'Billions for jets, pennies for vets'

The National Post:

As Remembrance Day approaches, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is facing a perfect storm. In the past week, news reports slammed the Department of Veterans Affairs for its callous treatment of veterans and their families. Outgoing veterans' ombudsman Pat Stogran threatened to sue the DVA over soldiers' disability claims. Vets and their supporters staged a protest on Parliament Hill. The debate over the $16-billion F-35 contract raged on. And now, it appears the government is ready to commit 1,000 Canadian troops to Afghanistan -- after repeatedly maintaining that Canada would withdraw all forces in 2011.

The government's refusal to discuss extending Canada's role until now has likely been a strategic move -- an attempt to ensure that it has enough opposition support in the House of Commons before going public. But it leaves the Tories open to the accusation that they are flip-flopping or caving in to pressure from the United States and other allies. On Sunday, Mr. MacKay was quick to emphasize that Canadians would be "behind the wire" -- i.e., not in Kandahar, but in Kabul -- but he knows there is still strong public opposition to remaining on the ground in this war.

In light of the problems at Veterans Affairs, it's enough to make the Conservatives duck and run for cover--from their own voters. Armed Forces personnel, veterans, seniors, supporters of our troops: all are traditional Tory constituencies, and could easily be alienated by the mishandling of military issues.

Of course, Mr. Harper can take some comfort in the fact that the Liberal party has been burning bridges with this part of the electorate for the past two decades. In 1993 former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien cancelled the EH-101 helicopter deal; today our military is still flying 45-year-old Sea Kings which require 30 hours of maintenance for one hour of flight. Under Mr. Chretien's and prime minister Paul Martin's tenure military spending dropped to a low of 6.7% of federal expenditures. Today, Liberal Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff is promising to scrap Canada's participation in NATO's F-35 consortium, while our current crop of CF-18s grows older by the day.

But both the Tories and the Liberals must take responsibility for the Veterans Charter. Introduced under Mr. Martin's watch, it was supported by the Conservatives, and in 2006 replaced ongoing disability support with lump-sum payments. Since then, the practice has come under heavy fire: As Mr. Stogran asks, is it appropriate that a senior bureaucrat at DND makes more in a year than an injured vet can collect in a lifetime?

When protestors hold up signs that read "Billions for Jets, Pennies for Vets" in front of the Peace Tower, it's clear that the government needs to get a grip on this file. Last Friday, Mr. Blackburn appointed a new Veterans' Ombudsman-- quelling worries that Mr. Stogran's shoes would be left unfilled. Then on Sunday, the Parliamentary Secretary for Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, announced that the government will take action on the issue of lump sum payments. These remarks came on the same day that Defence Minister Peter MacKay commented on Canada retaining a non-combat role in Afghanistan after the 2011 deadline for our withdrawal.

Shoring up their credibility with Canada's military community by tackling veterans' concerns could find the Conservatives more allies for their agenda--and mute growing criticism of Veterans Affairs. But more importantly, this is simply the right thing to do. Before asking more men and women to risk their lives overseas, the government should ensure it treats returning veterans with the respect they deserve -- on this, and all Remembrance Days.