THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, December 8, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 19, 20 and 21 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, colleagues. Thank you all for being here. I thank all my colleagues for making the attempt to be here despite the cold.
I am Hassan Yussuff, a senator from Ontario and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m joined today by my fellow committee members, and I ask them to introduce themselves.
Senator McNair: John McNair, province of New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Anderson: Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today, we are meeting to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 19, 20 and 21 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. These divisions of the bill outline legislation measures relating to pensions and other payments to former members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Division 19 proposes modifications to disability pensions for RCMP members; Division 20 would amend the Veterans Well‑being Regulations to adjust the method of calculating the Earnings Loss Benefit; and Division 21 would amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to allow the Minister of Public Safety, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to share information in relation to the administration of certain disability and death benefits paid to RCMP members.
We will be hearing from three panels of witnesses today. In this first panel, we welcome, from Veterans Affairs Canada, Julie Drury, Acting Director General, Policy & Research; Stephen Anstey, Senior Director, Strategic Costing and Statistical Analysis; and Nathan Svenson, Senior Director, Disability and Health Care Policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Jeff Hutcheson, Director General, Corporate Management and Controllership; and Joanne Rigon, Director General, National Compensation Service.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your opening remarks. Thank you.
Julie Drury, Acting Director General, Policy & Research, Veterans Affairs Canada: Mr. Chair and senators, thank you for the invitation to appear today.
I am Julie Drury, the Director General of Policy and Research at Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC. In this role, I lead a multidisciplinary team of legislative, regulatory and policy framework expertise to support veteran health and well-being. Our work ensures these frameworks are comprehensive, strategic, evidence-based and informed by stakeholders.
Before I begin today, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. I wish to convey my deepest respect for the cultural, historical and spiritual identity of the Indigenous peoples who have inhabited this territory since time immemorial.
[Translation]
This review is an important step in implementing the budget. I am pleased to contribute the perspective of Veterans Affairs Canada.
The financial commitments outlined in Budget 2025 reflect both the government’s legislative mandate and its duty of care to Canadian veterans and their families.
[English]
In concrete terms, the budget invests more than $184 million starting in 2026-27 to stabilize our processing capacity for disability benefit applications and to modernize operational processes and IT infrastructure, ensuring that veterans continue to receive timely, responsive and accessible support. It also includes an ongoing commitment of $40.1 million to stabilize our resources so that we can maintain productivity and processing capacity. Modernizing our technology will be key to ensuring we keep pace with increasing client demand while meeting the needs of veterans and their families.
Additionally, the budget aligns the maximum reimbursement rate under the cannabis for medical purposes benefit with current market prices — going from $8.50 per gram to $6. This change does not impact veterans’ eligibility for the benefit or their maximum daily gram limit if already approved by VAC for reimbursement. It simply reflects the market rate. This adjustment will save the department $129 million annually on a cash basis, which represents a less than 2% decrease to our annual budget. The $4.23 billion in savings that Budget 2025 accounts for as a result of this change is based on public sector accounting practices, whereby future savings must be recognized immediately with the changes to benefits that impact long-term liabilities owed by the federal government.
[Translation]
Veterans should be aware that no additional reductions in services, benefits, or programs are included in these savings.
Bill C-15 also proposes amendments to the Pension Act, the Veterans Well-being Regulations, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the Veterans Health Care Regulations.
With respect to the Pension Act, the amendments clarify that the term “province” does not include Yukon, Northwest Territories, or Nunavut for the purposes of the annual adjustment calculations for disability pensions and related benefits.
[English]
The budget implementation act also updates the rules to clarify how annual adjustments are calculated for the former Earnings Loss Benefit and how the maximum monthly charge for accommodation and meals is calculated in the long-term care program. Neither of these updates change how benefits have been calculated in the past, nor will they have a retroactive impact on the reimbursements that have been paid. Rather, they make the calculation methods easier to understand, they remove confusion about how they should be interpreted and they give veterans more clarity and transparency. Canadian Armed Forces members, CAF veterans and their survivors will continue to receive the same benefits they are currently receiving, calculated using the same formulas.
Finally, regarding veteran pension increases, these will continue to be calculated based on the higher of the Consumer Price Index and the wage rate increase, exactly as it was before Budget 2025 was introduced.
Mr. Chair and members, I hope you — and most importantly, veterans — are reassured that none of the changes proposed in the budget implementation act will lead to reductions in existing benefits, services or programs. As always, our focus is on delivering timely and efficient programs and supports, with the care and respect that those who have served deserve.
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss Budget 2025 and its impact on Canadian veterans and their families. We would be very happy to take your questions after Ms. Rigon’s remarks.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Drury.
Joanne Rigon, Director General, National Compensation Service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be with you today.
I am Joanne Rigon, the Executive Director of National Compensation Services and the Executive Liaison Officer to Veterans Affairs Canada for the RCMP. In these roles, I am responsible for the overall delivery of compensation, pension, insurance and benefits to employees and members of the RCMP. With me today is Jeff Hutcheson, the Director General of Financial Management at the RCMP.
The 2025 budget implementation act includes legislative amendments under the RCMP Superannuation Act regarding the proposed new indexation approach and clarifying RCMP authorities for disability benefits and their administration. I welcome the opportunity to speak with you about these proposed legislative amendments.
It may be useful to provide a brief overview of the structure of RCMP service-related disability benefits and their relation to the RCMP Superannuation Act and, by extension, the Pension Act.
The Member Injured on Duty Benefit was first introduced as a grant in 1959 pursuant to Part II of the RCMP Superannuation Act. As outlined in section 32, an award is granted in accordance with the Pension Actif the injury or disease — or the aggravation of the injury or disease — resulting in the disability or death was directly connected with the member’s service in the RCMP. Essentially, the Member Injured on Duty Benefit delivers these disability awards, special allowances and health care treatments under this legislation to eligible serving and former members permanently injured in service, as well as survivor benefits in the event of a service-related death of a member. In 2001, Veterans Affairs Canada assumed responsibility for the payment of service-related disability benefits to members, in addition to the processing and adjudication of applications, on behalf of the RCMP.
Under Part 5, Division 19, of the BIA, the government proposes to modify the annual adjustment formula so that RCMP disability pensions are solely escalated using the Consumer Price Index beginning January 1, 2027. The government is not withdrawing or cancelling any benefits, but, rather, is realigning the system for consistency and administrative efficiencies. CPI is widely considered to be the most accurate and consistent measure to ensure that benefits keep up with the cost of living. This proposed change will ensure that service-related disability benefits are indexed in a transparent manner, consistent with other Canadian police services and Government of Canada benefits such as the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and other federal government pensions, including the RCMP Pension Plan and Disability Insurance Plan.
Under Part 5, Division 21, of the BIA, the proposed amendment clarifying the authority to administer RCMP benefits under Part II of the Superannuation Act will clarify and make explicit the vested legal authority of the Minister of Public Safety for the Member Injured on Duty Benefit pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. The proposed legislative amendments also confirm that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has the legal authority under Part II for the administration of this benefit on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety on a retroactive and prospective basis. Additionally, the proposed legislative amendments will facilitate the exchange of information, including personal information, among the key departments both retrospectively and prospectively. The sharing of workplace injury information will be limited to what is relevant to the management of disability benefits and effective workforce management within the RCMP, including the identification of workplace hazards and the prevention of workplace injuries.
Our members and employees are at the core of the organization. They are called upon to serve and put themselves in harm’s way in various situations. When they are injured in service, the RCMP in partnership with VAC, will ensure the necessary support and financial security to disabled members and their families.
In closing, I would like to say that the RCMP recognizes and values our members and the important work they carry out to keep communities and Canada safe. We are committed to continuing to provide the support needed to maintain their health and well-being both in and out of uniform.
I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will proceed to questions. Colleagues, our guests are with us until 5 p.m. today. As always, we will do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question. With that in mind, four minutes is allotted for each question, including the answer. I ask you to keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible.
I would like to offer the first question to our members of the steering committee, beginning with Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Did you consult with the RCMP, veterans and National Defence unions before this bill was introduced?
[English]
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question.
We did not have the opportunity to consult bargaining agents before any of these legislative amendments.
Ms. Drury: Veterans Affairs Canada did not consult specifically with any unions in regard to the budget.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Can you tell us why? I have never known changes to be made to a pension plan without the associations or unions being consulted first. The pension plan is an integral part of their working conditions. I can’t get over it.
[English]
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question.
Pensions or any changes to pensions are legislative benefits and not subject to any collective bargaining but, certainly, when there are opportunities for consultation, that is always an important aspect. Unfortunately, we did not have that opportunity.
Ms. Drury: If I may add to that, for Veterans Affairs Canada, there was no change. There is no change in the budget implementation act. We have always calculated the pension benefits through the CPI or the wage rate and the better of the two. There is no change for Veterans Affairs Canada, thus no consultations were deemed required.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Now we go with inflation, and before, we went with whichever was higher. I understand that the government will save billions of dollars over a long period of time. Billions of dollars in savings means billions less for veterans, disabled members of the RCMP, or of National Defence. That money doesn’t fall from the sky. You take it from the pockets of pensioners or disabled people.
