Canadian Veterans Advocacy: Subject

Sit Rep Press Conference 0930, Parliament Hill - Equitas

Be advised that Peter Stoffer, NDP Veterans Affairs critic, will be holding a press conference on Parliament Hill, Tuesday, July 30th at 0930. I have been invited to speak to the Sacred Obligation the Government is claiming does not exists and I will be traveling to Ottawa Sunday for meetings Monday and the PC Tuesday morning. It is important that we present a unified front, that veterans of all ages and eras are seen demonstrating support for the Afghanistan wounded by standing in a row behind the principle speakers.

The Canadian Veterans Advocacy has been steadfast and resolute in support of Jim Scott and the Equitas team, indeed, our position has been somewhat justified by the government lawyers claims that veterans should approach our MP's for legislated change... No kidding. Did we not do just this in 2010 when we protested in front of MP's offices nation wide? Was not the CVA was created to continue this fight on the political level?

Yes indeedy.

The mission has yet to conclude, soon, we will once again march on parliament, we will once again encourage our government's MPs to embrace, not ignore, the obligation they have to those they send to war. We need you to stand for Equitas with us next Tuesday, if you are in the Ottawa area and wish to participate, meet us in front of the Peace Tower at 0900 hrs, if not, support our mission as we enter patrolling season next fall when parliament sits. It is our intention to engage on the national level through Remembrance Week, the focus will be the Sacred Obligation and the treatment of those who sacrificed so greatly prior to 2006 will be compared to the standards Equitas is fighting to resolve.

Are you willing to stand for your brothers and sisters? Are you willing to rally in front of your MPs office, to stand on guard for those who stand on guard for thee, to do exactly what the government's lawyers would tell us to do??????

The time has come to start getting organized in your community for a Rally in front of your MPs office, to stand for Kevin Berry, Mark Campbell, Aaron Bedard and all veterans who are subject to this grotesque policy.

We will fight, we you?

Mike, Prez, CVA

--------------

Hi all,

Please give this the widest distribution.

I've listened to the arguments presented by both sides in the current Court proceedings to determine if the Miller Thompson/ Equitas law suit can proceed.

Regardless of the outcome, Government lawyers taught us a very important lesson this week about how the Government views Veterans. They based their argument and it's now a matter of public record in a court of law that the Government feels:
1. veterans are essentially no different than any other citizen collecting other social benefits (welfare, unemployment, etc) and we are owed nothing more.
2. there is no 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the People of Canada despite it being written through out legislation and in CF publications.
3. that if citizens (Veterans in the case of the NVC) don't like the Government's laws, we are free to replace the Government through an election.

Shocking statements showing Government's arrogant, disrespectful and aggressive adversarial position against us. You may recall that as an election promise, the Conservative party committed to improving veterans benefits. Instead of changing the offending parts of the NVC that they opposed in opposition, they adopted the Liberal Government's NVC as if was their own. Now they are wasting what can amount to millions of taxpayers dollars to defend it in the courts, in a breach of our 'Social Contract' and potential breach of Constitutional law, just like they did in their losing battle against Dennis Manuge in the SISIP court case.

When the Liberal Government was rushing the NVC though Parliament before they were defeated in 2006, Minster of Veterans Affairs Albina Gueriani, with the heads of Veterans organizations present, told Members of Parliament, with the heads of Veterans organizations present, that if MP's voted against the NVC, they were voting against Veterans.

Could the same be said about Veterans organizations and individuals who continue to work 'with' the Government, including the Ombudsman, under the current circumstances of a Government who's hidden agenda treats us like a burden on society disrespecting a long established 'social contract' that once was the envy of the Allied world?

What should we make of the organizations who appear to be ignoring supported allegations and calls for explanations of how their policies and actions play a significant role in denying Veterans and their families essential benefits disrespecting the established concept of 'One Veteran'? Aren't they part of our community? Don't they owe us an explanation when asked? Is there anything we can do as a community to address this behaviour? Is the behaviour important enough to address?

