Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members.
Thank you for inviting me to share my views on the veterans-related provisions of Bill C‑15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. I'm pleased to be joined by deputy veterans ombud and legal counsel, Mr. Duane Schippers.
The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman was established in 2007 to investigate complaints and challenge policies and decisions of Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, where we find individual or systemic unfairness. I am the fourth veterans ombud, appointed in 2020, and reappointed in 2025. I am also a veteran with almost 37 years of regular force service, including a deployment to Afghanistan.
I know budget 2025 will benefit the veteran community with the targeted investments in Veterans Affairs Canada to stabilize disability benefit processing and to modernize operations and IT systems. The demand for disability benefits continues to be acute, and I am heartened by this continued focus by government on reducing the time veterans have to wait to receive these benefits.
I was, however, disappointed that our 2021 recommendation about mental health treatment benefits for families is still not reflected in the government’s budget plan. I must, however, credit Veterans Affairs for doing their best within the legislative guidelines to provide some mental health supports to family members, provided they can link it to the well-being of the veteran, but it is not enough. I will continue to press for government to extend this much-needed benefit to our veteran families.
This said, I will focus the balance of my remarks on clauses 373 to 375 of Bill C-15.
You may be aware that I have written publicly to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to ask government to remove the unfair retroactive provision that affects long-term care subsidization for some of Canada’s elderly and most disabled veterans.
First of all, rest assured that I am not disputing the clarification that government is seeking to make, but rather pointing out that making it retroactive for more than 30 years is not only unprecedented but patently unfair.
At the heart of this matter is the interpretation of the word “province” in section 33.1 of the veterans health care regulations, which provides extensive and precise instructions on how to calculate the maximum monthly charge for accommodations and meals that eligible veterans going into long-term care are to pay themselves. The regulations state that the calculations must take into account “the lowest monthly user charge for accommodation and meals permitted by a province”.
In the Interpretation Act, Parliament long ago provided unequivocal guidance to legislative drafters that the word “province” is meant to include the territories if not otherwise defined. Therefore, the word “province” in the regulations must be interpreted to include the territories, but VAC made a mistake in the accommodations and meals calculations. It only considered provincial rates, but there is a territorial rate that is lower. As a result, veterans who were and are subsidized by VAC for long-term care have paid more for their accommodations and meals than they should have. Veterans have identified this error themselves and have launched a class action lawsuit to seek reimbursement.
The minister has told me this provision is meant to clarify the calculation method, which is fair going forward. However, if these sections are permitted to stand and Bill C-15 is passed, government will have effectively legitimized its past overcharges to veterans and, as it happens, will deny justice for some of our elderly and most disabled veterans.
As I have said many times before, Veterans Affairs is charged with delivering benefits and programs to a unique community of Canadians who value trust and truth as the high watermark of service. Veterans do not perceive VAC as just another government department. After we have served Canada by putting mission before self, we expect Veterans Affairs will behave with the utmost integrity and commitment to our well-being.
Frankly, it is hard not to see clauses 373 to 375 of Bill C-15 as a means to purposefully obviate an error made by the department since 1993 and to deny compensation to affected veterans. VAC already faces growing reputational backlash over the manner in which it communicates with Canada's veterans, their families and survivors.
On behalf of the entire veteran community, and in particular our elderly and most disabled veterans, I ask government to do the right thing and remove these offensive sections, acknowledge the error, and in some way make whole those veterans who were affected. This would be a step in the right direction toward regaining the trust of the veteran community.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