[English]
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question. I will turn it over to my colleague, Jeff, to talk about what that means in terms of CPI.
Jeff Hutcheson, Director General, Corporate Management and Controllership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The intent is not to change any of the existing benefits, so members and former members in receipt of these benefits will not see a decrease in the pension amounts they are receiving. They will continue to be indexed in line with inflation to ensure that their benefits are not eroded over time and to ensure that they do have that same benefit from a prospective basis.
Ms. Drury: Perhaps I will clarify. Veterans Affairs Canada provides monthly disability pensions to both veterans and former RCMP as we are discussing now. For VAC, for CAF veterans, each year the pension amount is adjusted in line with the annual increases to the Consumer Price Index. If, however, the wage rate of unskilled workers in the public service increases faster than the CPI, then the pensions are adjusted in line with the increase in those wages. As I have said previously, this has always been how we have calculated the monthly disability pensions for CAF members, so nothing has changed for Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator Cardozo: Excuse me if I am confused. Something changed, right? That’s what we’re here to talk about. Could you share with us a bit more about what has changed?
I want to start by following up on a question from my colleague Senator Carignan. You hadn’t consulted with the unions ahead of time. I understand that. I would like to know if you have heard from them since then and what feedback you have had.
Could you just clarify for us why we’re here? What is it we’re doing in the budget? Something has changed. I understand in terms of the RCMP, Ms. Rigon, that the increase was determined by the CPI or the increase to public service salaries, whichever was more generous, so now we are not going that route. It will not be the more generous. It’s only CPI, right?
Ms. Drury: Right. And for CAF veterans, it is remaining the same. We are not going with CPI. We are staying with CPI or the wage rate, the higher of the two.
With regard to your question about unions, to my knowledge, we haven’t heard back from any unions in this regard.
Senator Cardozo: Who would the unions be in your case?
Ms. Drury: For the CAF? I’m not sure. I can’t answer that.
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question.
Certainly, the National Police Federation and then, recently, CUPE 104 had provided some written statements. I understand that Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation, will be providing some testimony right after our panel today. Certainly, they are concerned that, with this change, there will be an erosion. From our perspective, or from what is proposed in terms of the BIA the Consumer Price Index, the CPI, is a widely accepted measure to ensure that benefits keep up with the cost of living and that those benefits are not eroded through inflation.
Senator Cardozo: So they won’t be eroded, but it’s possible that the increase might have been less if it were a choice between the two factors, the more generous of the two factors, and now it will be the one factor. Right?
Ms. Rigon: Quite possibly. I think prevailing is the Consumer Price Index.
Senator Cardozo: With Veterans Affairs, you don’t have a union for people who are retired, but do you normally consult with the Royal Canadian Legion on these issues? I understand you haven’t because I suppose that’s how a budget works, with budget secrecy and all that, but have you heard from the Legion since the budget was brought down?
Ms. Drury: I’m not specifically certain we have heard from the Legion directly about this. Certainly, there were questions to clarify what was included in the budget. There was confusion about VAC or the Canadian Armed Forces veterans staying with the better of the CPI or the wage, whatever was going to be higher, and then RCMP changing to the CPI only. There was confusion there. We have clarified that. The Minister of Finance has clarified that as well. I’m not aware of any direct conversations with any veteran advocate groups, such as the RCL.
Senator Cardozo: On these matters, do your two agencies interact with each other? Are there retired folks who have worked for both the RCMP and the CAF?
Ms. Rigon: Yes, that’s correct.
Ms. Drury: That is correct, yes. We have CAF members who might be retired and entered the RCMP, or RCMP who are retired who might be CAF. That’s something the department has to address and figure out when it comes to the pension calculation because of the difference between the two.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses.
My question is for you, Ms. Drury. You stated in your opening statement that the definition does not include the three territories, the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Can you expand on why and elaborate on what this exclusion means?
Ms. Drury: Thank you for the question.
The Pension Act has not explicitly defined the term “province,” so the amendments that we are making clarify that the term “province” refers to the 10 provinces. This was the intent of the legislation and how we’ve been applying it all along. These amendments reflect the way the annual disability pension, as well as the combination of meal allowance, have always been calculated. This interpretation of provinces being the 10 provinces and not the 3 territories will not result in any change to benefits that were paid. It’s simply clarifying in the legislation that this was the intent and making sure that that is explicit now in the legislation.
Senator Anderson: I’m not clear on what that means. You speak to it relating only to the provinces. I don’t understand the rationale of separating the territories from the provinces. When you speak, you speak about Canadian veterans, and yet you have a definitive line between the provinces and the territories. I’m from the Northwest Territories, and I’m telling you from the territories that we are often disadvantaged. We do not have the same access to services and supports. On one hand, I understand you are clarifying, but, to me, it almost appears that the Northwest Territories is being treated separately and differently than the provinces and that is a further entrenchment of the inequalities that we face. I don’t understand how you can speak about Canadian veterans, and you have clearly defined between provinces and territories and have excluded the territories. It’s fine if you want to define “provinces,” but there’s nothing in here that speaks to the territories. It is almost like it is an absent thought. That, to me, is concerning given the build-up of the military in the Arctic, in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Will there be something to clarify and include the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon in another forum so that it looks like it’s part of Canada?
Ms. Drury: Thank you for the question.
I just want to be very clear. This is about how the pension benefit is calculated and how the additional resources for accommodation and meals are calculated. It certainly does not speak to all programs, services and resources that are provided to Canadian veterans who may be living in one of the three territories. It is simply about how we have been applying the pension benefit calculation and the accommodation/meal calculation, which are already in place, already being calculated in this way, and clarifying in the legislation that we are continuing to do it in this way. This is not to do with programs, services, amenities or supports for our veterans in the Northwest Territories, in Nunavut nor in the Yukon.
Senator Anderson: I understand that, but absent in here are the territories. There is no mention of the territories. They are just absent. I understand it is for pension, but on the other hand, there should be some recognition of the Northwest Territories in this legislation as much as there is of the provinces.
Senator McNair: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
I, too, was looking for some clarity on what this legislation does to disability pensions for our veterans specifically. Some of the confusion may have arisen when the Veterans Affairs Minister, in an earlier interview, suggested you were doing away with the wage rate calculation and would rely solely on CPI. You confirmed that that is not the case. The Finance Minister clarified that it would only apply to RCMP members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces will receive the better of the two calculations, meaning the more generous, even after this bill is passed. The obvious question for everyone is, why would the government decide to make the change only apply to RCMP members?
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question.
Certainly, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces are different organizations with different legislated benefits. RCMP members receive their disability benefits pursuant to Part II of the Superannuation Act. This indexation change will align with other police services, as well as benefits under the RCMP Superannuation Act and other federal benefits using CPI as the basis for calculation.
Senator McNair: I saw statistics in some of the materials for this meeting showing the wage rate calculation has only been used 6 times in 23 years. It is ensuring that the veterans receive the most generous benefit possible. I’m at a bit of a loss when you respond that way and use terms like “administrative efficiencies” to describe how this will be helpful.
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for your comment.
Certainly, the CPI is the widely accepted measure that is used to ensure that benefits keep up with the cost of living and are not eroded with inflation.
With regard specifically to the wage rate calculation, I defer to my colleague in Veterans Affairs Canada Stephen Anstey to perhaps provide some greater clarity.
Stephen Anstey, Senior Director, Strategic Costing and Statistical Analysis, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question. I am happy to answer any questions on the wage calculation.
It is the greater of the two as applied to the veterans through the Canadian Armed Forces. To put it into perspective, the wage calculation has not been used since 2018 and, before that again, it was 2012. They do provide a similar output of that since 2018, but the wage calculation is based on low-scale public service employees to ensure that any increase that they receive in their pay matches the payments that are going to the veterans as well.
Senator Patterson: I’m going back to my colleague Senator Anderson’s question about the territories because I’m not quite clear on it either. I certainly understand having provinces included — because it wasn’t in the past — and defined so you can help calculate benefits based on everything from meal rates to travel. But one thing we do know is that the further north you go, the more expensive it gets, so having a comparison from southern Ontario to Yellowknife or Whitehorse, the costs are quite different. How do you do the calculation that you cannot consider a territorial difference in the calculation, as you gave the example of travel, meals, et cetera?
Ms. Drury: Thank you for the question. My colleague Nathan Svenson might be able to elaborate more than I can on this question, so we can get to an answer that would be helpful.
Nathan Svenson, Senior Director, Disability and Health Care Policy, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question.
It’s less a question of what can be done and more a question of the intention of the amendments in the Budget Implementation Act, which are to clarify how the calculations have been done so that they can continue to be done the same way. The entire premise is looking back at the intent and the original design of the program, and there was a lack of clarity in the legislation, so the amendments that were brought in are simply clarifying this is how the calculation has been done and will continue to be done, and that’s why we state that there’s no change in the value of the benefits to CAF veterans.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
I truly understand that when it comes to what you’re trying to achieve, but how do we deal with the territories? And I know you’re thinking, “But you’re not asking the right question.” Would it be possible to receive a submission on how you do that calculation? What if someone was from one of our territories. How would you do that calculation? That may help, partly because I’m not an expert in this area.
