Rectified

Since the issue of pay to wounded CF members first came to light, I've understood the argument that danger pay shouldn't go to wounded members transferred out of theatre since they're no longer in danger. It's logically sound. The problem is that it's morally bankrupt.

If the Government of Canada is willing to pay a soldier extra for the chance he or she may be hurt, then why would those funds be taken away if the soldier is actually hurt? Thankfully, the government has gotten the bureaucracy lined up behind the CF's head and heart, because a new allowance has been created to cover this administrative oversight:

The Allowance for Loss of Operational Allowance (ALOA) will compensate members who are medically repatriated from operations after becoming wounded or very seriously injured or ill as a result of the conditions in theatres of operation. In such situations, the CF member will receive this new allowance until the last date of their planned deployment. For example, if a member is initially deployed for a six-month tour of duty and is wounded after one month, this member would receive the ALOA for the five remaining months.
...
“The new allowance will enable us to take better care of our soldiers who get sick or injured and must come back to Canada before the end of their tour,” explained Hillier. “These valued members of our family have put themselves at risk on behalf of Canadians, and the new allowance stands as testament that we will take care of them upon their return,” he added.

The retroactive date for this benefit will please some who were wounded subsequent to January 1st, 2006, but disappoint others who were wounded prior to that date. It is providing predictable political fodder for the Opposition:

But Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who first raised the issue on behalf of a constituent whose son was wounded in Afghanistan*, said although he welcomed the announcement, the retroactive date should be pushed back further.

McTeague said it should be extended to at least cover the start of the mission in Kandahar in the summer of 2005, if not to Canada's original involvement in Afghanistan four years ago. McTeague said another 130 soldiers are not covered by Friday's announcement.

"From that perspective, this is very much unfinished business. It's a good first step," McTeague said. "But it leaves a lot of soldiers out in the cold."

Minister O'Connor's retort may sound harsh, but he speaks the truth:

"We had to pick a date. Roughly, that's the time we started bigger efforts in Kandahar. Most of our casualties occurred this year," O'Connor said.

"If we keep going back, do we go back into Bosnia? Rwanda? We have to start somewhere."

Speaking of the truth, here's a little more from where I stand: when you're talking about pay for Canadians who have agreed to die if they are so ordered, it's never enough. It couldn't possibly be enough, if you only measure their compensation in pecuniary terms. But soldiers don't.

Oh, the money's important, have no doubt. But the idea that their sacrifice is being acknowledged and honoured is arguably as important - something the CF brass seem to understand by their stated rationale for the change:

The new allowance structure will:

• Compensate members for the loss of allowances upon repatriation from an operational theatre after becoming wounded, very seriously injured or ill;


• Mitigate the burden faced by members and their families when other operational allowances cease; and


• Ensure that the loss of operational allowance(s) is recognized in a satisfactory manner. [Babbler's emphasis]

This is an imperfect solution to a difficult problem. Of course, so is the military itself, which is why I think this proposal will be well-received by those who matter most in this discussion: the troops.

* While McTeague's extended family may be constituents as well, the fact is that the Liberal MP became involved in this issue subsequent to the wounding of his cousin in Afghanistan earlier this year.