The Most Powerful Symbol You Will See This Election

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind. John Diefenbaker

On January 6, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, in his State of the Union Address; put forward four tenets of freedom that every citizen should enjoy:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear

I watched a short Canadian newsreel recently, that would have been shown in movie theatres as propaganda.  It was made in 1943, at a time when Canadians were growing weary of war.

Lorne Greene of Bonanza fame, narrated, and started out by showing victorious battle scenes in an attempt to convince the movie goers that we were winning.  They just had to hold on a bit longer.

He then repeated those four tenets of freedom, one at a time, with all the passion he could muster.

It was very moving, and they were not just empty promises.  On behalf of the Government of Canada, Social Scientist, Leonard Marsh, prepared a report that was presented to a House of Commons committee that year:  Report on Social Services for Canada; as part of the plan for post-war reconstruction.

It wasn't enough to just bring soldiers home, They had to come home to a country committed to making that country, not only worth coming home to, but with visible signs of the things they had fought for. Their sacrifices were not in vain and the welfare state was born.

Initially, the term was used to describe an industrial capitalist society, in which the state manipulated the market, but in 1967, British historian Asa Briggs, in The Welfare State, laid out revised provisions of what the welfare state should look like:

- Provision of minimum income
- Provision for the reduction of economic insecurity, resulting from sickness, old age and unemployment
- Provision to all members of society a range of social services

Not just the freedom from want but the freedom from need.  If we were expected to make sacrifices during wartime, we needed to be taken care of at times of peace.

Then in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, turned the whole thing upside down.  Forget all that.  There was no such thing as society and no need for social services.  Give more money to the wealthy and the resulting economic boost would trickle down to everyone.

The corporate welfare state was reborn.

Conservatives will take every opportunity to use the word "freedom",  but clearly have no idea what it means.  Chest thumping and carnivorous nationalism is not freedom.  

Instead of freedom from want, they leave society wanting, and use fear, attacks on religious groups and stifling of free speech, so they can have us participate in perpetual war.

Photo-ops with soldiers, first responders, or anyone in uniform, might make you look good, but you can't remove them from the picture once the cameras are turned off.

Those who risk their lives for us, deserve better.  Indeed, all Canadians do.

Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong. And our dreams for this beautiful country will never die.  Pierre Trudeau

This election campaign, we're hearing a lot about the middle class.  There's no denying that a strong middle class is tantamount to economic security.  However, even with a strong middle class, there was still poverty. 

There was still want.

Instead of a higher minimum wage, that will only force small businesses out, we need a living wage guarantee for everyone. We need a strong social safety net, that includes a housing strategy, so terms like "homelessness" and "food banks" are removed from everyday conversation.

Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world. Tommy Douglas

George Bush referring to corporations as "job creators" is a myth.  Corporations only create jobs when it's convenient to do so, and will shed jobs anytime they threaten their bottom line (as we're seeing now in Alberta).  And despite the fact that the public has subsidized these corporations for years, shareholders take priority over stakeholders.

Enough is enough.

A recent Nanos poll indicates that 2/3 of Canadians are ready for a change.  It's up to us to make sure that that change, is not simply more of the same.

If a picture speaks to us, the image of the crest above is speaking volumes.  It's not only a reminder of what freedom was supposed to look like, but also a reminder that we are failing our heroes and heroines.

Patriotism is not dying for one's country, it is living for one's country, and for humanity. Perhaps that is not as romantic, but it's better. Agnes MacPhail

A Guest Blogger With an Important Message About the Treatment of Some Military Personnel

On Remembrance Day we do our duty by wearing our poppy, attending a special service and paying homage to all veterans and those serving in the Armed Forces.  Little else can generate such passion, as witnessed every November 11.

Politicians of all stripes often exploit this emotion, especially when garnering support for war, and photo-ops with uniformed troops is money in the bank.

The Conservatives even hid behind our troops to avoid answering questions about Afghan Detainee abuse, allowing them to shoulder the blame.  Veteran Ombudsman Pat Stogran, was fired by Stephen Harper for speaking out against the treatment of Vets.

Stogran hit out at the Department of Veterans Affairs for being "deliberately obstructionist and deceptive," rather than helping injured soldiers. Stogran also said one government official told him that soldiers were less of a liability if they died in war, rather than coming back to Canada injured.

So given the attitude toward those injured in war, it should come as no surprise that military personnel, not injured in war, but still hurt in the line of duty, could expect even less.