On our behalf, Miller Thompson / Equitas argued to the Court that the 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the people of Canada is historically owned by the people of Canada and it's not open for any governing party to manipulate it as if it were their own policy as is the current case. Should we adopt the same position? What can we do about the Government's behaviour?

In summary, the lawyers, on behalf of the Government told us that there is no 'Social Contract', we are no better than welfare recipients and we should vote the current Party out of office. In addition, the Veterans organizations seem to be working 'with' the Government and not with our community.

We know where we stand, what are we prepared to do about it as a community?

All comments including those of the organizations are encouraged to provide a balanced point of view to help us work together to find a way to move beyond the current discourse.

Sincerely

Harold

Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php

Harold Leduc on the Equitas Class Action

Hi all,

Please give this the widest distribution.

I've listened to the arguments presented by both sides in the current Court proceedings to determine if the Miller Thompson/ Equitas law suit can proceed.

Regardless of the outcome, Government lawyers taught us a very important lesson this week about how the Government views Veterans. They based their argument and it's now a matter of public record in a court of law that the Government feels:
1. veterans are essentially no different than any other citizen collecting other social benefits (welfare, unemployment, etc) and we are owed nothing more.
2. there is no 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the People of Canada despite it being written through out legislation and in CF publications.
3. that if citizens (Veterans in the case of the NVC) don't like the Government's laws, we are free to replace the Government through an election.

Shocking statements showing Government's arrogant, disrespectful and aggressive adversarial position against us. You may recall that as an election promise, the Conservative party committed to improving veterans benefits. Instead of changing the offending parts of the NVC that they opposed in opposition, they adopted the Liberal Government's NVC as if was their own. Now they are wasting what can amount to millions of taxpayers dollars to defend it in the courts, in a breach of our 'Social Contract' and potential breach of Constitutional law, just like they did in their losing battle against Dennis Manuge in the SISIP court case.

When the Liberal Government was rushing the NVC though Parliament before they were defeated in 2006, Minster of Veterans Affairs Albina Gueriani, with the heads of Veterans organizations present, told Members of Parliament, with the heads of Veterans organizations present, that if MP's voted against the NVC, they were voting against Veterans.

Could the same be said about Veterans organizations and individuals who continue to work 'with' the Government, including the Ombudsman, under the current circumstances of a Government who's hidden agenda treats us like a burden on society disrespecting a long established 'social contract' that once was the envy of the Allied world?

What should we make of the organizations who appear to be ignoring supported allegations and calls for explanations of how their policies and actions play a significant role in denying Veterans and their families essential benefits disrespecting the established concept of 'One Veteran'? Aren't they part of our community? Don't they owe us an explanation when asked? Is there anything we can do as a community to address this behaviour? Is the behaviour important enough to address?

On our behalf, Miller Thompson / Equitas argued to the Court that the 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the people of Canada is historically owned by the people of Canada and it's not open for any governing party to manipulate it as if it were their own policy as is the current case. Should we adopt the same position? What can we do about the Government's behaviour?

In summary, the lawyers, on behalf of the Government told us that there is no 'Social Contract', we are no better than welfare recipients and we should vote the current Party out of office. In addition, the Veterans organizations seem to be working 'with' the Government and not with our community.

We know where we stand, what are we prepared to do about it as a community?

All comments including those of the organizations are encouraged to provide a balanced point of view to help us work together to find a way to move beyond the current discourse.

Sincerely

Harold

Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php

Veterans suing government over disability pensions

Chris Lane, CTV British Columbia
Published Monday, July 22, 2013 6:06PM PDT
Last Updated Monday, July 22, 2013 6:11PM PDT

The federal government is asking a BC Supreme Court judge to strike down a class-action lawsuit filed by six war veterans over disability compensation.

The disabled veterans are challenging a pension program introduced in 2006, which the soldiers say violates their human rights with insufficient and arbitrary disability payments.

Veteran pensions previously fell under the Pension Act, before the New Veterans Charter was signed off seven years ago to establish more veteran-specific regulations.

Kevin Berry, one of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, contends that the benefits are 40 to 90 per cent worse under the new rules, and are weaker than provincial compensation plans.

The federal government argues the soldiers' concerns should not be dealt with by the courts. They say the veterans should lobby MPs instead to change the legislation.

