|
|
Veteran
Voice.info
VVi is
for you, all veterans, regardless of whether you belong to a
veteran organization or not. VVi is a distribution centre, a
conduit for making sure that the information you need as a veteran
is there for you in a timely fashion. Our aim is to provide a
forum for all Canadian
veterans, serving members and their families to have access to
information pertaining to veteran rights.
VVi is
an independent site,
not associated with any governmental department, agency or veteran
organization. VeteranVoice.info is maintained by independent
contributions.
|
 |
Justin Trudeau and Sacred Obligation
Perry Grey
Chief Editor
VeteranVoice.info (VVi)
“You can
fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the
time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Abraham
Lincoln
“in politics, perception was everything -- something
this latest generation of Liberals seems to have forgotten.” Keith
Beardsley, Conservative adviser
“If you can’t afford to take
care of your veterans, then don’t go to war” Senator Bernie Sanders
“The "but the last government did it" line is getting over
used... enough people were unhappy with how the previous government
worked to elect a "new" government, so why does the new government
feel it is okay to keep doing what the previous one did?
Just
because it was done a certain way in the past doesn't mean people
feel it should still be done that way... it is 2016 after all!”
Anonymous Canadian
Sunny ways my friend....Sunny ways!!!!!!
Voted for Change....Got much of the Same!!!!! It must be inherit
habit for the federal governments to attack Veterans and
Natives!!!!!! It seems that once a politician steps on the hill
their moral compass somehow leaves their body!!!!!!! I must admit
that the current Federal government as been very long on talk but
very short on walk!!!!!!! Anonymous Canadian
Whether at home
or abroad, uniformed citizens are vested with great responsibility
through the devolution of trust by their government and their fellow
citizens. Their values, as indoctrinated to reflect those of our
society, must be their first guidance, and it must be reflected in
their application of legal norms.
(http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/06-rouillard-eng.asp)
One Veteran suggested that we can enjoy a variant of the old
drinking game by drinking every time that Kent Hehr says mandate. We
can also do the same every time the Prime Minister says sacred
obligation...or sunny ways.
If you are interested, then you
can see all of the times that the Prime Minister said “sacred
obligation”:
https://openparliament.ca/politicians/justin-trudeau/
His
use of sacred obligation extends to aboriginal Canadians as well:
"It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First
Nations peoples, one that understands that the constitutionally
guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an
inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation," 8 December 2015
The Prime Minister used the term in his mandate letter to Kent
Hehr:
“our government lives up to our sacred obligation to
veterans and their families”
He also wrote:
We have
promised Canadians a government that will bring real change...I made
a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to
Ottawa...also committed to set a higher bar for openness and
transparency in government...
How is doing exactly what the
previous government did an indication that the Prime Minister is
fulfilling his promises?
It will be argued in the near future by
lawyers and constitutional experts that the Prime Minister must
honour his promises. This is not limited to the Equitas Class
Action, instead everything that the Prime Minister promised to
Veterans, Aboriginals and other Canadians.
But why do
Canadians have to resort to legal options to ensure that its
governments honour their promises? We should not have to fight
particularly as the governments have deep pockets thanks to our tax
dollars! As several journalists observed this is a form of bullying,
which should not be tolerated.
So what is a binding promise?
I checked Canadian law for a definition:
“a contract is a legally
binding promise...a contract legally entered into represents a legal
bond between the parties. Parties are free to contract whenever and
for whatever reason they wish. The only limits to absolute
contractual freedom are certain restrictions imposed by legislation
and by accepted ethics.
To be valid and therefore legally
binding, 5 conditions must be met:
* First, there must
be the mutual consent of both parties. No one can be held to a
promise involuntarily made. When consent is given by error, under
physical or moral duress, or as a result of fraudulent practises,
the contract may be declared null and void at the request of the
aggrieved party. In certain types of contractual relationship, the
law demands that the consent of the party be both free and informed.
This is the case, for instance, with contracts involving medical
treatment.
* The second is contractual capacity - the
mental ability to keep the promise one has made. A young child, a
person suffering from a serious mental disorder and sometimes even a
minor are all considered incapable of contracting.
*
The third condition is that the contract should have an object or a
purpose; it must concern a specific and agreed-upon good or service.
* The fourth condition is "lawful cause" in civil law or a
"valuable consideration" in common law. In this area, important
technical differences exist between the 2 legal systems. Briefly,
however, according to this fourth condition, the promise made must
be serious and each obligation assumed by one of the parties must
find a corresponding, but not necessarily equivalent or equal,
promise made by the other party. A person may thus legally sell
goods at a price that does not represent their actual market value.
