OTTAWA, ON, March 1, 2001 - Cliff Chadderton, Chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations, wrote to Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel today, stating that his 37-member umbrella group, representing approximately 200,000 members, consider that personnel who had served in dangerous military assignments are entitled to be recognized as "war veterans."

Chadderton was responding to a protest on Parliament Hill yesterday in which a number of Gulf War veterans accosted National Defence Minister Art Eggleton and his cabinet colleague responsible for veterans - - Ron Duhamel - - complaining that Government legislation did not provide the same coverage as veterans who had fought in major wars of the 20th century.

Mr. Duhamel was correct in stating that veterans who had served in "special duty areas" received the same benefits as those who served in World War I, World War II and Korea.

"The problem is," Chadderton stated, "that the Government's definition of a ‘special duty area' is far too restrictive."

He noted, for example, that military personnel who could trace illness or injuries to domestic events such as the Oka crisis, the Manitoba flood and the 1998 ice storm were not covered.

Quoting the Veterans Pension Act, Chadderton stated that those who had served in a "special duty area" had to prove that a disability was directly connected with military service. This is far more restrictive than the so-called "insurance principle" which provides pension and other benefits for those who served in Canada's major wars, regardless of the geographical area in which death, injury or illness took place.

Chadderton stated that his organization had made a major submission to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on July 13, 1998, asking the Government to grant benefits to the peacetime forces on the same basis as those who served during times of war.

March 1, 2001

NOTE TO EDITORS:

Copy of Cliff Chadderton's letter to Veterans Affairs Minister, Ron Duhamel, together with an excerpt made to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs follows for verification purposes.

March 1, 2001

The Hon. Ron Duhamel, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Veterans Affairs
66 Slater Street, 16th Floor
OTTAWA ON K1A 0P4

Dear Minister,

This letter is written in response to yesterday's meeting between the Minister of National Defence and yourself, and the group representing Gulf War veterans.

It was noted that one of the issues raised was the definition of a war veteran.

Attached hereto is an extract from a submission which the National Council of Veteran Associations made to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs in July 1998.

It will be noted that my colleagues and I, representing some 200,000 persons in 37 veterans organizations, made the recommendation that the term "veteran" be applied to former members of the Canadian forces.

We proposed, as well, that a separate legislative act be approved to provide compensation for injury, illness or death for the group which our resolution identified as being entitled to the designation "veteran."

Yours sincerely,

H. Clifford Chadderton, CC, O.Ont., OStJ, CAE, DCL, LLD
Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada

DEFINITION OF VETERAN

It is noted, from various reports, that former members of the CF who have given exemplary service, in one form or another, consider that they are being denied public recognition of their contribution as members of the military, in that they do not, by custom, use the term "veteran."

Firstly, it should be understood that the designation "veteran" would not convey benefits. It would seem, therefore, that in seeking to use the term to describe their service, the former members of the CF desire only public acceptance.

There is no doubt that many discharged members of the Armed Forces have served in extremely hazardous conditions and in hostile environments. Notwithstanding, enlistment in the Peacetime Forces automatically requires the member to serve anywhere in the world, without restriction on the conditions of service; or without anyway limiting the hazards involved.

It should be considered that, after hazardous or long-term service, it is acceptable to permit such persons the designation "veteran."

Denial of the use of the term "veteran" has a negative impact on recruiting; and on those who have enlisted and realize that their service may be considered as being limited in public identification.

In regard to the "veteran" designation, it is essential to recall that Canadian troops have been expected to serve in some of the most gruesome, violent and unstable situations in the world. Even if a discharged member was not subjected to a posting to a Special Duty or other dangerous area, it is evident that such person had to face the possibility of a posting which involved inherent dangers from the environment and from "extremists" with whom the member would be brought into contact by reason of military duties.

Moreover, because of the inherent risks of military life, such personnel were vulnerable to accident, illness or death. Other hazards involved in Peacetime Service included:

1. Separation from wife and family
   
2. The requirement for exemplary conduct as "goodwill ambassadors" for their country
   
3. Living with restrictive rules of engagement
   

It seems obvious that such persons do not consider that the designation "Peacekeeper" is acceptable. This may well arise from some of the adverse publicity to which the Forces have been exposed in regard to acts for which the vast majority of serving personnel should not be held responsible.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE TERM "VETERAN" BE APPLIED TO A FORMER MEMBER OF THE CF WHO:

• served in a Special Duty Area; or
  
• is in receipt of a Disability Pension; or
  
• served in the Armed Forces for a period of 10 years or more; or
  
• is in receipt of the CD or other medal exemplifying service, either in Canada or elsewhere
  

"OMNIBUS" RECOMMENDATION:

THAT A SEPARATE LEGISLATIVE ACT BE APPROVED TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION FOR INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH, AND FOR REESTABLISHMENT UPON RELEASE FROM THE CF.

CONCLUSION

The proposals herein are an attempt to correct deficiencies in the existing pension programs, together with recommendations concerning post-discharge arrangements for income replacement, training, etc.

It may be more effective to correct the existing deficiencies. Notwithstanding, if such improvements are considered to represent complexities and problems which cannot logically be addressed, then a strong argument remains to enact separate legislation to cover the needs of former members of the CF, upon discharge. Care would have to be exercised to retain existing benefits, including Income Tax exemptions.

This submission has been prepared for preliminary review of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Prepared by: H. Clifford Chadderton, OC, O.Ont., DCL, LLD
Chairman
National Council of Veteran Associations

Date: July 13, 1998