again with a lawsuit (described as "frivolous" by the defendant) against Julian Fantino for an "assault" committed 42 years ago. The complainant says that his late father was a retired solider _“and the way Fantino treated the veterans, well, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”_ :



Talk about grasping at straws.


----------



## Strike (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Minister Erin O'Toole's comments on the ABC group are here.



This is what makes me wonder how much the Unions are really involved with the ABC movement.



> “Because ABC is a registered third-party campaign, they are able to receive donations. … Further, unions are part of the fabric of the Canadian way of life and they have been beneficial to the lower tiers of the socioeconomic strata for generations. So is it really such a ‘bad’ thing if the unions were to turn around and provide support.”



Aside from the unions nowadays having very little involvement in the real lower class for the past couple of generations at least, this sounds like something that came right off a media response line document that would have been sent out to spokespersons.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

More, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, about the spat between pro and anti Conservative veterans' groups:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-military-veterans-aim-to-counter-cowardly-anti-conservative-group/article26662338/


> Conservative military veterans aim to counter ‘cowardly’ anti-Conservative group
> 
> BILL GRAVELAND
> CALGARY — The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2015)

The comments to the article are [pause] entertaining to say the least.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An interesting ad from Veterans Against ABC:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spell check?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Another veterans vs. veterans story, this one from _Global News_ at the link.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2015)

That meme is oozing Britain First crockery.  Obviously they want to transition into one of those types of groups.  DO they even know the dark path they travel?

Once again, another group that truly does not speak for me!


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2015)

With less than two weeks to go and most polls showing Team Blue & Team Red essentially neck & neck (with Team Orange dropping off), what are the chances of the Conservatives dropping this lawsuit right here to get a few more vet votes? 

They've walked away from other litigation since the writ was issued.  

Especially if it looks like the Liberals'll squeak in?  Let _them_ find the money to pay?


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2015)

You mean use Veterans to do to the Liberals what was done to them?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You mean use Veterans to do to the Liberals what was done to them?


Well, doing the right thing for vets hasn't been the lever one would have hoped in a majority government


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2015)

I heard a quite unsubstantiated opinion that to reverse the NVC, particularly the life time pensions, would cost on the order of 7BN. That's enough to give anyone pause. Even if it's only half that, I'm not sure the public or politicians have the stomach for it. Remember "mile wide - inch deep".


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I heard a quite unsubstantiated opinion that to reverse the NVC, particularly the life time pensions, would cost on the order of 7BN. That's enough to give anyone pause. Even if it's only half that, I'm not sure the public or politicians have the stomach for it. Remember *"mile wide - inch deep"*.


Thanks for sharing the RUMINT, MM - I'm staggered, but not surprised, by the neighbourhood of that figure.  I, sadly, have to agree about the bit in yellow


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

More on this, this time _CTV News_ says that "an unprecedented political wedge is splitting the country's veterans, who are turning on each other in the countdown to the Oct. 19 vote."


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I heard a quite unsubstantiated opinion that to reverse the NVC, particularly the life time pensions, would cost on the order of 7BN. That's enough to give anyone pause. Even if it's only half that, I'm not sure the public or politicians have the stomach for it. Remember "mile wide - inch deep".



So I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath for Trudeau's "GI bill" ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> So I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath for Trudeau's "GI bill" ?


Or anyone else's, for that matter.


----------



## Occam (7 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I heard a quite unsubstantiated opinion that to reverse the NVC, particularly the life time pensions, would cost on the order of 7BN. That's enough to give anyone pause. Even if it's only half that, I'm not sure the public or politicians have the stomach for it. Remember "mile wide - inch deep".



I call BS on that figure.

Looking solely at the disability pension/disability award issue, three groups of veterans will be created; existing Pension Act recipients, existing recipients of a Disability Award, and future recipients of a Disability Pension.

Existing Pension Act recipients are a known quantity and need to be budgeted just as they have been in the past.  In other words, there are no new costs associated with paying disability pensions to this group.

Existing recipients of a Disability Award would presumably be converted over to a Disability Pension scheme.  Knowing their disability factor makes it easy to find out what their Pension Act payments would have been had they been granted a disability pension at the pension eligibility date instead of a lump sum award.  Then, pension payments would be suspended until the amount of the already-awarded Disability Award is recovered via suspended pension payments.  Eventually the veteran's account would equalize, and they'd start receiving pension payments.