The contract would still be a valid one.
* The fifth
condition, which is not required in all cases, is the compliance in
certain circumstances to formalities provided by law such as, for
instance, a valid written instrument. In general, this condition
holds for contracts that may have serious consequences for the
parties, or those for which certain measures of publicity are
required.
Sanctions
Parties to a valid contract are
always bound by law to carry out their promise. Should they fail to,
the other party is free to go to court to force them to comply. At
times, the court may order the defaulting party to do exactly what
he has promised (specified promise). In that respect, civil law
provides more readily for the forced execution of promises than
common law, for which specific performance is still an exception to
the rule.
Courts may also award financial compensation in the
form of damages equal in value to the loss suffered and profits lost
as a result of the breach of contract, but this loss and profit must
be directly related to the nonfulfillment of promise (article 1611
QCC). Furthermore, courts award only damages equivalent to those
benefits that the parties might reasonably have expected to receive
at the time the agreement was entered into.
Increasingly,
provincial and federal legislatures are acting to protect citizens
against certain abusive commercial practices.”
I suggest that
the last statement be expanded to include abusive political
practices such as those committed by every level of government in
Canada!
So what is a contract? It is a written or spoken
agreement that is intended to be enforceable by law.
If the
sacred obligation is not a legal contract, then why should Veterans
honour their “unlimited liability” after all most Canadians do
everything to avoid such a predicament as stated in car, health,
mortgage, income and life insurance policies, and incorporation and
employment contracts with the many non-competes, non-disclosures,
and other limited clauses. You name it and lawyers will include
limitations.
And delete “universality of service” (liable to
perform general military duties and common defence and security
duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or
occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to,
the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for
general operational duties) because this also reflects an unfair
employment requirement. Canada makes all kinds of exceptions (not
withstanding) - cultural, social, religious, physical and mental.
Generally, employers are discouraged by law from refusing to hire
people for such exceptions.
Not every Veteran is expected to
do the most strenuous of duties which represent the principle of
“soldier first” as stated in DAOD 5023-0, Universality of Service.
So every Veteran should ignore their termination notice while the
Prime Minister ignores his “sacred obligation” and other contractual
obligations. After all no Canadian is above the law.
One only
has to do an Internet search to find the many times that “sacred
obligation” has been (ab)used by the Liberal Party. Here are some
examples in the last two years:
Liberal Policy Resolution 33 (2015):
BE IT
RESOLVED THAT a future Liberal government will uphold the
principles of this social covenant in its defence and
veterans policies, and will live up to our country’s sacred
obligation to care for veterans and their families
throughout their lives by allowing them to maintain a
quality of life that is worthy of the sacrifices that they
have made for Canada
“Upholding the social covenant
and sacred obligation with our veterans is something that
hits close to home for me. I spent 35 years of my life
working and serving alongside our servicemen and women, and
I am intimately aware of the very real and dangerous
challenges they face on a daily basis. These brave women and
men represent the very best of what it means to be
Canadian.” Andrew Leslie (retired general and Liberal MP) 25
August 2015
A
Liberal government will honour the sacred obligation we have
towards Canada’s veterans and their families. Justin Trudeau
23 August 2015 (Facebook)
We have
a sacred obligation to our veterans, but @pmharper chose
this Minister who made major cuts and closed service
centres. Justin Trudeau (Twitter) 11:17 AM - 5 Jan 2015
“live up to our sacred obligation
to veterans and end this court battle” Justin Trudeau to
Stephen Harper 2015
“Mr. Speaker, as the member
opposite well knows, I put forward a mandate letter for our
Minister of Veterans Affairs that asked him to respect the
sacred obligation we have as a country toward those who
serve.” Justin Trudeau April 20, 2016 (House of Commons)
“Mr.
Speaker, during the election campaign and in the years
leading up to last fall's campaign, the Liberal Party always
stood by veterans. It has always been there for them,
fighting for their interests. Because of its political
objectives and its approach to managing the public service,
the previous government was unable to serve our veterans
properly.” Justin Trudeau April 20, 2016 (House of Commons) |
Why
is Trudeau kicking veterans to the curb?
Tasha Kheiriddin iPoltics, May
19, 2016
No,
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shouldn’t have lost his cool
in the House of Commons the other day. When a vote didn’t
proceed fast enough for his liking, Trudeau morphed into a
spoiled toddler who wanted his toy RIGHT NOW, rushing the
floor, grabbing one opposition MP and elbowing another.