"They're telling us that you can't sue us because you're veterans, you're not entitled to equal compensation because you're veterans," said Berry.

"We're not going to stand for that."

Jim Scott, whose son Daniel is another one of the six disabled soldiers in the class-action suit, said the court case will determine what power soldiers have to negotiate their pensions.

"What we're here to do today is to establish whether soldiers have fundamental rights under the Charter … and whether the government owes them a duty of care," said Scott.

The court hearing will continue Tuesday and Wednesday.

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/veterans-suing-government-over-disability-pensions-1.1378991#ixzz2ZsAIgAly

------------

July 22, 2013 first day in Court.

Only the Governments lawyers talked today. I will summarise some of the points which they made.

(1)Fiduciary Duty to Veterans is being denied by the Government (Crown)
Basically this means that Ottawa or the Crown arguing for Ottawa does not believe that they have any sacred duty to care for Veterans.

(2)The crown also argued that Canada has no obligations to provide any benefits to Veterans.

(3) They also contend that there is no obligation under legislative authority to provide the military with equal benefits.

(4) That the changes made to the act are not a matter for the court. The lawyer went on to say that there were more prudent ways to deal with this matter and when the Judge as him to name one , he suggested contacting our MP's, only later to state that government only worked incrementally not monumentally. To me at least one sort of ruled out the other, because he was saying a better way was to contact your MP for help and then said but it will take forever if at all.

I am not sure about the numbers of Veterans who showed up but it wasn't as many as I would have expected because of the seriousness of that the decision on this question might (Might) have on the future of all Veterans and RCMP disability programs.

I honestly believe if the Crown (Government) gets a ruling in their favour there will be a legal president and ruling that Ottawa has no obligation to provide any services to Veterans and furthermore have no obligation to give equal benefits, not even for equal injury.
Now granted I would not expect or at least hope for them not to cancel what is already out there but I doubt that there will be any further recipients of many of the Veterans programs already out there, including but not limited to, VIP, Education, 75% of pay for 2 years, even medical care and who will provide it comes into question.

I had to leave early due to parking issues.
End of Day one.

PS: It is now a matter of Public Record that Ottawa (Our present Government) do not believe that they owe Veterans including the injured one, ANYTHING.

Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php

New announcement: Priority Public Service Entitlement for the surviving spouses of CF personnel

Priority Public Service Entitlement for the surviving spouses of CF personnel

The Public Service Commission of Canada has established a new priority entitlement for the surviving spouses and common-law partners of Canadian Forces personnel who have died while performing their duties.

The priority entitlement gives eligible spouses increased access to public service employment opportunities by placing their names and résumés on a priority listing for external federal government job competitions. Spouses then have the right to compete for positions and be appointed in priority to all other persons, except statutory priorities, to any term or indeterminate position in the public service for which they meet the essential qualifications.

The program will be administered by Director Casualty Support Management (DCSM) and the Public Service Commission of Canada. A representative from DCSM will be contacting all eligible spouses to make sure they are aware of this opportunity should they choose to take advantage of the entitlement.

"Director Military Family Services (DMFS) is pleased to help spread the word about this significant gesture on the part of the Canadian government, which honours and acknowledges the sacrifices of these spouses by offering them new employment opportunities that may help build a brighter future," indicated Celine Thompson, Director, DMFS.

For complete details about this opportunity, please visit the Public Service Commission's website by clicking here. A helpful list of Frequently Asked Questions about this initiative is also available.

-------------

Amendments to the Public Service Employment Regulations Priority Entitlements

https://www.familyforce.ca/sites/AllLocations/EN/Employment%20Assistance/Pages/PSEntitlement.aspx

The Regulations Amending the Public Service Employment Regulations amend certain provisions with respect to the priority entitlements provided in the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER). The amendments also establish a new priority right for surviving spouses or common-law partners of employees, members of the Canadian Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whose death is attributable to the performance of duties. The following provides a detailed description of these amendments.

