Veterans Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I call the meeting back to order.

In the second hour of the meeting, we have the following witnesses from the Department of Veterans Affairs: Pierre Tessier, assistant deputy minister, chief financial officer and corporate services; Jane Hicks, acting senior assistant deputy minister, service delivery; and Mitch Freeman, acting assistant deputy minister, strategic policy, planning and performance.

We will resume the rounds of questions from committee members.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Richards.

for six minutes to start the conversation.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Chair, we continue to struggle here, because veterans across this country, and almost everybody else, seem to be well aware that there are a number of different areas where there are cuts being faced, yet we had the minister continue to sit here and tell us that there aren't cuts. There's clearly a need for this committee to do a study on the budget cuts.

I move the following, and it's been on notice since February 19:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs undertake a study of 10 meetings to study the effects of the federal budget cuts proposed in budget 2025 as it relates to veterans services; that as part of this study the committee examine the proposed changes in legislative definitions related to long term care, the proposed cuts to medical cannabis reimbursement, the recent layoffs from the bureau of pensions advocates, RCMP pension changes and any other related topics; and that for this study the witnesses include, but are not limited to:

a) The Minister of Veterans Affairs

b) The Parliamentary Budget Officer

c) The veterans ombud

d) The Royal Canadian Legion and other veteran organizations

e) Veterans

f) Veterans service providers

That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a government response to the report.

I'm moving this, obviously, in response to what we've heard here from the minister, but also because there is a need for this study to happen. If, in fact, what the minister is telling us is true, I see no reason that the government would have any trouble supporting such a motion, so that it can be cleared up. There's certainly a lot of doubt out there—if we even want to put it nicely—about what is happening.

I won't get into a whole lot of details about the motion, because I'd like to see it pass, and we can then use the time to question the officials.

For anyone who's watching today, as I've already said, should this be something...the government has nothing to hide, they should have no trouble supporting this motion. If they do have something to hide, well, you may see attempts to adjourn debate. You may see a filibuster. Who knows?

It's very clear to everyone in Canada that they're soon to have a majority at committees, based on what they're doing right now, and they may want to avoid facing scrutiny on these cuts. However, should they have nothing to hide, I would think they would have no trouble supporting this.

I move that motion. I hope we can get support for it and that we can have a study. We're talking about 10 meetings, which I know is lengthy, but it's also talking about five different areas of cuts—that's a couple of meetings per cut. I don't think that's too much to ask. I move the motion, and I hope we can pass it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

I'll suspend—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, is this motion exactly the one that was put on notice back in February?

[A voice]

It is, yes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

I will suspend so we can look at the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

We're back.

I would like to give Mr. Casey the chance to respond.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This motion was given notice on February 19, 2026. It's somewhat surprising that it's being introduced two months later. The 2025 budget has been passed, as has the budget implementation bill, and now, just as we're in the process of changing the composition of the committees, this stunt is being attempted. Let's be clear: It's a stunt.

I've had a few conversations with the Bloc Québécois representative, who indicated that 10 meetings were probably too many. So I imagine an amendment to this motion will be proposed, but we'll see. I'll let Ms. Gaudreau speak for herself.

Here we are debating a motion that was put on notice on February 19, 2026, after budget 2025 has been adopted by the House, after the Budget Implementation Act was adopted by the House, and on the eve of what is likely to be a change in the composition of standing committees so that, to use the Prime Minister's words, there will be less showboating. I think that's a very good word.

We are in a situation where the motion indicates that there's some misunderstanding or some refusal to accept the uncontradicted testimony that has been given today and every other meeting when these topics have been raised.

It's not unusual that there is a refusal to accept messages that the official opposition doesn't like. We have a suggestion here to tie up five full weeks to study the effects of the federal budget cuts proposed in budget 2025. The uncontroverted testimony we heard before the committee is that there are none, yet the motion asserts as a fact that there are cuts proposed as it relates to veteran services.

I don't think the minister could have been any more clear, and if the officials had not been cut off and had been allowed to give their more detailed, more technical, more specific testimony on these topics, I have little doubt that the minister's message would have been reinforced. You see, she does talk to them, and they brief her, so it's a fair bet that what you heard from the minister was consistent with the advice that she received and consistent with the advice that we would receive if we afforded the officials an opportunity to testify.

Alas, time is running short on the acceptance, the allowance, of showboating. Because time is running short, this is very much a last gasp.

The motion indicates that we're going to talk about the proposed changes to legislative definitions related to long-term care.

Well, those changes are no longer proposed. They're now in policy.

Then we're going to talk about “the proposed cuts to medical cannabis reimbursement”. This is another one where there seems to be an abject refusal to accept the unanimous advice in the public domain with respect to medical cannabis reimbursement. It's been mis-characterized repeatedly, as has been the case with so many things, as a cut. Medical cannabis reimbursement is a matter of aligning the reimbursement price for medical cannabis to the market rate. That's to take it from $8.50 down to $6. This shows up because of generally accepted accounting principles, because of actuarial calculations, and because of net present value in the budget documents as a $4.2-billion reduction in expenditure.

Let's be clear on that $4.2 billion. Let's be very clear on what that calculation means. The medical cannabis system within Veterans Affairs is like so many other systems in Veterans Affairs. These are statutory rights that veterans have where there really isn't a discretion. If the application meets the law and meets the policy, they have a right to the service and a right to the product. That is the case with respect to medical cannabis.

The way the $4.2 billion shows up on the books is as the present value of the future obligation of the Government of Canada with respect to medical cannabis. If you take the amount of money that would be paid out for medical cannabis over the next 30 years and bring it back to today's rate—I'm talking about the $2.50 reduction from $8.50 down to $6—the net present value of that future obligation is $4.2 billion.