I was contacted by Brian C. Bradley, a Veteran of the Canadian Forces, who wanted to share his story, so the following comes directly from him, an honoured guest on my blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Brian C. Bradley. I am a Veteran of the Canadian Forces.

In 1966 I completed my army reserve basic training. In 1989 I completed my army reserve officer training, and began nearly five years of service in the Canadian Navy training as a Combat Systems Engineer (CSE, or 044A in Canadian military classifcations). This same ‘five years of service’ began with basic officer training at Chilliwack, B.C., continued with second-language training at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, and a year in Esquimalt, followed by just under three years of service in Halifax, NS.

While training in Esquimalt, I was billeted to the HMCS Qu’Apelle, where I suffered a fall in the shower onboard that warship, injuring my spinal cord at three levels.

Because the accident occurred while the HMCS Qu’Appelle was away from her home port, I was confined to my rack, and provided with painkillers until returning to Esquimalt five days later. On arriving there, I was rushed by ambulance to the base hospital.

In March 1996 I applied to the Veterans’ Review and Appeal Board (VRAB; a division of Veterans Affairs) for a disability pension. On three separate occasions within the first year of application (refer to Table ‘A’ on next page) the VRAB ruled against my application for a disability pension. I then obtained a ruling from the Trial Division of the Federal Court (Fed. Ct.) that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board (Fed. Ct. case T-157-98).

In the next year, the allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel ruled twice more against my claim. The matter was once again brought before the Trial Division which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel and awarded me costs (Fed. Ct. case T-2137-99).

Because this next allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel failed to provide a decision within the next year, I filed a motion of Contempt of Court with the Trial Division. While the Trial Division (i.e., the Hon. Mr. Justice Martineau) would not grant this motion by citing the VRAB in contempt, it did again award me costs, even though none were requested, and supplied a step-by-step procedure to obtain justice in my case.

With no legal training, I attempted to bring the VRAB before the Trial Division again, after being once again denied a disability pension by the VRAB’s next (and sixth) decision. I lost this decision despite having provided professional testimony from a neurosurgeon, an orthopaedic surgeon and a general practitioner with more than 35 years of experience.

Other than being supplied with additional pain killers and 3 or 4 brief sessions of physiotherapy, my real injuries were not treated at that base hospital, nor at the base hospital in Halifax, where I was sent about two months later as part of the next phase of training.

Upon release from the Canadian Navy in 1993 I was assessed by a civilian general practitioner in Lower Sackville, NS, who immediately identified a C5/C6 radiculopathy (upper spinal cord condition), along with indications of other potential spinal cord level involvement, that had resulted from the accident onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle.

This same GP initially referred me for assessment to a diagnostic service in Halifax (i.e., spinal cord MRI), an orthopaedic surgeon, and an internal medicine specialist. All of these physicians agreed that the three levels of spinal cord injuries (i.e., C5/C6; T11/T12 & L2/L3) were most likely the result of the accident that had occurred while I was serving onboard HMCS Qu’Appelle

None of these submissions by physicians were contradicted by testimony from similar professionals on behalf of the VRAB, yet the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. ruled against my claims.

I was encouraged to re-approach the Trial Division based upon the experience of a lady who won her case in the Appeal Division in Ontario using my first two cases (i.e., T-157-98 & T-2137-99) as precedents.

To render such a re-approach at such a late stage in the events, I was encouraged to concentrate on my lower back injuries .... thereby, allegedly attesting to settlement for the upper back injuries .... with neither of these settlements ever occurring!

Not more than four years ago, The Trial Division ruled again in my favour (T-401-05) and referred the matter back again to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board. That same board ruled on four more separate occasions against my application for a disability pension, forcing the matter back to the Trial Division for ultimate resolution (T-617-09).

The VRAB fully exhausted the total number of decisions to which they were entitled in my application, recognizing that an award to me of a disability pension would mean financial ruin and subsequent political suicide for the government ‘in charge’ at the time of such a decision, given the tens of thousands of other veterans who remained deprived of such benefits.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan (T-617-09) decided: "THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the Appeal Board's decision is quashed." Unfortunately, such a ruling does nothing more than refer the same matter back to the Respondent (e.g., Veterans’ Affairs), thus prolonging the history of my claims and thereby moving the VA's actions from the ridiculous to the sublime.