Mr. Svenson: Thank you for the question.
The calculation is done the same way for everyone in the country. The disability pension rate is adjusted once per year, on January 1, for all veterans who are receiving it, regardless of where they live. It’s not a different calculation for someone who lives in the territories versus in a province. It’s just how that one universal calculation is done. There’s a reference to a provincial rate for calculating the wage rate option. The reference to “province” does not change what someone was to receive if they were in a territory or in a province. The benefits are the same for everyone.
Senator Patterson: So can we not include “and territories”?
Mr. Svenson: That would change the intent of the program.
Senator Patterson: Wow. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I want to thank the witnesses for being here with us. I had the same question as Senator Carignan.
As I was reading about the changes, I wondered whether we were creating more poverty among our pensioners. However, I will rephrase the question. I would like to know what is included and what additions there are for people who need to benefit from the services provided by your respective departments.
On December 2, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, Minister McKnight officially announced that illnesses related to the Gulf War, which took place in the early 1990s and affects 4,000 Canadians who served, would now be recognized. What impact will this addition have, and why did it take 35 years for this recognition to happen? Are there illnesses related to other military operations that have not yet been recognized, and if so, why? So, we have some additions.
I will then have a follow-up question.
[English]
Mr. Svenson: Thank you for the question.
Recently, there was a change in the International Classification of Diseases manual recognizing Gulf War Illness as a distinct illness, so individuals who served in the Gulf War, who receive a diagnosis from a physician indicating that they have Gulf War Illness, can now present that diagnosis to the department. They weren’t able to present a diagnosis to the department of Gulf War Illness previously because it wasn’t listed in the official manuals, the classification of diseases. But until now, if they presented with symptoms that related to Gulf War Illness or that were associated and commonly referred to as Gulf War illness, the department would still have recognized those claims and made every effort to ensure that they were compensated accordingly.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
I would like to talk about retroactivity. Will these veterans be granted 35 years of retroactivity? What impact will that have on the budget? We are saving $120 million, but there are other things to consider. So I return to my initial question: Are we going to create more poverty among our pensioners?
[English]
Mr. Svenson: Thank you for the question.
For clarity, if you’re saying if we’re retroactively considering the Gulf War Illness —
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Will they be paid retroactively for the 35 years? Since there is a saving of $120 million, that means there is less money for everyone.
[English]
Mr. Svenson: There is no reduction in benefits for Gulf War veterans. If a veteran of the Persian Gulf conflict had approached the department with a disability and submitted an application for disability benefits, they would have been treated the same way they are now, but now they can present with a formal diagnosis. The process of obtaining and describing their symptoms is more straightforward now than it was before. But if they presented with evidence that they had a disability that related to their military service, they would still have been eligible this entire time for disability benefits. We don’t expect there would be any retroactive change. The process might be simpler when they’re speaking with their physician from this point forward.
Senator Dasko: I just have a question about the use of the CPI. It seems to me the CPI is a very fair way to calculate changes because it’s very sensitive, goes up every year, nothing goes down, there’s no deflation and it’s sensitive on an annual basis. It reflects cost of living, and, therefore, it speaks directly to the means that people have and the resources they have against what is happening in our world. Notwithstanding the fact that veterans have not changed to only this measure, is there more of a general move to try to link benefits to CPI, or is it generally done on an idiosyncratic basis case by case? Are you aware of this being a general move to try to move benefits in different areas toward the CPI? Any comment on that?
Ms. Drury: Thank you for the question.
For Veterans Affairs Canada, there’s no specific movement or general approach to moving towards CPI. That’s a short answer to your question, but that’s effectively it.
Ms. Rigon: With regard to the RCMP and the disability benefits, certainly CPI is that widely accepted measure to ensure that these benefits keep up with inflation and the cost of living. We would want to ensure alignment, just like our superannuation pension plan, CPP, OAS and other federal benefits. There’s no concerted effort, but certainly for this particular benefit, there is a greater alignment with those benefits indexed through CPI than the wage rate calculation or any other.
Senator Dasko: They don’t change at all?
Ms. Rigon: Correct.
Senator Dasko: Therefore, if you’re stuck at a wage rate level that’s not changing over many years, there’s no benefit increase at all under that scenario.
I have another question, especially to Ms. Drury. Why couldn’t these changes be made under regulations? Why do you have to change legislation? You’re saying the net result is no change, but even if there were change, why are these changes not being done under regulations? Why do you have to amend bills and change acts? Why do you have to deal with the legislation itself?
Ms. Drury: Legislation rather than the regulation?
Senator Dasko: Exactly.
Ms. Drury: I understand the question. I will defer to Nathan, who has expertise in this area.
Mr. Svenson: The calculations for the disability pension adjustments are set out in the legislation so, to change the calculations, there needs to be a change to the legislation.
Senator Dasko: Any else? Ms. Rigon? Couldn’t you do this under the regs?
Ms. Rigon: The actual indexation is done through Veterans Affairs, not the RCMP.
Senator Dasko: I see.
Ms. Drury: It would be a similar answer. It’s a change to the legislation.
Senator White: I have a question but, before I ask my question, I have to go back to my colleagues Senator Anderson and Senator Patterson, because I’m obviously missing something. Can you help me understand how adding “territories” changes the intent? I don’t understand.
Mr. Svenson: Thank you for the question and thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
When a program is established in government, there are projections and designs that are laid out at the time of implementation, and all of it is based on the exact definitions of the words and how they’re interpreted at the time. When our programs were designed, so in this case, back to 1985, the design of that benefit was based on using “province” in the calculation. If we were to now, today, change that definition to mean something else other than simply the 10 provinces, then it would conflict with all the projections and all the original design documents that were in place and have guided our operations since that time. Making an adjustment to the definition away from what we have been using and what we intended to use this whole time would effectively change the design of the program. That is not what we’re attempting to do in the budget; we are simply attempting to clarify how we’ve interpreted it.
Senator White: Thank you for clarifying that. But respectfully, if you’re going to be amending legislation, wouldn’t you amend it to include the territories and provinces that make — what they’re supposed to be? That wasn’t my question. I was really boggled by that.
My question is, with these proposed amendments, what would they do, or how would they affect any policing service contracts that you have with the provinces and RCMP.
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I would like to defer to my colleague.
Mr. Hutcheson: Thank you for the question.
There is no impact to the services that are being provided to our contract policing partners. These particular benefits are actually excluded from our agreements and any cost-sharing arrangements with them. Therefore, the savings that are being proposed through this legislation are savings to the federal government of Canada.
The Chair: I have put myself on the list. I have two questions so I hope you can provide an answer.
I understand the point you’re clarifying regarding provinces and territories. They weren’t included in the definition and the calculation. Here is a simple question: Would the territories be treated any differently than they currently are in the calculations?
Mr. Svenson: If we’re talking about the disability pension adjustments, the instance where the term “province” enters into the calculation is only in the wage rate side, so only when we’re considering that option. The Consumer Price Index calculation is unaffected by the definition of the term “province.” Within the wage rate calculation, it examines and compares the total effective income tax rate — both provincial and federal — across the 10 provinces. The territories have a different territorial income tax rate, so the total effective rate of income tax would be different in the territories. It could result in a different value than examining simply the ten provinces, so it could impact the calculation, if that was your question. That’s how it would impact the calculation.
The Chair: So if I’m a veteran and I’m living in the territories, don’t you think I would have reason to be concerned?
Mr. Svenson: Regardless of where a veteran is living in the country, they would be receiving the same rate of disability compensation. The calculation could be different if you included the territories in among the comparators, but that’s to determine the single adjustment rate that applies to all veterans who are receiving disability benefits, disability pension. You wouldn’t be receiving a different benefit rate if you were living in a territory versus a province.
The Chair: My next question is, given that the unions don’t get to negotiate pensions, the government is making a unilateral decision on how they’re going to treat the calculations going forward, and that is a result of the savings that you’ve outlined and the legislation acknowledges, $4 billion. It’s not coming from some place; it’s coming from what would have been the reality. If you didn’t make the change, there wouldn’t have been a $4 billion savings for the government. Am I right in that regard?
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the opportunity to respond, Mr. Chair. I’d like to ask my colleague Jeff Hutcheson to respond.
Mr. Hutcheson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
Just as a point of clarification, the amounts that my colleague Julie Drury identified at the beginning were related to the proposed changes with respect to cannabis, the $4 billion you were referencing. The proposed amendments we’re discussing here with respect to the CPI for the RCMP result to $5.8 billion over a four-year period, on an accrual basis. But in reality, you’re correct. If nothing was to change, those savings would not be realized.
The Chair: You can understand how RCMP members might be feeling right now. They have no control over their pension, even though they pay into it, and the government is making a unilateral decision to change the mechanism for calculations going forward. They would see this not as being neutral; they would see it as highly prejudicial to their interests going forward as a retiree. Wouldn’t you agree with me on that point?
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the opportunity to respond, Mr. Chair.
What we’re talking about is disability pensions, not superannuation pensions. The work pension that RCMP members receive is already indexed according to the CPI. This change, this legislative amendment, is to actually bring it in alignment so the CPI is the escalator for the disability pension.