(1) Persons employed in an excluded position in the Office of the Governor General's Secretary

The priority right for persons who cease to be employed in an excluded position in the Office of the Governor General's Secretary will be repealed as of the day on which the Regulations Amending the Office of the Governor General's Secretary Employment Regulations (2010) will come into force.

A mobility provision in the Regulations Amending the Office of the Governor General's Secretary Employment Regulations (2010) would allow persons appointed to an excluded position after the coming into force of these Regulations to participate in any advertised internal appointment process open to all employees for a period of one year after they cease to be employed.

Persons employed in an excluded position when this priority is repealed will continue to be given this right whenever they cease to be so employed.

This amendment serves to maintain parity between persons employed in an excluded position in the Office of the Governor General's Secretary and former members of ministers' staff who benefit from similar mobility provisions.

(2) Employees who become disabled, members of the Canadian Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are released or discharged for medical reasons

The Regulations now specify the conditions under which these persons are entitled to the priority right. In order to be entitled to the priority, employees who become disabled and members of the Canadian Forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are released or discharged for medical reasons must be certified to be ready to return to work within five years after the day on which they became disabled or were released or discharged for medical reasons, and the day specified for their return to work must also be within that same five-year period.

For members of the Canadian Forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Regulations specify that the person must also request the priority within the same five-year period.

In addition, the Regulations specify that the entitlement period begins on the day on which the person is ready to return to work, as certified by a competent authority, rather than on the day on which the competent authority specifies that the person is ready to return to work.
Top of Page

(3) Reinstatement priority

The word "an" has been added before the word "après" of the French version of paragraph 10(2)(a) of the reinstatement priority.

(4) Surviving spouses or common-law partners of employees, members of the Canadian Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whose death is attributable to the performance of duties

A new priority right in an advertised external appointment process is established for surviving spouses or common-law partners of any of the following persons whose death is attributable to the performance of duties:

An employee;
A member of the regular force of the Canadian Forces;
A member of Class A, B or C of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces as prescribed under articles 9.06, 9.07 and 9.08 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces;
A member of the special force of the Canadian Forces;
A member, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and
A member of the Reserve of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The objective of this priority right is to provide surviving spouses or common-law partners of persons whose death is attributable to the performance of duties with access to indeterminate public service employment.

Surviving spouses or common-law partners eligible for this priority have the right to be appointed in an advertised external appointment process in priority to all other persons, except statutory priorities, to any term or indeterminate position in the public service for which they meet the essential qualifications. There are no restrictions with respect to the group and level or location of the position to which an appointment may be made pursuant to this entitlement, as long as the person meets the essential qualifications.

To be eligible for this priority, the surviving spouse or common-law partner must:

Not be employed in the public service for an indeterminate period at the time the request is made;
Qualify under any federally or provincially legislated plan for compensation as a result of the death of the person that is attributable to the performance of duties; and
Make a request within two years of qualifying for compensation.

The PSER defines common-law partner as "a person who is cohabitating with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so co-habitated for a period of at least one year."

The spouse or common-law partner of a person who has died since October 7, 2001, the date on which Canada and a coalition of other countries initiated military actions in Afghanistan, is eligible to obtain the priority if they meet the following conditions:

The surviving spouse or common-law partner is not employed in the public service for an indeterminate period at the time the request is made;
The surviving spouse or common-law partner qualifies under any federal or provincially legislated plan for compensation as a result of the death of the person that is attributable to the performance of duties; and
The surviving spouse or common-law partner makes a request within two years of the latter of:
the coming into force of the priority on May 12, 2010, or
the surviving spouse's or common-law partner's having qualified for compensation.

The period of entitlement to the priority begins on the day on which the request is made and ends on the earliest of:

The day that is two years after the day on which the request is made;
The day on which the spouse or common-law partner is appointed to a position in the public service for an indeterminate period; and
The day on which the spouse or common-law partner refuses an appointment for an indeterminate period without good and sufficient reason.

For employees who died during the period between October 7, 2001, and the coming into effect of the priority on May 12, 2010, the Public Service Commission (PSC), through the Labour Program of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, will advise the surviving spouses or common-law partners of their right to the priority entitlement and will subsequently register them. For members of the Canadian Forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who died during this period, their respective organizations will advise and register the surviving spouse or common-law partner using the Priority Information Management System electronic on-line Registration Form.

