Stolen Valour – Exposing the Fraudsters

By Michael Blais

My first experience with Stolen Valour occurred over a decade ago shortly after being elected as president of the local chapter of The Royal Canadian Regimental Association (RCR). The branch had participated in a veterans orientated event in Niagara and after the parade, some Korean War veterans cornered me at the local legion. They pointedly noted there was an elderly member within our branch who was wearing Korean War medals despite the fact that, while he was serving at the time of the conflict, he did not actually deploy to Korea. They were not impressed. They had approached the individual themselves but to no avail and they therefore expressed expectations of me to resolve the matter as a fellow member of the RCR.

Never Pass a Fault is the regimental motto, and the issue was quickly sorted.

The second time was of far greater consequence. We were proudly flying the regimental banner, while participating in a convention level parade through the streets of Niagara Falls which was hosted by the local Legion. Afterwards, I was approached by a retired Company Sergeant Major (CSM) of The Royal Canadian Regiment and Canadian Airborne Regiment (CAR). He was an older fellow who certainly looked the part! His pants were sharply creased, shoes polished, medals affixed perfectly on a sharp blue blazer adorned with The RCR’s Snr NCO’s crest, medals, American and Canadian parachute wings inclusive with the white leaf of the CAR. 

This Sergeant Major claimed to be a member of The RCR Association’s Toronto Branch, who had been dispatched by Regimental HQ to escort one of The Regiment’s Memorial Cross Mothers to Niagara for the parade. Naively our group welcomed him. Throughout that summer he travelled to Niagara to participate with the Support the Troops rallies which our RCR Branch was organizing in Niagara Falls, Niagara on the Lake and Fort Erie in support of the Crystal Beach Volunteer Firemen (CBVF). The CBVF were seeking to create the Albert Storm Memorial Park and Boat launch on shores of Lake Erie. Pro Patria, mission accomplished.

Tragically, it was the cruel loss of another regimental brother in Afghanistan and the subsequent provision of the Memorial Cross (MC) to his family which revealed this case of stolen valour. Seeking guidance from Regimental HQ in respect to potential MC protocols should the family accede to our offer of support, I mentioned Sergeant Major X and the Memorial Cross mother whom he had previously escorted, supposedly at RHQ's request,  to Niagara earlier that summer.

"Who’s that?” they asked. Fly the Red Flag!

Some due diligence research into the regimental archives revealed that no such CSM ever existed!

I was shocked and I thought to myself;  What kind of individual does that? Who would deceive a grieving Memorial Cross Mother in such a cruel manner? What kind of individual perpetuates such deception on the veterans community by exploiting the spilled blood of the Royal Canadian Regiment? Why go to such elaborate lengths to obtain all the trappings and uniform items to complete his deception?

More importantly the question begs, why? What purpose could this possibly serve?

Could this have been part of a nefarious scheme designed to grift a distraught Memorial Cross mom out of any financial settlement accorded to her by the government in respect to her son's tragic death in Afghanistan? My concerns were shared by RHQ in Petawawa. The Military Police were alerted, which in turn initiated an investigation that would ultimately include the Niagara Regional Police Service. Military emissaries were dispatched to the home of the Memorial Cross mother to explain what was transpiring and to provide her support if needed.

The case unfolded thus:

Mr. Stolen Valour was invited to the Niagara Falls Police Station police station for an interview.

Mr. Stolen Valour admitted that he had never served, let alone attained the rank of CSM,  in The Royal Canadian Regiment.

Mr. Stolen valour admitted that he had never served in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. (Nor did he earn the US or Canadians wings he so often boasted about).

Mr. Stolen valour admitted that he had never served in Cyprus, and therefore his medals were as bogus as the rest of his cruel hoax.

However, as no charges were laid in this case and since there was no other recriminations, Mr. Stolen Valour soon reinvented himself once more as a member of the Royal Regiment of Canada. He has since lain wreaths on Remembrance day, and even went so far as to participate in a documentary series. The episode never aired yet it was this interview which ultimately proved to be his downfall.

Stay safe over the holidays and stay tuned for Stolen Valour part 2, where I shall recount some of my experiences with stolen valour as a national veterans advocate. 

The Benefits of Anonymity

By Military Woman

Question: Why is the Military Women column anonymous? 

Answer: We publish this column anonymously for several reasons. One simple reason is to allow serving and released/retired women and men to input into the column without any worries of first needing workplace permissions before voicing their opinions on what could be viewed as government-related policy matters. 

Anonymity also removes all concerns around how to best recognize and order multiple inputter’s names into the column’s byline.

Another reason for anonymity relates to the original purpose behind this column—to spark thoughtful reflections and open honest conversations around topics that can be considered by some as politically sensitive and/or controversial. Keeping the column’s readers blind to the authors’ identities (including their rank, age, gender, race, trade, military experiences) helps to keep the focus on the issues, and not the authors. 

A final reason for anonymity is for our own piece of mind. Throughout society, including the defence community, it largely still remains a position of privilege to be able to challenge the status quo without concurrent concerns that doing so may negatively impact the security and safety of one’s work and personal life. Most women, and some men, do not (yet) hold this privileged position, and must still choose between full participation in public life and compromising their sense of safety for themselves and their family. 

Talking about women and women specific issues in any public forum can, unfortunately, result in unwanted attention. The fact remains that women who publicly challenge the status quo are still being met with gender-based aggression. One has only to look at the Amnesty International report titled “Toxic Twitter – A Toxic Place for Women” to see the validity of such safety concerns. This report lists numerous online abusive behaviours aimed specifically at women, including name calling, body shaming, racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, doxing, stalking, rape threats, death threats, and threats against women’s
families.  

Furthermore, a disturbing trend of late is the increasing prevalence of online threats crossing over to real life threats. Sometimes the perpetrators are unknown to their targets as was the case for then Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, MP for Ottawa Centre, and for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Other times the perpetrators are well known to their targets, often previous intimate partners, as was the case for Private First Class Vanessa Guillen. It should be of no surprise, then, that women’s voices remain underrepresented in many areas of public discourse—including the defence community.

Many military women’s issues, including the benefits of online anonymity, have been eloquently explored in the “Wavell Room”, a British contemporary military thought website. In one such article, “Second Order Sexism”, the anonymous author acknowledges that men can also find themselves open to receiving online backlash, but “when a man gets into an argument on Twitter, the worst that tends to happen is he gets called a few names. The game for women is entirely different. Putting our real names to our accounts opens us up to doxing, stalking, trolling, revenge porn and worse.” 

The article goes on to assert that an anonymous author’s arguments and ideas are no less worthy of consideration, and that “we should be looking at the quality of the argument/debate/discussion that an individual provides rather than getting caught up in the name they use. Engage with the argument, not the individual.” 

These are especially wise words when applied to defence-related discussions where it is still possible to find regimental “tribal” loyalties, combined with ingrained gender and rank hierarchies, that serve to dismiss, intimidate, and silence dissenting voices and opinions. “If we really want to be a diverse, inclusive and female-friendly organisation”, concludes the author, “let’s come away from the outdated idea that only troublemakers choose to be anonymous and accept that for some of us, personal security is far more than just a phrase, it’s embedded in everything we do.”  

For all these reasons and more, that’s why this column is anonymous, for now.

Thinking Like A Businessman

By Vincent J. Curtis

Recent equipment purchases on behalf of the CAF – shockingly! – do not accord with business sense. Only superficially are they sensible. Let’s examine how a businessman might go about the acquisitions of the C-19, the Harry DeWolf class of patrol vessels, and an acquisition of handguns.

The C-19 is the new bolt-gun for the Canadian Rangers. It is replacing the venerable Long Branch No. 4 Mk I* Lee-Enfield, last manufactured in the early 1950s. The C-19 is a modified Tikka T3x Arctic. It employs a Mauser-like two-lug bolt action, and has a ten round detachable box magazine. The bolt handle and the trigger guard are oversized for work with gloved hands. The bolt handle is angled to that the hand is placed next to the trigger on closing, and the bolt turns at a quick 60 degrees, mimicking the No. 4. It has a 20” medium-heavy barrel with nice iron sights and a blaze-orange composite stock. It comes with a Picatinny rail over the action for optic mounting. The rifle offers good, but not superb, accuracy

A nice rifle, priced at $2,800 retail. The Canadian government paid $4,000 for the Ranger version. The businessman would ask, “Why are we paying a premium to Sako when Colt Canada can make brand new No. 4 Lee-Enfield actions royalty free?” The Lee-Enfield is what the Rangers were used to. Into a Colt-built No. 4 action, Colt can thread one of their magnificent medium-heavy barrels and bed the barrelled action in a blaze orange composite stock like the Tikka. This rifle can use the same iron sights. The Lee-Enfield comes with a detachable ten round magazine. A Picatinny rail can be installed over the No. 4 action by modifying the contour of the charger bridge to serve as the rear mount, and the front of the receiver for the front mount. There’s your C-19 built around a No 4 Lee-Enfield action instead of a Tikka. A better No. 5 carbine?

A strategic business benefit falls to Colt Canada. Besides having a famous new product to sell, at least half a million No. 4’s remain in private hands in Canada. Many need spare parts to remain serviceable, and Colt would be the manufacturer of these spare parts. There would be ongoing business for Colt Canada beyond the government.

