Here is the proposal for the Sacred Obligation

Interesting. Bearing in mind foremost, if these are indeed proposals they need to be treated as such. Possibilities.

That Toronto Sun article? As one-sided as it is, at least it was in the opinion section. And as cocky as the writer was, he should get into some form of political spin-doctoring.

I forget what newspapers are left, right, or center. Or the evolving political dynamics that support some newspapers. But I remember, just because you read it in the newspaper, don't make it true.

As opposed to the spoken word? Giving one's word used to carry weight. JMO but a vast majority of politicians can give their word and DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE because at the end of the day, voter turnout is dismal. Accountability does not come back to haunt them unless they have a soul. Kinda like getting away with murder in the meantime. Reminds me of the Ontario premier...

Yes Teen, a multitude of interpretations. Moral, sacred, say honourable? No matter, if a defininition can't be twisted to someone's ulterior agenda or motive the word gets re-invented. If that don't work, there's volumes of sub-sections, policies, and documents to negate anything noble.
Nothing there? Write and pass a new law.

That's my 2 cents for today. Stay very well all. pinger.

again all words like "The benefit of the doubt" for instance . im sure ive seen those words before somewhere lol.

and what have I seen in action . political parties refusing to enforce these words on every level and leaving vets to seek justice on there own through the legal system.

the top two parties have broken faith time for the third .

do I think when in power they will keep there words any more than the others ?????

well I aint gonna hold my breath but the other two parties have done the heavy lifting when it comes to stripping benefits from vets ,. sooo im willing to go on a little faith and even if they don't keep to there word maybe they will not spend all there time stripping benefits from vets .

not going forward does suck but it kicks the crap out of going backward.

always question authority .

propat

Nav I appreciate your respect as I respect yours. I am just trying to point out that 'morality' is a subjective word that has caused 3 lawsuits by vets in the last 15 years. And I'm not including the ELB retro lawsuit so that's 4.

Socialism at it's truest form, Tommy Douglas for example. The party was not called the NDP then but he brought in Universal Health Care, roads, sewage systems, electricity in other words he built Saskatchewan. He was the only politician in the world who saw Hitler for what he was in a speach in 1939 a true tyrant.

Problem is somewhere between re-naming when the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation rebranded into the New Democratic Party the idea of the party Tommy Douglas built died. Just look at what Pierre Elliot Trudeau did when the party was re-branded....he crossed the floor to the Liberals because he knew deep down the ideolagy of the NDP was doomed. One of the major problems that led to that doom was 'morality'. There was too many opinions on such an explosive word. The socialism of the NDP is no match to the socialist government of Denmark because Denmark understands and agrees on the definition of moral...what is good for the people.

As for the 1% theory and that is what the Cons are then sorry Nav ya' gotta check the history books again. That $2 Billion surplus the Liberals left were off the backs of the military...does the decade of darkness ring a bell. The Libs gutted a lot of government departments except for Mr. Martin's creativity in tax shelters.

Remember Paul? The form Finance Minister who was part owner of a shipping company? A Canadian shipping company in name but it's ship flags flew from some third world very lax banking regulations. So what did Martin do when he was called out on it? He started to tax that country for Canadian shipping. One wee little problem though Martin moved the family business to another 3rd world lax banking Caribbean company. So who exactly is the Capitalist in this? Who taught Canadian business' how to pull off perfect capitalism? I'll let you decide.

As for the Toronto Sun everyone has their opinion on it but for over 10 years now I have read the Globe, Star, Post and the only single newspaper that called out all governments at all levels has been the Sun Newspaper chain. St. Peter himself could be the PM of Canada and the Sun would call him out if he did something that was not in Canadians best interest. The Sun only believes in one thing do what's morally right for Canadians. Sorta sounds like the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation idealogy before they became the NDP.

Just to clarify I'm not looking at the word "moral" in a negative light. I'm saying it is a word that can be interpretted hundreds of different ways which leads to lawsuits, arguments, benefits, financial compensation programs.

The only word in the Cons statement I have a problem with is the word in the last sentence...liberally. A word that can also be interpretted differently but not as much as the way the sentence reads with the word in it.

I would of much rather read the following in either parties sacred obligation...

The benefit of the doubt will always go to the veteran, spouse, common-law partner, orphan.

