OTTAWA, ON, November29, 2001 - The major veterans' organizations advised Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel yesterday that they would no longer participate in the two major advisory committees established to deal with gerontological problems and reestablishment needs of members of the peacetime forces.

Copies of the letters to Minister Duhamel from the National Council of Veteran Associations (NCVA) and The Royal Canadian Legion follow.

Text of the letter from NCVA to Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel follows: 

November 28, 2001

Dear Minister:

Re: VAC/CF Advisory Council - Gerontological Advisory Council

This has reference to the communication to you from Bill Barclay, Dominion President of The Royal Canadian Legion dated November 23, 2001.

You may be aware that as one of the founding members of the Gerontological Advisory Committee, I found it necessary to resign some time ago. I am sending herewith a copy of my letter of resignation.

I have continued as a member of the Veterans Affairs/Canadian Forces Advisory Council. I have, however, had some reservations going back a number of months. I am today, communicating my views to the executive of the National Council of Veteran Associations.

It is my recommendation that NCVA withdraw participation in this committee.

Although, in the person of Ms Jean McMillan, we have continued representation in the Gerontological Advisory Council, I have been increasingly disappointed and concerned with the reports which she has presented to me regarding this Council.

I had communicated these views to Mr. David Nicholson when he was Deputy Minister and he was well aware of my concerns.

My first observations are in regard to both the Gerontological Advisory Council and the VAC/CF Advisory Council.

It would appear to me that your officials have, in at least one sense, vacated their responsibilities in bringing into the equation some well-meaning and highly qualified individuals, largely from the academic fields. While they may have considerable knowledge, I have found it impossible to carry on conversations with them in regard to what I see as the major objectives of both councils.

To elaborate, I believe that we have made you and your officials well aware of our concerns of Long-Term Care for veterans. Although I did attempt to make some recommendations, I felt that at the early meetings of the GAC I was given absolutely no encouragement to continue this practice. Moreover, although I did produce some recommendations in writing, I was not favoured with a reply.

In connection with the VAC/CF Advisory Council, the dominant feature of any discussions at which I was present could only be described as an attempt to provide basic knowledge to other participants. I am aware that the publication on the Veterans Charter was an attempt to "educate" the participants. In my view we were only going over old ground.

I must add that as one who must necessarily have an abiding concern for budgetary matters, I have been appalled at the rather large funding which seems to be available for both the GAC and the VAC/CF Advisory Council.

I am well and truly certain that if the full story of the reasons why such councils were appointed, and the lack of results became public knowledge, the reputation of the veterans organizations for whom I speak through the NCVA could be seriously jeopardized. The media have shown an interest and the whole issue could result in unfavourable exposure.

I must also make reference to the three items raised in Bill Barclay's letter to you; namely:
National standards for Long-Term Care;
Extension of the Veterans Independence Program, and
Improvements in Prisoner of War compensation.

These should have been main topics of conversation.

I have no hesitation suggesting that these committees failed to have any useful function but, more to the point, can well be counterproductive.

I refer to the fact that if in future some of the programs under the Department either continue to fail or develop serious problems, your officials will be in a position to state that they had conferred with the National Veterans Organizations; thus giving the impression that the veterans organizations should not only share in the blame, but were a party to whatever course of action might be taken.

Just to ensure that I am being clear in this letter, we have already resigned from the Gerontological Advisory Council and I have asked Ms Jean McMillan to cease attending any meetings of the committee and/or to have any connection with the GAC.

In regard to the VAC/CF Council, I shall be making an immediate and strong representation to NCVA, stating that, in my view, we must cease our membership. In the meantime, inasmuch as I believe the appointment was made in my name, I must advise you that neither I nor any representatives of NCVA will have any further connection with this Committee.

I will, of course, follow up on this when I have either a confirmation from NCVA or an indication that my views are not acceptable to the NCVA organizations.

Kind regards. Yours sincerely,

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

Text of the letter from William (Bill) Barclay of The Royal Canadian Legion to Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel follows:

November 23, 2001

Dear Minister:

The Executive of The Royal Canadian Legion has just completed its review of the major advocacy issues which we have presented to you and Veterans Affairs Canada officials over the past three years. I regret to advise you that we are clearly unsatisfied with the lack of progress obtained and the evident reluctance of the Department to respond to our concerns relative to major veterans issues. I refer specially to our proposals to implement a set of enforceable national standards for Long-Term Care which are fully funded and implemented at the provincial level. As well, your department has shown no willingness to initiate legislative proposals for the extension of the Veterans Independence Program to spouses for life or to enhance Prisoner of War compensation.

Together, we had achieved significant success in implementing pension reform to the positive benefit of our veterans. But, that same enthusiastic spirit of cooperation and initiative on the part of your department now appears to have waned. As a result of this indifferent response to our concerns the Executive of the Legion has agreed that we will no longer participate in meetings at the executive level with your office or your officials until the Department is willing to offer substantive proposals or plans on terms which are acceptable to the Legion. As a further measure of our concern I have directed our Dominion Command to withdraw participation in the Gerontology Advisory Council and the Veterans Affairs/Canadian Forces Advisory Council effective immediately.

We have promoted a collaborative dialogue but without success for a number of years. Therefore, in recognition of our mandate to represent veterans, we will no longer be restrained from voicing our concerns within the public forum. I truly wish that your officials will be more willing to propose acceptable and comprehensive solutions to meet the needs of our veterans and their spouses in the same spirit as pension reform. In that context, I will be pleased to return to the negotiating table.

Yours sincerely,
William (Bill) Barclay
Dominion President, Royal Canadian Legion