Now, let’s take a quick look at the Harry DeWolf Arctic Patrol vessels. A short detour. Auto parts manufacturers used to buy moulds and dies from North American machine shops. A bumper or a fender would be stamped out of sheet metal in one of these moulds. Let’s say a mould cost $100,000. During the recession of 2000-2002, China joined the World Trade Organization. When the car business came out of recession, the parts makers went to China for moulds. Of course, they came back out of spec, and the Chinese moulds were sent to the North American mould makers to be put right. The parts maker paid the Chinese $20k for the mould, and $30k for the re-work. The parts maker saved himself $50k. Now, apply this to ships.

Let’s say a DeWolf costs $1 billion. We could buy an ice-breaker from Russia for $200 million, and then pay Irving $500 million to have the Russian vessel put into the condition we want. Canada saves herself $300 million.

I’ve written about handguns before, and the sticking point seems to be that Canada wants only 10,000 of them and Colt Canada has to build them. Glock isn’t going to let Colt build Glocks. Likewise, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, Walther, and Sig.

But, the Colt M45 is a perfectly viable sidearm in today’s militaries. As is the Browning Hi-Power. Why can’t Colt Canada build new Hi-Powers? During the War, Canada acquired the rights from FN to make 250,000, and built nowhere near that many. We’re using Hi-Powers now. Don’t let “tacticool” pistol snobs deflect you from making a good, practical decision.

Businessmen think different when it’s their money.

Pregnancy and Society/Safe Military Pregnancies: Part 1 & 2

By Military Women

Q: If pregnancy is a normal fact of life, why is it still a big deal in the military?

A: In the June 2020 Military Women column, pregnancy was indeed highlighted as a perfectly normal physiological life event, however pregnancy is also a commonly cited bone fide sex difference that we know can impact military employment and operational effectiveness. Let’s consider some of the unique aspects of pregnancy in the military first within the context of the history of women in Canadian
society.

 Did you know that women only became legally recognized as “persons” on October 18th, 1929 (Edwards v Canada)? This constitutional change paved the way for women’s increased participation in public life, a milestone acknowledged annually with the official designation of October 18th as Persons Day.

During both world wars, women were asked to temporarily fill traditionally male military and civilian work roles. However, once World War II was over, married women were expected to return to the home, while unmarried women were pushed back into gender normative civilian positions. Employee pregnancy was not something the male dominated workspaces, military or civilian, expected to be seeing or dealing with.

In 1960, all Canadian women were finally accorded the right to vote. In 1965, due to human resource shortages, the military allowed a handful of gender-appropriate trades to recruit up to 1,500 unmarried women into the regular forces. Military women were still being released upon marriage, in part due to the assumption that they would soon become pregnant. Those assumptions were no longer valid when the oral contraceptive pill was made legal in 1969. The ability of women to control their own reproductive status was a gamechanger.

The pivotal Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970), noted that society has “a responsibility for [the] special treatment of women related to pregnancy and childbirth”. The Commission opened the doors for women to potentially return to the workforce after a pregnancy with recommendations for both maternity leave and guaranteed job security. The report also opened up military colleges, gave women access to previously men-only military pensions, and removed marriage and pregnancy as reasons for mandatory military release. Finally, women didn’t have to choose between a family and a military career—at least not on paper.

In the same decade, the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977) prohibited federal workplace discrimination related to sex, marital status and/or family status, and the military conducted a complete personnel policy update review (1978).

Momentum for women to stay in the workforce, both during and after pregnancy, grew in the 1980s. Canada signed the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1980) that, among other things, called for special workplace protections for women during pregnancy.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), prohibited workplace discrimination based on sex. The Employment Equity Act (1986) required the identification and elimination of unnecessary barriers to employment in federal workspaces for identified groups, including specifically women. The decade ended with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (1989) supporting a complaint against the military for employment discrimination based on sex. The result was that the Canadian Armed Forces was ordered to fully integrate women into all jobs within 10 years. Since the 1990s, women have entered with ever growing numbers into the previously male-only military operational combat roles and environments.

The last 100 years have seen the legal barriers to workplace equity for Canadian women removed—including in the military.
However, many employers have put more resources into enrolling women into the previously male-only trades then proactively ensuring their safe retention through enabled, appropriately accommodated workspaces. In the military, the politically driven focus on total numbers of women working in non-traditional and operational military roles continues to overshadow the parallel concurrent need to knowledge generate evidence-based protections and supports for those working women, especially while pregnant or breastfeeding. How to best address that is another discussion for another day.

---

Part 1 – Pre-conception 

Question: Do military women need more workplace considerations to ensure safe pregnancies? 

Answer: Last month we discussed whether military women need “special” occupational health and safety (OHS) workplace considerations. We concluded that both military women and men can have biological sex-specific needs, and that these facts of life shouldn’t result in the naming of one sex’s issues as “normal” and the other’s as “special”. 

One obvious OHS workplace difference between women and men relates to pregnancy. Pregnancy is a natural life event that all Canadian employers should include as part of their OHS workplace plans and preparations. Ideally, pregnancy and subsequent parenthood should not adversely affect a woman’s health or career progression in any job setting. For many traditionally women-friendly workplaces, the large number of women who have worked while pregnant has already paved the way for reproductive hazard identification and the implementation of required risk mitigation measures. 

Women entered with significant numbers into “non-traditional” operational workplaces, such as the military, starting in the 1980s. Since the number of women in these workplaces is relatively small compared to men, and the number of pregnant women is even smaller, there is a dearth of research into women-specific hazard exposures. This means that operational military environments are in a bit of a “research desert”, with little robust science available to base policy or recommendations on.  So military women and their employers are left unclear on how to best scientifically quantify and address workplace reproductive hazards. 

The military’s present risk management approach to reproductive health hazards requires three different, and sometimes competing, determinations of what is in the best interest of the: (1)  woman’s health and career in the short and long-term; (2) pregnancy; and, (3) military’s need to meet OHS and legal standards, while also addressing operational effectiveness and mission success requirements.

One strategy to ensure the health of the mother and baby, while also meeting the needs of the military, is to pre-plan pregnancies whenever possible. In the US military, every medical encounter is viewed as an opportunity to confirm whether or not a military member wishes to conceive in the year ahead. If the answer is no, various ways to decrease the chances of an unintended pregnancy are reviewed. If the answer is yes, a pre-conception counselling medical appointment is booked.

The purpose of a pre-conception counselling session is to maximize a woman’s general health and ability to successfully conceive. Whereas these medical sessions are recommended at least three months prior to conception in civilian healthcare, they are recommended a year ahead for military personnel. Topics to be reviewed include past reproductive history, family history, diet, exercise, folic acid supplement, weight, nicotine use, alcohol use, prescription drug use, cannabis, pets, relationship status, and any anticipated near-term needs for dental work, vaccinations, x-rays and /or surgery. 

Unique to military pre-conception counselling, a full workplace reproductive hazard review is also conducted for both current and possible future hazard exposures. Hazard exposures include chemical (gas hut, pesticide exposure), biological (Zika virus, COVID-19, live vaccines, partner’s potential workplace exposures), physical (noise, radiation, hypobaric oxygen, egress training), ergonomics (prolonged standing, shift work), psycho-social (stress levels, available social supports, risk for gender-based violence), and anthropometrics (need for specialized uniforms or equipment while pregnant that might need to be ordered far in advance).
Some of these exposures come with medical recommendations to wait as long as a full year before a planned conception. 

To optimize the safety of pregnancies, military women (and men) need more Canadian research and workplace awareness about reproductive hazards, risks and mitigation strategies. One, of many, windows of opportunity for the employer is to ensure the screening and education of all military members before planned conceptions. Other militaries provide generic reproductive information through open source phone apps (e.g., the US Navy’s “Pregnancy and Parenthood” app), followed up with specific individualized information at pre-conception medical counselling sessions. Is there a reason Canada couldn’t do the same?

---

Part 2: First Trimester

Question: Do women need more military workplace considerations to ensure safe pregnancies? 

Answer: In July 2020’s Military Women column we talked about military workplace considerations pre-conception. In this month’s column, we continue that conversation  into the first three months, or trimester, of pregnancy. 

Pregnancy may be a normal physiological life event but the risks, even in “normal” environments, are different for every person, every time.  For example, during the first trimester, up to 70% of pregnant women experience nausea and vomiting that can vary in severity from mild to profound and up to 20% of pregnancies result in threatened or completed miscarriages. Miscarriage symptoms can vary from minor to debilitating uterine cramping, emotional distress and/or bleeding; and can require urgent access to specialized medical care. Ectopic pregnancies, the implanting and growth of the embryo outside of the uterus, affects up to 2% of first trimester pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies can cause sudden incapacitation and even be life threatening—needing emergency surgical intervention. Other pregnancy-induced physiological changes increase a women’s risk of urine infections, kidney stones, and ear blockages. 

So how should workplaces best accommodate for these baseline pregnancy risks for all while concurrently ensuring no additional or new risks? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer.

Workplace standards that ensure safety for the average healthy adult cannot be assumed safe for medically compromised adults, children and/or pregnancies. Specific reproductive hazard research is required to know if pregnancy loss and physical and cognitive birth defects are being kept to baseline “normal” levels or not. Because we can’t deliberately expose pregnant women to potential hazards, it’s not possible to do “gold standard double-blind randomized control trial” types of research. Most workplace reproductive safety standards are therefore determined “after the fact”, using observational studies documenting the workplace exposures of men and women and the final pregnancy outcomes from hundreds, if not thousands, of pregnancies.

