Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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]

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: [email protected]

Authorized by Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Silly question.

Of course they will. 

 

[Strike]

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]

According to this article in the Ottawa Citizen, ABC is getting some traction with the local media, anyway.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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]

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]

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

Understood.

 

[YZT580]

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]

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
Posted: 09/02/2015 7:59 am EDT Updated: 09/02/2015 7:59 am EDT

It is sad that in 2015 veterans have to be a campaign point in a federal election, but The Grits have had a history of promising what they have no intention of delivering.

The last time the Liberals were in power was described by former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier as "the decade of darkness." The Liberals have had two high-profile veteran candidates leave the party on principle in the recent months, which I think is more newsworthy than the Liberals' recent $300 million dollar announcement. It is indicative to their inability to deliver and their past history of promising what they have no intention of delivering has caught up to them. The truth of the matter is that there are 700,000 veterans in Canada and, with a spouse and two dependents, that number approaches nearly 10 per cent of the population. An overwhelming majority of them vote, and with 40 per cent of Canada's population abstaining in 2011, the veteran vote could very well sway the upcoming election.

The recent announcements were made by a Liberal government trying to fix Liberal-implemented legislation. The New Veterans Charter came from the decade of darkness, and countless soldiers have suffered because of it.

There is a joke in the forces that if you walk into any legion and yell, "Pierre Elliot Trudeau is the best Prime Minister!" you would have to run for your life. The Liberals have proven time and time again to be no friend to the soldiers. Chrétien wearing his helmet on backwards (then chiding soldiers as they tried to show him how to wear it properly) and the elder Trudeau's morale-killing reorganizations have made a lasting impression on generations of military men and women who have been burned by the Liberals one too many times.

By pandering to the veteran community, the Liberals are hoping that the memory of soldiers does not go beyond the year 2000. For the last few decades, the Liberals have alienated generations of soldiers. Many of the men and women that have served will never support the Liberal party especially after the reprehensible treatment that they have had to endure during past Liberal mandates, particularly during the aforementioned decade of darkness when the Liberal party humiliated the forces. Cuts were so bad that when the troops were deployed to Afghanistan, they went without desert fatigues. Never mind that it was the Liberal party that went to the bureaucrats at Veterans Affairs Canada and told them that they had to figure out a way to implement a rehabilitation program with the same amount of funding. What was to follow was the implementation of the new veteran's charter , a living, breathing piece of unanimously passed legislation meant to save money that singlehandedly ruined the ability of those maimed by war to retire with dignity.

Former soldier Robert Smol writes that "to understand what the Liberal party's intentions were when they wrote and rammed the New Veterans Charter through the House in 2005, we need not go further than the statements of Albina Guarnieri, who served as Martin's veterans affairs minister and was responsible for the legislation."

Appearing before the Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on May 17, 2005, Guarnieri stated that "what we are doing is trying to replace dependency with opportunity and that sums up the entire (NVC) package in a nutshell."

As one of the biggest hallmarks of the NVC was to replace lifelong disability pensions with one-time lump sum payments, I cannot help but assume that statements like this were predicated on the assumption that veterans who were receiving disability pensions were "bums" and needed to be kicked out of government care.It should not come as a surprise that, in her selling of the Charter, Guarnieri consistently and conveniently quoted the absolute maximum lump-sum payment that a disabled veteran could receive and have to live on.

During the same committee session, Guarnieri insisted that "if you give a lump sum of $250,000 to a member of the Canadian Forces, that person can invest the money in a house or business." What her statement failed to consider was the fact that the only disabled veteran who could receive $250,000 under the 2005 legislation was one who was deemed 100 per cent disabled, meaning that he was so badly injured that he was incapable of self-care -- hardly the person who could buy a house and invest in a business.

As so many younger disabled veterans were to find out in the years following, the actual payout for their disabilities was far less.

The fact is Liberals have not even apologized or acknowledged the way they have treated the veterans of past generations -- and I know history always has a way of repeating itself, especially when the Liberals are involved.

MORE ON HUFFPOST:

Embedded links in article and more on LINK.

 

[Altair]

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]

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]

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.