While Canadian governments over the past 80+ years have continued to disregard their legislated obligations to veterans of the CF and Mounted Police, how do you think these same governments are treating(?) the remainder of Canadian citizens?

On top of all of this, I have had to represent myself in the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. on several separate occasions with at least 6 of these applying to my claims with the VRAB [refer to case numbers: T-157-98, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 CanLII 7476 (F.C.) or

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1999/1999canlii7476/1999canlii7476.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 793

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct793/2001fct793.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 12 (CanLII) 

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fct12/2003fct12.html; T-67-03, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 996 or

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc996/2004fc996.html; T-401-05, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1470

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc1470/2005fc1470.html; and T-617-09, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 309 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc309/2011fc309.html]

In all of these decisions (including the latter two), the Hon. Justices supported my claims and rejected the VRAB's decisions. The greater weight of factual evidence by specialists in the fields of medicine applicable to my spinal cord injuries supported my claims, as did the greater majority of the above-listed decisions.

Who but a politician who allegedly represents his electorate but didn't see 'adequate votes' in seriously supporting this applicant's claims, would ignore these facts and not attempt to ensure this applicant receive something resembling the actual service of justice .... not to mention the adherence to legislated laws by a Fed. government dept. (i.e., VRAB)?

History has been written, how more often do we have to ignore it before learning our lessons? To support our (i.e., all veterans') efforts 'click on' the following and join our group:

http://homecomingvets.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/canadian-veterans-advocacy-is-galloping-ahead-with-projects-and-website/

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/rv2011.html

http://forum.kijiji.ca/post-7587682.html

Email author: bcbrad3@gmail.com
Yours truly,
Brian C. Bradley

Two Great Rick Mercer Rants on Harper's Mistreatment of Our Soldiers

I plucked these off the Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper site. Rick Mercer standing up for our troops. Harper should be ashamed.

Don't Forget the Canadian Veterans National Day of Protest

In response to the Harper government's treatment of Veterans, Michael Blais is organizing a national day of protest on November 6.

My name is Michael L Blais CD. I am a disabled veteran and a victim of the SISIP claw back. In response to the disrespectful manner Colonel Stogran has been treated by the government and due to the fact that the issues he and Dominion Command, RCL have presented has been ignored, a movement to organize a Veterans national day of protest on the 6th of November at 1100 hrs, local time
has been initiated. It is my hope that we can generate sufficient interest across the nation to start in Newfoundland and three and a half hours later, conclude in Victoria, BC. These objectives have been partially attained as we have representation in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and BC already. Major rallies will be held in St John’s, London and Trenton with another being considered for Niagara Falls and Peter Stoffer’s riding in Nova Scotia.

He has a website and a facebook group. Please join him a lend your voices to their cause.

Yellow ribbons are not enough. Don a poppy and join the Vets.

Soldiers Don't Need to Embarrass the Government of Canada. They do That on Their Own

With the continuing story of the abuse and neglect facing Canadian veterans at the hands of the Harper government, we learn that they are not even allowed to speak for themselves.

While politicians wrangle over support for disabled veterans, future beneficiaries are banned from the debate. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are forbidden to comment on the programs designed to assist them when they are injured. Flying in the face of sensible policy development and common sense, disability benefits are arranged without input from future stakeholders.

Please email your MP, write letters to the editor, scream it from the rooftops, if necessary. This is not acceptable.

I've said before that supporting the troops, also means standing up for our veterans, especially given that they are not allowed, and sometimes physically unable, to stand up for themselves.

Canadian Veterans Demand That Stephen Harper Bring Back Their Ombudsman

The Canadian Legions have circulated a petition demanding that Stephen Harper bring back their Ombudsman.

OTTAWA - Former Canadian soldiers don't want the voice of war veterans silenced just yet. A petition is circling some legion halls that urges the Conservative government to keep popular veterans ombudsman Pat Stogran on the job awhile longer.

The Tories have said the retired colonel's three-year contract won't be renewed this fall. But the petition makes it clear the veterans want Stogran to stick around. Among other things, it calls on the government to "renew the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman, Col. Pat Stogran" The petition will be sent to Parliament once it makes its way through the legions.

It's criminal that it had to come to this.

And to do a little damage control, the government has thrown a few bucks their way, but it was only perceived as further insult.

