- Reaction score
- 4,370
- Points
- 1,160
I'm going to try to be a bit of a contrarian.
I think the benefits voted for veterans of World War II and Korea were overly generous.
That's not surprising: in 1939 there were about 12,000,000 Canadians ~ of all ages, sexes and mental and physical capabilities ~ by 1945 over 1,000,000 of them had been in the Armed Services, most of them voluntarily. The overwhelming majority were youngish men, very ordinary young men, not from the educated elite, not from the richest families. They did their best, some paid an enormous price, and "we," the big collective "we" ~ those men and women, themselves, their parents and families and friends and neighbours ~ decided, collectively, that the benefits for those who served, not just those who were wounded, were going to be extraordinarily generous. "They deserve no less," we (big we, again) said to ourselves. And why not they were our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our spouses, our friends and, indeed, they were "us,"
We, Canadians in general, drew a fairly sharp distinction between our professional soldiers, the peacetime regulars, and our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who volunteered to serve for the duration of hostilities, as their contracts read, or "when we were needin' 'em, not feedin' em," as the vets, themselves said. That distinction has never disappeared.
In Afghanistan we - our bureaucrats and bean counters, anyway - learned a lesson from the 1960s: technology saves lives. Men who would, surely, have died on the Korean battlefield were now treated and airlifted to medical centres during the "golden hour" and the percentage of wounded who survived went up and up and up - and their treatment costs were going to last a lifetime, too. It was, still is, an accounting nightmare for a certain class of men and women who wear tasteful grey suits to work and who never, ever leave their comfortable offices.
Enter Albina Guarnieri who was Minister of Veterans' Affairs from 2004 until 2006 and who gave us the New Veterans' Charter. I don't think either Ms Guarnieri or Prime Minister Martin planned, explicitly, to shortchange wounded vets - but I do think that her Deputy Minister, the late Jack Stagg was fully conscious of the long term costs of veterans' benefits, and was keen to find a way to save some money.
Ms Guarnieri's successor, Conservative Minister Greg Thompson could have, and in my opinion should have, canned the Charter on one simple basis: one does not change horses in mid-stream. We were in a shooting war from 2002-2012, men were coming home in body bags and with grievous wounds, of all sorts; it was, still is, morally wrong to improve the benefits system while were were taking casualties.
But I want to reaffirm that, for all sorts of good political reasons, the benefits system Ms Guarnieri replaced with the New veterans' Charter was too generous.
So, even though the benefits structure that was in place when the Government of Canada committed (and then recommitted) Canadians to combat in Afghanistan is too generous, it should not be amended until we have got almost all of the CF "out of harm's way."
I think the benefits voted for veterans of World War II and Korea were overly generous.
That's not surprising: in 1939 there were about 12,000,000 Canadians ~ of all ages, sexes and mental and physical capabilities ~ by 1945 over 1,000,000 of them had been in the Armed Services, most of them voluntarily. The overwhelming majority were youngish men, very ordinary young men, not from the educated elite, not from the richest families. They did their best, some paid an enormous price, and "we," the big collective "we" ~ those men and women, themselves, their parents and families and friends and neighbours ~ decided, collectively, that the benefits for those who served, not just those who were wounded, were going to be extraordinarily generous. "They deserve no less," we (big we, again) said to ourselves. And why not they were our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our spouses, our friends and, indeed, they were "us,"
We, Canadians in general, drew a fairly sharp distinction between our professional soldiers, the peacetime regulars, and our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who volunteered to serve for the duration of hostilities, as their contracts read, or "when we were needin' 'em, not feedin' em," as the vets, themselves said. That distinction has never disappeared.
In Afghanistan we - our bureaucrats and bean counters, anyway - learned a lesson from the 1960s: technology saves lives. Men who would, surely, have died on the Korean battlefield were now treated and airlifted to medical centres during the "golden hour" and the percentage of wounded who survived went up and up and up - and their treatment costs were going to last a lifetime, too. It was, still is, an accounting nightmare for a certain class of men and women who wear tasteful grey suits to work and who never, ever leave their comfortable offices.
Enter Albina Guarnieri who was Minister of Veterans' Affairs from 2004 until 2006 and who gave us the New Veterans' Charter. I don't think either Ms Guarnieri or Prime Minister Martin planned, explicitly, to shortchange wounded vets - but I do think that her Deputy Minister, the late Jack Stagg was fully conscious of the long term costs of veterans' benefits, and was keen to find a way to save some money.
Ms Guarnieri's successor, Conservative Minister Greg Thompson could have, and in my opinion should have, canned the Charter on one simple basis: one does not change horses in mid-stream. We were in a shooting war from 2002-2012, men were coming home in body bags and with grievous wounds, of all sorts; it was, still is, morally wrong to improve the benefits system while were were taking casualties.
But I want to reaffirm that, for all sorts of good political reasons, the benefits system Ms Guarnieri replaced with the New veterans' Charter was too generous.
So, even though the benefits structure that was in place when the Government of Canada committed (and then recommitted) Canadians to combat in Afghanistan is too generous, it should not be amended until we have got almost all of the CF "out of harm's way."