Despite the PM’s apologies, it remains a bully moment that
cast a shadow over his party’s ‘sunny ways’.
Unfortunately, it’s also overshadowing the far more serious
instance of bullying that the Liberals are inflicting on
Canadian veterans. This week, the government chose to revive
the Harper government’s efforts to shut down a class action
lawsuit launched by six war veterans against the federal
government.
The vets
claimed the Tories were discriminating against combatants in
modern-day conflicts, such as Afghanistan, by offering them
lump-sum payments, rather than the life-long pensions paid
to veterans of older conflicts, such as the Korean War. The
issue cost the Conservatives support among veterans’ groups
— a traditional base of support — and became a black eye for
a government that loved to play up the importance of
Canada’s military.
In June
2015 the two sides called a truce, with the government
staying the lawsuit to allow the plaintiffs to determine
whether further changes to compensation would satisfy their
concerns. That truce has now expired, and when the two sides
could not reach an out-of-court settlement, the new Liberal
government decided to revive the legal argument the previous
government was trying to use to scuttle the lawsuit — that
the federal government has no ‘sacred covenant’ with
veterans.
Which,
of course, makes a mockery of the explicit promise in the
Liberals’ campaign platform: “We will demonstrate the
respect and appreciation for our veterans that Canadians
rightly expect, and ensure that no veteran has to fight the
government for the support and compensation they have
earned.”
The
Liberal platform further stated that the federal government
has “a social covenant with all veterans and their families
that we must meet with both respect and gratitude.” That
echoes a resolution put forward last year by NDP MP Fin
Donnelly, and adopted unanimously by all parties: “That
Canadians recognize that the federal government has a moral,
social, legal and fiduciary obligation to the women and men
who courageously serve our country.”
Recognizing this obligation was
crucial, because government lawyers had argued in court that
“at no time in Canada’s history has any alleged ‘social
contract’ or ‘social covenant’ having the attributes pleaded
by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute,
regulation or as a constitutional principle written or
unwritten.”
Trudeau
himself refuted this argument, both inside the House of
Commons and on the campaign trail. “For ten years, Stephen
Harper draped himself in the Canadian flag, then betrayed
the men and women who fought for it,” he said. “Our
servicemen and women, who have put their lives on the line
for their country, stand for the very best of what it means
to be Canadian. We have a social covenant with all veterans
and their families — a sacred obligation we must meet with
both respect and gratitude.”
The
decision to block the lawsuit again has left veterans’
groups in a state of utter shock. “It’s a betrayal,”
veterans lawyer Donald Sorochan told CBC News. “They have
turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie. I sat at
tables (during the campaign) with some of the people who are
now in cabinet. Those ministers have been turned into liars
by the Department of Justice.”
Why are
the Liberals going back on their word? No one — not the
prime minister, not the Justice Department, not Minister of
Veterans Affairs Kent Hehr — is offering an explanation.
When questioned about the decision in the House of Commons,
Hehr stated he is committed to treating veterans “with care,
compassion and respect,” according to CTV News, adding that
“Budget 2016 had delivered on a lot of those items,
including financial security for many of our most disabled
veterans.”
But
that’s not what the Liberals promised. They are, in fact,
doing the exact opposite of what they promised — forcing
veterans to fight for just compensation in a court battle
that could drag on for years.
That’s
bullying, plain and simple — and Canadians shouldn’t stand
for it. Trudeau should reverse the decision to appeal, even
if it means another mea culpa on the floor of the House. |
Liberals accused of breaking promise to uphold 'sacred
obligation' to veterans
CTV News May 20, 2016
The New
Democrats and Conservatives are accusing the Liberals of
breaking their election promise to uphold a 'sacred
obligation to veterans,' after the justice department moved
forward with a court case that would give the government the
option of denying lifelong pensions to injured soldiers.
NDP
Leader Tom Mulcair accused the Liberals during daily
question period in the House of Commons of "trying to stop
(veterans) from getting the benefits they deserve," despite
"campaigning on a black-and-white promise to end the
Conservative court case against veterans."
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau responded that "veterans who have
served this country extraordinarily well deserve more than
people trying to play politics on their backs."
"Veterans across this country know that in Budget 2016 we
put forward historic measures that will fix the 10 years of
neglect," Trudeau added.