Well-studied workspaces, such as office administration and teaching, are generally proven safe to work in while pregnant without limitations. Other large workplace studies, for example hospital nursing and commercial aviation flight attendants, identified the need for decreased exposures while pregnant to operating room anesthetic agents, radiation, circadian rhythm disruptions, and prolonged standing.

Less well-studied workspaces include the many areas women have only recently been entering in significant numbers  (e.g., military, first responder services, mining).  Given the research gaps of what, if any, sex-specific health impacts these non-traditional environments have on adult non-pregnant women, it’s no surprise even less is known about these workplace’s impact on pregnant women. 

To establish pregnant military worker’s safety standards, researchers will need to review literally thousands of pregnancy records. Given the magnitude and complexity involved to study military specific exposures (e.g., military flying, diving, isolated field environments, serving at sea), international collaboration is likely needed. In the meantime, the gap between “what is known to be safe” during pregnancy and “what is known to be unsafe”, in military specific environments remains unacceptably wide. 

Thermal, vibrational, biological, chemical, ergonomic or acceleration workplace exposures can negatively impact pregnancies at any stage, but especially so in the first trimester. Workplace reproduction hazard identification and avoidance are therefore especially important to enforce during the first trimester, the time when pregnancies are known to be the most sensitive to them.

The present lack of knowledge surrounding military workplace reproduction safety raises many questions. How can military operational effectiveness be best achieved without any worker discrimination based on sex? What is the employer’s responsibility to identify and minimize potential hazard exposures?  What is the right of the military woman to decide the level of workplace risk she is willing to take vis-à-vis her own health and that of the pregnancy? How can informed decisions happen without more information? 

One thing we can all agree on, is that more sex-specific (male and female) military workplace reproductive research is needed. When we know better, we can all do better.

SAFE MILITARY PREGNANCIES: Part 2 – First Trimester Military Woman

By Military Woman

Question: Do women need more military workplace considerations to ensure safe pregnancies? 

Answer: In July 2020’s Military Women column we talked about military workplace considerations pre-conception. In this month’s column, we continue that conversation  into the first three months, or trimester, of pregnancy. 

Pregnancy may be a normal physiological life event but the risks, even in “normal” environments, are different for every person, every time.  For example, during the first trimester, up to 70% of pregnant women experience nausea and vomiting that can vary in severity from mild to profound and up to 20% of pregnancies result in threatened or completed miscarriages. Miscarriage symptoms can vary from minor to debilitating uterine cramping, emotional distress and/or bleeding; and can require urgent access to specialized medical care. Ectopic pregnancies, the implanting and growth of the embryo outside of the uterus, affects up to 2% of first trimester pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies can cause sudden incapacitation and even be life threatening—needing emergency surgical intervention. Other pregnancy-induced physiological changes increase a women’s risk of urine infections, kidney stones, and ear blockages. 

So how should workplaces best accommodate for these baseline pregnancy risks for all while concurrently ensuring no additional or new risks? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer.

Workplace standards that ensure safety for the average healthy adult cannot be assumed safe for medically compromised adults, children and/or pregnancies. Specific reproductive hazard research is required to know if pregnancy loss and physical and cognitive birth defects are being kept to baseline “normal” levels or not. Because we can’t deliberately expose pregnant women to potential hazards, it’s not possible to do “gold standard double-blind randomized control trial” types of research. Most workplace reproductive safety standards are therefore determined “after the fact”, using observational studies documenting the workplace exposures of men and women and the final pregnancy outcomes from hundreds, if not thousands, of pregnancies.

Well-studied workspaces, such as office administration and teaching, are generally proven safe to work in while pregnant without limitations. Other large workplace studies, for example hospital nursing and commercial aviation flight attendants, identified the need for decreased exposures while pregnant to operating room anesthetic agents, radiation, circadian rhythm disruptions, and prolonged standing.

Less well-studied workspaces include the many areas women have only recently been entering in significant numbers  (e.g., military, first responder services, mining).  Given the research gaps of what, if any, sex-specific health impacts these non-traditional environments have on adult non-pregnant women, it’s no surprise even less is known about these workplace’s impact on pregnant women. 

To establish pregnant military worker’s safety standards, researchers will need to review literally thousands of pregnancy records. Given the magnitude and complexity involved to study military specific exposures (e.g., military flying, diving, isolated field environments, serving at sea), international collaboration is likely needed. In the meantime, the gap between “what is known to be safe” during pregnancy and “what is known to be unsafe”, in military specific environments remains unacceptably wide. 

Thermal, vibrational, biological, chemical, ergonomic or acceleration workplace exposures can negatively impact pregnancies at any stage, but especially so in the first trimester. Workplace reproduction hazard identification and avoidance are therefore especially important to enforce during the first trimester, the time when pregnancies are known to be the most sensitive to them.

The present lack of knowledge surrounding military workplace reproduction safety raises many questions. How can military operational effectiveness be best achieved without any worker discrimination based on sex? What is the employer’s responsibility to identify and minimize potential hazard exposures?  What is the right of the military woman to decide the level of workplace risk she is willing to take vis-à-vis her own health and that of the pregnancy? How can informed decisions happen without more information? 

One thing we can all agree on, is that more sex-specific (male and female) military workplace reproductive research is needed. When we know better, we can all do better.

Eyes Front!

By Michael Nickerson

Here’s a pop quiz. Imagine you are being briefed by a senior officer. It might concern an important operation, a training exercise, or perhaps a critical shortage of sherry in the officer’s mess. Regardless, during said briefing do you a) gaze at your toes, b) look out the window behind you and consider the lovely fall colours that have begun to appear, c) finish that crossword you started in the latrine only minutes before, or d) stare straight ahead and pay bloody good attention to what’s being said? Your career might depend on this, so think carefully before answering.

Now the answer should be rather obvious, particularly when it comes to sherry shortages, but looking the other way seems a tad more common in our great nation’s military than one might expect. In fact, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has been afflicted with nothing-to-see-here syndrome for quite some time. For decades leadership turned a blind eye to issues of mental illness and PTSD, conditions rationalized away as mere personality quirks that a good 10km run would fix in a jiffy. And one suspects there are still some trying to convince themselves that Operation HONOUR has more to do with patriotic parade planning than the sexual harassment and assault it’s there to stamp out.

So let us discuss the issue of racism in the ranks, and see how many have a sudden urge to look up and count the cobwebs on the ceiling. And before you get yourself in a lather thinking that this humble scribe is about to paint the whole of Canada’s military with one big brush as a bastion for neo-Nazis and Klansmen, pour yourself a sherry (assuming there is some around) and relax. Much as with the issue of sexual misconduct, this is about the exceptions, not the rule. 

But to turn a blind eye to those exceptions is in itself a dereliction of duty, and one that has gone on for far too long. Only with the recent killing of George Floyd and subsequent Black Lives Matter protests has leadership publicly acknowledged in a letter to forces members the “systemic racism within the defence team.” That any CAF members of colour, First Nations, and other minorities have had to feel not just unwelcome, but unsafe and fearful within a military and ministry that represents a multi-cultural country such as Canada is, quite frankly, a disgrace.

But what is a further disgrace is how such behaviour, when reported, gets swept under the rug with perpetrators and those responsible for them receiving mere slaps on the wrists, be it with mild reprimands or sensitivity training, rather than dismissal. Is it any wonder that racists with affiliations to neo-Nazi organizations feel comfortable sharing their hate publicly on social media, or proudly wear patches and symbols of the same?

Up to now a common rebuttal has been that the level of racism and hate is no different than one finds in general Canadian society. That may be true, but it’s a rather low bar for a proud organization to set for itself. And more to the point, members of the CAF are not the average Canadian. They are trained, as Gen. Rick Hillier once so proudly proclaimed, to kill people: proficient in the use of weapons, explosives and hand-to-hand combat. It’s the sort of training that comes with immense responsibility, and certainly not trivial skills to be wielded by hateful, angry neo-Nazis and far right anti-government nut cases with pointless axes to
grind.

I ask you this: what would those who fought and died fighting those lovely folks behind the holocaust in World War Two think of a situation today where soldiers wearing the same uniform as they once did now proudly identify with that enemy’s sick ideology? I’m going to take a guess and say that they would be disgusted to see even one allowed to wear that uniform. So eyes front soldier! Give that some thought the next time you want to look the other way.

ADO: The FEC for the AoT, Part Deux

By Vincent J Curtis

You’ve been given your assignment. Develop a capstone concept for “The Army of Tomorrow”, tomorrow being the year 2021. To recap, it’s 2006. After a dark decade of underfunding, money will start to flow but you have no idea for how long. History cautions you to assume the government is faithless in their commitments to the CF. A battlegroup was committed to Kandahar, and the tactical situation is hazardous. Casualties will be taken. The new CDS is Rick Hillier, and the Liberal government that appointed him and made the commitments has fallen. A new Conservative minority government under Stephen Harper, with MND Gordon O’Connor (a former CF BGen), has taken over.

The current military fashions are: Fourth Generation Warfare, Three Block War, Effects Based Operations, Network Centric Warfare, Full Spectrum of Operations, and, of course, Maneuver Warfare. You have to come up with a Future Security Environment (FSE), a Force Employment Concept (FEC), and a structure for the AoT, (Hint: It would look weird if you disregarded current theories.)

