# COMBATIVE FACEBOOK POST BY MND's PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY LAURIE HAWN



## pbi (10 Feb 2014)

I was recently sent the following e-mail text by a member of my Association branch who is an active veteran's advocate, and usually quite critical of the current Govt's policies in this area. It purports to be an e-mail from Laurie Hawn, Secretary to the MND and a former BComd at Cold Lake.

Unlike much of the sanitized teflon pablum that spouts out of ministerial offices, this e-mail comes out swinging. It makes good reading, and makes you realize that there can be two sides to any story: Here is a cut and paste (reduced to stay within the character limit):




> ...This post will respond to the many pieces of feedback that I received last week on the issue of veterans affairs.  First, you should know that I use Facebook and Twitter to get information out to anyone who might be interested.  Although I read all responses, I do not, as a rule, get involved in conversations, because I simply don’t have time.  People like Aaron Bedard should not draw any conclusions because I haven’t responded to any particular post, either nasty or friendly. That said I feel compelled to respond to the collection of the mostly vitriolic recent posts.  Please note that when I refer to “soldiers’, I mean soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.
> 
> 
> The challenge that we have is that, no matter what we say as Government, it will not be believed in the face of one dissenting view by a veteran or a soldier.  That is understandable, considering Canadians’ completely justifiable love for veterans and soldiers.  I have that same love for veterans and soldiers.  Another challenge that any government has is the reality of dealing with legitimate expectations from across the board in Canada, and trying to find a workable and sustainable balance.  The opposition (any Party, including us in that situation) and the media can say whatever they want; they don’t have the responsibility for delivering anything. I don’t say that pejoratively, that is just the way it works. I will, however, question the motivations of PSAC. I have no doubt that the individual members of PSAC care as much as any other Canadian about our veterans and soldiers. This is only the early stages of a much bigger battle that we will have with PSAC, as we make necessary cuts to the public service (most by attrition) to make it more efficient and cost effective.  Paul Martin made much deeper cuts in 1995.  I have no quarrel whatsoever with veterans standing up for their cause; just don’t kid me about whom and what is also pulling some strings. PSAC deliberately misled veterans when they said that the manning of Service Canada offices by qualified VAC case managers in locations where VAC offices were closing was for three months only.  They attributed those statements to Charlotte Bastien of VAC, and she said no such thing, because it is not true and those case managers are there indefinitely.  PSAC did not tell the truth. Regrettably, media like The Charlottetown Guardian are perpetuating that lie with articles like the one on January 30, quoting a misinformed case worker.  Last week’s trip to Ottawa by a group of veterans was paid for by PSAC, as is their right.  I was at the initial meeting, along with MPs Erin O’Toole and Parm Gill, and we made it clear that the Minister was in a Cabinet meeting advocating for veterans benefits (successfully), and that he might not be able to make it before we all had to go back to the House for votes.  We tried to discuss the issue of closures with them, but they were just mad and didn’t really want to talk to us.  I understand that. The offer was made of a dinner meeting with the Minister. The later incident with the Minister was very regrettable and he has apologized in public a number of times.  In the end, the vets chose to dine with PSAC.  I have no problem with that; just don’t BS me about what is going on.   I will repeat for those who want to cherry-pick my comments, that is NOT a comment against the vets.
> ...



- mod edit of title to clarify -


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2014)

> We were looking for 10% [budget reduction] from all departments and, in the end, Veterans Affairs took the lowest cuts of any department at 1.9%. Those cuts were targeted at inefficiencies and not at services and benefits.



But...but....I can't believe the media missed that!  I feel kind of silly standing in front of the castle with this flaming torch now.


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2014)

Just wait. I guarantee you'll find something to fling it at. This is the Federal Govt we're talking about here. A "target rich environment".


----------



## medicineman (10 Feb 2014)

So JM, when are you planning on running for Kingston and the Islands? 

MM


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2014)

I'll see how the write-in ballots for the Toronto Mayoral campaign go, before I commit.  :cheers:


----------



## medicineman (10 Feb 2014)

My brother is supposed to be running someone's campaign there...look him up when it's over.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (10 Feb 2014)

A good read to be sure.

The topic of veterans and what has been in the media recently came up today around the conference table with some of my NCOs.  And while we all agreed the Government of Canada could improve in many areas, we were all also of the opinion that the topic of veteran issues could be (and is) used by the opposition for the upcoming election to assist in the change of what party is in power.  This concerned us all as I'm sure like most on this forum we look back into the not too distant past and remember what the Liberals did when they were at the helm.  Just some food for thought as we discuss all of these issues.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2014)

An interesting read, for sure, but this line ....