Former
veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole -- whose government
came to an agreement with the plaintiffs of the lawsuit last
June, putting it on hold until this month -- accused Justice
Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould Wednesday of "attacking
veterans" and allowing a "truce" to "fall apart."
"The
prime minister promised to uphold the sacred obligation our
country owes to our veterans," O'Toole said, "yet his
justice minister has turned her lawyers on veterans."
Quebec
Conservative MP Alupa Clarke also accused the Liberals of
breaking promises. "The Minister of Veterans Affairs appears
two-faced," he said.
Veterans
Affairs Minister Kent Hehr responded by saying that he is
committed to treating veterans "with care, compassion and
respect."
"Budget
2016 had delivered on a lot of those items, including
financial security for many of our most disabled veterans,"
the minister added. |
Ottawa should fulfil its ‘sacred’ duty to veterans:
Editorial
Toronto Star June 14, 2016
Never
has there been a crasser distillation of Ottawa’s skewed
sense of its moral duty to those who have fought, and been
injured, for this country than an argument put forward by
government lawyers in 2012. In an effort to block a
class-action lawsuit by six injured Afghan war veterans, the
attorneys argued that the federal government has no “sacred
obligation” to ex-soldiers, that Parliament is in no way
constitutionally constrained in its judgment of how much, or
how little, compensation they deserve.
The
Conservatives continued in this dubious legal fight for
years, costing Ottawa some $700,000 in the process, until
political circumstances forced them to change tack. In the
lead-up to last year’s federal election, beset by critics,
the Harper government finally delivered an overdue boost to
Ottawa’s grossly inadequate veterans’ benefits.
It even
tabled a bill, which eventually passed, recognizing the
government’s “sacred obligation” to Canada’s men and women
in uniform. The plaintiffs agreed to stay proceedings until
May 2016, at which point they would determine whether
sufficient progress had been made to drop the action
altogether.
When the
Liberals won the election, the case appeared destined for
amicable settlement. In opposition, Justin Trudeau had
called for the government “to live up to our sacred
obligation, end this court battle, and start giving our
veterans the help they deserve.” As prime minister, Trudeau
reiterated this sentiment in his mandate letter to Veterans
Affairs Minister Kent Hehr, calling on him to ensure that
the “government lives up to our sacred obligation to
veterans.”
Strange,
then, if not utterly bewildering, that government lawyers
will reportedly resume their appeal this week on the grounds
that Ottawa has no sacred obligation to veterans. Yes,
believe it or not, the Trudeau government wants the court to
acknowledge that Ottawa does not have a duty it has argued
repeatedly and persuasively that it has.
The
truce came undone over a Liberal campaign promise, restated
in Hehr’s mandate letter, to “re-establish lifelong pensions
as an option for our injured veterans.” The controversial
2006 New Veterans Charter mostly replaced pensions with
lump-sum payments. But many have argued this unfairly
disadvantages ex-soldiers who live longer, and that veterans
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are
ill-equipped to manage the large one-time payouts.
Despite
the Liberal commitment, there was no mention of veterans’
pensions in the federal budget. As the deadline for deciding
the fate of the lawsuit approached, the plaintiffs asked the
government to commit to a timeline for implementing its
promises. But lawyers representing the injured ex-soldiers
say Hehr refused, giving them no choice but to continue with
the action.
For his
part, Hehr says the Liberals merely inherited this lawsuit.
“I find it deeply regrettable that, under the former
government, veterans had to take this step to ensure their
well-being,” he told the Globe and Mail on Monday. No
mention of why his government refuses to lay out a timetable
for delivering on its commitments. Or why it appears to have
permitted its lawyers to pursue a line of argument in direct
contradiction of its long-held, proudly touted position.
The costs of the best possible
care for our veterans should be built into any decision that
puts soldiers in harm’s way.
That’s
the duty Trudeau invoked when he called on the Harper
government to “end this court battle, and start giving our
veterans the help they deserve.” Whether Ottawa finally
fulfils that obligation, or continues its shameful history
of dereliction, is now his to decide. |
NATION RE-BUILDING: TRUDEAU PROMISES RENEWED RELATIONSHIP
WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
• Canadian Bar Association
January 27, 2016
A major
promise in the Liberal election platform, and repeated in
ministerial mandate letters and the throne speech, was to
“repair” the relationship between the federal government and
the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
In
December, the government laid out a plan to start making
good on that promise.
"It is
time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First
Nations peoples, one that understands that the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in
Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred
obligation," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a group of
chiefs gathered for an Assembly of First Nations conference
in Gatineau.