The document has come across as intellectually impressive. It has to be general enough to be effectively non-falsifiable. Since the work is going to be reviewed by committees and senior officers, there is no point in using your secret crystal ball that enabled Billy Mitchell to foresee in 1925 the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor by air. You can only extrapolate from what is known. You can moderate trends in developments, but a dramatic acceleration has to be well justified. You cannot, for instance, forecast the tank combat of Kursk, 1943, on the basis of the mechanization of 1928. Your crystal ball’s insights don’t constitute justification, and could get you consigned to a loony bin.

What do you do? (Don’t check you iPhone – it isn’t invented yet!)

You start by writing your exegesis in an elevated, technical, and abstract vocabulary. You sprinkle acronyms throughout the text. Conceptually, the document is highly structured, engineered you might say. You incorporate those diagrams that imply without specifying relationships among its elements. (These diagrams are both fashionable and futuristic looking, so you might as well stick with that program.). You carefully define each term of the copious technical jargon you employ. (Any connection between reality and abstract technical jargon is fortuitous.) Your approach is highly ideological, and you fill up space by describing ideological processes.

You pay tribute to hoary, arcane, idiosyncratic ideas of the past, “The Five Operational Functions” (Command, Sense, Act, Shield, and Sustain), which themselves are the product of undeclared, unexamined ideological commitments. Being so abstract, they are untouchable, and also much beloved.

For an FEC, you start with Kandahar and begin extrapolating. The fundamental deployed formation is no longer the brigade group but the battle group, because that’s all Canada has ever committed since Germany. The FEC style you dub “Adaptive Disperse Operations” (ADO) because Op Medusa has just happened. The Kandahar battle group had been operating in company-sized roving patrols, but in Medusa a brigade group minus was pulled together that surprised and annihilated a Taliban brigade. So the FEC is to operate dispersed until a concentration of force is necessary. In ADO, you concentrate and disperse ‘adaptively,’ FSO in accordance with maneuver warfare, network-centric warfare, and effects based operations theories. ADO is FSO IAW MW, NCW, and EBO. 

Because the Leopard Is have yet to prove the value of tanks in the Afghan theatre, and the expectation is that new tanks will not be purchased for the CF, you go without tanks in your conceptual battlegroup. Everything is wheeled.

In accordance with 4GW, the FSE enemy will be ‘tech-savvy non-state actors.’ 

Since close air support from the RCAF is unimaginable, you make no provision for ground-air cooperation, such as that managed between a rag-tag Kurdish militia and the USAF, which annihilated the ISIS Caliphate.

The purpose of this exercise is not to ridicule ADO, the AoT, or ABC. It’s to have fun with the ideological mindset, and to demonstrate the futility of projecting far into the future.

Déjà Vu All Over Again For O’Toole?

By Michael Blais

The Canadian Veterans Advocacy, by definition, is not a traditional veterans’ organization: This is deliberate. Founded in the aftermath of the 1st Canadian Veterans National Day of Protest, the CVA’s primary objectives are;  to proactively champion parliamentary changes essential to reforming VAC and to secure Pension Act equality in respect to the national sacrifice for thousands of physically and/or traumatized Canadians service personnel subsequent to the harsh realities of the Afghanistan War. 

Our approach has been purposefully apolitical, message-centric and inclusive of a multi-level focus on issues which are identified through extensive consultation with mentally or physically disabled veterans and their families. As a formal stakeholder, we have engaged effectively with respect to the implementation/application of VAC policy since 2011. At that juncture Minister Steven Blaney, a Conservative, invited CVA to participate at the “stakeholder” level. 

Parliamentary advocacy during Minister Julian Fantino's era proved particularly robust, predicated on increasing levels of discord amongst Afghan War casualties and the lack of definitive movement by the conservatives in addressing the central issues which CVA represented. Collective efforts within the veterans' community proved productive, generating levels of national, regional and local awareness. Perhaps concerned by this growing solidarity among vets, Harper abruptly replaced Fantino with novice parliamentarian, former CAF member, and ex RCAF navigator Erin O’Toole, CD. 

Whereas Fantino seemed cold and aloof, O’Toole was a smooth talking Bay Street lawyer, media savvy with a personable public persona. The façade deftly concealed his zeal to curtail departmental expenses by ‘streamlining' VAC’s bureaucracy and policies. This reform was predicated upon the looming demise of WW2 and Korean War which will shift the department’s focus towards modern veteran’s who are deemed moderately to severely disabled, as determined by VAC’s Table of Disabilities.

That is the theory but not the reality. For example, a veteran may be deemed Totally and Permanently Impaired by Manulife’s SISIP LTD or VAC Earning Loss Benefits program yet the same incapacity is rated by VAC’s ancient Table of Disabilities below that level which VAC requires in order for a client to be deemed moderately to severely disabled. This disparity in reality affects access to the Retirement Income Security Benefit at age 65, which only recognizes VAC’s  moderate to severe disability rating as a qualifier. 

O’Toole’s tactics and management of disenfranchised veterans represented by the Equitas group proved very effective in maneuvering them into an abeyance during the election period. Simultaneously, O’Toole supervised a dedicated process of ‘streamlining' hundreds of vital front line positions into oblivion. The consequences of these cutbacks on the veterans' community were immediate, increasingly profound and are perpetuated to this day. Case management, for those few assigned a case manager, have blossomed into an unsustainable ratio. Veterans seeking acknowledgement of their national sacrifice  experienced prolonged delays as the overwhelmed processing staff ‘ streamlined' decisions through new conservative policies designed to appease the few yet exclude and deny the majority. Of particular note was the criteria established for the Combat Injury Benefit.

Quite the legacy has been established under O’Toole’s leadership. 

As a result VAC was mortally dysfunctional by the time the conservative mandate ended in 2015, and it has yet to recover, despite dedicated efforts on the part of Trudeau’s Liberals to improve the quality of service.  

Objectively, there have been significant improvements in respect to mental health, suicide prevention, support for caregiving spouses and for the family unit’s financial and psychological requirements.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been committed to veterans over the past six years. This has resolved many contentious issues. The much reviled Lump Sum Award has been elevated to $360 thousand and a choice of the Liberal’s version of Pension For Life (PFL), which, while remaining deficient when compared to the recognition of an individual's national sacrifice which the Pension Act accords, it is as they say 'better than nothing'! 

Will the conservative mantra of balancing the budget repeat itself should O’Toole and his Conservative Party form the next government?

When confronted with the Liberal’s massive pandemic deficit, will O’Toole implement draconian austerity programs, which would include drastic civil servant staff reductions under the never ending guise of ‘streamlining' services? Will the $1150 at 100% Pension for Life and/or definitely positive improvements which were only made possible under a Liberal government be subject to review and fiscal reforms? Will Veterans Affairs Canada, always the target of past austerity programs, be ‘ streamlined’ in order to balance a deficit fighting Conservative budget? Will the national debt once again be prioritized ahead of the blood sweat and tears of disabled veterans?  

Will it be Déjà vu all over again for O’toole?

Pregnancy and Society

By Military Woman

Q: If pregnancy is a normal fact of life, why is it still a big deal in the military?

A: In the June 2020 Military Women column, pregnancy was indeed highlighted as a perfectly normal physiological life event, however pregnancy is also a commonly cited bone fide sex difference that we know can impact military employment and operational effectiveness. Let’s consider some of the unique aspects of pregnancy in the military first within the context of the history of women in Canadian
society.

 Did you know that women only became legally recognized as “persons” on October 18th, 1929 (Edwards v Canada)? This constitutional change paved the way for women’s increased participation in public life, a milestone acknowledged annually with the official designation of October 18th as Persons Day.

During both world wars, women were asked to temporarily fill traditionally male military and civilian work roles. However, once World War II was over, married women were expected to return to the home, while unmarried women were pushed back into gender normative civilian positions. Employee pregnancy was not something the male dominated workspaces, military or civilian, expected to be seeing or dealing with.

In 1960, all Canadian women were finally accorded the right to vote. In 1965, due to human resource shortages, the military allowed a handful of gender-appropriate trades to recruit up to 1,500 unmarried women into the regular forces. Military women were still being released upon marriage, in part due to the assumption that they would soon become pregnant. Those assumptions were no longer valid when the oral contraceptive pill was made legal in 1969. The ability of women to control their own reproductive status was a gamechanger.

The pivotal Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970), noted that society has “a responsibility for [the] special treatment of women related to pregnancy and childbirth”. The Commission opened the doors for women to potentially return to the workforce after a pregnancy with recommendations for both maternity leave and guaranteed job security. The report also opened up military colleges, gave women access to previously men-only military pensions, and removed marriage and pregnancy as reasons for mandatory military release. Finally, women didn’t have to choose between a family and a military career—at least not on paper.

In the same decade, the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977) prohibited federal workplace discrimination related to sex, marital status and/or family status, and the military conducted a complete personnel policy update review (1978).

Momentum for women to stay in the workforce, both during and after pregnancy, grew in the 1980s. Canada signed the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1980) that, among other things, called for special workplace protections for women during pregnancy.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), prohibited workplace discrimination based on sex. The Employment Equity Act (1986) required the identification and elimination of unnecessary barriers to employment in federal workspaces for identified groups, including specifically women. The decade ended with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (1989) supporting a complaint against the military for employment discrimination based on sex. The result was that the Canadian Armed Forces was ordered to fully integrate women into all jobs within 10 years. Since the 1990s, women have entered with ever growing numbers into the previously male-only military operational combat roles and environments.

