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

In Kingston Alicia Gordon Has Lost the Support of the Veterans

A rally in Kingston, Ontario, caught Conservative candidate, Alicia Gordon off guard.

Was she really ignorant to the abuse that veterans have received at the hands of the Harper government?

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.

Retired colonel Pat Stogran was fired from his job as veteran advocate because he dared to challenge Conservative policy.

During his tenure, Stogran said that he repeatedly came up against a culture of inaction among senior officials. "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," he said.

Veterans views as long term liabilities who should have died on the battlefield?

That's supporting the troops?

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.

Supporting Our Troops Means Also Standing up For Our Veterans

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Stuart Langridge appears on the TV screen, a young and confident soldier. It's 2003, and the tank gunner with Lord Strathcona's Horse, an armoured regiment based in Edmonton, is exuberantly talking about his job for a documentary crew filming an episode of Truth, Duty, Valour, a popular show about the Canadian Forces.

Five years later, the Afghanistan veteran would be dead. His world would crash down around him in a haze of alcohol and drug abuse. In the course of a year, he would attempt suicide six times, before successfully hanging himself in a CFB Edmonton barracks. (1)

But the nightmare for the young man's family was only beginning.

A week after they buried their son, Sheila and Shaun Fynes received a letter from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. They opened it and were stunned by the first sentence: "I hope this letter finds you in good health and spirits." The letter was an invitation from the director of casualty support to complete a survey about how the military treated the family.

Included were questions about the family's experience in CFB Trenton, Ont., the base where the bodies of soldiers, killed in Afghanistan, arrive by aircraft. The Fynes had never been to Trenton.In the months following Cpl. Stuart Langridge's suicide by hanging in an Edmonton army base in March 2008, and his burial in Victoria, the Fynes got little peace. Instead they became trapped in a legal and bureaucratic nightmare they say the Army helped create. (2)

And things went from bad to worse, as the military tried desperately to cover their tracks.

On Jan. 21, Maj. Stewart Parkinson, the officer assigned to help the family, wrote to headquarters that the Fynes were increasingly unhappy with the delay and the couple wanted to have input into the board, as was their right. "You'll understand if after 10 months of being deceived, misled, and intentionally marginalized (at) various points that they have no faith left in the system," wrote Parkinson. "A bottom line for them at this point is some sign of real respect for Cpl. Langridge and a meaningful participation in the BOI."

In early March, the Fynes walked into a hearing in Edmonton, feeling that at last some good would come from their son's death. The purpose of a BOI is not to lay blame but to identify what the military could do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. "We thought they would come up with recommendations so soldiers who are sick wouldn't fall through the cracks," said Sheila.

That hope disappeared. A parade of witnesses came forth to talk about Stuart's drug and alcohol abuse problems. A military doctor made a point of noting that the soldier did not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. A psychiatrist voiced the opinion that Stuart shouldn't have been allowed to attend the funeral of a fallen comrade the day he committed suicide, adding that ceremony likely prompted him to take his own life. The Fynes couldn't believe what they hearing. Their son had never attended the funeral in question — he was already dead at that point. The Fynes also thought it was highly unusual that the civilian doctor who diagnosed Stuart with PTSD and the base psychiatrist who evaluated him previously were not asked to testify. (3)

Now remember, Stephen Harper controlled every aspect of his war, including the messaging. Clearly the notion that soldiers may suffer from depression, would not be something he would want made public. So instead they attacked the victim.

Dawson Bayliss

Dawson Bayliss died in his sleep on Nov. 23, 2009, lying alongside his pregnant wife in their Calgary home. "I heard him gasping for air," recalls Naomi Bayliss, eyes moistening. "That's what woke me up. His whole body was convulsing. His fists were balled up and his eyes were rolling back. I tried shaking him but he was totally unresponsive." Naomi lunged for the phone and called 911. Paramedics arrived within minutes. "I'd just given him four breaths and they were there." Despite intense efforts to revive him, Bayliss was pronounced dead at the scene within the hour. (4)

But Dawson did not receive a military funeral or the honours bestowed on a soldier who dies in combat, despite the fact that his death began on those battlefields.

...there is an alternate version of events, another narrative which is very much in dispute; maddeningly elusive and bureaucratically impenetrable, for all that his widow and friends have searched for answers. It goes like this: Pte. Lawrence Matthew (Dawson) Bayliss actually started dying on April 2, 2006, on a dangerous stretch of highway outside Kandahar city, bleeding from a head wound. I was there.

