Toronto Escorts

Trudeau won't answer why a criminal Is Getting Treatment Covered By Veterans Affairs

Conil

Well-known member
Apr 12, 2013
3,410
547
113
Arrogant little fuck, at least his father was intelligent.

ARROGANCE: Justin Trudeau REFUSES To Answer Question On Why Criminal Who Never Served In Military Is Getting Treatment Covered By Veterans Affairs

Trudeau seems to think he’s simply above answering questions he doesn’t like, even though it’s called Question Period.
Justin Trudeau’s arrogance was on display once again.

In Question Period, he was asked about the outrageous situation in which a man convicted of murder – and who never served in the Canadian military in any capacity whatsoever – is having his PTSD treatment paid for by Veterans Affairs Canada.

As a Conservative MP pointed out in his question, if a Canadian soldier had been convicted of the same crime and had been discharged from the military, they wouldn’t have any of their treatment paid for by VAC.

Canadians want answers on this outrage, but when he was asked, Justin Trudeau outright refused to answer the question: (video)

As Conservative MP Candice Bergen said, “This is outrageous! Trudeau won’t answer a question about giving a convicted murderer benefits that should go to our veterans much less reverse the decision. It’s shameful.”
By refusing to answer the question, Trudeau shows that he believes he’s above everyone else, and can dismiss any question he disagrees with.

That kind of arrogance is a huge broken promise, since he claimed he would lead the most “open and transparent” government ever.
So much for that.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/201...etting-treatment-covered-by-veterans-affairs/
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Why am I not surprised that the OP has chosen not to include any facts about this story for us to look up? They could at least name who this convicted murderer is.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Why am I not surprised that the OP has chosen not to include any facts about this story for us to look up? They could at least name who this convicted murderer is.
Because it's at least a couple of weeks since it was news. The jailed guy getting treatment under the Veteran's Act is the son of a Veteran. The Act says the government pays for treatment needed by family members of vets.

Done.
 

Cantaro

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2016
2,446
1,519
113
Why am I not surprised that the OP has chosen not to include any facts about this story for us to look up? They could at least name who this convicted murderer is.
Maybe they're not releasing it, they're sure talking about it in the video
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,500
0
36
77
Because it's at least a couple of weeks since it was news. The jailed guy getting treatment under the Veteran's Act is the son of a Veteran. The Act says the government pays for treatment needed by family members of vets.

Done.
Thank you
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,457
113
And Conil strikes out once again. Drum roll, please.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
The jailed guy getting treatment under the Veteran's Act is the son of a Veteran. The Act says the government pays for treatment needed by family members of vets.

Done.
But if a veteran themselves would loose their right to such treatment, why should not the child of a veteran?
 

Conil

Well-known member
Apr 12, 2013
3,410
547
113
Because it's at least a couple of weeks since it was news. The jailed guy getting treatment under the Veteran's Act is the son of a Veteran. The Act says the government pays for treatment needed by family members of vets.

Done.
Link?
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,457
113
But Oldjones, that neither answers why if a veteran themselves would loose their right to such treatment, why should not the child of a veteran? Or, why did the Prime Minister avoid the question in the cavalier manner he did.
I'm not sure if asking OJ to read through all the regulations and schedules to that legislation is a fair question. If he has the info, fine. If not, I suggest you go look yourself.

The whole thread is a little stupid. First, I cannot imagine that the recipient of the care is getting it DESPITE the legislation. We both know that there are legions of civil servants tasked with ensuring everyone gets exactly what they are entitled to and not a penny more or less. Why supervising this should be Trudeau's personal responsibility, I cannot imagine. Surely the MP questioner could him / herself simply have an assistant write a memo on the policy, giving the legislative reference.

We both know that conil posted this because he's a member of a far right network off this board that obsessively hates Trudeau and exchanges these video links with the commentary that "it's all the liberals fault". He always does this. He essentially sums himself up in his silly sig photos.

It's largely a waste of the board's time because inevitably the libs turn out to be doing exactly what the law / situation required. But it provides endless amusement for a certain faction.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
But Oldjones, that neither answers why if a veteran themselves would loose their right to such treatment, why should not the child of a veteran? Or, why did the Prime Minister avoid the question in the cavalier manner he did.
My dog's at home safe. The OP was just hyping his bitch-match without even basic preparation, so I offered what he hadn't bothered to. And then supplied the link he couldn't find.

I have no opinion on the PM's answer. But the the law seems clear and reasonable. The simple answer to your query is that the veteran is deprived of that benefit, if they were dishonourably discharged for a crime committed during service, as the opening source says.

I'm sure you can research the law regarding a crime by a veteran committed subsequently as a civilian, which would be properly analogous to one committed by a veteran's civilian dependent. I suspect that an honourably discharged veteran gets the treatment.
 
Last edited:

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,565
113
LOL He posted a google search link, the video speaks for itself.
Next time follow the instructions and you can find the information you requested instead of going at a tangent:

"At a court hearing earlier this month, Crown lawyer Christine Driscoll confirmed the convicted murderer is being seen by a private psychologist, and that Veterans Affairs is covering the cost because Garnier's father is a veteran who has also been diagnosed with PTSD."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-w...reatment-funded-by-veterans-affairs-1.4071746
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,457
113
And what I suggested in post #14 of this useless thread did indeed come to pass. OJ's time was royally wasted doing work that Aardvark and Conil could have - and darn well should have - done for themselves.

And it turns out - oh what a surprise!!!! - that the Libs are doing exactly what the law requires, no more and no less.

I think Aardvark and Conil owe OJ 5 minutes of his life back.
 
Toronto Escorts