The last 100 years have seen the legal barriers to workplace equity for Canadian women removed—including in the military.
However, many employers have put more resources into enrolling women into the previously male-only trades then proactively ensuring their safe retention through enabled, appropriately accommodated workspaces. In the military, the politically driven focus on total numbers of women working in non-traditional and operational military roles continues to overshadow the parallel concurrent need to knowledge generate evidence-based protections and supports for those working women, especially while pregnant or breastfeeding. How to best address that is another discussion for another day.

The Enemy Within

By Michael Nickerson

Paranoia has a bad rep. As the saying goes, “You may be paranoid, but that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.” Let’s face it; part and parcel with an effective military is a healthy dose of skepticism and mistrust. It’s the duty of our armed forces to seek out possible threats, anticipate dangers and be aware of who might be foe and not friend. Good intelligence and preparation wins the day, or so the theory goes.

So it was with some relief that I read the recent reporting by David Pugliese in the Ottawa Citizen concerning intelligence gathering and public information planning by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). It confirmed for me, as it should for all Canadians of pure hearts and minds, what we all expected: The enemy is closer than we thought. Very close. 

As examples, we now know that there are Yukon residents who are very interested in information on wildfires, and British Columbians showing keen and troubling inquisitiveness in Amazonian forest fires. We also know through deep intelligence gathering, that there are people in Ontario who are dissatisfied with their provincial government’s management of long-term care homes. Needless to say, sedition runs deep and wide in this country. Can provincial coup d’états committed through the combustion of conifers be far off? Think about that for a minute…chilling indeed.

Thankfully the CAF has already prepared for such threats with what it calls Precision Information Teams, or PiTs for short. These are small teams composed of young, motivated members combing social media sites like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for anything that might catch their eye. 

As the chief of staff for Canadian Joint Operations Command, Rear Adm. Brian Santarpia explained to the Ottawa Citizen, the CAF refrains from hindering PiT members’ enthusiasm in data collection, saying “the young folks who are doing it are going to surprise us every time with something that turns out to be more relevant than any of us thought it would be.” No stone left unturned, no mouse click left unnoticed. I feel safer knowing they know where I’ve surfed, don’t you?

As you can imagine, there are some who aren’t onboard with the new military order of domestic intelligence gathering. But rest assured members of our CAF not only know better than those people, they’re working to help change their minds. 

In order to help deal with what might be considered irrational and detrimental behaviour by the Canadian public during the current pandemic, there are patriots (may they be blessed) who have planned to deter social disobedience and ensure compliance of government edicts. This would not only involve “influence activity” specialists but stratagems from the war in Afghanistan; namely portable radio stations and vehicles broadcasting live information by loudspeaker. It went well there, so I take heart it will work here, and so should you!

But we have a problem, my dear friends. Some see this as an intrusion, perhaps even a violation of public trust. Unfortunately, the domestic data collection effort will now be reviewed, no doubt curtailed, heaven forbid abandoned. And efforts toward shaping the views and minds of the citizens in this country face stiff opposition. When the pandemic plan for what a good patriot would call public clarification and compliance came to the attention of Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance, he shut it down. He’s since announced his retirement. A coincidence? I think not!

I have no doubt that CDS Vance has already researched the temperatures required to ignite at least a half-dozen types of trees in this country. He’s been very busy admitting things that just aren’t helpful for the public good. How dare he be transparent, even in the face of bad press?! He could have stood strong and faced the enemy. But he’s one of them, my fellow patriot. He’s a Canadian!

Take heart that the CAF is still watching, monitoring, and identifying the enemy within. They’ll find them and they’ll let you know what you’re supposed to think about that when they do. Trust the CAF, because they don’t trust you.

The Army of Tomorrow, Today

By Vincent J. Curtis

Yogi Berra once said that predicting the future was hard, especially since it hadn’t happened yet.

Imagine you were a Canadian military planner in 1927. Andy McNaughton orders you to forecast what the army should be like in 1942, a mere fifteen years in the future.

“Simonds,” you cry. “Take a note!”

The Bren gun and the Browning Hi-Power hadn’t been invented. The No. 4 Lee-Enfield rifle hadn’t been developed. The 2” mortar hadn’t been thought of. The armoured doctrine of Plan 1919 was known and the British were experimenting with it, but this was way beyond Canadian industrial capabilities and the funding interests of the government. We were up to date on artillery doctrine even if we lacked the guns. Tanks, trucks and other heavy mechanical gear were primitive and unreliable. The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Locarno Treaties made war in Europe illegal.

A future strategic environment (FSE) assessment would fail to account for the coming revolutions. The Nazi Party was an obscure, fringe group. Germany itself was crippled by the Versailles Treaty and was convulsing with political unrest. Berlin was dissolute with the frivolities of the late 1920s. The Soviet Union was still consolidating its communist revolution. Lenin was dead, and Trotsky and Stalin were competing for the leadership of the party.
Russia was deeply impoverished and economically confused. Japan had been an ally in the Great War, and hadn’t invaded China. The great depression lay ahead.

It’s now 1942. The Canadian army has three divisions in Britain and would launch an ill-fated raid on Dieppe. The Germans are on the Volga River in Russia and driving on the Caucuses. Brand new Sherman tanks engage with Panzer Mk IVs in the deserts of Egypt and Cyrenaica. The Canadian Force Employment Concept (FEC) is a shambles, the only things that hold from 1927 are artillery doctrine and that peculiar Canadian invention of World War I, the Machine Gun Corps. The machine gun is the self-same Vickers .303 HMG, but mounted on Bren gun carriers instead of armoured cars.

Andy McNaughton orders you to forecast what they army should be like in 1957.

“Kitching” you cry. “Fetch your Underwood!”

The 1942 FSE of 1957 would be blind to revolutionary events. The atomic and then the hydrogen bombs would be invented. Strategic bombers would advance
successively from the new Lancaster, to the B-29, the B-36, the B-47, and the B-52. Germany would be defeated, occupied, and replaced as an enemy by the Soviet Union. NATO would be created. The Korean War would be fought. Sherman tanks would be replaced by Centurions, woolen battle-dress by FSOD, the No.4 by the FNC1, the Bren by the C2, the Sten by the Sterling, the PIAT by the 3.5”, and the Vickers by the Browning. Ballistic missiles would be deployed. But why have an army if the war will be over in thirty minutes?

It’s now 2006. You’re a Major. In Kingston. You’ve been issued a T-shirt, Bermuda shorts, sandals, and a Toshiba 486SX laptop with Office 2000. Andrew Leslie tasks you with coming up with a concept for “The Army of Tomorrow” (AoT for short). This will be the capstone concept for future material acquisitions and doctrinal development through 2021. No pressure. You look up. It’s a blue sky. What do you do?

Here is the Present Security Environment (PSE). Canada, under Prime Minister Paul Martin and MND Bill Graham, just committed Canada to a mission at Kandahar, dramatically expanding our commitment in Afghanistan. No idea how long this will last. The tactical situation around Kandahar is hazardous. General Rick Hillier is the new CDS. The dark decade for the CF is over, as Hillier made it a condition of his appointment that money starts to flow. We have no tactical aviation, no transport helicopters, and the heaviest lift aircraft we have are C-130H Hercules, each with over 30,000 flying hours. We have no modern artillery and no tanks. 

Start typing.

To Be Continued….

PTSD, An Excuse For pedophilia?

By Michael Blais CD

The vulnerability of children is proving to be an integral factor as we delve into the foundations of what defines the moral wounds Canadian veterans have sustained through decades of war, peace and domestic service. Military deployments to areas of the globe that do not share the qualitative standards Canadians cherish in respect to our children often stands in stark contrast to Canada's values. Often, improving the plight of children within the operational sphere reinforces the individual’s moral decision to enlist, to offer great sacrifice in order to make Canada and the world a better place in which to live. Strong bonds are often forged between the deployed troops and the children which they befriend. In one remarkable instance an orphan of the Korean War was seemingly adopted by the Royal Canadian Regiment and repatriated to foster care in London, Ontario. Veterans of United Nations peacekeeping/peacemaking missions in former Yugoslavia, Africa, Haiti, Cyprus and other areas affected by civil war or catastrophic natural events undoubtedly shared these same levels of empathy. More so when bearing witness to children who have been victims of violent genocide, acute poverty or repugnant cultural customs.

Accordingly, recent media disclosures pertaining to the civilian trial in BC of a sea-deployed CWO and his convoluted scheme to drug and sexually exploit his 5 year old child created a tsunami of brutally stark condemnation. Succinctly stated, while operationally deployed aboard a Canadian frigate, the accused CWO conspired electronically with his common law spouse to drug and sexually assault her incapacitated 5-year old son. The context is obscene, were not the communiques intercepted by the child’s biological father via the estranged family’s shared I-Pad, the traumatic consequences would have undoubtedly been far worse. Nearly nine hundred pornographic images of children were discovered on the accused CWO’s laptop, tablet and storage device during the subsequent criminal investigation. 

The CWO ultimately pleaded guilty to possession of 881 pornographic images of children. During his mental assessment, he blamed his abhorrent behavior on acute PTSD. Acute PTSD, perhaps conveniently, which was diagnosed only after he was charged. A forensic psychologist representing the defense claimed his behavior may be linked to this recently diagnosed PTSD. His lawyers cited his austere criminal record, his rank, deployments to Afghanistan, and Bosnia. Leniency was urged by the defence lawyers, because this highly decorated CWO was not responsible for his own monstrous behaviour. No, it was the fault of his PTSD!