As Liberal MP Dan McTeague put it, before the deaths of five more Canadian soldiers last month: "Pte. Bayliss would appear to be the 134th Canadian to die as a result of combat in Afghanistan." But the official record doesn't say that. (4)

Dawson died in combat with a government that would prefer you become a casualty of war, to "limit the liability", not a causality of this government. But that's what happened. Dawson Bayliss died fighting the system.

And someone else fighting the system, is the recently fired Veterans advocate, Pat Stogran.

The silence has been broken. Veterans are speaking out after years of silently fighting with a system that is not effectively meeting their needs, and they are being heard. The fact that so many Canadians have become engaged in this debate shows that veterans issues matter deeply to them. Today, Canadians are watching and listening intently to what happens next. It is time for government action.

Veterans are intricately woven into the fabric of Canadian society. It is important how they are treated, not only because of our obligation to them, but also because of the associated long-term social and national security implications. If military members are not effectively re-integrated into society after their service, it can have significant impact on our social, health and justice systems. (5)

And as Stogran suggests: "Canadians may not agree on why their sons and daughters are fighting in far-off lands, but there is no lack of fervour when it comes to their support for the troops and their families." You can pin a yellow ribbon or a poppy to your sweater, or plaster your car with 'support the troops' stickers, but unless you are prepared to really stand up for our soldiers, past and present, then you are only blowing smoke.

We need to be mad about this and we need to be damn mad. I know I am.

Sources:

1. MENTAL HEALTH AND MILITARY: One soldier's story of depression, addiction, and suicide: Grieving parents blame military's indifference, By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, June 22, 2009

2. Parents of dead soldier felt deceived, marginalized by military, By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, June 21, 2009

3. A FAMILY'S FIGHT: Part II of a two-part series: Parents of dead soldier felt deceived, marginalized by military following his suicide, By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, June 22, 2009

4. This soldier died fighting the system, By Rosie DiManno, Toronto Star, January 2, 2010

5. It's time to stand up for them: Canadians may not agree on why our troops fight in far-off lands, but they overwhelmingly support them. So should their government, By Pat Stogran, Citizen Special, August 26, 2010

Harper's Hit List is Much Longer Than the Media Suggests

I must admit that when I first opened this article and saw Jane Taber's name on the top of a piece criticizing the Harper government, I had a bit of a dizzy spell.

Jane Taber and critical of the Harper government are two things that never go together. I'm sure even seeing her name on top of this had her on the phone with the Big H and Double G assuring them that she was still lead singer in their Hallelujah chorus.

I don't know what her penance will be but expect Janie to be walking behind the men, holding up their celestial robes for awhile.

However, Janie didn't write the article, so we can rest assured that the sky has not fallen. It was written by Jill Mahoney, and is by no means complete.

Mahoney mentions:

Marty Cheliak: The RCMP Chief Superintendent who was head of the Canadian Firearms Program, because he is a strong proponent of the long-gun registry.

Pat Stogran: Because he supports veterans and is exposing the Harper government's mistreatment of these men and women in uniform.

Munir Sheikh: StatsCan chief who revealed that Tony Clement lied about his endorsement re: the census. Thud. (Don't worry about that thud. It was just little Janie. She passed out when I said that Tony Clement had lied. Expect an in depth article by Taber on Clement and his taste in glasses.)

Peter Tinsley: For investigating the alleged torture of detainees in Afghanistan

Linda Keen: The former head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for refusing to reopen the nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ont. until safety upgrades were made.

Mahoney also mentions Helena Guergis, but that girl should never have been given a cabinet position in the first place. Leave her with the manual How to Dress Yourself in the Morning. It'll keep her busy for years. ("Is this the left sock, or the right sock?" )

These are some of the people the article missed:

Louis Ranger: Was pushed out of the job and told, “We don’t want your advice” regarding the spending projects [infrastructure]. Indeed, the woman who is the ADM in charge of the file has been specifically told by the Minster’s [John Baird] office, “We don’t want your advice; we want you to do as you’re told.”) Ranger said of Baird:

As a long time bureaucrat, I am used to dealing with politicians who revel in self-interest. Baird however, is the nastiest, most partisan creature to have ever run a large department. What is best for Canada isn’t even remotely of interest to him - what is best for his party and his own political ambitions drives his agenda entirely.