Senator Hay: Humour me. I can’t get my head around the clarification for the provinces and the silence on the territories. It feels like Canada’s borders are stopping at the provinces. Can you clarify again why we have to be silent on the territories? I don’t understand that. You might have to repeat what you said, but I think Canadians would like to understand this. I believe you said it dates back to actuarial science, potentially, of 1984, and I might have that wrong. It feels like we’ve always done it this way, this is the way we do it and if we make a change on clarifying for the territories, it will change everything. Please clarify, and then I have a follow-up.
Mr. Svenson: Sure. What happened in 1985 was the wage rate option in the calculation was introduced into the annual adjustment process. That was the change that happened in 1985.
Senator Hay: For the clarification of the provinces?
Mr. Svenson: The definition of “province” only plays into the wage rate portion. If we’re only looking at the Consumer Price Index movements over time, then the way that “province” is defined is irrelevant. But once we introduce the wage rate element into the annual adjustment calculation, and starting in 1985 we looked at both Consumer Price Index movement and wage rate movement, that is when the question of the definition of “province” became a relevant consideration. That’s when we introduced the wage rate.
The silence on the territories is simply — what’s the best way to describe it? Our efforts in the Budget Implementation Act are simply to clarify how the calculation is done so that there’s no misinterpretation. We’re not changing how the calculation is done. If we wanted to change how the calculation was done, it would be a very different discussion. It would be changing the benefit scheme, and that wasn’t the intent of the Budget Implementation Act. It was simply to clarify.
That decision as to whether “province” meant territories or not in the program design happened in 1985, and this budget is clarifying that that is how things have been calculated since that time.
Senator Hay: For provinces since that time.
Mr. Svenson: For all veterans receiving disability pensions in the country, since that time, it has relied on the definition of “province” meaning the 10 provinces.
Senator Hay: And as a quick follow-up, what would be so difficult in adding a clarification about territories while you’re making these clarifications? It just feels odd to me, as someone who lives in southern Ontario, that the territories aren’t in here.
Mr. Svenson: The objective of the changes in the BIA in 2025 simply wasn’t to open up and change the benefit scheme. It was just to clarify the way that the calculation has been and is performed.
The Chair: We have five colleagues on the list for a second round, so I will have to be a little more rigorous. If you all could keep your questions and answers to one minute, we will get through everyone, hopefully, and we will see if we have more time after that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to return to my question about RCMP pensions. If we change the calculation and go with inflation alone rather than inflation and the rate of pay, we automatically save money at the expense of pensioners. Why do you say that this does not change anything? It does not change the base amount, but when the amount is indexed, it changes significantly.
The department’s notes show that over a period of 23 years, the remuneration rate was used six times. I did a quick calculation: 0.5 out of 6 is 3% of the amount each year. So that could be $1,500 to $2,000 per year. Over 20 years, that’s $40,000 to $60,000 per pensioner.
Why aren’t you saying that plainly? It sounds like you’re playing with words and trying to say that it doesn’t change anything.
[English]
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question.
Certainly, I think the wage rate calculation method adjusts the benefits on changes in specific public service salaries. These salaries are generally clerical, regulatory, general trade, labour kind of salaries being compared at a specific period in time and accounting for a single person’s income tax. For the RCMP and for policing services, it’s not a good comparator in that kind of calculation. We would want to align with other police services, and that’s why the CPI is the widely accepted measure to ensure that benefits keep up with the cost of living so that these disability pensions and awards are not eroded with inflation.
Senator Patterson: I’m going to dig into, again, the definition of province versus territory, but very specifically looking at long-term care benefits. When you’re looking at calculating long-term care benefits, there is a difference in price from one province to the other, and equal might not be equitable across the country. My question to you is, again, by excluding the territories in here, is it going to impact the amount that would be reimbursed for somebody in long-term care, and secondly, with the new calculation, is it going to be retroactive and potentially cause a clawback to certain folks who may have been overpaid with the new calculations? Thank you.
Mr. Svenson: The calculation of the accommodation and meals charges for those in long-term care is not changing, so it’s very similar to the other amendment for disability pensions. For accommodation and meals charges, the definition of “province” is being clarified to be clear on how the benefits have been calculated in the past so that there isn’t any ambiguity. Benefits that have been paid and amounts that have been charged to veterans who are in long-term care will not change, so there will be no retroactive changes, no clawbacks, and going forward, the same calculation will apply as has been applied in the past. It just wasn’t explicitly clear in the legislation how those amounts were calculated before, and that’s what we’re trying to correct in the BIA.
Senator McNair: CUPE local 104 represents the RCMP public safety communicators, as you know. I’m going to read a quote from a letter which was filed with this committee:
The change to CPI only would disproportionately impact disabled RCMP members, especially those with psychological trauma who cannot return to full duties. This is particularly relevant for public safety communicators whose disability claims are prominently trauma related. The impact is also gendered because women are overrepresented in these roles and have higher rates of long-term disability associated with psychological injuries.
How do you respond to that?
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question.
I’m aware of the CUPE 104 president’s submission. CPI is the widely accepted measure so that benefits can keep up with the cost of living and so that it’s not eroded from inflation. The indexation to these disability benefits which is proposed is the same escalator that is used for the RCMP Superannuation Act. It’s the same escalator used for other government benefits, such as the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security. So to respond, this proposal will keep in alignment CPI as the escalator for benefits that our members enjoy, as well as other Canadians and other police services. So it’s really to bring in alignment with that level of indexation.
Senator McNair: But changing the system to not use the more generous approach for disabled pensions?
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the comment and the question.
I think that this is about disability benefits, disability pensions for civilian members, regular members, and it’s not disproportional to any group. It is to ensure that the pensions keep up with inflation and are not eroded by the cost of living.
Senator McNair: But they do that under the current system?
Ms. Rigon: Yes.
Senator McNair: Which is the more generous approach?
Ms. Rigon: I’m not sure that it’s necessarily the generous approach.
Senator McNair: If CPI was used all but six times in the last 23 years, it doesn’t happen — I think we’re out of time.
The Chair: Yes, you are out of time.
Senator Anderson: I may request this in writing. I’m looking at a news article from CBC dated November 20, and it’s titled “Government seeks to retroactively change law, potentially avoiding paying veterans over federal error.” It says:
The Carney government’s budget legislation contains an amendment that lawyers representing veterans say is a bid to cover up a decades-long error that led to overcharging for long-term care.
It quotes Malcom Ruby as saying:
Retroactively changing legislation is like a thermonuclear weapon that the government has in litigation, that no other litigant has.
Then it goes on to say:
However, an analysis by CBC News showed that Veterans Affairs was excluding territories from its calculation — even though the Northwest Territories has long had the cheapest rate for long-term care.
The analysis showed that last year alone, veterans may have been overcharged by about $3,130.
My question to you is, is this specifically speaking to that rule that excludes the territories? Do you have any further information that you can provide to us as a group so we can get some clarity on this specific clause?
Ms. Drury: Thank you for the question.
I want to clarify again. What we are doing in the legislation, as articulated by my colleague Nathan, is articulating what we have already been doing and what the intent was of the legislation when it was first enacted. It is simply a clarification. It is not meant to be changing anything in terms of adjusting anything retroactively or adjusting anything in terms of how we have been calculating, in this case, for the accommodation and meal allowance related to long-term care. In this instance, we are explicitly, again, defining that term “province” to include or refer to the 10 provinces. It doesn’t change the way the monthly accommodation and meal allowance is being calculated. It doesn’t retroactively require veterans to be paying back any type of benefits. There will be no change to the calculation of their benefits. This is how we have been doing it. We are simply clarifying that this is how we have been doing it and how we will continue to be doing it.
The Chair: Also in writing, the specific question she asked, would be much appreciated.
Ms. Drury: We’ll take note of that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: I hate to belabour the point on the calculation, but to clarify, it is a 10-province calculation? That’s how you come to it? You use the 10 provinces in the calculation, correct?
Mr. Svenson: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: Are the inputs into the calculation on a per capita basis? For example, would Ontario be weighted higher because of population, or are the provinces treated as equal in terms of the inputs and the formula?
Mr. Svenson: Thank you for the question.
It just compares the 10 provinces on equal footing.
Senator Dasko: On what? Sorry?
Mr. Svenson: They are not weighted at all. It just compares the values from each of the 10 provinces.
Senator Dasko: I see. They are all discrete in this. How, then, do you come up with a single calculation?
Mr. Svenson: To clarify, you are referring to the disability pension adjustment calculation?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Mr. Svenson: The wage rate option looks at the composite income tax rate or, to be specific, it is the after-tax income that an unskilled labourer in the federal public service residing in any of those jurisdictions would receive, after tax, after both the provincial and federal income taxes. Whichever of those after-tax income values is highest, that’s the value that is selected.
Senator Dasko: I see.
Mr. Svenson: It is not about how many people live in any given province.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We are a bit over time, but I thought I would give everybody a fair chance to ask their last follow-up question. This brings us to the end of our time with our panel.
Ms. Drury, Ms. Anstey, Mr. Svenson, Mr. Hutcheson and Ms. Rigon, thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. I know there are a couple of questions that will require a written response. If you could do so at the earliest opportunity, it would be very helpful for the committee with regard to our work on this section of the budget implementation bill. Thank you for being here today. All the best.