Departments and agencies are responsible for advising and registering the surviving spouses or common-law partners of employees and members whose death occurs after the coming into effect of the priority on May 12, 2010.

A new chapter has been added to the Guide on Priority Administration. To help organizations with their implementation and registration of persons who could benefit from this entitlement, the PSC has also developed a number of tools:

Frequently Asked Questions for Implementing Organizations
Sample cover letter - Surviving spouse or common-law partner of employees – Death between October 7, 2001 and May 12, 2010
Sample letter/paragraph - Surviving spouse or common-law partner of members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Death between Octber 7, 2001 and May 12, 2010
Sample letter - Employees and Members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Death After May 12, 2010
Frequently Asked Questions for the Surviving Spouse or Common-Law Partner
Registration Request Form – to be completed by survivors wishing to apply for the entitlement and returned as per the implementing organization's instructions

To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.

You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=10307.0

Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.

New announcement: Conservatives exploit Afghan deaths, but treat vets like 2nd class citizens

Conservatives exploit Afghan deaths, but treat vets like 2nd class citizens

By Nick Fillmore

A travelling tribute to the men and women who lost their lives in Afghanistan will arrive in your province or territory during the next year or two. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/memorial-canadians-americans-killed-afghan-war-tour-country-142408096.html The memorial, featuring plaques of the 161 Canadians killed, will be welcomed by their families and friends, but some of us will react much differently.

Former National Defense Minister Peter MacKay unveiled the temporary display in Ottawa on July 9th. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/mobil/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4884 It will be open to the public and remain on Parliament Hill through Remembrance Day, before heading off on a two-year journey across the country to visit provincial legislatures and then on to Washington.

The memorial appears to be straight-forward but, in reality, it carries with it a heavy dose of hypocrisy regarding the Conservatives' real objective of the tour and their treatment of military veterans.

The main goal of the memorial is not so much to honor those killed but to have the display instill into Canadians the idea that the Tories command a modern-day fighting machine ready to join others to defend "freedom" wherever necessary. To clearly link us to the prowess of the Americans, the display includes plaques of the 40 U.S. military personnel killed while under Canadian command in Afghanistan.

Moreover, the tour propagates "the big lie" about Canada's effort in Afghanistan. "The faces you see etched here are of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in . . . . creating a more secure environment for Afghans," claimed MacKay, well known for his frequent episodes of mendacity. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/mobil/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4884

In truth, the estimated $18.1-billion http://makingpeace.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/the-afghanistan-war-what-are-the-real-costs/ the Harper government will have spent fighting the Taliban, the 161 deaths, and more than 2,000 Canadian injuries did nothing to improve the lives of the Afghan people. The situation in Kandahar province, where Canada did its fighting, is just as bleak as when we arrived. http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/2582163-afghan-war-was-a-waste-of-canadian-lives/

Interestingly, Canada's 'old fashioned' role of playing peacekeeper is not popular in Ottawa or in Washington. Maybe that's why the 25 Canadian peacekeeping soldiers who died in Cyprus during our 29 years there are not honored in this or any other major memorial. http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/history/canadianforces/factsheets/cyprus

The fact that MacKay's incompetent bureaucracy could not even get the launch of the tribute right is a sign of the government's lack of respect for the families of those killed. The tour wasn't scheduled to leave Ottawa for weeks, but the military bureaucracy, in a rush to make the announcement as soon as possible after Canada Day, failed to adequately notify many of the families so they could attend. Many families missed the event. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/09/pol-defence-minister-peter-mackay-afghanistan.html

"It's very upsetting," Jane Byers, who was in Edmonton and the mother of a private killed by a suicide bomber, told the CBC. "This monument is like a shrine to the families. . . . . This last-minute crap is not cutting it. It's an insult and a disgrace."