Following WWII, veterans were offered low-interest loans and free college tuition to help adjust to civilian life after serving their country. Surely Afghan vets should be entitled to the same by a government spending $16 billion on new fighter jets. The slick hardware may be necessary for a modern military in the 21st century. Yet the most precious asset this country has is human — serving men and women — and their benefits have been eroded under the Veterans Charter. This Tory fix needs a retrofit.

This country needs a retrofit.

Canadian Soldiers Feel Betrayed by Stephen Harper

After hiding behind our troops to avoid having to answer questions on the abuse of Afghan detainees, Stephen Harper has found that our soldiers no longer have any political value, so he has completely turned his back on them.

And yet that didn't stop Bev Shipley from abusing our tax dollars to send out flyers suggesting that his party supports the troops.

And when exactly does that "support" kick in Bev?

The Conservatives have made support for the troops an integral part of their party brand, but when the first ever veterans' ombudsman recently blasted the government for denying veterans adequate benefits it exposed a sense of betrayal felt by soldiers and their families who thought they would be better off with Harper, said a Canadian Forces veteran and longtime advocate for disabled soldiers.

"There's a huge outcry and sense of betrayal by the soldiers because a huge part of the population that elected the Conservatives were veterans and soldiers hoping for a little bit more respect for the sacrifice that they endure," said Sean Bruyea, a retired Armed Forces intelligence officer and advocate for veterans. "When you include families, we're talking over one million Canadians that are involved in this sense of betrayal. [The Conservatives] can use the soldiers at their own convenience, but there's no doubt there's going to be a long term political price."

Farmers and soldiers. Harper's on a roll.

Stephen Harper Standing Behind the Troops Says it All

But the question is, when is he going to stand with them? Or stand up for them?

I think I'm starting to see now why Greg Thomspon resigned. He was one of the few, if not the only, Progressive Conservative left in this party, and would not have presided over this disgrace.

We have to fight this. Be sure to join this group and show your support. We have to let our veterans know that we are glad they made it home.

Opposition MPs plan to force another House of Commons committee to return early from summer break to review the impending departure of the first-ever veterans ombudsman. Liberal critic Rob Oliphant submitted a letter to the clerk of the all-party Veterans Affairs committee Friday and demanded it be recalled to study the Conservative government's refusal to appoint retired colonel Pat Stogran to another term.

Stogran unleashed a barrage of criticism on the Veterans Affairs Department earlier this week, claiming bureaucrats were more interested in "penny-pinching" than helping those who fought for the country. He promised to carry on a public campaign for veterans during his last three months in office. The Conservative government notified him two weeks ago that his three-year appointment — due to expire on Nov. 11 — would not be renewed.

Stogran, flanked by vets at an Ottawa news conference, claimed to have been told by a senior federal Treasury Board official that it was in the country's best long-term financial interest that soldiers die in Afghanistan, rather than come home wounded because pay-outs were less. Stogran also accused the department of "cheating" war widows and said that a program to help them was shelved.

For his part, Oliphant accused Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn of misleading both former soldiers and the public. Oliphant disputes Blackburn's statements regarding a federal move to replace guaranteed life-time pensions with lump-sun payments and earning loss stipends. "I think it's time the minister answer some questions because I don't think he's being up-front with Canadians," said the Toronto-area MP.

And a little John McDermott for our veterans.

Is Harper's Hatred For Veterans Pay Back for Embarrassing Moment?

We all know that Stephen Harper never forgets a slight and sooner or later he will make someone pay.

On Canada Day 2009, he broke with protocol and believing that like the U.S. President, he was Commander in Chief, stepped out to receive the salute normally reserved for the Governor General.

It created a rather awkward moment and did not sit well with many of Canada's veterans.

Already bored with Afghanistan after having to hide behind the troops to avoid questions on the treatment of Afghan Detainees, he now just wants it all to go away. However, he's underestimating Canadians if he thinks that we will allow him to also abandon our veterans.

There is a new group just started to show solidarity with our veterans who gave up so much for us. You don't have to agree with war. Most of them don't much relish it either. But dammit they fought because they believed it was the right thing to do, and they deserve better than this.

Walter Natynczyk May be the Next to Lose His Job

As everyone who has ever spoken out against Stevie has learned. You don't speak out against Stevie. He has ways of making you "not talk".

So will Canada's top soldier Walter Natynczyk, be the next to feel the wrath of Steve?