For our second panel, we welcome Brian Sauvé, President and Chief Executive Officer from the National Police Federation; from the National Association of Federal Retirees, Anthony Pizzino, Chief Executive Officer, and Patrick Imbeau, Senior Advisor, Retirement Income Security; and by video conference, Carolyn Hughes, Director, Veterans Services for the Royal Canadian Legion.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our senators. I remind you that each of you will have five minutes for opening remarks.
Brian Sauvé, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Police Federation: Good evening. Thank you for the invitation. I am Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, or NPF, the union representing nearly 20,000 members of the RCMP who serve communities across Canada and internationally.
When Budget 2025 was released last month, we were encouraged to see several long-awaited commitments for public safety finally moving forward. However, alongside this progress, we also saw measures that are raising concerns among our membership, concerns that were not resolved with the tabling of the budget implementation act. I would like to highlight three of these issues today.
The first is the authority to administer RCMP benefits and related information-sharing provisions. Bill C-15 proposes to make amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to clarify Veterans Affairs Canada’s authority to administer RCMP disability benefits, which the NPF fully supports.
Our concerns lie with the accompanying amendments that enable broader information sharing, including members’ personal health information, among the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the commissioner of the RCMP. At this time, there is no clarity regarding what information would be shared, how it would be used or what safeguards would be in place. This matters because VAC uses a disability assessment table that frequently assigns disability percentages that have no relationship to a member’s ability to perform police duties. A member might be deemed 50% disabled under VAC’s table yet be fully capable of safely continuing frontline police service. If the RCMP’s health services gains access to VAC determinations without clear limits or context, there is a real risk those assessments could be misinterpreted, leading to unnecessary absences, inappropriate medical discharges or forced retirements.
We already know that members often underreport injuries out of fear of repercussions. Expanding access to their personal health information without safeguards risks worsening that fear, pushing members to hide injuries or remain at work while unwell, further affecting staffing at a time when we need more police officers on the street, not fewer. This is a high-risk issue. Before this legislation proceeds, we need explicit clarity on exactly what information will be shared, for what purpose and with what protections to ensure it cannot be used in ways that harm a members’ careers or well-being.
The second is the Equitable Public Sector Retirement Benefits. The government is proposing amendments to restore the 2% pension benefit rate across the federal public service, Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP plans. While this change will reduce future contribution rates, RCMP members have effectively been overcontributing since the 2019 Canada Pension Plan enhancements, potentially close to $600 per member per year.
We are seeking clarity on two straightforward questions. First, will the new benefit rate apply to all serving members? Second, will there be reimbursement or recognition for the years of overcontributions already made? Transparency on this is essential for our members planning their retirement security.
The third is the indexation of RCMP disability pensions. Bill C-15 proposes shifting RCMP disability pension indexation to CPI-only starting in 2027, lowering the protections currently provided by the CPI-wage growth formula. This applies solely to RCMP veterans, not CAF veterans, creating an inequitable two‑tier system with no clear rationale.
Compounding this, the legislation states the change may have retroactive effect. This phrase is deeply concerning. Retroactive to when? To the date of implementation or to years past? The potential impacts are significant, and, without clarity, members cannot understand how much they may lose or why.
These proposals have real consequences. Reduced pension value or disability protections undermine retention, recruitment, morale and the supports members rely on when injured serving Canadians.
Finally, none of these measures were developed with meaningful consultation. The NPF was not briefed, members were not engaged and no impact analysis has been shared. Our members deserve fairness, transparency and genuine collaboration on reforms that fundamentally affect their careers, their health and their families’ financial security.
Thank you. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.
Anthony Pizzino, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. I am pleased to be here as Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Federal Retirees. We are grateful for the invitation to appear before you as you study Divisions 19, 20 and 21 of Part 5 of Bill C-15.
The National Association of Federal Retirees is the largest national advocacy organization representing active and retired members of the federal public service, Canadian Armed Forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and retired federally appointed judges, as well as their partners and survivors. Our membership is made up of 170,000 members across Canada, including 60,000 veterans and their families. Among them are 14,000 RCMP veterans. The association has been advocating for improvements to the financial security, health and well-being of our members and all Canadians since 1963.
My focus today will be on two issues that are part of Division 19: the modifications to the accommodations and meals calculations for veterans in long-term care and the modifications to the RCMP disability benefits indexation.
Division 19 begins by making amendments to the Pension Act to address a past miscalculation in how VAC adjusted disability benefits, which led to a class action settlement in 2024. This situation has already been settled in court, and the amendment ensures the miscalculation does not happen again.
However, Division 19 also modifies the indexation of RCMP disability pensions. Currently, RCMP disability benefits increase annually by the greater of either the consumer price index or the wage rate calculation. The wage rate calculation uses the average annual gross composite wage, at a point in time in which the adjustment is made, of categories of select occupational groups of the federal public administration, minus income tax for a single person calculated in the province with the lowest combined provincial and federal income tax rate. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act states that disability awards are set in accordance with the Pension Act, which outlines pensions and other benefits for veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. Division 19 of Bill C-15 modifies the escalation formula of the RCMP disability pension so that the benefit, and other related benefits, are indexed based on the Consumer Price Index alone, effective January 2027.
The budget notes that the measure aligning pension benefits with the Consumer Price Index projects $5.8 billion in savings over four years. This number is concerning, as the financial statements of the RCMP for 2025 state that payments in respect of the disability and health benefits for members cost a total $959,293. This figure is concerning. Cuts of this magnitude to disability benefits would have a detrimental impact on RCMP veterans. Amidst the rising cost of living, retirement income security must be protected, strengthened and respected now and into the future.
Division 19 also amends the Pension Act to adjust the accommodation and meals charge that veterans pay in long-term care by making changes to the definition of a province. The Veterans Health Care Regulations ensure that VAC administers benefits to eligible veterans who are in receipt of long-term care, including adult residential care, intermediate care and chronic care. These rules govern the maximum monthly charge for 12 months, which are currently set to the lowest user charge for accommodation and meals permitted by a province.
Since 1998, these calculations have not included the territories’ rates. However, the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the term “province” includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. This has led to overpayments by veterans, as some territories have had lower monthly charges, and those amounts were not considered. A CBC report estimated that veterans could be getting overcharged by $260 a month, or an estimated $3,130 a year. The average annuity paid to a CAF veteran was $38,040 in 2024. This led to pending litigation filed in October of 2024 on behalf of a class of veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and their survivors. These amendments have been deemed to have come into force on July 15, 1998, effectively making this change retroactive, effectively ending the class action ahead of its certification hearing in 2026.
It is unjustified to change the rules after the game. When veterans were overcharged, they had a reasonable expectation to the correct application of the law. Retroactive amendments such as these erode the public trust. Veterans and their families deserve support, not measures that leave them out of pocket and paying more for basic necessities.
We look forward to further discussion on these topics as these amendments touch the lives of some of our most valued and vulnerable members. We ask you to ensure that the budget implementation act be amended to uphold the principles of fairness and commitment Canada owes its veterans and RCMP members.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Carolyn Hughes, Director, Veterans Services, Royal Canadian Legion: Honourable chairman and members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, my name is Carolyn Hughes. I am a veteran and the director of veterans’ services at the national headquarters of the Royal Canadian Legion. I previously worked as a military health care administrator, and I have been assisting military members, RCMP and veterans for almost 35 years, in and out of service. It is a pleasure to appear in front of your committee on behalf of our 270,000 members and their families. We are the largest veteran support and community service organization in Canada.
I would like to offer a quick note to understand the Legion’s work. At its core, the Legion supports veterans, including still serving members, with disability claims and appeals. We advocate on their behalf and promote remembrance, for example, by organizing and holding Canada’s National Remembrance Day Ceremony.
My department is composed of 35 professional and government security-cleared service officers and assistant service officers at the national, provincial and territorial levels. We have a memorandum of understanding with Veterans Affairs and directly serve Canada’s veterans by assisting them with their claims so they can receive benefits, and we facilitate access to other VAC benefits and programs. We also provide representation at appeals to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board when disability claims are denied. We provide emergency and other supportive funding through Poppy Trust Funds, including various veteran programs. We do this at no cost, and veterans don’t have to be a Legion member to use our services. We have about 1,350 branches with a volunteer service officer in each who can provide initial basic assistance and link veterans with our highly qualified staff officers as needed.
We are so closely involved in veterans’ lives that we start to see patterns or issues of concern, such as confusion over the latest federal budget including the topic we are focused on today: the provisions relating to veteran and RCMP pensions. I would like to share some quick observations. Veterans were left with initial confusion related to indexing and pension calculations and the aligning of pension benefits with the Consumer Price Index. Veterans we heard from were not sure what it would mean to them.
For disability benefits, while the proposed legislative amendments to the RCMP’s internal disability pension are separate under their superannuation act and do not affect CAF members’ disability pensions, this was not made immediately clear to them. We remain committed in our advocacy to ensure that any changes do not negatively affect RCMP members or survivor benefits.
For retirement pensions, we are committed to monitor both CAF and RCMP service pensions and that they remain fully indexed to inflation and that there is no erosion of their benefits when they retire.
