# Counterpoint: The Conservative record on strengthening Canada’s military



## m2austin (19 Jun 2012)

Sourced from The National Post, 18 Jun 2012, Link <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/19/counterpoint-the-conservative-record-on-strengthening-canadas-military/">Here</a>



> *Counterpoint: The Conservative record on strengthening Canada’s military*
> Peter MacKay, Julian Fantino and Steven Blaney,
> National Post
> Jun 19, 2012 – 7:00 AM ET |
> ...



[Note: Embedded hyperlink included from source]


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jun 2012)

It's a great time to be selling kit to the Army.

All while screwing over actual soldiers with the New Veterans Charter. Cuts to physio, deployment fatigue, etc


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2012)

> Moreover, our investments have included unprecedented commitments to care for our troops once they leave the military. That is why we doubled the amount of operational stress injury clinics for our veterans, and are investing $189-million over the next five years to strengthen the New Veterans Charter to help our most ill and injured veterans receive the care and support they need.



Yeah, alright boss. Pound sand. We will not forget that the government has had fully six years to fix the 'New Veterans Charter' and hasn't.


----------



## m2austin (19 Jun 2012)

A little clarity on Brihard's comment perhaps can be found <a href="http://updatednews.ca/2012/06/14/4-major-issues-facing-canadian-veterans/">here</a>, originally from CBC News.

Of note, the issue of suicide mentioned in the link stands out the most:



> This spring, the military released figures showing that 19 soldiers committed suicide in 2011 – more than at any time since the mid-’90s.
> 
> This number, however, only includes soldiers who took their lives while deployed overseas. *The military does not take into account reservists who commit suicide, or veterans who do so after returning from duty*.



(emphasis mine)

As I've stated in a <a href="http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105948/post-1144806.html#msg1144806">previous post</a>, we can only wonder what's happening to the reservists and veterans.


----------



## cupper (19 Jun 2012)

> This spring, the military released figures showing that 19 soldiers committed suicide in 2011 – more than at any time since the mid-’90s.
> 
> This number, however, only includes soldiers who took their lives while deployed overseas. The military does not take into account reservists who commit suicide, or veterans who do so after returning from duty.



Did I read that right, they only include members who commit suicide overseas? Suicides by members not on deployment aren't considered relevant?


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jun 2012)

The subject of VAC and equipping the CF with kit are two different subjects and two very different government departments.

They are separate issues.


----------



## jeffb (19 Jun 2012)

Yes they are Mr Seggie but fair criticism to lump together against the government if it tries to frame itself as the defence minded government. Not taking care of veterans does not exactly leave those currently serving confident that they will be taken care if they are injured while on deployment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The subject of VAC and equipping the CF with kit are two different subjects and two very different government departments.
> 
> They are separate issues.


Very true - funny, then, that the Government seems to be lumping these Ministers together on this one specifically (note, also, where the first reaction comments here were focused).

More broadly, I think I'm seeing a bit of "coverage creep", too, with the Vets Affairs Minister speaking at conferences on the Law of War, sending other Ministers to military change of command parades, and discussing military history (more here) - this when there's folks in DND who do some military history work already.  

Why?  I leave that to greater minds than mine to guess ....


----------



## Sythen (19 Jun 2012)

I am too lazy to actually do it, but how many posts do you think we could dig up complaining the government isn't properly communicating what they are doing, to the Canadian people? I am not gonna defend the NVC, but this seems like complaining for the sake of complaining. If you all want, we can go back to the 90's and ignore everything we've been given since then.


----------



## dogger1936 (19 Jun 2012)

Did the veterans Bill of rights end up in the Omnibus bill?

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1610

Harper is pro military; just not fond of those pesky veterans.


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I am too lazy to actually do it, but how many posts do you think we could dig up complaining the government isn't properly communicating what they are doing, to the Canadian people? I am not gonna defend the NVC, but this seems like complaining for the sake of complaining. If you all want, we can go back to the 90's and ignore everything we've been given since then.



No, it is not complaining for the sake of complaining. It's complaining to spread the word on a serious issue, hopefully with there ultimately being a remedy. Groups like CVA have been slowly pushing issues like this and are meeting success.

What you would call 'complaining', I'd call 'telling another side of the story' from the one presented by government mouthpieces.


----------



## jeffb (19 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Harper is pro military; just not fond of those pesky veterans.



I'm tracking that you are being sarcastic here but taking care of veterans is a MORAL imperative by society. Soldiers are deployed and put their life and limb on the line in support of the national interest. The implicit contract between them and society, in order to accept unlimited liability, must be that in the event that they are killed or wounded - thus becoming veterans in the case of the wounded- they are their dependents will be provided a reasonable standard of living. In an extreme case if we didn't take care of our veterans at all, I can see a legitimate argument from soldiers in against taking undue risks while on deployment or even refusing to deploy at all. 

Veteran's Affairs and DND are separate departments and that makes sense to me. However, both are part of the Government of Canada and that government is the ideally the collective representation of the people and nation of Canada. Policies that effect Veterans effect serving soldiers who will all be Veterans one day. 

