Veterans incensed by budget clauses
The budget invested in Veterans Affairs Canada’s benefit processing, but failed to correct a wrong that has and will continue to cost some veterans.
Veterans ombud Nishika Jardine says the government’s wanting to clarify veterans benefits was understandable but making it retroactive to 30 years is “patently unfair.” Photo: Doug Crawford
Buried within legislation to implement Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget, there are three clauses that have incensed some veterans. Bill C-15, the Budget 2025 Implementation Act, received royal assent on March 26, 2026. It’s now law.
On a positive note, the budget invested in Veterans Affairs Canada’s benefit processing and put money into modernizing operations and IT systems. Demand for disability benefits continues to grow. But buried within the implementation act’s pages are clauses 373 to 375, which are costing some disabled RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces veterans, most of them seniors who were injured serving their country, thousands of dollars.
What’s at issue is the way benefits are calculated for veterans in long-term care, and the government trying to fix a mistake it made decades ago.
For years, Ottawa improperly calculated the maximum amount a veteran in long-term care must pay for meals and accommodation an error that likely affected thousands of veterans.
Those payments were calculated using the cheapest rates for room and board in the least-expensive province. But their definition of “province” excluded territories in their calculation, skewing the formula and making veterans pay more out of pocket.
When veterans discovered the anomaly, they raised their concerns, asking for a correction. Bill C-15 amended the law to exclude the territories in the definition of a province. But it also made the change retroactive to 1998. Retroactive legislation would effectively avoid compensating those seniors and disabled veterans for past overcharges.
In her testimony to the Standing Committee on Finance on Feb. 5, 2026, Veterans ombud Nishika Jardine was critical.
“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,” Jardine testified.
She added that Veterans Affairs should not have excluded the territories in the definition at the expense of elderly and disabled veterans.
“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,” Jardine wrote in a statement. “After we have served Canada by putting mission before self, we expect that Veterans Affairs will behave with the utmost integrity and commitment to our well-being.”
Some veterans joined in a class-action suit to challenge the government’s incorrect benefits calculation. In December, the court granted Canada’s request to adjourn the class action pending the outcome of Bill C-15, which was ultimately made into law.
Malcolm Ruby of Gowling WLG was counsel for the plaintiff and said retroactive legislation such as that the government used is rare and sends a poor signal in a time where there is a major recruitment push going on.
“Failure to compensate disabled veterans according to law is a bad signal to send to potential recruits
who rely heavily on the government to compensate them properly if they become injured or disabled during their service to Canada,” Ruby says.
He says the plaintiffs are considering a constitutional challenge to the retroactive legislation under the Charter of Rights.
At the April Liberal party convention, members considered Resolution 33, a Social Covenant with Veterans. It promises to “live up to our country’s sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families throughout their lives by allowing them to maintain a quality of life that is worthy of the sacrifices that they have made for Canada.”
Ruby doesn’t see the government’s aforementioned dealings with disabled veterans as working within “the letter nor spirit of this ‘sacred obligation.’”