In closing, we would like to reiterate that there is an immediate and ongoing need for transparent communications with still-serving members and veterans and that it be clear and easy to understand. Therefore, we further suggest that each time there is a significant development, such as the release of a federal budget, that there be a requirement to produce a simple and clear document written in plain language, entitled “What it means to you,” so that they are not left in the dark, struggling to understand and worrying about what it will mean to their benefits and supports.
The Legion helps thousands of veterans, their families and survivors each year. I want to share what one veteran said to one of our service officers recently: “You have been truly an ‘Earth Angel’ to me.” That’s when it hits home to us and that’s why we do what we do.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I would be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hughes, and thank you for all you do on behalf of veterans.
We will now proceed to questions. Colleagues, our witnesses are with us until 6:10 p.m. today. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question. With that in mind, we have four minutes allotted for each senator, including the answer. Please keep your question succinct in an effort allow as many interventions as possible. I will offer the first question to members of the steering committee.
Senator Cardozo: I want to start by thanking Ms. Hughes, adding to what the chair said. I am amazed to hear you have 1,350 branches. I thought it was a large number, but this is an enormous number. Congratulations on what you do. I am one of the thousands of people who attend the national service here in Ottawa at the cenotaph every year on November 11, and I have done it for many years. It is superbly done every time. It is done with great precision and a lot of respect. I want to thank you for that, because it is very important as a country that we recognize veterans and those who have lost their lives serving their country. You and your colleagues across the country do a very important job in that role. Thank you for that, and please keep doing it because it is very important for all of us who are able to go there and be a part of it. Many years ago, when my daughter was in the children’s choir, I would often volunteer to go because it would get me to enter into the special section as a volunteer with the parents. Now I am able to do that as a senator and still be there and lay a wreath on behalf of colleagues.
You talked about the uncertainty that the budget has caused. From what I understand, the situation for the RCMP is changing, but the calculation for veterans is not. Maybe I’m wrong. Could you tell me more about the uncertainty that is left for veterans at this point?
Ms. Hughes: We’re still hearing that they’re worried that their Income Replacement Benefit will be reduced and their military pension is not going to go up with the cost of living each year. It’s just poorly misread, miswritten. It’s very confusing to somebody who doesn’t deal with a lot of finances and pensions. It just escalates their frustration, and for anybody with a mental health condition or a traumatic brain injury, this makes it even more of a struggle for them sometimes. I think short note points from Veterans Affairs would help veterans understand a little better. From what I can see, the department has been very slow in getting any information out there to correct the rumours.
Senator Cardozo: Your suggestion to have — I don’t know if you said a document necessarily, but something that goes out, and it can go out online, saying what the budget means for me or what the budget means for you is a really good idea for all Canadians, and for senators too, at least for this senator, because the budget is a big, long, complex document, and we’re all trying to figure out what it means for Canadians. Thank you for that.
On the matter of consultation, when there have been changes over the years, is the Legion usually consulted? Do you have an ongoing discussion with the government on benefits for your members?
Ms. Hughes: Yes, we do. We meet with the minister and the deputy minister once or twice a year. I personally have a monthly meeting with my colleagues in VAC, my counterparts, but it’s not necessarily on budget items. It’s more on how a new business process is being implemented and all the pitfalls that might happen or the benefits that might happen. It’s more on that line. But we do meet with the minister regularly, and the deputy minister.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Sauvé.
We have known each other for about 10 years. We worked together before you joined the union and before the bill was adopted to integrate a union into the RCMP. We did well.
However, there is one thing we have not succeeded in doing. The RCMP does not seem to understand that when you touch a union member’s benefits, you have to consult with their union first. Earlier officials admitted that they did not consult with the unions before making these changes. Is that correct?
Mr. Sauvé: Yes, that’s true. When we and the RCMP began working on Bill C-7 10 years ago to unionize the RCMP, we didn’t have the opportunity to change the law and we weren’t able to negotiate anything that is regulated by Canada’s various laws. For example, there is nothing in our collective agreement about pensions. Anything that is changed or regulated by legislation in Canada is off-limits to us in our negotiations. That’s what I believe the RCMP thinks. They don’t need to consult with us because we can’t negotiate it.
Senator Carignan: At some point, an amendment to the law should be proposed.
To me, the difference in indexation between the CPI and the increase or rate of pay is fundamental. Disability means income replacement, so we must try to put police officers in the same position they would have been in had they remained employed. Salary indexation or collective agreement negotiations normally result in a higher salary than the CPI. This part of the rate of pay is therefore important in calculating the pension. Have you calculated how many people would be affected by this change and how much they would lose over a five- to ten-year period?
Mr. Sauvé: No, we haven’t done that calculation. However, I can provide you with a submission for the numbers of RCMP members who are still with the RCMP and have active files with Veterans Affairs Canada. That will give us an idea of how many members will be affected by these changes.
I would like to clarify one thing. It is not just the disability pension that is affected here, but also survivors’ benefits. So when a member dies, the disability pension continues for the spouse and children, and it continues to be indexed in the future.
Senator Carignan: Are we talking about a million dollars that the government is going to save at the expense of pensioners?
Mr. Sauvé: It seems that way, yes.
Senator Carignan: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I’m going to your comment, Mr. Sauvé, in terms of protecting privacy. In comparison to the Canadian Armed Forces, I hadn’t even thought about Public Safety plus the RCMP plus VAC. That’s three nodes as opposed to two within the Canadian Armed Forces. Yes, I think you have every right to need to understand what those parameters are in terms of sharing.
You did very quickly go through areas you thought needed to be addressed. Could you please tell me what those are again, and do you recommend them in legislation or do you think they can be followed up in regulation?
Mr. Sauvé: If I may, I think we can draw the assumption that over the last decade there have been challenges in the trust relationship between the membership of the RCMP on the ground and the management of the RCMP. To their credit, the RCMP has come a long way. I think we’re on a solid path forward to have a better relationship between member and management. However, within the RCMP versus within the CAF, for example, we’re now considered insured persons under the Canada Health Act. Therefore, provincial and territorial health regimes apply versus the Canadian Armed Forces are not. They are linear within their own chain of command. What we do see are challenges with our members willing to disclose information from their private health care practitioners, paid for by the provinces and the territories in Canada, to the RCMP for fear of change of medical status or occupational profile, so a lack of trust.
When someone applies to Veterans Affairs Canada for a disability pension based on evidence from an occupational injury in the line of duty to Canada, the sharing of information is, I think, their trust challenge. Sharing from their RCMP occupational health file to VAC to make a determination is cool, and no issues there, but how much does Veterans Affairs share back to the RCMP? That’s the area of concern. At present, all they share back is the name, the regimental number and the classification of disability. They don’t share the actual percentage. Sharing the percentage and sharing further diagnostic information could become challenging, especially when you already have a challenging trust relationship.
Senator Patterson: I think the actual clinical diagnosis is the biggest challenge you’re referring to, and I think under regulation and processes, clarifying and articulating that to members will be quite critical.
I’d like to pose the same question to our other witnesses here in terms of what you are hearing on your network. Please excuse me for ignoring veterans right now with the Legion. But what are you hearing on your networks in terms of concerns about sharing information, impacts on careers, et cetera?
Patrick Imbeau, Senior Advisor, Retirement Income Security, National Association of Federal Retirees: In terms of sharing information, I can’t say we’ve been hearing a whole lot. Our membership is mostly retired, so they’ve already gone through the process and may not be really focused on that. We’ve mostly been hearing concern around the amounts — how that will be affected, the indexation of their disability benefits. Those are more the issues that have been shared with us.
Senator Patterson: The same for yourself as well?
Mr. Pizzino: Yes.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Pizzino. I’m from the Northwest Territories, and on the previous panel we were discussing the definition of “provinces” and the exclusion of the territories. You also spoke about it. You spoke about the complexity as it applies to the definition of “provinces” and exclusion of the territories. I’d like to know, in your opinion, what is your understanding and the intent of the definition of “provinces”? Could you expand on the potential impact?
Mr. Pizzino: Patrick and I are from the same organization. I’ll ask Patrick to take that one on.
Mr. Imbeau: In this specific case, whoever was interpreting the act at the time saw “province” and just assumed it meant the 10 provinces and not the territories. When it comes to calculating for accommodations and meals, they just never considered the territories, which has the lowest charge that they charge to their veterans for long-term care. That essentially led — since 1998, apparently — to an overcharge to all veterans in that case. I can’t guess exactly what the choice was there. I’m assuming it was an oversight, but this decision now to change that definition is probably to prevent that litigation.
Senator Anderson: In your opinion, should that definition be amended? Should it be looked at again?
Mr. Imbeau: I think it should remain what it is in the Interpretation Act, which is that the provinces includes the territories.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you, all, for your testimony today and your work.
I want to go back, if I may, to the increased access to personal health data and data sharing. I always worry about data governance and sovereignty and want to know what the intent of increased access to personal health data would be. As well, what about the knowledge of people? Is there consent to the sharing of that data, like actual knowledge given, consent given? I’m sort of sitting in that area, and you’ve talked very clearly about it.
In your opinion, why do you think Budget 2025 or BIA 2025 is putting this forward? What is the intent of the increased access to personal health data?
