Former top general says reviewing medals for Afghan vets a 'no-brainer' for Carney
Rick Hillier said that despite the failure of recent attempts to trigger such an independent review, he thinks the odds are better now that Ottawa is bent on revitalizing the Canadian Armed Forces.
"I am more optimistic right now. I think for the government, this should be a no-brainer," Hillier, chief of the defence staff from 2005-2008, told The Canadian Press.
Hillier is part of the civil society group Valour in the Presence of the Enemy, which has been pressing Ottawa to consider awarding veterans of the 2001 to 2014 Afghanistan campaign the country's highest military honour.
He said commendations awarded to Afghanistan veterans should be examined in light of new information to see whether any of them qualify for the Victoria Cross.
"Let's do an independent review, not committing to anything, which is right and appropriate," he said. "And if we should find that one or two or more individuals are deserving of the Victoria Cross, what a shot in the arm that would be for our soldiers and aviators and sailors."
In 2022, former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole pushed to have a the House of Commons endorse the creation of a review panel that would take a second look at military decorations.
Hillier said it may have been a strategic error to have the former leader of the opposition bring that proposal forward, since it "almost guaranteed" that the governing Liberal party would oppose it.
The issue is being brought to the fore again through a parliamentary petition sponsored and endorsed by Liberal MP Pauline Rochefort which also calls for a review panel.
Twenty Stars of Military Valour — Canada's second-highest military award — and 89 Medals of Military Valour were awarded to soldiers who served in Afghanistan. No serving Canadian soldier or veteran has been awarded the Victoria Cross since the Second World War.
The Government of Canada says just 81 Canadians have ever been awarded the Victoria Cross — 4 from the Boer War, 64 from the First World War and 13 from the Second World War.
Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of the defence staff from 2008 to 2012, ordered a review in 2012 of the 20 Stars of Military Valour awarded for the Afghanistan conflict.
Ottawa has resisted calls in recent years for another review.
Department of National Defence spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin said in an emailed statement the awards process is designed to be insulated from political influence and public pressure.
"All honours for the Afghanistan mission have been processed and the time limits for such nominations (two years between the action and the nomination for Military Valour and Bravery Decorations) have now elapsed," she said.
"These time limits ensure events are judged by the standards and values of the time, are compared with other contemporary examples, past decisions are not second-guessed and history is not reinterpreted."
Many have cited the case of Jess Larochelle of North Bay, Ont., as one that deserves a closer look. The late army private's supporters maintain he should be awarded the Victoria Cross for his heroic actions in holding off a 2006 Taliban attack on an observation post after sustaining serious injuries.
Hillier, who chaired the committee that awarded Larochelle his Star of Military Valour, said details of his story that came to light in the years since make his case worth a fresh look.
"I don't think we made a mistake, but having done something doesn't mean that it's cast in stone forever and ever," he said.
Hillier said new details about "how badly injured" Larochelle was during the battle, and the fact that he volunteered to take the position, should merit a reappraisal of his case.
Retired lieutenant-general Omer Lavoie suggested the Department of National Defence may be reluctant to reopen awards files because it would be a complex project that would stir up grim memories of the conflict — and because it could quickly give rise to claims of unfair treatment if veterans of other wars aren't also honoured.
Hillier also observed that Canadians tend to be hesitant about lavishing praise on individual acts of greatness.
"We in Canada have forever been loath, reluctant, slow to recognize the very top acts of courage and valour," he said. "Throughout our history, we seem to have this sort of group-thought process sometimes, where it keeps people all in one level."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 13, 2025.
Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-US pharma tariffs likely weeks away as Trump plans for Alaska, sources say
By Maggie Fick, Andrea Shalal and Dave Graham WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The announcement by President Donald Trump's administration of the results of a probe into pharmaceutical imports and new sector-specific U.S. tariffs likely remains weeks away, four official and industry sources said, later than initially promised as he focuses on other matters. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had said in April when the review of whether reliance on foreign drug production threatens U.S. national security was launched that he anticipated that it would conclude between mid-May and mid-June. Global pharmaceutical companies are bracing for the outcome of the investigation, which will usher in sector-specific tariffs that Trump has said could start small and eventually rise to 250%. The Republican president said as recently as last week that his plan relies on phased-in tariffs, giving drugmakers time to increase manufacturing in the United States as he pushes to alter what he says are global trade distortions in many industries. One government official in Europe and a source with knowledge of the White House process, as well as two sources at European drug firms familiar with the process, told Reuters that the report and tariffs announcement was not imminent and likely weeks away. These sources spoke on condition of anonymity. A White House spokesperson, asked about media reporting indicating that the results of the probe could be several weeks away, cautioned that such reports were pure speculation unless confirmed by the White House. The spokesperson declined to give further details about the timing of the pharma probe or one involving semiconductors. The investigation is examining pharmaceutical imports ranging from finished prescription drugs to active pharmaceutical ingredients, called APIs, and other raw materials, with the results to be disclosed in a Commerce Department report. Lutnick said last month the tariff plan that will be based on the report would be completed by the end of July. Lutnick then said on July 29 it would be two more weeks. The investigation was launched under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While the investigation is ongoing, the pharmaceutical sector has been exempted from the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The United States has reached bilateral trade deals with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the European Union that promised more favorable terms for their pharma exports than those expected to be levied on the sector globally. A European government official said that an announcement before the end of August appears unlikely but cautioned that the timeline could shift depending on other developments. A source at a European drugmaker said the Trump administration is focused on the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska on Friday and therefore no announcement is expected this week. The source familiar with the White House process said that announcement is unlikely to come this week given other priorities. That source and one other source said that they expect the Trump administration to announce the results of its national security investigation into semiconductors first, followed by the pharma announcement, putting it a few weeks away. The Section 232 provision authorizes the president to adjust imports - including imposing tariffs - if a category of goods is being imported into the United States in quantities that "threaten or impair the national security." Medical goods historically have been spared from trade wars due to the potential harm to patient access, and drugmakers have said tariffs could undercut other health policy goals outlined by the Trump administration, including lowering drug prices. U.S. tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products would mark the latest in a series of sectoral tariffs announced by the administration, following metals and cars, that some economists have predicted will drive up costs for American consumers.
Associated Press
5 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Mexico says 26 capos extradited to US were requested by Trump administration
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico sent 26 alleged cartel figures to face justice in the United States because the Trump administration requested them and Mexico did not want them to continue running their illicit businesses from Mexican prisons, officials said Wednesday. The mass transfer was not, however, part of wider negotiations as Mexico seeks to avoid higher tariffs threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump, they said. 'These transfers are not only a strategic measure to ensure public safety, but also reflect a firm determination to prevent these criminals from continuing to operate from within prisons and to break up their networks of influence,' Mexican Security Minister Omar García Harfuch said in a news conference on Wednesday. The 26 prisoners handed over to American authorities on Tuesday included figures aligned with the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel among others. They were wanted by American authorities for their roles in drug trafficking and other crimes. It comes months after 29 other cartel leaders were sent to the U.S. in February. In the exchange, the U.S. Justice Department promised it would not seek the death penalty against any of the 55 people included in the two transfers, which experts say may help avoid any violent outburst by the cartels in response. Authorities said the operation involved nearly a thousand law enforcement officers, 90 vehicles and a dozen military aircraft. Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said earlier Wednesday that the transfers were 'sovereign decisions,' but the move comes as the Mexican leader faces mounting pressure by the Trump administration to crack down on cartels and fentanyl production. García Harfuch also confirmed Wednesday that a U.S. government drone — non-military — was flying over central Mexico, but at the request of Mexican authorities as part of an ongoing investigation. So far, Sheinbaum has tried to show the Trump administration a greater willingness to pursue the cartels than her predecessor — a change that has been acknowledged by U.S. officials — and continued to slow migration to the U.S. border, in an effort to avoid the worst of Trump's tariff threats. Two weeks ago, the two leaders spoke and agreed to give their teams another 90 days to negotiate to avoid threatened 30% tariffs on imports from Mexico. 'Little by little, Mexico is following through with this demand by the Americans to deliver drug capos,' said Mexican security analyst David Saucedo. 'It's buying (the Mexican government) time.' Saucedo said the Mexican government has been able to avoid a burst of violence by cartels – a reaction often seen when capos are captured – in part, because Ovidio Guzmán, a son of infamous capo Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán, showed it's possible to negotiate with U.S. prosecutors. Ovidio Guzmán pleaded guilty last month to drug trafficking and other charges and hopes for a lighter sentence in exchange for his cooperation. But Saucedo warned that if such mass prisoner transfers continue, the Latin American country is bound to see another outburst of violence in the future.