> The challenge that we have is that, no matter what we say as Government, it will not be believed in the face of one dissenting view by a veteran or a soldier.


.... doesn't feel like something from Hawn or anybody in government.  I doubt a Parliamentary Secretary in such a high-profile portfolio would send out something this long on such a delicate topic.  

A bit more available here, attributed by a columnist to someone else who sent him an e-mail:
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Blog-Article/b/25653/A-letter-from-an-MP



			
				Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> .... we all agreed the Government of Canada could improve in many areas, we were all also of the opinion that the topic of veteran issues could be (and is) used by the opposition for the upcoming election to assist in the change of what party is in power.  This concerned us all as I'm sure like most on this forum we look back into the not too distant past and remember what the Liberals did when they were at the helm.  Just some food for thought as we discuss all of these issues.


But the current government, who says it's all for the troops and vets, has had a majority for a while, and has chosen to continue a broken system when it could have changed things if it was a priority.  It wasn't a priority, so it didn't change the system.


----------



## Sailorwest (10 Feb 2014)

Saw this earlier from a different source. No doubt there is a lot of political play going on. That being said, there does seem to be a lot of smoke out there from this department. Maybe it is all being created by PSAC or those who are not currently forming government but my sense is that where there is smoke, there is likely a fire as well. Given that I'm not a current customer of VAC, I can't say for sure how good or bad their service is to Vets but it certainly seems like there are real issues that may be compounded by some of the cuts.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Feb 2014)

pbi


> I was recently sent the following e-mail text by a member of my Association branch who is an active veteran's advocate, and usually quite critical of the current Govt's policies in this area. It purports to be an e-mail from Laurie Hawn, Secretary to the MND and a former BComd at Cold Lake.



I received the same several days ago from the BCD's Assn. No letterhead, no means of identification and that authenticates nothing.
This is going around the internet; caution.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> pbi
> I received the same several days ago from the BCD's Assn. No letterhead, no means of identification and that authenticates nothing.
> This is going around the internet; caution.


If it's not from him, I'm guessing we'll see a denial pretty quickly - said MP is quick on the Twitter responses as required.

Wait and see ....


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> pbi
> I received the same several days ago from the BCD's Assn. No letterhead, no means of identification and that authenticates nothing.
> This is going around the internet; caution.



anic:    [Couldn't find a conspiratorial icon]

Sorry, I meant to say
...or you could check his Facebook page to verify it.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Feb 2014)

You know for someone who denies using it you seem to be pretty knowledgeable re FB   8)

So who wants to go post this on the Canadian Veterans Advocacy Site and/or FB page http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/ ?

I'm sure the result there would result in gainful employment for JMs torch  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> anic:    [Couldn't find a conspiratorial icon]
> 
> Sorry, I meant to say
> ...or you could check his Facebook page to verify it.


Good idea.

Nothing on the PM's current page, but checking the Google cached timeline, we catch a snippet yesterday ....


> Thanks for all the responses (50/50 favourable and not) to my long post.  I am not encouraging, nor can I engage in, ongoing conversations, due to lack of time.  That said, I feel compelled to respond (briefly, I promise) to some of the sta...


.... that doesn't appear to be in today's Facebook version.  Maybe those with more knowledge of the interwebs can pry out the bit that doesn't come up after that quote, but I can't.

Here it is - I stand corrected.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Feb 2014)

Well Journeyman, I sit corrected.

I don't Facebook unless I have too, or Twitter, but I can speak on the phone and quietly chew gum concurrently.


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2014)

I agree that the authorship may be difficult to prove: that's why I said "purports to be..." I also find it a bit odd that Harper (or one of his ministers) would allow a post like this, which appears to be so far outside their usual routine of carefully scripted and coordinated lines.

One thing that seems to emerge from some of the posts above: we want to be very careful that we  don't dismiss valid veterans' complaints as being the Satanic work of the LPC, PSAC, or other anti-Tory groups. That might be a tragic mistake. I have no doubt that there are some people out there with bad information or bad motives, but we should stay focused on hte idea that those who have served and sacrificed deserve the fulfillment of the Government's half of the social contract a soldier makes with his country.