During the sentencing, the judge concurred.

“It is a well-known symptom that those who suffer from PTSD often turn to dangerous and risk-seeking behaviours to combat the awful symptoms they suffer from the PTSD. I am satisfied that the accused here was seeking out this risky and deplorable sexualized behaviour to deal with his symptoms.”

The CWO escaped incarceration. Instead, he was sentenced to 18 months house arrest, with his name being added to the province’s sexual predators list for twenty years. 

The question now begs,Is PTSD now an excuse for pedophilia? (Or any other act of criminal behavior, for that matter?)

Walter Callaghan, a veteran and PhD candidate at University of Toronto, questioned the forensic psychologist’s opinion. “While risky behaviour and thrill-seeking can be common in some forms of PTSD, there is no evidence in the peer-reviewed literature of this particular type of vile behaviour being connected to PTSD in this way.”

Doctor Patrick Smith, President and CEO of the Veterans Affairs Canada sponsored, Ottawa based Centre of Excellence on Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, shared our concerns. Motivated by this case, he has taken the lead in collaborating with researchers, clinicians and veterans to provide, as he wrote to me, “an “open letter” that focuses on the evidence of PTSD and the concern we have about how this ruling may inappropriately represent PTSD and further stigmatize those who suffer with it.”

“As President and CEO of Canada's Centre of Excellence on PTSD and Related Mental Health Concerns, it is imperative that we portray PTSD and the experience of Veterans in a way that is accurate and leads to better understanding and awareness. Any portrayal that may cause increased confusion and stigma associated with this serious condition is of grave concern and can contribute to added stress and pressure on those who have proudly served our country.”

Is it okay to not be okay?

By Military Women

Question: Is it okay to not be okay? 

Answer: The short answer is…yes. It is okay to not be okay.

Before March 2020 most of us had never heard of “coronavirus”. We have quickly learned that although everyone is at risk from the virus, the impacts from it can be quite varied.

 Some of us have stood by helplessly as friends and family members have fallen ill, and distancing restrictions have kept us away from a loved one’s bedside or even their funeral.

For others, coronavirus has meant the postponement of needed chemotherapy sessions or long awaited surgeries. For those newly diagnosed as pregnant, the pandemic adds a layer of fear of the unknown on top of what should have been sheer unadulterated joy.

We all empathise with our elderly neighbour’s indignation at their seemingly overnight loss of independence. Elderly parents, no longer able to babysit or visit, can quickly start to suffer from social isolation—too often followed by depression.

Regardless of how the virus is, or is not, impacting you – we can all agree that these are not normal times. Canada has passed the point of no return. There is no going “back to normal”, things are going to be different. Be that good or bad, change and uncertainty are always stressful. It really is okay to say, I’m not okay today.

We know women are experiencing these phenomena differently than men. Women are still disproportionately fulfilling the role of caregiver for others. School closings have meant younger children are now home all day—needing to be fed, entertained and homeschooled.  Many women are either unable to return to paid labour because of their increased parenting and caregiving work at home; or, they are continuing their parenting and caregiving roles at home in addition to their work as “tele-workers”.  Women are also known to be bearing the brunt of the ever-increasing rates of intimate partner violence. 

It’s been a tough few months in other ways as well. Canada’s worst mass murder spree was initiated by intimate partner violence. That horrific event resulting in the first of three rapid sequence workplace deaths of Canadian women in uniform (RCMP and military). We’ve all been further shaken by the shocking deaths of people of colour, women and men, on both sides of the border.

And what about women veterans?  Is it true women veterans are so self-reliant that they find it harder than civilian women to ask for help, especially for themselves? Do some woman veterans still think that “sucking it up” and suffering in silence is a badge of honour? Do some women veterans stay busy, taking care of everyone else, so they don’t have time to self-reflect about their own needs and feelings? It really is okay to say – I’m not okay today. It’s okay to be sad today, or angry. It’s even okay to cry. Acknowledging our own emotions comes from a place of strength, not weakness.

Most of us have been jarred out of our normal daily routines. Why not take this surreal moment in time to just stop. Breathe. Reflect. Reassess. Let’s focus our minds not just on the challenges, but also on the opportunities. Let’s start the lessons learned discussions in our families, communities, cities, provinces, and nation. How can we build back better? How can we ensure tomorrow’s Canada and world are more equitable for all? We really are stronger together.

Let’s also reach out to that friend, neighbour, or battle buddy we haven’t talked to for a while. Let’s start having more authentic and meaningful conversations with the people we interact with. When people ask, let’s tell them how we really feel. On days we are struggling, let’s remember Dr. Bonnie Henry’s healing mantra: “Be calm. Be kind. Be safe.” And on those days when we are not okay, let’s give ourselves permission to say “I’m not okay today”.

All Hands On Deck!

By Michael Nickerson

The line between hope and denial is very thin. Its human nature to hope for a better tomorrow no matter how bad today is. When a loved one is ill, most hope for recovery (if not, find yourself a shrink). Farmers hope for rain, or sun, or whatever weather they need to get through another growing season unscathed. It keeps you going, helps you push through the tough times. It helps people get by when all seems lost.

But that can flip to denial in a big hurry. That lump under my arm can’t be a tumor; must have just pulled something. What drinking problem? I’m just a really social guy. Do I smell smoke? You’re dreaming, go back to bed.

It is not a stretch to say that many Canadians (and much of the world, really) have been in a state of denial about Covid-19. It’s overblown; just a bad case of the flu. We’ll be fine by Christmas. Let’s get back to some NHL hockey and have a good ol’ fashioned summer BBQ party!

Now those who have either been ill, lost someone, or been on the front lines treating the infection and its many repercussions don’t need a wake-up call. It’s all too real for them. But those thinking the world was going to get back to normal by fall should have had the stupidity thoroughly smacked out of them when Finance Minister Bill Morneau recently provided a “fiscal snapshot” on the state of Canada’s federal finances. In short, the federal deficit for this fiscal year is estimated to be $343 billion. There’s nothing like a good gut punch to start your summer vacation.

To put this in perspective, that’s tenfold what the deficit was originally projected to be in a time when the Liberal government was already under fire for spending their way down a deep dark hole of national debt. It amounts to, in one year, some 70% of the total military budget the government pledged to spend over the next twenty years. We’re talking numbers and job losses as bad as or worse than the Great Depression, back when there was no such thing as universal healthcare or the substantial social safety net we enjoy today. From a military perspective, fighter planes didn’t cost over $100 million each, nor did maintaining a modest underfunded military cost more than $25 billion annually (defence spending in 1933 amounted to some $13 million, about $250 million in today’s dollars, and less than three percent of the total budget instead of eight percent today).

So what’s this all mean? It means all hands on deck. To get through this we’re going to need everyone pulling their weight, making sacrifices and hard choices. And we’re going to need everyone to park their ideological hobby horses and work together. A case in point: Morneau had barely sat down after his update when the usual Conservative response was parroted from across the aisle. Where’s the plan for recovery?! We need to decrease spending, engage in austerity and balance the books! It’s like telling a man drowning in a hurricane to work on his breast-stoke. The old rhetoric is not going to cut it anymore.

And the military needs to make not just hard choices, but existential ones. No more infighting between departments, no more pumping up budget requests and looking for the most expensive kit there is instead of the most practical available. Cut extraneous expenses and operationally needless expenses (submarines and the Snowbirds anyone?). There will be limited budgets in the coming years. Suck it up and get used to it.

But how limited those budgets will be ultimately lies with the Canadian public. Will we come together in common cause like in past world wars and prioritize what matters, shelve the partisan squabbling, make even the most basic of personal sacrifices (that’s right, wear the damn mask already!)? Because if you’re still in denial, it’s that serious folks. And we’re going to need all hands on deck for some time to come if we have any hope of getting through it.

Naval Gazing

By Vincent J. Curtis

Why does Canada even have a navy? We’re going to spend $62 billion (allegedly) to replace the one we have, so before we break the bank, let’s understand why. When the RCN lost its replenishment vessels, it was downgraded to an “offshore regional coastal defense force” from a “multiregional power projection force,” so we mustn’t forget replenishment in the strategic picture.

The RCN came into its own during the Secord World War. By 1945, Canada boasted the fifth largest navy in the world, floating over 1,100 boats. Canada possessed two aircraft carriers and two light cruisers. The most famous craft were the Tribal class destroyers and the corvettes. The RCN was designed for convoy escort, of which anti-submarine warfare is the central component. The Tribals proved useful also in the English Channel against German E-boat raiders.

The RCN was put back into water after the heating up of the Cold War and the outbreak of the Korean War.  Canada acquired the HMCS Bonaventure, a light aircraft carrier, and equipped her with McDonnell F2H Banshee jet fighters and Grumman Tracker ASW aircraft. The navy also recommissioned WWII vessels. The Bonaventure was scrapped in 1970, and Canada acquired four Iroquois class ASW destroyers (since retired) and the Halifax class patrol frigates, which were useful in ASW and anti-piracy patrols. These are coming to the end of their useful lives and are scheduled to be replaced with fifteen Type 26 frigate, at a cost of $4 billion each.