The majority of the men and women completing training before being shipped off to Afghanistan probably had few life experiences. Many would have considered a walk down raunchy Yonge Street or a stroll on the stolid Sparks Street mall the most dramatic event in their life.
Those experiences would be nothing compared to what they faced in Afghanistan. As the military's recruitment ad says: "There's no life like it."
Life on the battlefield has been a living hell. Some stats:

• At least 50 members of the forces committed suicide as a result of their terrifying experiences in Afghanistan, (Interestingly, only three of those who killed themselves are honoured as part of the memorial. Several families criticize the government for moving so slowly to complete the formal death investigations.) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Inquiries+into+military+suicides+remain+incomplete/8362658/story.html
• Almost 14 per cent of those who served were diagnosed with a mental health disorder, but some say this doesn't reflect the larger extent of the problem,
• A total of 5.5 per cent developed other depressive disorders, and
• A 2011 military study estimated that eight per cent of personnel deployed to Afghanistan were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) within five years of returning home. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/3874319-14-per-cent-of-canadian-forces-in-afghanistan-had-mental-health-problems-study/
A stone-faced MacKay was at his hypocritical best when telling those present in Ottawa that the memorial was "to honour the bravery, the dedication, the valour and professionalism of the civilian and military personnel who have fallen in Afghanistan." Yet MacKay has been up to his neck in establishing new, unnecessary austerity measures that are making life miserable for many of the veterans who survived Afghanistan and other warzones.

Until two years ago, the Harper government was fighting a ruthless legal battle to deny 4,500 disabled veterans of much-needed pension money. The disabled veterans had filed a class-action lawsuit against Ottawa to stop it from clawing back a portion of their monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension. Finally, the court sided with the pensioners, and the government has had to replace the funds. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/01/retroactive-payments-to-d_n_1930211.html

Families of a number of mostly infirm veterans at Canada's 500-bed veterans' centre in Toronto have complained that austerity-driven staff cutbacks have led to patient neglect and abuse, such as head injuries, patients left in their own excrement, and severe bed sores. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/18/sunnybrook-veterans-centre-neglect_n_2155001.html

In addition, many poor veterans are denied the money required to pay for their burial. Between 2006 and 2011, the Last Post Fund, which had adopted more stringent eligibility requirements as a result of Harper's very selective austerity program, was turning down 67 per cent of the applications for support. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/10/last-post-fund-harper_n_2107808.html

Prime Minister Harper made a promise during the 2006 federal election, when he stated, "Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984." However, the government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca/In-The-Senate/Publication/11365_Canadian-Veterans-Still-Fighting-for-their-Rights

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are closing nine Veterans Affairs Canada district offices across the country. This leaves veterans and their families without access to in-person services in many communities, including vitally needed counselling. Veterans have to rely on phone or online assistance. By 2015, Veterans Affairs will have cut 800 jobs and there are plans to shut more district offices. http://www.psac-afpc.com/news/2013/issues/20130125-e.shtml

I have left the biggest lie for last. The Department of Defence has been chopping away chunks of expenses for months, claiming that severe austerity measures were necessary to meet its' budget objectives. Records show that the Department has a whopping $2.3-billion it has not spent for the budget year ending March 31, 2013. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/12/national-defence-spending_n_3581572.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics)

The Department says that when all the bills are paid and adjustments are made, the surplus will not be so large. What will be the extra amount then? Perhaps $1.5-billion?

And what of the way veteran pensioners are being nickel-and-dimed?

At first I thought the problem was government incompetence. But I don't think so.

Instead, I must conclude that these Conservative overlords are mean-spirited, heartless, basically evil ideologues who are perfectly happy to play another one of their devious games of manipulating budgets so they can downsize and destroy government over a number of years.
This time they are fighting their battle on the backs of poor and injured veterans – the parents and grandparents of those new recruits that the Conservatives so gladly shipped off to the no-man's deserts of Afghanistan.

Nick Fillmore is a Toronto freelance journalist who earlier worked in many journalistic capacities at the CBC over nearly 30 years. In addition, his work has been widely published across Canada. Nick is a founder of the Canadian Association of Journalists and the International Freedom of Expression eXchange. His articles also appear on his blog nickfillmore.blogspot.com Comments are welcome at: fillmore0274@rogers.com

To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.