This has been explained over and over and over again—in committee, on the floor of the House of Commons and through the witnesses we have had before this committee. This is simply accrual accounting. This is an actuarial calculation.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair. I'm just seeking some clarification on whether or not this is in fact a filibuster to just avoid being accountable to veterans. Are they denying that there are cuts? Is this just a filibuster so that they can avoid accountability? What is it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Mr. Richards, that's not a point of order. You're getting into debate yourself. Mr. Casey has the floor. I will allow Mr. Casey to speak, and we have to listen.

Thank you.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

All right. I'm not sure whether my colleague was bored of or convinced by the representation on medical cannabis, but we can move on.

The next part of the motion talks about the recent layoffs from the bureau of pensions advocates. How could we bring a motion today after hearing uncontroverted evidence from the only witness we heard today that there have been no layoffs and that there was a provision in budget 2023 with respect to additional staffing for the bureau of pensions advocates, essentially to deal with the backlog, that it was of a fixed duration, and that we've arrived at that date and are now reverting back to the state of steady operations?

It's quite unfortunate, actually, that Mr. Freeman didn't get a chance to complete his answer with respect to the allegations coming from the Association of Justice Counsel, the group that represents the bureau of pensions advocates. It's unfortunate that he didn't get the chance to answer that question when I posed it to him, because we ran out of time. That's probably my fault for not managing the time appropriately, but I was foolishly thinking that the rest of the committee wanted to hear from the witnesses instead of showboating.

In any event, they didn't, so what we're left with is that the only testimony before the committee on this is that there have been no layoffs. We haven't been given the opportunity, because of the timing of this motion. I understand the urgency: It appears that the window is closing on the chance to pull stunts like this.

Madam Chair, I'm going to cede the floor now. All of this is to say that I look forward to hearing the amendment from the Bloc Québécois, if it is forthcoming, and to hearing the views of others with respect to this manoeuvre.

Thank you for the time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

I have a list.

Ms. Hirtle, you had asked to speak.

Ms. Gaudreau and Mr. d'Entremont have also asked to speak.

I'm going to pass the floor to Ms. Hirtle.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I echo my colleague MP Casey's comments regarding the timing of this motion being suspect. The motion was put on notice in February, so I do wonder what has taken so long. Why are we just now hearing it? It is strange to say.

I am disappointed that we've shown such disrespect to the officials who prepared for this meeting and came expecting to be able to share information. Now we have lost that opportunity with them, and it's hard to say when they'll come back again.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

We certainly could have heard from officials. The Liberals could have simply voted on the motion. They seem to be trying to hide from accountability here, rather than voting on the motion and returning to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Again, that is not a point of order. Thank you very much.

I would like to allow Ms. Hirtle to speak, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Chair, we're pointing out that the officials could have been heard from had you not dismissed them and had your colleagues not filibustered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

People, I think we all realize.... I'll stay objective.

Ms. Hirtle, continue.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, it is unfortunate that we will not get to hear the responses and more detailed information from the officials who came prepared to answer our questions today.

I would also say that, as I'm new to the Hill, this is all very unusual to me, and I'm wondering if this is the norm. I would hope that we would work collaboratively to advance the needs and the well-being of veterans in our community. Are we not all here to move things forward and do better for the veterans, as we've all agreed that we wish to do? I'm here to hear about priorities for veterans, where their needs are and how we can better work together.

To that end, I presented a motion—second reading was last week—in the chamber, which relates to surplus federal properties across the country and how we can better use those to aid our veterans. It did, very happily, pass second reading, so it's now going to go to committee, where we'll hopefully come up with a list and a process for moving these properties—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

There's not a lot of time left, and I'm trying to see if there's a connection with the notice of motion, because we don't really seem to be talking about it, and I know what's coming. We've been here before. Nice try.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

I will move on to my next point, then.

The GAAP, or generally accepted accounting principles, which Mr. Casey mentioned, are normal procedure for this kind of practice.

I do wonder.... There's indignation right now from our colleagues around the way that the reduction in the price per ounce of cannabis is being handled. This is a normal accounting practice, and I would question how many times our colleagues who were in government between 2009 and 2015 voted in favour of any of these methods on other bills.

That's good for me.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the bells are going to ring in a minute or two.

I just want to highlight the process and the procedure. We have to discuss the notice of motion. This can sometimes be difficult, because people want to drag things out. I say this for all the newcomers who haven't been here in recent years. We're here to study bills and to monitor the government's actions, among other things. That's why it's important to examine budget cuts.

That said, I propose amending this motion so that we instead devote five meetings to this study, given our schedule and the other motions on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Ms. Gaudreau has proposed an amendment. Would anyone like to speak to it?

Mr. Casey, the floor is yours.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau. That was well anticipated. I suppose that's an improvement, since we would waste five fewer weeks of our time discussing a topic raised for purely partisan purposes and for which there is no basis or evidence in the testimonies we've heard. We would thus cut the wasted time in half, which is an improvement.

Madam Chair, I appreciate Madame Gaudreau's amendment, which is aligned with the discussions that we had to reduce the number of meetings to be dedicated to this study that was put on notice back in February, before the adoption of the budget implementation act, before the passage of the budget and before all of the testimony that we have heard since, including today's uncontradicted testimony from the minister with respect to the existence of the cuts that are the subject of this motion, which now proposes five meetings instead of 10.

If we look at the witnesses who will be invited in the event that this motion passes, and if we look at—