The choice of fifteen of the same type indicates a lack of imagination and a lack of vision. Navy brass doesn’t seem to have a particular purpose in mind for a fleet of slow frigates. The Type 26 was designed as an ASW escort vessel for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy. These fleet carriers are conventionally powered and hence seem intended for operations in the North Atlantic. The Type 26 will be equipped for the ASW role and can provide close-in air defence for the carriers.

But why the Type 26 for Canada? The Type 26 is slow and expensive. Why spend $4 billion on a 7,000 ton frigate when for only $2 billion (U.S.) you can have a 10,000 ton Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer? The top speed of the Type 26 is 26 knots, while that of an Arleigh Burke is 35 knots. An Aleigh Burke is configurable for ASW as well as long range strike, as the Type 26 will be. Bigger, faster, cheaper.

Strategic realities are that the naval service is the only one Canada has that can deliver a strategic strike anywhere in the world independent of any other power.

Former CDS General Rick Hillier said that Canada needed a “big honkin’ ship.”  So, why not build ten of the Type 26, and invest five frigates worth of cash into a big honkin’ ship? A 15,000 ton displacement heavy cruiser would have all the deck space needed to deliver a multiplicity of heavy blows, and would form the core of an honest-to-god Canadian naval task force.

Modern naval warfare is designed around missile technology. A modern naval battle would take place with opposing ships out of sight of each other, with helicopters and radars providing target acquisition. Missiles would be used to attack opposing ships and defend against incoming missiles. But there is a gap in naval capability that used to be filled by the battleship, now derided as obsolete.

Battleships captivated the imagination because of the majestic power they obviously disposed in their massive guns. Diplomacy in peacetime occurred when battleships sailed. Allied battleships in WWII used their heavy guns primarily to support landing operations. Long barrelled, heavy guns are still intimidating and, with modern artillery guidance technology, still capable, and would be a versatile weapons system on a ship big enough to carry them.

A hybrid of heavy cruiser and missile cruiser could form the core of a uniquely Canadian naval task force.

Veterans Disability Backlog: Delay, deny, hope that you die?

By Michael Blais

Sadly, I have heard this catch phrase far too often during a decade of veterans advocacy. Particularly in respect to the prolonged waiting times the troops have been historically confronted with when seeking assistance to cope with various levels of mental and/or physical trauma directly attributable to their service in war and peace. Whether it be for basic acknowledgement of national sacrifice or for seeking approvals for entitled treatment procedures, hearing aids, medical cannabis and medications as the situation dictates, problems with delays persist. 

By the left… Slow… March! 

We know through recent media reports approximately 50,000 disability applications remain in transition as of the end of March 2020. These claims are unattended, collecting dust and awaiting due process as pledged by the Liberal government 5 years ago in respect to a pledged 16 week period wherein veterans’ applications for benefits would be formally processed. 

Veterans Affairs Canada has deemed 21,000 of these claims as ‘acklogged’, a quaint term to define their collective failure to accommodate the increasing numbers of veterans seeking recognition in the aftermath of the Afghanistan War. Innovative ideas floated by the department may have proved marginally effective but have yet to significantly impact the
steadily rising number of applicants awaiting the due processing of their claims. Strikingly, there are 10K files more in the cue now than there was at the time of reporting last year. The much maligned backlog is increasing, despite the hiring of 150 staff last year to facilitate intake issues.

The last integral number is the most important, as it is indicative of where the standard truly lies in respect to processing veterans’ claims within a 16 week period: A mere 37%.

Hardly encouraging. 

There is good news, however. The government is dedicating $192 million over the course of the next two years to address the perpetual delays. Staffing levels assigned to intake services will increase by 300 temporary positions and these workers will “drill down” on deficiencies in disability adjudication, case management, and salvos of incoming applications. They will encompass comprehensive team efforts and innovation designed to streamline the adjudication process. 

The pandemic has had a decidedly adverse impact on many veterans. Many physical therapies have been cancelled or greatly mitigated, while those confronting mental trauma have often been isolated, left alone and without the assistance required. 

Here is where veterans can help veterans: Do a buddy check. 

Were we all to do our part, we could very well save lives by the time this pandemic is finally over. You need to know what VAC is doing as there are resources available and should the situation dictate, emergency financial support is possible through the Veterans’ Emergency Fund. Should one of your buddy checks require mental health support, urge them to call 1-800 268-7708. Psychological assistance and counselling by mental health professionals are available. Veterans concerned about their benefits should be aware almost 3000 VAC employees are still performing their duties albeit ‘virtually’ these days.,

Provisions have been attained wherein VAC will cover the costs for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) aka the masks and gloves which disabled veterans will require to safely continue their treatment programs. Veterans can use their VAC card at their pharmacy, and the expense is automatically approved. Certain prescription requirements have been temporarily waived and the department is extending coverage for telehealth or virtual health services. 

Veterans access to medical cannabis has not been ‘impacted’ by the crisis. 

Many veterans enrolled in vocational services are very concerned about their status and more importantly, how it affects their Education and Training Benefit. VAC has staff on hand to review your education plan.

More information can be found by calling 1-800-866-522-2122, through your My VAC Account. 

Extremism in the Canadian Forces? DND has launched a new initiative, inclusive of defining what exactly constitutes hateful conduct. 

To wit:”[any] act or conduct, including the display or communication of words, symbols or images, by a CAF member, that they knew or ought reasonably to have known would constitute, encourage, justify or promote violence or hatred against a person or persons of an identifiable group, based on their national or ethnic origin, race, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics or disability.”

Stay strong, stay safe, remember always that we are a very unique brother/sisterhood and the challenges many within our family are confronting during the pandemic are far greater than our own. 

Do a buddy check, be aware, if you think things are going sideways, step up, be the one that makes a difference through kindness and compassion.

Bedpans, Sponge Baths and Band-Aids

By Michael Nickerson

So you want to join the military. Fantastic! Welcome aboard. We certainly have some spaces just waiting to be filled. A few questions first, if you don’t mind: How are you with bedpans? Ever changed an adult diaper? Certainly you have experience giving your grandparents sponge baths. Necessary skills for the modern soldier, I’m afraid. What did you think you were signing up for?

I’m going to stick my neck out here and suggest that when the Canadian Armed Forces dared recruits to be “extraordinary” they weren’t referring to excellence in social work, palliative care, or the nitty gritty of personal support work for seniors and the disabled. I suspect those recruits weren’t prepared to watch our most vulnerable die badly and not be able to do anything about it. That’s rather anathema to military culture and training in general no?

In theory it’s also anathema to Canadian culture and values, but the coronavirus pandemic is laying bare some truths about us all. Stress will do that. Apply a bit of it and you’ll see the soft spots. Apply lots of it and you’ll see just where the seams start to burst, and where things simply explode.

As of this writing, there were some 5500 deaths officially recorded in Canada (from a population of 38 million) as being the result of Covid-19. While many argue the number is actually higher, relative to the United States (89,000 and growing amongst a population of some 330 million) and the United Kingdom (34,000 deaths amongst a population of 67 million), that’s a rousing success. Relative to countries like South Korea (262 deaths amongst a population of 51 million) or New Zealand (21 deaths amongst a population of 4.8 million), that is a dismal failure.

But what seems merely dismal becomes downright criminal when you consider that over 80 percent of those Canadian deaths occurred amongst the residents of long-term care facilities…our seniors, our disabled; our most vulnerable. They’re dying before their time and in the most horrible ways (respiratory failure, suffocation…think a drawn-out state of drowning and you’ll start to get the idea), alone, separated from loved ones due to quarantine rules.

Why? Lack of preparation, lack of money, and a lack of care on the part of all Canadians. We are a society that shuffles off those most difficult to deal with to the sidelines, but then forgets about them when it comes to funding and support. Underpaid care workers working multiple jobs at minimum wage transferring the virus from one residence to the other; a dearth of personal protection equipment (PPE); poor to no oversight or foresight, standards or accountability. In short, it’s a case of no money, no care, and just hope things don’t get so bad we have to pay attention.

Enter those soldiers who never dreamed they’d be up front and personal with the sort of problems we all as a society try to ignore. Be it issues of climate change, pandemics, or the simple fact we’ve ignored our most vulnerable for decades, we continue to call on our military as just another Band-Aid to solve the latest problem. That’s right soldier, you’re not here to defend Canadians from others, your here to defend Canadians from themselves.

In a recent interview with the CBC, Finance Minister Bill Morneau said the government is “not thinking about raising taxes” despite all the stimulus spending they’re doing and the historic deficits they’re about to rack up. He’s printing money by the billion to keep the economy going, so no need. But that won’t go on forever, and it begs the question: will Canadians ultimately accept higher taxes to properly face the challenges that become more obvious by the day?

The current pandemic has lain bare the realities that our healthcare system is underfunded, our long-term care system is underfunded, and given the threats facing us domestically and globally given climate change, our military and its veterans are underfunded. Will Canadians give up some disposable income to fund these broader institutions? I fear we haven’t been hit hard enough yet to care.

Let’s Play Conspiracy!

By Michael Nickerson

I’m starting to go nuts. Seriously, I kid you not. While many have theorized about this throughout my life, I’m willing to admit there might be some truth to it right now. I can’t go out; not to the pub, not to the park, not for a nice greasy breakfast at the diner around the corner. All work has been cancelled; social gatherings verboten; saying hi to dogs in the park not just off limits, but likely to illicit blasts of bear spray from their masked owners. It’s like a school snow day from hell. You can’t even play outside.