Mr. Sauvé: Do you want the cynic in me? From what I understand, and from what I’ve been told from the inquiries we’ve already made — but I am a police officer so I am skeptical and suspicious — what I’ve been told is that this is a very simple legislative change to clarify the authorities to administer something that already exists. Okay. If that’s the case, I think we’d be satisfied with that. However, the suspicions or the cynic in me would say that this is designed to cleanse the RCMP of those who may not be universal in service. Universality of service is something that the CAF has put in its rear-view mirror. The RCMP has never had a universality of service, so if your occupational profile is between one and three or four, you can do operational policing — one being you are perfectly fit and four being you might need some accommodation with limitations and restrictions, and two and three in between. Graduating Depot, everybody is minimum a two. If you’re an emergency response team member, you might be a one. My suspicions are that information sharing could be the greatest in spirit and intent, but the worry would be that it would be abused or “misinterpreted” by some on the receiving end.
Senator Hay: Just to dive again around consent and the members you serve and all of you serve, consent is really important. What I heard you talk about is around, I guess, the word “stigma.” I’ve worked in the world of mental health and data, and stigma is very, very real. People either hide or they share, and then potentially the worry would be a privacy breach or misuse of someone’s personal data. You indicated that your members might not be worried about this yet — did you say that, because I might have misunderstood that?
Mr. Sauvé: They would be worried about over-disclosure of information, yes.
Senator Hay: Should this be brought forward in a more transparent way, for people to understand that their personal data would be shared?
Mr. Sauvé: The one big piece about that one section of my opening remarks is we can clarify legislative authorities about who owns what — the Minister of Veterans Affairs governs the Pension Act, and the Minister of Public Safety governs the RCMP Superannuation Act. The only real big thing that stands out for me there is, why are we throwing in information sharing, and what does that mean? Information sharing between ministries or organizations could easily be done by MOU, which already exists, by the way. There is an MOU between Veterans Affairs and the RCMP for the administration and application of disability benefits. So is that not working?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Mr. Pizzino, you mentioned the class-action lawsuit. The deadline for claims was March 19, 2025, but payments are ongoing and must be completed by March 19, 2026. Do the provisions of Bill C-15 have a negative impact on the current payment process? Of course, there is also the coming into force date of Bill C-15 in 2027. Do you think everything will be settled by then?
Mr. Imbeau: Yes. I think everything will be settled. It’s a decision that has already been made. I would be surprised if we went back on that decision, even with changes to this bill. There is a class-action lawsuit, which is another issue we were discussing. That one will be affected, because the decision has not yet been made.
Senator Youance: With regard to this ongoing settlement, does Budget 2025 provide sufficient guarantees for the financial health of veteran pensioners to prevent a recurrence of the situation that existed prior to the settlement? What concrete measures should be added to prevent these mistakes from happening again?
Mr. Imbeau: I believe that settles the issue. With regard to the calculations, I think it was made very clear with the class‑action lawsuit that the necessary changes were made in this bill. That means they saw what happened and took the opportunity to make changes in other areas to avoid further class action lawsuits.
Senator Youance: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator McNair: To the witnesses here in person and online, thank you for being here tonight.
Clause 378 of Bill C-15 provides the Governor General in Council with the power to make regulations having retroactive effect in relation to the Earnings Loss Benefit. Given the attention some of these changes brought in by this bill have received, I worry a bit that future changes could be less public, which could cause confusion and obviously some unexpected changes to these payments when they are received. Do you share those concerns? Are you confident that the recipients will be kept up to date on any changes that could happen through the regulations in the future? I’ll start with the legion and then go to the other panellists.
Ms. Hughes: I am sorry, I missed part of your question.
Senator McNair: I’m curious to know whether you are confident you will be kept up to date on regulations made having a retroactive effect in relation to the earning loss benefit or whether change may proceed without those affected by it being consulted in advance?
Ms. Hughes: Thank you.
The Earnings Loss Benefit has been rolled into the Income Replacement Benefit. I am confident that we will be informed of what’s going on with that and, if we’re not, I can pick up the phone, call and get answers. We have a very good relationship with Veterans Affairs that way, but a lot of people don’t have that information out there.
With the calculations, from what I’m understanding, for the CAF, none of the benefits will be reduced. They’re enshrined in the acts, and they will not be reduced.
Senator McNair: It is good to hear that and good to hear you have that relationship with them.
Mr. Sauvé: Seeing as I’m the union guy negotiating with the government on behalf of serving members, the word “retroactive” is always attractive to us because we’re talking about retroactive salary increases in our negotiation. However, legislated retroactivity is a scary thing for unions. Even if the spirit and intent is fantastic and hearts are made of gold, you never know what some future government may choose to do.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Mr. Pizzino: Senator, your question, as I understood it, is about communications, and it has been lacking. We are getting a lot of questions from members about lack of clarity around communications. I think certainly it could be done a lot better.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: My question is also about communications, and in particular, to Ms. Hughes. I wanted to clarify what you were saying earlier. Do you think that most veterans think their benefits are being cut? I wasn’t sure if that’s what you’re saying. Do they think they’re being cut?
Since you are regularly in communication with the department, do you know what their plans are to communicate? I mean, after all, they are the ones who are providing the disability benefit. They obviously have very good contact information with the benefit recipients, so they can easily communicate with them. Very easily, they could send out emails tonight or whenever.
Do you know what their plans are? It sounds as if they may be confused about a lot of aspects of this. We’re hearing that benefits are not going down. That’s what we heard earlier, and we want to try to figure what people think is happening and what the plans are.
Ms. Hughes: Well, there’s a lot of miscommunication out there because, unfortunately, social media can be used for good but it can also be used for rumours. If there are a few veterans out there who believe the benefits are being cut and that gets out there on social media, that’s when I start to see a lot of anxiety about it.
For example, with the medical cannabis, a lot of veterans were thinking they were being cut from their prescription, and they’re not. The amount that they receive, that they’re prescribed by their doctor, is not going down, but that was their first initial reaction. The amount that’s paid to the providers is going down, but that’s to keep it with market value. Now I’m starting to hear that they’re worried about the quality, which I would hope that Health Canada is monitoring and making the quality beneficial when they’re prescribed for medical reasons.
But, yes, the communications from Veterans Affairs, we have asked them to communicate better time and again over the years. It’s always a challenge for them to get the information out there quickly. I mean, it will probably be out eventually, but I would like to see it, like I said, right away. How does this affect me? Within a week, that should have been clarified to veterans on how it affects them.
Senator Dasko: Are you aware of what their plans are going down the road with this?
Ms. Hughes: Not with communications, no.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: We will go to a second round.
Senator Patterson: Ms. Hughes, I am going to follow up on the cannabis question and also share on the veteran’s side of the RCMP. Some of the concerns not only are the quality, but it is about what if reimbursement decreases and a veteran ends up being charged the delta between the two. Are you hearing anything from Veterans Affairs in terms of how this will be managed? Is there a recourse mechanism? How do they plan to actually structure a purchase of cannabis from vendors?
Ms. Hughes: That’s a challenging question. I haven’t heard any complaints or concerns about that yet. That doesn’t mean I won’t. I know that VAC will pay more for a specific benefit when there’s a medical reason. If a doctor prescribes something and says “no substitution” and you have to pay for not the generic but the original medication, VAC will pay for it, like a lot of health insurance companies. With the cannabis, I’m not sure. I don’t know a whole lot. I’m not a doctor. But the quality, I would hope, is monitored by Health Canada and the prices — that they don’t gouge Veterans Affairs, and they don’t try to gouge the veterans if Veterans Affairs is not paying for the full amount. It’s something I’ll be keeping an eye out for too.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
May I also ask, on the non-serving side of the RCMP, are you hearing anything?
Mr. Sauvé: To our knowledge, it’s not part of the budget implementation act.
Mr. Imbeau: Specifically to what the committee was looking at, we haven’t heard anything specific but, of course, there are members who are worried about how much they’ll receive, but not necessarily the quality. I haven’t heard that one in particular. Any time there are funds involved, people start to worry about it and we start getting emails and phone calls.
Senator Hay: I’ll talk about security and cybersecurity when it comes to data and the concern around the increased access. I just have to go down this path because it’s not if a breach happens but when. Would you comment on your sense of confidence that there would be appropriate parameters and then emergency preparedness for a breach? That is personal data, health data. Perhaps this isn’t the right panel, but my head’s in that space right now.
Mr. Sauvé: I have done some research on this just in the past three weeks for something completely different. The RCMP has already had a breach. We had third-party vendors that were breached, relocation services, which impacted some of our retirees as well as just hurting members. That was personal, financial and tombstone data information that was out there. I would suspect that any member who was impacted from that, the response from the RCMP was to monitor your Equifax and let us know. So I don’t think we’re ready.
Cyber breaches, whether accidental or malicious attacks, are on the rise. If you recall, in 2019, the Los Angeles Police Department was attacked, and serving as well as applicant data was released. In 2023, it was the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and that was an accidental one in response to a freedom of information request where thousands of Northern Ireland police officers’ personal information was released. I know some of my colleagues in Northern Ireland, and they still don’t disclose to friends or family that they are police officers, just based on the troubles and the recovery from that. Cybersecurity is an ongoing issue. From our perspective, I don’t think the world is ready, and we all need to do better because bad actors in that sphere are not going away, and they will continuously look for more ways to leverage.