The first of five priorities for
the new government was to launch an inquiry into missing and
murdered indigenous women.
The
other four are to:
•Make significant investments in
First Nations education
•Lift the two per cent cap on
funding for First Nations programs
•Implement recommendations from
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
•Repeal all legislation
unilaterally imposed on indigenous people by the previous
government
The
mandate letter to Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould
instructed her to “conduct a review of the changes in our
criminal justice system and sentencing reforms over the past
decade ... Outcomes of this process should include increased
use of restorative justice processes and other initiatives
to reduce the rate of incarceration amongst indigenous
Canadians...”
She was
also instructed to work with other relevant ministers to
“address gaps in services to Aboriginal people and those
with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.”
These
points echo several CBA policies, including some resolutions
adopted at last summer’s CBA Legal Conference in Calgary
which asked the CBA to urge governments to address the
over-incarceration of Aboriginal people and to provide
culturally appropriate programs for those who are
incarcerated; and also to urge the federal government to
provide adequate health care for offenders, “with particular
emphasis on prison staff receiving training and exercising
their duties in a manner that recognizes the needs of
offenders with mental health and cognitive difficulties.” As
well as those two resolutions, the Aboriginal Law Section
co-sponsored, along with the Criminal Justice Section, two
more resolutions calling on the government to address the
over-use of solitary confinement and to implement systems
that will ensure prisoners have “reasonable” contact with
counsel, “including comprehensive regulations governing an
offender’s right to counsel, access to counsel,
communication with counsel and the privileged nature of
communications with counsel.”
The CBA has also called for
comprehensive measures to address the legacy of Canada’s
residential schools.
Carolyn
Bennett, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs,
was told in her mandate letter that her “overarching goal
will be to renew the relationship between Canada and
Indigenous Peoples. This renewal must be a nation-to-nation
relationship, based on recognition, rights, respect,
co-operation and partnership.”
Among
her instructions, Bennett was told to “undertake… a review
of laws, policies and operational practices to ensure that
the Crown is fully executing its consultation and
accommodation obligations, in accordance with its
constitutional and international human rights obligations,
including Aboriginal and treaty rights.”
Manitoba
Justice Murray Sinclair, who chaired the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, said the prime minister’s
leadership on this issue is vital.
“If that
comes from the Prime Minister’s Office alone that would be a
significant and huge step,” he told the Ottawa Citizen.
“Because that would send a message throughout the political
system, as well as throughout the federal bureaucracy, that
people need to change the way they think about things.” |
| |
Perry
Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief
Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 13 years. |
|
|
Canada's Peacekeeping Commitment – More Political Rhetoric to Honour
Lester B Pearson’s Legacy
Perry Grey
Chief Editor
VeteranVoice.info (VVi)
“The grim fact is that we
prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded
pygmies.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
As
a soldier, I survived World War I when most of my comrades did not.
It has too often been too easy for rulers and governments to
incite man to war.
The choice, however, is as clear now for
nations as it was once for the individual: peace or extinction.”
Mike Pearson
Mr Pearson, a Liberal, won the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1957 for organizing the United Nations Emergency Force to resolve
the Suez Canal Crisis and supported UN peacekeeping in general. Is
his legacy worth maintaining even if Canadians are killed or
permanently disabled?
Recently the government announced that
it will be increasing its commitments in international peacekeeping.
Future operations will have a significant impact on the number of
Veterans, who will need support from DND and VAC, after they are
wounded or injured.
Before the Liberal government commits
Canada to more hazardous missions, may be it should take the time to
“get it right”.
VeteranVoice.info does not usually comment on
CF operations; however, this will change because of the relationship
between military operations and systemic problems in supporting
Veterans who are negatively affected by those operations.
Like many currently disabled Veterans, I was “injured” as a result
of my participation in peacekeeping missions. As others can confirm,
often these missions are very dangerous, particularly if combatants
continue to engage in conflict and target Canadian “peacekeepers”.
The decision to commit Canadians to such operations without
fully preparing for the consequences is dangerous. No government
should be willing to engage in war and related activities without
first ensuring that it can support ALL who are victims of such
activities.
Furthermore, Canada should not make any
commitment unless it is prepared to pay for better equipment, better
training (particularly of non-Canadian personnel), better logistics
and better long term support for Veterans and their families.
Retrofitting a mission is not the solution or paying a lump sum to
the disabled Veteran.
Canada can never give enough to any
operation and if it can not pay the price, then do not commit.