Future recipients of monthly disability pensions would result in a much lower yearly cost going forward (monthly payments) than one large single hit in the year a disability award would have been granted.  That's looking at costs for any given year, and not overall cost over the lifetime of veterans.

Unless I've overlooked something (and it's entirely possible that I may have), the total up-front costs of converting from a Disability Award system back to a monthly Disability Pension system would be *zero*.

From where else would this $7B figure come from?  Health care benefits would remain the same; if you were entitled to hearing aids before the switch, you'd still be entitled to hearing aids afterwards. If you got VIP before, you'd get VIP after.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or anyone else's, for that matter.



Thankfully I saw through the pledge and it did not sway my vote. I'd use such a benefit were it available in the near future, but I refuse to waste my vote on a false promise from someone I have absolutely no respect for. We see how politicians treat the military, so to expect that attitude to change upon transition to "veteran" status is probably delusional. I'm sure elements of our political class would favour educating migrants before ever footing the bill for me based on my military service.

I definitely got into the wrong field though! The base salary for an MP doubles what I make in a year, and they don't even have to deliver on what they promise. I don't think I'd ever get an immediate PER if I never delivered for my boss...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I heard a quite unsubstantiated opinion that to reverse the NVC, particularly the life time pensions, would cost on the order of 7BN ....





			
				Occam said:
			
		

> .... Unless I've overlooked something (and it's entirely possible that I may have), the total up-front costs of converting from a Disability Award system back to a monthly Disability Pension system would be *zero* ....


Well, we at least now have an approximate size for the beaten zone  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2015)

Interesting statement from Thunder Bay-Rainy River ....


> The Conservative candidate in Thunder Bay-Rainy River apologized on behalf of the Harper government for its treatment of local veterans.
> 
> During Wednesday night’s Chronicle Journal hosted debate, the candidates were asked what they would do for veterans after the local office was one of eight across the country closed by the Conservative government last year.
> 
> ...


More here:


> The Conservative candidate running in Thunder Bay-Rainy River has apologized for how her party has treated some veterans.
> 
> Conservative candidate Moe Comuzzi faced off against fellow challengers Don Rusnak, for the Liberals, and Christy Radbourne, for the Green Party, as well as NDP incumbent John Rafferty during the final debate hosted by The Chronicle-Journal, which was held at the Thunder Bay Community Auditorium where around 60 people attended.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2017)

Lightguns: 





> The real story is that we make up rules to be fair to vets and the rules can be controlled too tightly and or too loosely to the detriment of vets by elected officials and civil servants.  Vets are a little more than dump truck contractors to be used and discarded depending on the photo op.  The system doesn't work and it does not matter which party is running it.  Most vet groups don't get that.  But, hey, enjoy the near empty VA offices in places were they are not heavily used...........



http://army.ca/forums/threads/122623/post-1470964.html#msg1470964

Rifleman62: 





> Anyone finding the reopening and the establishment of a new VAC office in the Minister of National Defence riding helpful?




Agree. This was all Liberal PR and the hiring of more Public Service people in my opinion, who according to an audit are more interested in their jobs than service to those who employ them.

CP article above post: 



> Organizer Doug Roberts says his group -- which has about 400 members -- fought hard against the federal civil service that he says used technicalities to deny benefits to veterans, and it won't stand by to see a similar approach flourish under the new government.



Good luck on that.



> A spokeswoman for federal Veterans Affairs minister Kent Hehr said the federal Liberals are planning to improve treatment of veterans during their time in office.



Trouble is the Liberals, the natural governing party of Canada, expect under Trudeau and his children, and their children, on  governing Canada for 100 years so they have plenty of time to "planning to improve treatment of veterans during their time in office".

Hopefully some eugenics within the Trudeau family will vanquish what we got now and previously.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Trouble is the Liberals, the natural governing party of Canada, expect under Trudeau and his children, and their children, on  governing Canada for 100 years so they have plenty of time to "planning to improve treatment of veterans during their time in office".



'Twould be much better if they were "planning to improve treatment of veterans during their (veterans) time on Earth" instead - and actually followed through.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2017)

> ....during their (veterans) time on Earth"


 Much better stated.


----------

