• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Conservative MP's Complain Veterans Cost Too Much, Dallaire


Reaction score
Another revelation that makes you wonder who your friends are. I want Dallaire to name the MP's who want to cut.

Senator Romeo Dallaire ‘pissed off’ at Conservative MPs complaining veterans ‘cost too much’
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press | April 4, 2014 11:04 AM ET
More from Canadian Press
Senator Romeo Dallaire appears at a Commons veterans affairs committee hearing witnesses on the statutory review of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Thursday, April 3, 2014.

There are rumblings in the corridors of power on Parliament Hill that MPs have grown impatient with the cost burden imposed by Canada’s military veterans, one of the country’s most prominent former soldiers said Thursday.

Sen. Romeo Dallaire, a former lieutenant-general and ex-commander of the ill-fated peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, described a number of recent encounters with “politicians who are second-guessing the cost of veterans.”

Dallaire — who made the comments in an interview with The Canadian Press before testifying Thursday at the House of Commons veterans committee — did not identify the individuals in question.

But he said he’s been hearing privately from politicians who complain about the price tag: the Conservative government spends roughly $3.8 billion each year on the Veterans Affairs Department.

    Now that they’re home — and the ones that are injured — they cost too much?

“And I say: Oh, yeah?” said Dallaire, describing how he walks them through the dollar cost of equipping and deploying the military on missions like the recently concluded 12-year mission in Afghanistan.

“And then I say, ‘Now that they’re home — and the ones that are injured — they cost too much?’ This has been sniffing its way around the Conservative hallways and it’s pissing me off.”

The rumblings stand in stark contrast to the Harper government’s political messaging, which has been to strenuously insist that the Conservatives bend over backwards for Canada’s veterans and will continue to do so.

Dallaire’s remarks drew an immediate, sharp rebuttal from Nicholas Bergamini, a spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino.

“It is not appropriate to spread rumours without any kind of attribution,” Bergamini said. “The fact remains that no government in modern history has invested more money for veterans services.”

Yet, the government has pointedly failed to reconcile its political talking points with the legal stand being taken by Justice Department lawyers in a prominent class-action lawsuit being brought by veterans of the Afghan war.

In a statement of defence filed with B.C. Superior Court, the government argues there is no “social contract” between the country and its soldiers, despite their commitment to lay down their lives without question, and that promises made by past governments to care for the wounded are not binding on current and future governments.

Those assurances, which date back to the First World War, are merely political statements, not policy, which can be amended, they maintain.

There needs to be a legislated social covenant with soldiers, Dallaire told the committee Thursday.

Since 2006, tens of millions of extra dollars have been poured into veterans care, but that can’t be considered a measure of success, Dallaire added.

The government’s position in the B.C. lawsuit represents a fundamental shift in the way former soldiers are viewed by their government, and it’s no accident the Harper government has not withdrawn it, critics say.

The veterans committee has been holding hearings on the New Veterans Charter, the legislation which spells out the benefits and entitlements of ex-soldiers. The lawsuit alleges the new system is less generous than its predecessor, which provided pensions for life to injured and maimed soldiers.

The committee has already heard a chorus of complaints from veterans — and there are signs it is starting to sting.

Conservative MP Parm Gill, Fantino’s parliamentary secretary, set his sights on one particularly vocal group last week, demanding that Canadian Veterans Advocacy disclose its funding sources and accusing one of its leaders of being partisan.

“Do you think to help the committee you would be able to provide for the committee a breakdown of your funding for the past two years, and any activity you have engaged in with political parties in Canada?” Gill asked.

Also last week, Conservative MP Brian Hayes took issue with comments posted on a popular website for veterans, including one that said the closest  Fantino had ever been to a trench was “a trench coat.”

“It disturbs me to see a negative thread, a negative opinion like that allowed to stay,” Hayes told the committee.

Ron Cundell, a veteran who is one of the site’s administrators, said Hayes singled out one comment out of over 300,000, and wondered if Hayes was endorsing censorship.

“That is unfair for you to take away that person’s freedom of speech,” he testified.

On Thursday, Dallaire told the committee he believes that National Defence and Veterans Affairs should be folded into one department, each with its own budget, in order to provide uninterrupted care to the wounded.
Until he names names it's no more than unsubstantiated, partisan, innuendo.
As with all media "sources," I'd like to know, specifically, to whom Dallaire is referring.
:crybaby:  More useless whining/speculation that does nothing to help those that need help, but rather just makes another partisan swipe at the Government of the day.

Maybe it isn't veterans MPs are grumbling at but the ineffciencies within VAC....

Nothing new here from the day when the Ombudsman said a certain politician said"we're better off dead because we cost less than" but didn't mention their name. IMO whatever has been said has been said in conversation only with no way to prove what was said exactly hence the no names. What I don't like is how the Conservative government seems to pick on/attack individuals rather than the issue. I'm all for debate but just as the rules on this forum go you attack the issue not the person.
And there's the whole defamation lawsuits that can result from not having actual proof that it was said.  So no.  I don't anticipate names being named.

But the track record is spotty at best.  From Rob Anders sleeping at comitee, to accusing card carrying conservative vets of being NDP hacks, to Fantino's brilliant PR moves and the overall all talk and little substance, to the recent lawsuit and social contract debacle, I wouldn't be at all surprised that somebody said something somewhere at sometime.

The whole Veteran's portfolio is a mess and needs a serious reset.
It's also very easy for someone to twist "veterans cost a lot" into "veterans cost too much".