Canada tried to give better support for returning Veterans the
end of World War 2 (the old Veterans charter). It was supposed to do
the same for Veterans of Afghanistan and other operations with the
new Veterans charter. Sadly, Veterans know the difference between
the two charters and improper administration by DND and VAC.
The logic should ALWAYS be that if you can not care for Veterans,
then you should not commit them to dangerous operations.
Even
the US government, with its massive military force, and its 152 VA
medical centres and approximately 1400 community-based outpatient
clinics, is not providing exceptional support for its Veterans. It
is estimated that more than 50,000 US Veterans are homeless. The US
Congress has tried to eliminate some problems with the VA
Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act (2016), but many
more exist including deplorable health care in VA’s many
institutions.
By the way, the United States military
operations represent about 40 percent of the world's military
expenditures. It can afford the best equipment if it wants, so why
does it not provide the best health care for its disabled Veterans?
Canadian Veterans have nothing comparable so where will future
peacekeepers get their long term care when they are forced out of
the CF and RCMP because they are unfit to serve?
They will be
competing with other Canadians for limited beds in provincial
institutions.
Lest we also forget, the UN believes that its
peacekeeping operations have been successful. Well what about
Cyprus, which has had a UN mission since 1964. After 52 years, a
resolution has not been achieved, but the UN mission gets renewed
every six months. If this is how the UN measures success, then is it
really effective?
Judge for yourself, by reviewing UN
missions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_peacekeeping_missions
“We know now that in modern warfare, fought on any considerable
scale, there can be no possible economic gain for any side. Win or
lose, there is nothing but waste and destruction.” Mike Pearson
“No state, furthermore, unless it has aggressive military designs
such as those which consumed Nazi leaders in the thirties, is likely
to divert to defence any more of its resources and wealth and energy
than seems necessary.” Mike Pearson
Peacekeeping in Canada’s interest, but reform desperately needed:
Romeo Dallaire
Canadian Press September 19, 2016
It is in
Canada’s interest to play a leadership role in United Nations
peacekeeping, former military commander Romeo Dallaire said Monday
even as he delivered a pointed critique of how the world body runs
such missions.
The retired senator and lieutenant-general,
who famously led the UN’s ill-fated mission in Rwanda more than 20
years ago, told a Senate committee that the world has failed to act
on some much-needed reforms when it comes to peacekeeping.
The problems he cited include poor mission planning and the
appointment of unqualified military officers and diplomats to lead
missions and diplomatic efforts.
But Dallaire said the many
conflicts the UN is trying to manage will have an impact on Canada
in the form of refugee crises, pandemics and terrorism, and that
only by returning to peacekeeping can Canada help strengthen the
world body’s ability to respond.
“Those reforms are critical
to the future. And I think you can move the yardsticks,” he said
after the meeting.
“Don’t go away from the UN. On the contrary,
get into entrails of the damn thing and start pulling out some of
that stuff.”
Dallaire’s appearance before the Senate
committee coincided with the return of Parliament from the summer
break. Opposition critics wasted no time criticizing the Liberal
government’s plan to commit up to 600 troops to at least one
still-unannounced peacekeeping mission.
Interim Conservative
leader Rona Ambrose accused the government of using Canadian
military personnel as “pawns” in its push for a UN Security Council
seat, and demanded any future deployment be subject to a debate and
vote in the House of Commons.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan,
who invited Dallaire to escort him on a tour of peacekeeping
operations in East Africa in August, said the government would
“welcome a healthy debate.” But he stopped short of saying whether
there would be a vote.
While Dallaire voiced strong support
for Canada jumping back into peacekeeping, he said there could be
challenges beyond simply dealing with the UN. Those include making
sure any mission can be deployed and resupplied in a timely manner,
and having enough troops to sustain a long-term effort.
“It
is simply the fact that there has been mass attrition from the ’90s,
and we have never recovered,” he said, in reference to the Chretien
government’s decision to cut the military by about one-third in the
1990s. “That is what will limit our options.”
Defence chief
Gen. Jonathan Vance told The Canadian Press on the weekend that the
military was not recommending any missions that would stretch it too
thin. He also said he was comfortable the military could conduct a
peacekeeping mission in Africa while operating in the Middle East
and Latvia.
While Dallaire was supportive of the Liberal
government returning to peacekeeping, he was somewhat critical of
its decision to commit only 150 police officers to such efforts. He
said the National Police Services advisory council had recommended
600 police officers back when he was a member.