Kevin Lynch: For locking horns with lobbyist and Harper chief of staff Guy Giorno.

Mr. Lynch has fallen foul of the toxic partisanship emanating from the Prime Minister’s Office that inflicts damage on everyone with whom it comes into contact ... the ground has shifted from under the big-brained economist, who is said to have a particularly difficult relationship with Mr. Giorno.

Dan Veniez: For wanting to save taxpayers millions of dollars by ensuring that multi-national corporations would pay appropriate prices for use of Ridley terminals, by removing them from the public sector. But Rob Merrifield and Jay Hill stepped in:

Veniez's sin is that he and his board did exactly what the then-minister of transport, Lawrence Cannon, asked them to when he gave them the reins of the Crown's faltering coal terminal. They turned it around. They put the $250-million chronic money-loser on a solid business footing for the first time since it was built in the 1980s ...Merrifield, who, like Hill, represents a coal-mining region, has met several times with lobbyists from the big coal companies, and it has been obvious for months that an orchestrated assault on Veniez and his board has been underway.

Kevin Page: Not fired but had his budget slashed because he reported the truth about government spending and rewrote their fairy tales.

Stinging from Page's report last October that put an $18 billion price tag on the Afghanistan war, among other embarrassing revelations, the government slashed his budget for this fiscal year from $2.8 million to $1.8 million. "Our budget is cut and I am in an almost impossible situation. ... I cannot carry out my mandate," Page said, adding that while funding is crucial, transparency is equally important.

Richard Colvin: Attacked on every front by the Reformers for telling the truth about the abuse of Afghan Detainees.

The Canadian government's attack on the credibility of a man whom several colleagues described as a consummate professional, and ministerial suggestions he is spouting Taliban "lies" about the treatment of detainees, have shocked those who worked alongside Colvin in Afghanistan.

Luc Pomerleau: Who blew the whistle on the fact that the government was now going to allow meat packers to do their own inspections. He tried to warn the public that this could result in deaths. It did. 20 to be exact. And he was fired for his efforts.

"Confidential documents insecurely posted on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's computer network laid out sensitive plans to turn over food inspections and labelling to industry and also led to the firing of the scientist who stumbled upon them." The confidential papers "appear to involve a re-organizing of food inspection that will shift more of the onus for food safety to the suppliers that manufacture and distribute food and other products.

Jeff Monaghan: The temp at Environment Canada who first revealed that John Baird was abandoning Kyoto. According to Greg Weston:

In the latest chapter of Stevie in Wonderland, the Conservative promise of open and accountable government is fulfilled by RCMP goons slapping handcuffs on a young federal temp and hauling him off in front of his co-workers, all over a leaked piece of Tory propaganda.

If nothing else, the incident befitting any friendly police state should certainly help Stephen Harper convince voters that the Conservatives have no hidden agenda... But an RCMP raid, handcuffs, and the threat of prison time are, as Monghan said, "without precedent in their disproportionality; they are vengeful; and they are an extension of a government-wide communications strategy pinned on secrecy, intimidation and centralization."

Mark Tushingham: Had his book launch for a sci-fi Hotter Than Hell cancelled by Rona Ambrose because there was an element of truth to it. Heaven forbid a civil servant should try to tell the truth.

Tushingham was just about to give a presentation on the science behind his novel Hotter Than Hell at the National Press Club. Released last November with little fanfare, it's about the Earth becoming so hot from climate change that America and Canada are at war over water. "I was entering the elevator 15 minutes before the event when I got a call on my cellphone," says Tushingham's publisher, Elizabeth Margaris at DreamCatcher Publishing. "[Tushingham] said, 'I've got bad news. I can't go.' He was told [by the Environment Minister's office] not to appear." While Tushingham himself was not available for comment, Margaris told Hour, "This is just outrageous. Mark can't talk but I can. They can't fire me. They can't gag me."

I'm sure there are a great deal more, and had Mahoney done her homework, she might have had a real story, that speaks of a government that does not allow dissent of any kind. And this is very alarming, especially when we add those in the private sector, who have been attacked and ruined by this government. Another growing list.

"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." Dwight D. Eisenhower