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Feb 2014)

Whomever wrote it, it currently resides, in its entirety, on Mr. Hawn's Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/laurie-hawn/response-to-a-challenging-week/796994416981482

The byline (and last two paragraphs):



> I don’t profess to know everything or that our government does everything right.  But don’t ever accuse me of not caring or doing nothing.  I will always do everything within my power and the limits of reality to make life better for soldiers and veterans and their families.  I’m not saying what I just said above to sound my own praises but to try to show that, contrary to a lot of the cheap rhetoric that people love to throw around, I care; and so do all my colleagues on all sides of the House.  So does the Minister and so does the Prime Minister.
> 
> This was long and I apologize for taking so much of your time, but I care very deeply about the issues. Thank you for hanging in to the end.  If you didn’t and simply wanted to go off on a tangent about some cherry-picked comment, that is your right, but I would suggest that the more respectful dialogue that we can have on such important issues, the better.  I wish it were easier in Parliament.  If you did wander off, however, I guess you wouldn’t even be reading this part anyway ..... oh well.  Please know that I will continue to work hard for veterans and soldiers, knowing that whatever I or our government does can never be enough; that we will always try to find ways to do more; and that there will always be those who will disagree, no matter what we do.  That’s life in politics and I am proud and happy to serve.  As I write this, it is now 1300 MST on Sunday and I have been at my computer since 0600 MST.  It is time to throw some stuff in a bag and catch my regular flight back to Ottawa, to get to bed about 0100 EST. Not complainin’, just sayin’.  Hopefully, next week and those that follow will be less emotional and more productive.
> 
> ...



It seems clear to me that he is taking ownership of these statements....either that or someone has quite resoundingly hacked his f-book page.

NS


----------



## DAA (10 Feb 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> It seems clear to me that he is taking ownership of these statements....either that or someone has quite resoundingly hacked his f-book page.
> NS



He's an elected officlal, so I highly doubt that he took the time or had the time to write that himself, that's what "staffers" are for.  To maintain webpages/site and twitter accounts.  It's too bad that when these types of statements are made that they don't come with the lead in of "John Smith sent onbehalf of ......"

If it doesn't have the caveate of "Official" somewhere in the "lead in", then it's anyone's guess where it came from.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (11 Feb 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But the current government, who says it's all for the troops and vets, has had a majority for a while, and has chosen to continue a broken system when it could have changed things if it was a priority.  It wasn't a priority, so it didn't change the system.


You are correct and I believe that change needs to come WRT the governments treatment and support of veterans.  For myself I would still rather have a Conservative Government that on the whole treats the military better than any of the other parties would.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Feb 2014)

Just a point because no nit should go unpicked: Laurie Hawn is not the Parliamentary Secretary to the MND. He was until the September 2013 cabinet shuffle when he was replaced by James Bezan. Mr Hawn is one of those rare people who are members of the Queen's Privy Council (entitled to style themselves as "Honourable" and use the post nominal PC) without being a cabinet minister. (Note that, by custom, the leader of the opposition and former GGs, are also, Privy Councillors.)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Feb 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> He's an elected officlal, so I highly doubt that he took the time or had the time to write that himself, that's what "staffers" are for.  To maintain webpages/site and twitter accounts.  It's too bad that when these types of statements are made that they don't come with the lead in of "John Smith sent onbehalf of ......"
> 
> If it doesn't have the caveate of "Official" somewhere in the "lead in", then it's anyone's guess where it came from.



Wrong. I know Laurie quite well, and he definitely wrote that himself.  

Is it so hard to believe that an elected official actually gives a shit?


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2014)

I'm always cynical about any writing "attached to" a politician's name, but on closer reading, and considering other info, I'm happy to admit I may be wrong on this one.

I believe it was written by him because it doesn't sound like anything that's been written by someone else, run through approvals, then posted days later.  In other words, if that text was run through approvals, it would not have come out the sausage machine looking like it does.  And since it hasn't been taken down, it appears nobody "up high" objects.

I'm impressed he goes into the detail that he does, while admitting not having every single answer.

He may not have all the answers, but he's gone up in my estimation.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> One thing that seems to emerge from some of the posts above: we want to be very careful that we  don't dismiss valid veterans' complaints as being the Satanic work of the LPC, PSAC, or other anti-Tory groups.


Another good point to remember - something about babies and bathwater.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Well Journeyman, I sit corrected.
> 
> I don't Facebook unless I have too, or Twitter, but I can speak on the phone and quietly chew gum concurrently.


Despite the implications of that Danjanou guy     I don't have a Facebook account.......but I do Google.   :nod:


----------