You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=10297.0

Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.

Canadian Veterans Advocacy: Subject

efence, Veterans Affairs to get tough love in cabinet swap: experts


By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press July 15, 2013 3:05 PM



Story
Photos ( 1 )


Defence, Veterans Affairs to get tough love in cabinet swap: experts

Minister of Justice Peter MacKay, right, speaks with Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson during a Cabinet swearing in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Monday, July 15, 2013. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

OTTAWA - The appointments of Rob Nicholson and Julian Fantino to oversee defence and veterans affairs signals both departments are in for some tough love, observers said Monday in the wake of cabinet makeover.

The shuffling of Peter MacKay to the justice portfolio from defence removes one of the major roadblocks Prime Minister Stephen Harper faced in overhauling National Defence along the lines he has wanted since a report on military transformation two years ago.

Nicholson, former justice minister, will be able to implement long-sought changes without worrying about allegiances MacKay accumulated in years as a stalwart supporter of the troops, says a defence analyst.

"If he is carrying a message from the prime minister, he can implement changes ... without any worry of damage to his reputation as a minister," said Douglas Bland, a retired soldier and chair of the defence management studies at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

"In fact, he could be seen as someone coming in to sweep clean the old process."

Nicholson inherits a department struggling to define itself post-Afghanistan and to live within a shrinking budget that could be as much as $2.5 billion lighter by next year.

It is a mess, said historian Jack Granatstein, a senior fellow the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

"They have a (chief of defence staff) who is likely going to be more pliant than the previous one. They have a new minister who knows, near as I can tell, nothing about DND or the military, and this may be the time to make DND change."

Fantino's appointment in the sometimes volatile veterans affairs portfolio was greeted with caution by advocates, some of whom worry whether the former top cop in Ontario will have a sympathetic ear for restless ex-soldiers dealing with the aftermath of the war.

"If the objective is to put Minister Fantino in there to bring a state of order, or blunt our efforts on advocacy, good luck with that because it's not going to work," said Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

"We have expectations, particularly of the new minister because of his law-enforcement background."

The swap of responsibilities between MacKay and Nicholson also brings an end to the perceived political rivalry between Harper and MacKay, which seemed evident over two years ago when the prime minister stripped military procurement responsibilities away from the defence minister and created an associate ministerial post.

MacKay's responsibility was further eroded when Public Works took over the stealth fighter and fixed-wing search plane programs.

Bland said it may have been an attempt at damage control, given the mushrooming procurement fiascoes; or it may have been an attempt at the time to entice MacKay to quit.

"I was a bit surprised MacKay didn't say: 'To hell with you. I'm resigning.' But he stuck around," said Bland.

Granatstein was more blunt, saying MacKay was "done in by the centre," a reference to the Prime Minister's Office and its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office.

A spokeswoman for Harper confirmed Monday the shuffle eliminates the position of associate defence minister and returns purchasing responsibility to the defence minister.

Bland said the cabinet shuffle did not address a fundamental question of who is really in charge of military procurement, a problem that has plagued National Defence and vexed the Conservatives with some of their biggest political embarrassments.

MacKay, one of the country's longest-serving defence ministers, faced his share of political controversy, including allegations he hitched a lift on a search-and-rescue helicopter while returning from vacation.

Perhaps more damaging, MacKay wore the controversy over the planned purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter. The auditor general said National Defence and Public Works hid the enormous cost and didn't do their homework to justify it.

MacKay's political obituary was written countless times in a department that seemed never far from fiasco, especially throughout the Afghan war.

Despite that, MacKay remained popular with the troops who saw him participating in boot camps and other physical activities.

"He rolled around in the mud with them," said Liberal defence critic John McKay. "I'm sure they appreciated that, and it's not something Rob Nicholson will be doing."

The problem was that MacKay rarely said "no" to the brass and the shuffle seems to be an attempt to establish more civilian control over the military, said McKay.