Canada's top soldier, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, says concerns raised by the veterans ombudsman are "absolutely correct issues" and the controversial New Veterans Charter "doesn't work for everyone." At a news conference Friday, Natynczyk, the chief of the defence staff, was asked if veterans ombudsman Pat Stogran, whose term is not being renewed, has been doing a good job. "He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are," said Natynczyk, who held the news conference with his Dutch counterpart, Gen. Peter Van Uhm, who has been on an official visit to Canada.

But as Gerald Caplin points out, Stevie simply chose the wrong person to do the job. He chose a man who actually stood up for the troops and didn't hide behind them.

It's a seeming paradox that one of the genuine contributions of the Harper government to the commonwealth was the creation of the latest of these public advocates, an independent Veterans' Ombudsman. But its purpose, we can now see, was to stand up for the Harper government against our war veterans. But in retired colonel named Pat Stogran, the government seemed to have selected the wrong man for the job. Stogran apparently shared the plausible assumption that the Harper government cared about the welfare of our troops not only in the field but when they returned home bearing the deep scars of their military experiences.

This was an easy mistake to make. After all, anyone who had opposed the Harper government's war policies in Afghanistan were given the Joe McCarthy treatment, smeared as something close to traitors betraying the brave boys and girls who were putting themselves in harm's way in a distant land. As the Prime Minister repeatedly observed in a nice Orwellian twist, it was those who wanted to bring our young women and men home who were actually responsible for the danger they faced in the field.

And if you want to know what Harper's real priorities were, when it comes to Vets, according to Strogam: "“I was told by a senior Treasury Board analyst, who shall remain nameless, that it is in the government's best interest to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term.”

Short term liabilities. I wonder if that's in the army manual. "At all times a soldier must try to die in battle because we simply can't afford to look after you if you don't. We do promise a parade if you will do this simple chore."

More than 1 in 5 Canadians soldiers are known to leave Afghanistan with psychiatric problems, though experts are certain this considerably lowballs the real figure, given what soldiers face there. A significant number return home deeply traumatized. As Pat Stogran discovered, to his horror, some of them become spouse abusers, drunk drivers, druggies, homeless, uncontrollably violent, attempted suicides and drunken thugs. Those who have endured multiple deployments become the walking wounded. Their families are often shattered, with all members facing their own psychological or physical nightmares.

Whether you support the war or not, no Canadian should support this. These poor men and women are as much victims as those who lost their lives. The difference is, they are still being victimized.

I posted a partial list yesterday, of those who learned the hard day, what happens when they cross Stevie. Chantel Hebert mentioned some I had forgotten about:

Marc Mayrand: Canada's chief electoral officer has been locked in a legal battle with the Conservative Party over campaign spending.

Konrad von Finckenstein: There is speculation that the CRTC chair is in the government's crosshairs after refusing to fast-track Quebecor’s application for a top-category broadcasting licence for Sun TV’s planned Fox News clone.

Remy Beauregard: The former president of Rights and Democracy died this year after a stormy meeting with the Montreal rights agency's board, which is led by Conservative appointees.

Hebert wonders:

Last winter’s prorogation backlash was unexpectedly strong. Over the summer, the level of engagement of Canada’s civil society on the census issue has been unprecedented, with otherwise Conservative-friendly constituencies among the vocal critics of the decision to abolish the long form. This week, the circle widened again to include more otherwise natural allies of the Conservatives like the veterans and the country’s police associations.

But there is still at least one significant constituency on which Harper’s approach to dissent apparently continues to work wonders. Apparently deaf to any voice other than their master’s, Harper’s MPs and senators have so far been content to dance to whatever tune the prime minister has taken a fancy to. On his watch, the cat seems to have gotten the tongue of even the most independently minded men and women who make up the cabinet and caucus.

Have they all been hypnotized or has Stevie demanded they all have lobotomies? I'm with the lobotomy thing because they are all acting so weird.

An unidentified source sent me this from their last caucus meeting. Of course they may not have simply wished to be "unidentified", but maybe just don't remember their own name.

We Can't Let Harper Marginalize Our Veterans Any Longer!

Isn't it funny how a man who hid behind our troops to avoid questions about Afghan Detainees, allowing them to wear the shame, is now throwing them to the wolves?

There is an excellent column in the Globe and Mail about this, and we as Canadians need to be mad as hell!

I know I am. Farmers and Veterans. Who next?

As Canada attempts to remain buoyant after the recent conomic flood, Ottawa’s rush to cut the cost of government has one very large but often silent group on the chopping block: disabled veterans and their families .... Understandably, most veterans are too proud to protest the government for which they were willing to die. The government knows this and sadly, that is why the cuts have every chance in succeeding.