Teen, I cannot see in any instance where someone can take a moral obligation, as a negative one. It means to do the right thing, regardless of what the rules may state. For example, a Veteran with terminal cancer applies for treatment. If he was only pensioned for a bad back, the rules would normally only approve treatments and medication associated with his pensioned condition. But the moral thing to do, is provide him with the support he needs, regardless of the rules.

As far as the NDP is concerned, the same thing happened here in Nova Scotia, with Darryl Dexter. The old parties get the provinces into trouble, the people get sick of it and elect NDP to see if they can change things up. But like the article said, they were left with a situation that was far worse than suspected, and it takes some tough decisions to make things right. But tough decisions tends to make enemies. For once I would like to see what the NDP could do, if they were in elected during good economic times. After all , the Tories took power witha 2 billion dollar surplus, ans still managed to spend us into a record deficit within only a few years, and then cutting everything to bring us back to even. All of that within the span of a decade, and yet, somehow still claim to be the best choice for fiscal management.

But I do respect you Teen

TEEN, one word, Captialism and it's a dirty word. It represents one of the worse systems of slavery this world has ever seen. Why does the top 1percent have 99 percent of the wealth on this planet? Captialism depends on growing and producing selling and consuming, it means profit above everything even if it destroys countries and people. What ever happened to building countries and looking after the less fortunate, the disabled and that includes veterans. Why is a person judged in life by what they have instead of what's in their heart. The Cons have turned disability into a dirty word and believe me if you think for one minute that Harper or any of them care about disabled veterans your medicine needs adjusting. The Toronto Sun is a neo conservative hillbilly newspaper that caters to the likes of Rob Ford and Preston Manning. Try quoting some of Harper's earlier quotes from his Reform years they are straight outta a fox news cast. The Capitalist have caused so much trouble, hurt and damage in this word that the USA could very well be pludged into a race war because of the economic slavery they promote down there and Harper wants up here. The thing that destroyed Ontario was these capitalist trade agreements that sent mostof our production to low cost countries like Mexico and China thus destroying our middle class. The NDP need a chance at the federal level and don't need to be destroyed the capitalist bankers from the imf and new York. We are slaves to the system and Harper's system is by far the most worse this country has ever seen

Sorry but it's an NDP goggle check time. So no one has a problem with the one single word in the NDP statement that can cause nothing but trouble...MORAL???

This is a word that can be intrepretted about 500 different ways to MP's, Senators, lawyers, the people of Canada.

Moral is the reason there is lawsuits going on because it is open to interpretation by everyone.

I'm not politicking here I'm trying to understand how the word moral is ok with everyone but the definitive statement by the Cons is not trustworthy???? They defined obligation to all vets, spouses, common-law and orphans.

I am going to post a link to an op-ed that everyone needs to read and think about....

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/06/dear-albertaabout-the-ndp

NDP statement sounds like something we'd all can take to the bank. Come on, we all know if and when a NDP government gets elected there's going to be better benefits and financial compensation for veterans , that's a give in, the NDP are also better on the social front. The Cons statement sounds like something Harpers legal team crunched out after Harper went into a wild rage , much like an Adolf Hilter freak out after learning the NDP won in his home province.

"equitable" that word is HUGE in this context . never seen what a federal NDP government would do with any of its words so in the end just a WORD . best WORDS ive seen yet though .

in the end if we could have all vets treated equally ill try anything.

propat

The NDP wording is far more impressive, using words like equitable, meaning everyone will be treated the same. They also detailed that the obligation isn't just monetary, and that it is a legal, social and moral obligation as well. No more just throwing money att he Veterans and hope they go away. I like that they simply said that the government is obligated to fulfill. Versus the Tories "recognized obligation MAY be fulfilled", thus leaving them wiggle room to deny benefits, because it allows for a bureaucrats interpretation of what the Act says. The government can be appreciative all they want, but it doesn't mean shite, if they continue to deny benefits, and treat Veterans like second class citizens.

For comparisson here is the NDP's proposal...

That, in the opinion of the House, a covenant of moral, legal, fiduciary and social obligation exists between the Canadian people and the government to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependents, which the government is obligated to fulfil.

I got this from the Minister's staff and this is what they are proposing to be included at the the start of the NVC...

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.