“One-hundred
fifty is a good first shot,” he said, “but not enough.”
Editor’s Note: Should Canada get involved in African operations
after what happened in Rwanda? The mission suffered a
disproportional fatality rate given the number of suicides. Do not
forget that Governor-General Michaëlle Jean formally apologised to
Rwandans for Canada’s role in the failure to prevent the 1994
genocide. Will Canada have to aplogise in the future even if
Canadians can not be held directly responsible? |
Reality check: Canada commits 600 soldiers, $450M to UN
peacekeeping missions, but do they work?
Global News August 26,
2016
The Liberal government is committing nearly half a
billion dollars and up to 600 soldiers toward United Nations
peacekeeping operations, signalling Canada’s return to peacekeeping
— a role the country was once known for around the world.
Along with the soldiers, equipment such as helicopters and planes
will be deployed to peace operations, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan
and Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said Friday at a military
air base in Bagotville, Que.
“It is time for Canada to choose
engagement over isolation,” Dion told reporters. “[It is] time to
act with responsible conviction as a determined peace builder.”
Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale also announced up to 150
police officers will support various U.N. peace operations.
The announcement means a dramatic increase from the current 19
Canadian troops, 75 police officers and nine military experts
participating on peacekeeping missions, according to UN numbers.
Does peacekeeping actually keep the peace?
Walter Dorn,
an expert in peacekeeping with Canadian Forces College in Toronto,
welcomed the move by the Liberals, adding that Canada has
effectively been absent from peacekeeping missions since the early
2000s.
He said the majority of UN peacekeeping efforts have
been “effective” and are essential for protecting civilian
populations.
“[Peacekeeping] has a very good track record. If
you look at over 70 operations, run by the UN, the vast majority of
them have been successful,” Dorn told Global News. “Even the ones
that are routinely [called] failures they also made important
contributions to peace.”
The 1994 Rwandan genocide that
killed an estimated 800,000 to 1 million people and the failure of
Dutch peacekeepers to stop the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men in
Srebrenica have been seen as low points for peacekeeping efforts.
Other operations like a U.S.-led UN humanitarian operation in
Somalia in 1993 and missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC) and Sierra Leone in the 1990s raised questions about the
efficacy of peacekeeping.
But even in failure, Dorn says
peacekeeping still has a positive impact.
“Gen. Dallaire, for
instance in the Rwandan mission, was able to save 20,000-30,000
people with just 300 peacekeepers on the ground,” he said. “Even
when the missions are failing to secure the peace they still have a
positive impact.”
“Of course peacekeeping is far from perfect
and there are limited things you can do to keep people from fighting
each other,” Dorn continued. “But I think peacekeeping is an
essential component in making securing peace agreements … and
protecting local populations.”
Where are Canadian troops
headed?
One big question Friday’s announcement failed to
answer is where Canadian troops will placed. There has been
speculation about Canada joining missions in Mali, the Central
African Republic, South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Conservative defence critic James Bezan said Friday’s
announcement raises more questions than answers and criticized the
decision to “blindly” pledge Canadian troops for possible
deployment.
“Today’s announcement provides absolutely no
details as to where, when or even why our troops will be deployed,”
Bezan said in a statement. “The Liberals must answer basic questions
such as what will the mission entail? What are the rules of
engagement? Who will we be working with? Will there be a vote in
Parliament?
“Instead, all we have learned is that the
Liberals are sending almost half a billion dollars to the United
Nations, at a time when that investment is desperately needed at
home.”
But all four operations raise questions about safety
and complex political situations. In Mali 86 peacekeepers have been
killed since April 2013.
“Today, peace support operations are
conducted where there may be no peace to keep, or where the fragile
peace constantly teeters on the edge of violence,” Sajjan said. “We
need to understand conflict better. We need to look at the root
cause of conflict, and think of innovative ways to move forward.”
Dion said Canada cannot turn away from the “complex” political
entanglements of certain countries.
“Canadians are aware that
our brave men and women in uniform [will come] into tough
situations, but Canadians are proud of it,” he told reporters. “It’s
for the protection of Canada and of the world that we cannot be
absent of the peace operation missions.” |
Five
questions left unanswered following Canada’s peacekeeping commitment
Four ministers promised new funding and troops for peace
operations in Africa last week. Was it an announcement or a
placeholder?
Steve Saideman
opencanada.org August 30, 2016
Some perspective for Canada’s “new” United Nations (UN)
“commitment.”