At an event last week to inaugurate a memorial to those killed in Afghanistan, MacKay described being defence minister "as the single greatest honour" of his life.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Defence+Veterans+Affairs+tough+love+cabinet+swap+experts/8662866/story.html#ixzz2Z9gHeqFK


Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php

New announcement: Hard-won lessons of Afghan war on 'life support,' outgoing army commander warns

Hard-won lessons of Afghan war on 'life support,' outgoing army commander warns

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press July 14, 2013 4:30 PM

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hardwon+lessons+Afghan+life+support+outgoing+army/8658566/story.html

OTTAWA - Budget restraint and under-spending at National Defence have left some of the army's hard-won capabilities from the Afghan war on "life support," says the outgoing commander of the Canadian Army.

The federal government needs to recognize that intelligence operators are as much a part of today's front line as soldiers and tanks, said Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, whose three-year tenure as Canada's top soldier comes to an end Thursday.

"I am unusually proud that there is an army that has been reloaded and I've spent an incredible amount of energy and effort to pay respect to the lessons that were learned with blood in Afghanistan," Devlin said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

Much of Devlin's 35-year career in the military was spent in the field in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq as an exchange officer with the U.S. Army.

But the transition from the front line to Ottawa's political trench warfare can be daunting, and Devlin's candid — but tactful — assessments of the effect of budget-slashing at National Defence have been like fingernails on a chalkboard to a government that's staked much of its reputation on embracing the military.

Before a Senate committee last December, Devlin revealed the army's baseline budget had been cut by 22 per cent and warned there was little fat to cut throughout the organization — a view that did not sit well in political circles.

It has been a scramble to maintain not only training, but elements Devlin described as the "softer skills" essential to fighting modern wars, such as intelligence, surveillance and expertise in countering improvised explosive devices.

"Some of them, to be quite frank, are on life support," he said. "Some are important; others we have had to make rough choices."

Each of those elements figured prominently in the hit-and-run war against the Taliban, and yet the army has found itself redirecting soldiers from infantry, armoured and artillery regiments in order to maintain the necessary intelligence capability.

The ranks of troops who conduct information and electronic warfare — more important than ever on the modern-day battlefield — are stretched thin, Devlin said. "The definition of what soldiers are considered the pointy end of the stick is much broader now, and I would argue that the intelligence analyst is a pointy-ended soldier today."

The army is pushing it, he said, but has "just enough" door gunners for training to man the new CH-47F Chinook helicopters, which began arriving last month.

Equipment such as surveillance balloons and electronics towers, used to keep 24-hour watch over the battlefield, are instead packed up in storage and used sparingly for training because of shrinking budgets, he added.

"If our training scenarios are not rich enough to keep those skills honed at the level they should be, it will mean we will take extra time, extra training and extra resources to bring them up to an appropriate level to represent Canada professionally — the way Canada needs to be represented — domestically or internationally."

A series of internal briefings, released to The Canadian Press over the last year, echo Devlin's concerns, including one memo that warns of possible "degradation," particularly in intelligence.

"Recent operational experience has reinforced the conviction that deployed land forces ... depend on a sophisticated (human intelligence) network that draws from all sources," said the April 8, 2011, briefing, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The army found itself hobbled at the beginning of the Kandahar mission in 2005, by the absence of that sophisticated ground network of sources, and by its lack of experience in interrogating prisoners.

Defence analysts have been warning for months that while the army has been able to maintain training at the highest level for quick reaction units, which are designed to deploy in a crisis, its ability to mount a sustained operation similar to the one in Afghanistan has been compromised by cuts to training and readiness.

Devlin's comments come just days after the parliamentary budget office revealed that National Defence had under-spent its budget by as much as $2.3 billion last year — bringing the cumulative total of unused funds to $9.6 billion since 2006.

The department claims some of that cash is the result of government belt-tightening in the form of strategic review and deficit reduction, which combined could carve as much as 13 per cent a year out of the defence budget.

When asked last week, the department refused to provide detailed figures. But Stephen O'Connor, the associate deputy minister of financial services, told CTV on Friday that the figures for under-spending last year were not as bad as the budget office made it seem.

O'Connor estimated the number at slightly less than $1.5 billion. "That's still a large number, we understand that, but there are reasons behind that number," he said.

To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.

You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=10285.0

Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.