So how does one pass the time? Well, I thought of turning Monopoly™ into a drinking game, taking shots whenever you land on an opponent’s property, cheap vermouth for St Charles Place on up to 18 year-old Glenlivet for Park Avenue. Alas, the only people in my home to play with are my wife and three cats, and none of them drink. They also think I’ve been acting more weird than usual and have been keeping their distance. Well beyond two metres I might add, which is a bit hurtful.

So there I was about to concoct a scotch martini with three olives when I was saved by François-Philippe Champagne, our intrepid foreign affairs minister. No, he did not come to my home and give me a slap for crimes committed against mixology; he gave me a very good idea, a new game to play; drinks optional.
The moment of epiphany came while he announced the revised arms deal with Saudi Arabia, involving both the contentious sale of LAVs to the rather human rights challenged kingdom and further sales of arms to come, punctuating a saga that has been going on for years. Not unexpected, given how the Liberals have been foot-dragging on the whole thing hoping everyone would just forget about it, but still lamentable for those who thought Canada stood more on principle than dollars.

But the metaphorical light went on when the good minister made clear that the timing of the announcement had nothing to do with the current coronavirus crisis, but was merely a byproduct of when the agreement was signed on March 31st. Really?

Any good conspiracy theory starts with a denial, and so my game of Conspiracy!™ was born. Keep in mind, this game can work for any denial. Covid-19 was not created in a lab…aha! Conspiracy! The Chinese say they have not concealed any information about the virus outbreak…Conspiracy! Donald Trump denies everything…well you get the idea.

Right then, so here’s how you play: Start with a denial. In my case, I ran with the whole Saudi agreement thing. What are they trying to cover up? I asked myself. A renegotiation of a multibillion dollar agreement that we’ve never been given the details about, announced amid the din of virus news coverage. Sounds fishy, no?
Next, I got boxes of coloured push pins, balls of yarn and some 4’ by 8’ cork sheets (think big here people, we’re going to be locked up for some time) and started connecting the dots, just like they do on those crime shows. In my case, I went the extra mile and got images of everyone involved, from Stephen Harper and John Baird to Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland, members of the House of Saud, their deputies, assistants, gardeners and interior decorators.

I pinned up questions, like why any government would sign a contract where the penalty for even divulging the contents of the agreement is paying out the total worth of the contract. Is that remotely legal? Who stands to benefit? Who is pressuring who? Did someone forget to weed the garden last year, and if so who? My lord! If you really get creative you can have yourself tangled in yarn in no time. My cats are still trying to untangle me.

And let’s be honest, that’s a lot more fun than admitting the truth: that we traded morality for money long ago, and this pandemic is only going to make it that much worse.
Stay safe.

Approaching Victory 1945

By Vincent J. Curtis

April 1945, in the words of one regimental war diary, “which commenced with our push northward from our concentration area at the Rhine, was undoubtedly the most turbulent and widely travelled month the battalion had spent since leaving England.” 

After the closure of the Falaise Gap on 21 Aug, 1944, the 2nd Canadian Corps advanced to the River Seine and crossed it at Elbeuf and Rouen. September saw the liberation of Dieppe, the investment of Dunkirk, and the liberation of Belgium’s Ostend and Bruges.

Stiffening German resistance required the 2nd Canadian Corps to mount formal operations: Wellhit to capture Boulogne and Undergo to capture Calais and Cap Gris Nez.

October, 1944, saw the mounting of Operation Switchback to clear Belgium north of the Albert Canal and Operations Vitality and Infatuate to clear the South Beveland peninsula and Walcheren Island.

A phase of static operations commenced in November and compassed the period of the German counterattack known as the Battle of the Bulge.

The advance resumed in February, 1945, with Operation Veritable, the attack on the Reichwald Forest, and then Blockbuster, which comprehended the battle of the Hochwald Gap and the capture of Xanthan on the Rhine River, the traditional western border of Germany.

The 2nd Canadian Corps pushed eastward into Germany near the border with the Netherlands, in the area known as Lower Saxony. With the coming of April, the end of the war was in sight. The Soviets were pushing westward from the Vistula River in Poland into pre-1939 German territory. The Americans, spearheaded by General George Patton’s Third Army, was knifing eastward through the belly of the beast towards Prague, Czechoslovakia.

German resistance became sporadic: dangerous, unpredictable, and frustrating. Some infantry units were experiencing four or five KIA/DW’s every day, along with half a dozen to a dozen wounded. Most of these casualties were caused by sniper fire, artillery and mortars, and rockets known a “Moanin’ Minies”. The occasional machine gun caught the unwary out in the open. Although these daily losses seem small, after ten days to two weeks they add up. A fully manned infantry battalion mustered only five hundred in those days, and infantry companies often fielded only fifty men.

Men began experiencing the “getting short” syndrome, first acknowledged in the Vietnam War. (As a tour was coming to an end, men got very cautious and took no risks hoping not to get killed just before they came home.) Patience with German resistance was wearing thin. The war was clearly lost, PW’s were coming in every day, yet pockets of needlessly fierce resistance were encountered.

At Friesoythe, this impatience exploded. The 4th Canadian Armored Division, under the command Maj-Gen Chris Vokes, had to take this German town which was believed defended by about 200 paratroops. The civilians had evacuated. The Lake Superior Regiment assaulted the town on 13 April and were repulsed with two dead and nineteen wounded. Next up were the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, under the command of Lt-Col Fred Wigle. Since the LSRs had attacked from the west, Wigle decided to march at night around the town and attack at dawn from the east.

The plan worked beautifully, except that advancing companies missed a group of about fifty paratroops. These Germans attacked the battalion tactical HQ, which was behind the advancing companies. Wigle was killed, shot in the back by a sniper. Lt Alan Earp (later OC, CD and HCol) was shot through the head, but survived. The town was secured by mid-morning, but when the troops heard of the death of their CO, all hell broke loose. An enraged Vokes, who commanded 1st Div at Ortona against the German 1st Parachute Division, ordered Friesoythe razed in reprisal of Wigel’s death. The Argylls needed no encouragement. Crocodiles (flame-throwing tanks) were brought in and burned down the town, the stone buildings were demolished, and the rubble used to rebuild roads that had been heavily cratered.

The end of April still didn’t herald the end of resistance.

ACVA 101

By Military Woman

Question: The Parliamentary Veterans Affairs Committee – what’s new for women veterans? 

Answer: The 43rd Parliament of Canada’s all-party Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA) held its inaugural meeting February 18, 2020. The first order of business was to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) Bryan May, Phil Coleman and Luc Desilets as chair and vice-chairs respectively. Notices of motions were then given for six topics for the committee to potentially study – Commemoration, Caregivers, “Minority” Veterans, Education Training Benefit, veteran benefit application backlogs and service dogs. You can review (by audio or transcript) this, and all subsequent, ACVA meetings at http://ourcommons.ca/committees.

What’s of interest from this first ACVA meeting from a military woman’s perspective? First, let’s look at the committee itself – 3/12 or 25% committee members are women and they represent three different parties – Conservative (Cathay Wagantall), Liberal (Marie-France Lalonde), and NDP (Rachel Blaney). Some will think that this is a fair representation level, others will not, but we can all agree that it fell short of seeing any women elected into one of the three committee chair positions. 

Second, let’s look at the proposed topics for study. Darrell Samson, Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, started the priority list off with “Commemoration”. Always an important veteran topic, making it a “safe” minority government priority to lead with. One hopes, government will include the experience and voice of women veterans within all future veteran commemoration programming
and external communication strategies. 

The Parliamentary Secretary then asked for a review of the services and supports for injured veterans and their caregivers. For many, this is the most important of the veteran study topic areas. Caregivers, both formal paid and informal unpaid, are still largely assumed to be women, not men.
One hopes, the study will include both identifying the needs unique to caregiving civilian male spouses, and to injured and ill veterans without spousal caregiving support.

Andy Fillmore MP proposed the third motion, a study on “Women, LGBTQ2+ and Racialized” or “minority” veterans. Although there are clearly unmet needs worthy of more study for all these groups individually and collectively, perhaps it’s time for a new approach. Perhaps these unmet needs would be better served by a study on how to best ensure equitable care, benefits and end wellbeing outcomes for all veterans. Doubling down on sex and gender-based analysis throughout Veteran Affairs Canada (VAC) being one obvious answer.

MP Lalonde requested a study on the Education Training Benefit. A benefit more single parents would be able to use if it came with subsidization for children’s daycare costs. 

MP Alex Ruff, a highly decorated veteran, proposed a review into the backlog of VAC benefits application. The Veterans Ombudsman has already confirmed that women wait longer for VAC claim decisions than men do. One hopes, that any study on this topic will include the obvious fastest and smartest way to alleviate the backlogs over the long term, which is to put more efforts into prevention. The capture and analysis of VAC claim trends, fed back to CAF as lessons learned, can and would assist in the prevention of unnecessary injuries and illnesses altogether. 

MP Dane Lloyd, an army reservist, rounded up the motions requesting a long overdue and needed service dog efficacy and standards study. 

Interestingly, despite specific mention in the Speech from the Throne, there is no mention today about veteran homelessness, male or female. 

Regardless of which study topics end up being selected (check out the 25 Feb 2020 ACVA meeting for that answer), hopefully all ACVA committee members have completed their GBA+ training and will “lead by example” to ensure that the needs of all veterans will be forefront in their deliberations. When applied properly sex and gender-based analysis should result in all veterans feeling valued, respected and fairly treated.