Finance Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Nishika Jardine]

Are you asking how we protect veterans' benefits?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

No.

How can we ask them to be more patient when the government is not investing more in the institutions that are supposed to protect them?

[Nishika Jardine]

We do our best. I'm not sure how to answer your question directly. I can say that I'm heartened, as I said before, by the investment that the government is making at Veterans Affairs, because that is where reducing the wait time crucially needs to happen. You're talking about patients, veterans waiting for their disability claims to be approved so they can move forward with their benefits. I am heartened by this investment, because I'm hopeful that it will continue to bring down that wait time.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Colonel Jardine, deputy ombud, thank you very much. Since our vice-chair is very strict on time, I'll stop here.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Next, we have Mr. Kelly for five minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Let me begin by thanking you for your service to Canada and your ongoing service to veterans. We all appreciate that very much.

In your service to veterans, you wrote quite an astonishing letter. I don't recall an ombud, an officer of Parliament or anybody in this type of watchdog capacity or independent capacity from government explicitly advising a minister to delete sections from a bill before Parliament.

Let's just be as clear as we can be. We heard your opening statement. We're going to review this bill clause by clause. Is it your recommendation to this committee that we delete clauses 373 to 375?

[Nishika Jardine]

I would ask you to remove the offensive part, which is the retroactivity.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

That's right—which is in those three clauses.

[Nishika Jardine]

It is in those clauses, yes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

We will undertake a clause-by-clause review. From Mr. Leitão's remarks, I understand that there is perhaps agreement on all sides that retroactive application that will have the effect of suppressing benefits is not proper governance and is not the way that the government should approach this.

I believe you may have been in the gallery when the minister appeared. In response to my questions, she repeatedly refused to acknowledge the effect this would have on veterans. She insisted that these sections clarify benefits without affecting them. Can you comment on those responses that the minister had at this committee?

[Nishika Jardine]

I won't comment on what the minister said, but I can tell you my interpretation, which is what I see. It's the government's role to do this legislative work, to clarify something going forward—absolutely. However, to retroactively say that the rule of law was not the rule of law, to me, is wrong.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

The provisions in the BIA are an offence to the rule of law. Is that what I just heard you say?

[Nishika Jardine]

I think that when you make a mistake, you should acknowledge the mistake.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I think the only mistake they're acknowledging is that they would like to not have to pay what the law and the court have required them to pay.

[Nishika Jardine]

I think my colleague wishes to jump in.

[Duane Schippers, Deputy Veterans Ombud, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

I will jump in just very briefly.

Retroactivity is perfectly acceptable. We see it in the tax stuff all the time: The government puts out that it's going to change the tax code in this budget, and when the budget implementation act comes along, it's retroactive to the date of the announcement.

This isn't that kind of situation. Going back 30 years is problematic. It's not fair. It takes away.... I know there's a concern. All the lawyers will profit from a class action, but that's not what we should be concerned about.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you for that extra bit of colour on this. It would be the equivalent, I guess, of going backwards and creating a new tax on somebody and charging it to them retroactively.

Can you update the committee? We haven't heard much about the litigation. A court has already pronounced on this. Can you discuss the implications?

[Nishika Jardine]

I cannot. I'm not overly familiar with the class action lawsuit. It's not my part ship, as we say in the navy.

I believe the class action has been suspended; it's pending. That's all I know.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

All right.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

You're pretty much out of time. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Next, we have Mr. Greaves for five minutes.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for being here, witnesses, and thank you for your service.

My first question is for you, Ms. Jardine. Thank you for everything that you've shared so far. Your testimony today feels very much in the spirit of your predecessors, who've also, on occasion, had to stand up to government and advocate quite forcefully against different policy changes that are seen as adversely affecting the interests of Canada's veterans.

Contrary to what one of my colleagues has said, some of us are old enough to recall that the government of former prime minister Harper was characterized by criticisms of that government's handling of the veterans file and pointed criticisms by your predecessors of his treatment of Canada's veterans.

In that vein, we heard earlier this morning from the Minister of Veterans Affairs about the changing funding context around the Canadian Armed Forces and the current government's historic reinvestment in the armed forces, after reaching what were truly lows of less than 1% of GDP at the time the government was formed in 2015.

I'm wondering if you could speak to how the government's investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada will be enhancing or increasing the services available to the veterans you represent.

[Nishika Jardine]

I can't speak to anything to do with the Department of National Defence.

I think the investment that is being announced in this budget, if I understand correctly, is going toward making the adjudication of disability claims faster for veterans. That is something I can only applaud, because the claim is the gateway to other benefits that veterans require.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you for that.

At the same time that the context around funding for Canada's veterans and the armed forces is changing, I feel there have been changes in the nature of the veterans population as well that may not be well understood by the public at large.

I wonder if you could just zoom out a little and provide us with a bit of a sketch of the composition of the veterans population in Canada currently and how that might differ from the past.

[Nishika Jardine]

We all grew up—certainly I did—looking at veterans on Remembrance Day as being older gentlemen who served in World War II, or maybe even World War I or Korea. My sense is that Canadians see that demographic as veterans.

However, today, veterans reflect the entire scope of Canadian society. A person who serves in the Canadian Forces and is discharged after completing basic training is a veteran. They could be as young as 20, across every demographic of Canada. I put veteran plates on my cars, because mine is not a classic veteran face. I want people to know that I, also, am a veteran, and I am part of the full scope of the Canadian demographics.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

With that in mind, could you maybe expand on how the changing composition of the people who make up Canada's veterans population affects the nature of the services they require or rely upon from Veterans Affairs Canada, or perhaps the kinds of complaints that your office receives?