Harper's Attack on Canadian Veterans is Now Down and Dirty

Stephen Harper held a press conference today. And he held it at the same time as Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran.

Stephen Harper is truly an evil little man.

Canada's outgoing ombudsman for veterans expressed his fury Tuesday over the federal government's treatment of servicemen and women and the thwarting of his work by an obstructive bureaucracy. Pat Stogran said at a news conference in Ottawa that he was not going to comment on the Conservative government's decision not to appoint him to a second term.

Stogran said that as ombudsman, he was "impeded by a bureacracy that was deliberately obstructive and deceptive," and that information given to bureaucrats isn't reaching the minister of veterans affairs. Stogran said he was speaking out in order to highlight how badly many veterans are treated and to ask Canadians to stand up for their "sons and daughters." He vowed to use his remaining three months as ombudsman to continue trying to get Canadians to take notice.

Harper is having new yellow ribbons made. "Support the troops. Disown the Veterans"

And the wonderful Kady O'Malley is on top of things as usual.

As previewed in Orders of the Day, soon to be former Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran makes what could be his farewell appearance at the National Press Theatre today -- and his pre-press conference tweets suggest that it could be well worth tuning in to hear his parting thoughts. Check back at 2pm for full liveblogging coverage of Stogran, and stick around for reaction from NDP defence critic Jack Harris.

Jack Harris is great. Such a caring and intelligent man.

And the Liberals are demanding that Stogran be re-instated.

The federal Liberals are demanding the government extend Stogran's term. Both the Liberals and Stogran have been critics of the New Veterans Charter, saying it needs to be re-worked. Still, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said that Stogran's anger may lay in the fact that his contract is not being renewed.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper also hinted as much while taking questions from reporters in Tuesday in Mississauga, Ont. "There are no positions for life," Harper said. "That's the way we do things."

What a smart-ass. He really just doesn't care.

We need to be mad about this. Write those letters to the editor. Our veterans deserve better than this.

Conservatives to Cut Funding to Veterans Affairs to Pay for American Weapons Contract

I posted the other day about the untendered contract worth 16 billion dollars that was going to American weapons manufacturer, and wondered how we could afford it given our massive deficit and debt.

I just learned how.

The Conservatives plan to cut funding to Veterans Affairs.

The Harper government’s short-sighted, skewed priorities could leave Canada’s war veterans and their families without support while billions are wasted on the G20 and sole-sourcing military airplanes, Liberal Veterans Affairs Critic Rob Oliphant said today. “Stephen Harper must explain to our men and women in uniform – past, present and future – why he’s spending $16 billion on warplanes, but won’t address the physical, mental and emotional needs of our brave veterans,” said Mr. Oliphant. “For a government that paints itself as pro-military, cutting back support for our veterans calls into question their long-term commitment to our troops.” The Conservative government says they’re considering recommendations to cut spending at Veterans Affairs, even though a report says the number of new veterans is expected to grow ...

Yet this government claims to love the military.

Liberal industry critic Marc Garneau said his party can't support an untendered contract of this size.

The Tories are expected to spend $9-billion on the planes themselves but commit to as much as $16-billion when 20 years of maintenance and support are included. They're going to join the Americans in purchasing F-35 joint-strike fighters. Mr. Garneau said the best value-for-money should be determined through a competitive process. “If the Conservatives won’t put an end to this contract, a future Liberal government will,” the Liberal MP said at an Ottawa news conference.

At the very least they will put the contract on hold until determining whether needed, and ensuring that it will not hurt those who have served.

“At a time when the Conservatives are also signaling significant cuts to Veterans Affairs, a $16-billion sole-sourced contract, agreed to without transparency, can’t be allowed to proceed."

A step in the right direction. Or should I say left?



Update from the Globe.

“Two competing principles are at work here,” observes Brian Lee Crowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy, an Ottawa think tank. “On the one hand, we have great pressures on the government to reduce spending, and so abolishing the Department of Veterans Affairs might result in some administrative savings, say by rolling it into the Department of National Defence,” he said. “On the other hand, if there is one group to whom the country owes an undeniable debt of gratitude that should be manifested in solicitous attention to their needs, it would be those who risked their lives on behalf of the country. I tend to come down on this side of the conflict.”

My father was a veteran and that department was very important to him. And besides. What about the veterans of this war?