The reality is to me that if we want the best and the brightest fighting our nations wars, we need to take care of these soldiers both while they are healthy but most of all when they are injured.


----------



## Sythen (19 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What you would call 'complaining', I'd call 'telling another side of the story' from the one presented by government mouthpieces.



Nothing will ever be perfect, and when it is there will still be posts here complaining about something. His message was a counterpoint to continual attacks by the opposition parties. There definitely is a lot more work to be done, but to constantly slag them when they have done so much for us is foolishness. There are enough threads about the NVC, as well as other grievences that we may have with certain things, why not allow them to tout their own horn about what they HAVE done for us? Even if it isn't everything we want yet?


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Nothing will ever be perfect, and when it is there will still be posts here complaining about something. His message was a counterpoint to continual attacks by the opposition parties. There definitely is a lot more work to be done, but to constantly slag them when they have done so much for us is foolishness. There are enough threads about the NVC, as well as other grievences that we may have with certain things, why not allow them to tout their own horn about what they HAVE done for us? Even if it isn't everything we want yet?



In what way are they not being allowed to 'tout their own horn'? Me pointing out a part of their announcement that is three fingers left of right the **** out of 'er doesn't lessen their ability to tell their side.

Yes, they have done a fair bit of things that are positive. They didn't do it for us out of some goodness of their hearts; they did it in order to have a military more able to effectively carry out their policy in the national interest, so they would have fewer dead Canadians on CBC every few weeks, and because higher ups said 'If you want us to do x, we need y'. It wasn't some sort of altruism on the government's part that we got better kit, and I won't drop to me knees and thank them for it as if I'm bucking for a promotion.

If they want to have the gall to try to push what they're doing for veterans, they will be called on it.


----------



## Sythen (19 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> In what way are they not being allowed to 'tout their own horn'? Me pointing out a part of their announcement that is three fingers left of right the **** out of 'er doesn't lessen their ability to tell their side.



So you're implying what the ministers wrote is not true? That they haven't invested in the military, and haven't done more for us in 6 years than the previous 2 decades combined?




> Yes, they have done a fair bit of things that are positive. They didn't do it for us out of some goodness of their hearts; they did it in order to have a military more able to effectively carry out their policy in the national interest, so they would have fewer dead Canadians on CBC every few weeks, and because higher ups said 'If you want us to do x, we need y'. It wasn't some sort of altruism on the government's part that we got better kit, and I won't drop to me knees and thank them for it as if I'm bucking for a promotion.
> 
> If they want to have the gall to try to push what they're doing for veterans, they will be called on it.



In all honesty, I couldn't give a flying monkey's rectum about why they did it. If you came here and said they did it cause they lost a bet, does that detract at all from anything we've received? Let's put the Liberals back in, or even better the NDP... Then see what happens.. I will fully agree there is a lot to fix, the NVC being at the top of that list, but saying they should not be proud of what they HAVE done for us is way off base.


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2012)

I'm not 'implying' anything. I'm baldly stating that they have no moral ground to stand on making any claim regarding positive impacts on the NVC in specific, and little regarding treatment of veterans in general, because any other incremental improvements are greatly overshadowed by the NVC failure. And yes, I am not ignorant of the fact that the Liberals created it; part of why I voted Conservative in 06 and 08. And I am not claiming that they have not invested in the military; in fact my last post clearly acknowledges that they have done many beneficial things. And I agree the motives don't matter- which is why I'm surprised to see you caliming they deserve some sort of uncontested limelight.



> but saying they should not be proud of what they HAVE done for us is way off base.


.

I said, and I quote, "If they want to have the gall to try to push what they're doing for veterans, they will be called on it." That is not off base when the worst hurt veterans are those getting boned the hardest. I'm not making any issue of what they have or denying credit for that. I'm saying they have no place claiming credit for what they HAVEN'T done. Read my words carefully before you call them 'off base', and do not suggest I'm making claims that I haven't directly made. I speak specifically.


----------



## dogger1936 (19 Jun 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm tracking that you are being sarcastic here but taking care of veterans is a MORAL imperative by society. Soldiers are deployed and put their life and limb on the line in support of the national interest. The implicit contract between them and society, in order to accept unlimited liability, must be that in the event that they are killed or wounded - thus becoming veterans in the case of the wounded- they are their dependents will be provided a reasonable standard of living. In an extreme case if we didn't take care of our veterans at all, I can see a legitimate argument from soldiers in against taking undue risks while on deployment or even refusing to deploy at all.
> 
> Veteran's Affairs and DND are separate departments and that makes sense to me. However, both are part of the Government of Canada and that government is the ideally the collective representation of the people and nation of Canada. Policies that effect Veterans effect serving soldiers who will all be Veterans one day.
> 
> The reality is to me that if we want the best and the brightest fighting our nations wars, we need to take care of these soldiers both while they are healthy but most of all when they are injured.