These are not scare quotes — as if these things
are supposed to be scary. Nope, I am raising the question of how
real these commitments are. In short, last week, several cabinet
ministers committed to spending more money on peacekeeping ($450
million), which is fine, and to setting aside 600 troops to be
deployed someday in UN operations. This, again, is fine, but the
lofty rhetoric and the announcement made by not one, not two, but
four cabinet ministers about Canada being back is a bit much.
I get it that this government had to make some kind of
commitment so that, it appears, Canada would be invited to a major
conference in London in two weeks focusing on peacekeeping. I also
get it that the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, had to
say something after spending some very visible time checking out a
series of potential missions in Africa recently.
But no
decisions of any consequence were made or announced. What kinds of
details will I now be looking for?
1. Distribution of troops
The first obvious one to ask is: Will that be 600 troops in one
spot or will they be divided over five or 20 spots? If one spot,
then we can ask different questions than if five or 20. If one, what
is the mission? What are the goals of the effort? Will Canada lead
the entire effort or a regional piece of the larger effort? If many
missions, what does Canada hope to achieve?
Yes, Canada can
provide "enablers" who are force multipliers — they make everyone
else more effective. But that usually is going to be in a role where
the Canadians would have little in the way of leadership posts or
influence. There are tradeoffs between going big and focused or
small and many, and we have yet no clue about what tradeoff.
2. Location of missions
The second question, which the media
is focused on, is where? Almost all of the focus has been on various
ongoing missions in Africa. Lots of these missions are not going
well, so perhaps a Canadian deployment can make a difference by
changing what the mission is doing or adding a particularly
effective unit. Of course, as the military always says, reinforce
success, not failure, as pouring troops and material into a failure
(the Somme, for instance) is not good.
3. Explaining the
Colombia omission
This leads to the third question: why not
Colombia? There is now an agreement to enforce. Unlike Mali,
Colombia has not (as far as I know) experienced much in the way of
suicide bombers. The Colombia peace may not be easy to enforce, but
it will be not nearly as hard as helping France out in Mali. Do we
want to be helping the French out in an Islamic country at a time
when French politicians are outbidding each other to discriminate
against Muslims? Just curious.
4. Time to drop the “Canada is
Back” rhetoric
The rhetoric of being "back" is kind of silly
if the number is 600. That is roughly the size of what Canada did in
East Timor and in Haiti in the 2000s, but Canada was doing more than
one mission at a time before it mostly got out of the UN business.
So, this would be more than what former Prime Minister Stephen
Harper was doing, but much less than what Jean Chretien was doing.
A battalion — the military unit closest to 600 — is the
basic minimal deployable unit. It is, in some ways, the least one
can do. Maybe Canada is stretched by the forthcoming Latvia mission
and the ongoing Iraq training effort, but Canada did manage to send
3,000 troops to combat in Kandahar and send a battalion or so of
peacekeepers to Haiti. So, Canada could do more, but it would cost
money.
5. An honest assessment of ‘whole of government'
Finally, the announcement invoked "whole of government" — in
other words, this effort will involve multiple agencies working
together. As I criticized in my book on the Afghanistan mission,
this whole of government thing is over-rated.
Agencies don't
play well together, and it requires intense attention by the Prime
Minister himself to make sure that the agencies cooperate much at
all.
Does this promise to do "whole of government" mean that
Canada's development aid will switch to whatever mission that is
ultimately chosen? What does that mean for Global Affairs and the
ongoing review of international assistance efforts? Some missions
would not need much "whole of government" at all (Colombia) and
others might need a good bit more. And, please, don't be too
nostalgic for how wonderful Canada's "whole of government" effort
was in Afghanistan. Other countries admired it, but they were
starting from a low basis of comparison (their own whole of
government efforts).
Overall, the point here is that what
Canada is doing thus far is being oversold. The stuff that was
announced on Aug. 26 is significant and welcome, but the rhetoric is
over the top for a decision that is mostly about delaying a
decision.
This is a very big roll-out for a placeholder —
‘we will be making decisions, not just today.’ OK, thanks. |
Perry
Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief
Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 13 years.
|
|
|
|
You
Can Help!
All veterans are
encouraged to pass information, opinions, links to self-help sites
onto VVi. VeteranVoice.info is a distribution centre and we are
dependant on others to pass information. This is your site. Tell
other veterans about your site.
Email: info@VeteranVoice.info
Facebook
Messenger:
https://www.facebook.com/VeteranVoice.info
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/VetVoiceinfo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info
|
|
PPCLI Association 