Couldn't agree more. Nothing more demoralizing to a healthy soldier watching his friends fighting the government after tour. Makes you question things your doing that's for certain.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jun 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Yes they are Mr Seggie but fair criticism to lump together against the government if it tries to frame itself as the defence minded government. Not taking care of veterans does not exactly leave those currently serving confident that they will be taken care if they are injured while on deployment.



All political parties should be sharing equally in the blame for the care of veterans, not only this government.  :2c:


----------



## Sythen (19 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> which is why I'm surprised to see you caliming they deserve some sort of uncontested limelight.



No where at all did I say this. What I am saying is that there is enough threads about the NVC, and other issues.. Let's have one where we are actually happy with the progress, while being able to admit that there is a lot to change. This is starting to be like ARRSE where every thread, no matter what its about, starts an argument about Harriers and Carriers.



> I'm saying they have no place claiming credit for what they HAVEN'T done.



Quote from the article:



> Moreover, our investments have included unprecedented commitments to care for our troops once they leave the military. That is why we doubled the amount of operational stress injury clinics for our veterans, and are investing $189-million over the next five years to strengthen the New Veterans Charter to help our most ill and injured veterans receive the care and support they need.



They keep claiming the NVC is a living document. Let's give them credit where its due. Yes, the NVC overall is terrible. No one will deny that fact. But they are investing more and if you expect a huge change overnight, I wouldn't hold your breath. Bit by bit it will be improved.


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> All political parties should be sharing equally in the blame for the care of veterans, not only this government.  :2c:



Yes, however the government that has the power to affect change and doesn't gets the lion's share. The Conservatives have shown no reticence to use their majority to quickly push through legislation on matters of policy or principle. Apparently hurt veterans are deemed of less significance than the wheat board or the long gun registry. or adding thirty seats to Parliament. Or hell, *any* piece of legislation introduced by the government.

This is not to dismiss any legitimacy or necessity in these laws- just to put things in perspective regarding what gets attention versus what doesn't.


----------



## dogger1936 (19 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes, however the government that has the power to affect change and doesn't gets the lion's share. The Conservatives have shown no reticence to use their majority to quickly push through legislation on matters of policy or principle. Apparently hurt veterans are deemed of less significance than the wheat board or the long gun registry. or adding thirty seats to Parliament. Or hell, *any* piece of legislation introduced by the government.
> 
> This is not to dismiss any legitimacy or necessity in these laws- just to put things in perspective regarding what gets attention versus what doesn't.



Bang on!


----------



## m2austin (19 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Did the veterans Bill of rights end up in the Omnibus bill?



For some info on what's included in Bill C-38 wrt veterans, see my post <a href="http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104925/post-1148230.html#msg1148230">here</a>.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes, however the government that has the power to affect change and doesn't gets the lion's share. The Conservatives have shown no reticence to use their majority to quickly push through legislation on matters of policy or principle .... This is not to dismiss any legitimacy or necessity in these laws- just to put things in perspective regarding *what gets attention versus what doesn't.*


And we have seen instances where a Minister (even the Veterans Affairs minister) wants something (examples here, here, here, here, here and - even if it's not _entirely_ within government rules - here), and it happens pretty quickly.


----------



## QORvanweert (20 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes, however the government that has the power to affect change and doesn't gets the lion's share. The Conservatives have shown no reticence to use their majority to quickly push through legislation on matters of policy or principle. Apparently hurt veterans are deemed of less significance than the wheat board or the long gun registry. or adding thirty seats to Parliament. Or hell, *any* piece of legislation introduced by the government.
> 
> This is not to dismiss any legitimacy or necessity in these laws- just to put things in perspective regarding what gets attention versus what doesn't.



Post of the day.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes, however the government that has the power to affect change and doesn't gets the lion's share. The Conservatives have shown no reticence to use their majority to quickly push through legislation on matters of policy or principle. Apparently hurt veterans are deemed of less significance than the wheat board or the long gun registry. or adding thirty seats to Parliament. Or hell, *any* piece of legislation introduced by the government.
> 
> This is not to dismiss any legitimacy or necessity in these laws- just to put things in perspective regarding what gets attention versus what doesn't.



Nice. This pretentious announcement about how many billions they are spending on Gucci kit only makes the attitude that vets are disposable all the more obvious. Good luck fighting a war with that over priced kit without Canadian soldiers that have the grit to do whatever it takes.


----------



## dogger1936 (20 Jun 2012)

Soldiers should never have a doubt in the back of their mind when they roll out on operation. regardless of commitment to our country and our lad's the last thing a soldier should be thinking about is his lack of benefits.

When you know your family will be taken care of and you will be treated fairly when injured or killed; it completes a contract between politicians and soldiers that is required for us to do our jobs to the best of our abilities. 

I suggest every soldier become aware of how they will be treated if injured under the NVC. Think about being home and suddenly a civilian dealing with it for what you do for your country.

It's demoralizing and a issue which everyone should consider when asked by your country to do their bidding.


----------