Senator Hay: I agree. Just a final follow-up, what would you suggest be added here as an amendment to strengthen this? You commented this being high risk for your members. What would you change or add to this?
Mr. Sauvé: Regarding the information sharing piece? I don’t think it needs to be in legislation. Most of it happens via secure email or file-to-file transfer today. We’re talking about Protected B information or sometimes Protected C information as part of the RCMP security classification, so those have to be encrypted emails if I send them one way back and forth, or for Protected C it is hand to hand. We’re talking about personal and medical information. Does that need to be legislated when you are talking about safety-sensitive occupations? We’re talking about the big topics of national security, border security, Arctic sovereignty and all of those things today, and the people who could be leveraged, which is the membership of the RCMP and future retirees of the RCMP, in an environment where different governments across the world would love to have that information to be able to leverage to their own advantage.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question follows on that of my colleague.
For Bill C-15, we received a binder with questions and answers. The exchange of various types of information, including personal information, was added to the bill because they say that previously there was legislative ambiguity. However, you say that it was not necessary to include it in the legislation. What are your arguments against adding this exchange of information to the legislation?
Mr. Sauvé: I am not sure why they included it in the bill. As I said earlier, if it is purely to clarify the administration of the various sectors and departments in the administration of the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, that is fine. However, in the administration of disability pension applications with veterans, would it be possible, outside of a bill, to have an agreement between the affected ministers and departments? It is not from minister to minister, but rather the RCMP commissioner and perhaps the Minister of Veterans Affairs who will be mandated to deal with the RCMP. They can agree on an out-of-court settlement. It would take something to say that we will transfer information to the Department of Veterans Affairs or the RCMP. This has already been in place since 2017 or 2018. Can we renew this agreement between the two departments, the RCMP and Veterans Affairs Canada?
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: This brings us to the end of our time with this panel. Thank you, Mr. Sauvé, Mr. Pizzino, Mr. Imbeau and Ms. Hughes for your time today.
For our final panel, we welcome, as individuals, Michel Drapeau, Colonel-Maître, Michel Drapeau Law Office; and Dennis Manuge, Canadian Forces Veteran. Thank you for joining us. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that each of you will have five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Drapeau, Lead Counsel, Michel Drapeau Law Office, as an individual: Good evening, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me.
For nearly 25 years I have been practising law advocating for military and veterans’ rights. Prior to my military career I served for 34 years in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Given the size and complexity of Bill C-15, I thought it would be advantageous to put on paper my specific objections to Bill C-15 as it concerns the veterans’ community.
To that end, this past Friday I provided the clerk a brief titled “Sacred Obligations to Veterans pushed aside by Bill C-15”. I trust and hope that my brief has reached you prior to this meeting.
[English]
Bill C-15 signals a fundamental shift in the attitude of government towards veterans and their families. As a third‑generation veteran committed to military service for Canada, I firmly believe that this change will likely have possible long‑lasting consequences on the morale of serving Canadian Armed Forces members, as well as Canada’s half million veterans, and likely negative repercussions on the level of public support for volunteer service in the military. This is taking place at a time when Canada is actively trying to significantly augment the size of the Canadian Armed Forces.
A case in point: Last week I received a copy of a letter addressed to this committee by Dr. Anthony Broski whose father, the late LCol. Stanley Broski, whom I had the pleasure to serve with during my service, resided a total of nine years in long-term care before passing in his ninety-fourth year this past May. During that period, LCol. Broski was overcharged by approximately $3,000 per year by Veterans Affairs for the expenses incurred for his accommodation and meals, a not‑insignificant amount.
Under Division 19, at page 441 of the bill, the government seeks to legislate away its miscalculation of pension benefits. This legislative clarification, as they call it, stems from a class action settlement that both I and Mr. Dennis Manuge were a part of.
Of note, Mr. Manuge was also representative plaintiff in a class action concerning the escalation formula in section 75 of the Pension Act. The class action resulted in a settlement for veterans because the territorial rate had not been used by Veterans Affairs, who incorrectly applied section 75 of the Pension Act.
[Translation]
The proposed amendment under Division 20 of Bill C-15 retroactively changes the legislation to suppress the right of veterans to receive compensation for this error of miscalculation by Veterans Affairs Canada.
[English]
The issue here is quite simple. Since 1993, the government has miscalculated the formula used to charge veterans in long-term care for their meals and accommodation costs. The result is that, for a prolonged period, thousands of disabled veterans, mostly receiving end-of-life care, were overcharged by government. That cost was supposed to be set at a level equal to the lowest cost of room and board in the least expensive province, with federal law defining “province” to include territories. This was ignored by VAC and, contrary to the legislation, these veterans were charged a higher rate.
If the change proposed by Bill C-15 to the Veterans Health Care Regulations and the Pension Act are approved, this will legislate away VAC’s obligation to consider the territorial rates when adjusting annual pension amounts. Much worse, the legislation will have a retroactive effect, wiping out the amounts due to these veterans.
[Translation]
So, if Bill C-15 passes as is, instead of repaying disabled veterans or their estates for this overcharging, government will simply turn the page and keep the money.
[English]
One last point which I need to emphasize: In my brief submitted to the committee, I also express concerns that the retroactive nature of Bill C-15, particularly targeting disabled veterans who asked the court to protect their benefits, raises significant Charter rights issues. I believe that the government has in fact a fiduciary duty towards those veterans.
That concludes my comments, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, colonel, for being here and your time today.
Dennis Manuge, Canadian Forces Veteran, as an individual: Good afternoon, Senate committee members and chair. It has been 17-and-a-half years since my last appearance before a Senate committee. Thank you for the invitation to educate you on the impact of a poorly written and very poorly communicated budget on disabled veterans and our families
I will educate you on how we got here, which is veterans living in fear for their financial well-being.
My name is Dennis Manuge. I am a Canadian Forces veteran and a former representative plaintiff for two class actions against the Government of Canada on behalf of 350,000 to 400,000 disabled veterans, their families and estates. I’ll draw on my experiences over the past two decades trying to advocate for and assist veterans in living out their days with financial dignity.
The first class action, known as the SISIP clawback class action, protected Veterans Affairs Canada disability pensions awarded for pain and suffering from being included as income and/or offset from long-term disability insurance, SISIP and, later, the Earnings Loss Benefit, which is now the Income Replacement Benefit. It is hard to follow all of this sometimes. It set a legal precedent, if you will, that protected the integrity of a VAC disability pension not being tied to income. It is not taxable. It is not income. It can’t be deducted.
The second class action, the one more applicable in this case, is known as the miscalculation — the miscalculation — of disability benefits case, which Mr. Drapeau referred to in his comments. This case was supposed to correct the annual indexing formula miscalculation that everybody is talking about on disability pensions and provide some restitution in the way of damages and interest due to the mistake lasting a couple of decades if you include the period where the government hid the miscalculation error from veterans and Canadian taxpayers.
Unfortunately, class counsel settled this action with no solution moving forward, so we got damages in that case, but the formula which we wanted the territories included in — because it is not about the territories, it is about the rate of the territories, which is advantageous when used to calculate — that’s the difference. That’s where the cost-cutting in the billions is coming. We did not get a legal precedent. I was not informed of this by class counsel or I never would have agreed as a representative plaintiff to the settlement as written in the Manuge miscalculation case. Now, this case may very well have settled regardless of my opinion. There were other plaintiffs. But I was not given, or communicated appropriately to, to make an informed decision on the settlement.
Both class counsel, the Prime Minister’s Office, everybody, knew that the government could and would legislate this index issue to make it advantageous for the Government of Canada, i.e., less money to the veteran over time.
It is hard to heal from trauma when you continue to be traumatized. The way this budget was put forward and communicated is negligent. The Veterans Affairs Canada minister woefully underinformed, or prepared to answer simple, basic questions, about how this budget would impact veterans financially, first broke on Remembrance Day evening on the CBC. It went over like a lead balloon.
I’m not a math guy, an economist or a lawyer. What I know is everything costs more and disabled veterans don’t get promoted and can’t change companies. Indexing is vital to keep up with our family’s housing and bills. I have heard from many veterans not well enough to understand all this or the implications. They are afraid of receiving less, which they will over time.
Last evening on Global News, we have news of Veterans Affairs Canada sending out letters to veterans to recoup money, and on it goes, accusing veterans of dishonesty and keeping things from them. I pass that on to committee members.
The Chair: Could I get you to wrap up, Dennis, and then we will get to the questions?
Mr. Manuge: Yes. Absolutely, sir.
VAC is an untrustable organization, beyond poorly managed and so bureaucratically cumbersome that the average Canadian citizen would just give up. Maybe that’s the point. We have a saying in the community, the veterans community, “Deny, delay, until they die.” Of course, this budget is having a negative impact on us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you kindly for your comments and your presentations.
We’ll move to questions, colleagues. We have our guests until 7:20. We’ll do our best to allow each member to ask their questions. With that in mind, we have four minutes allotted for each senator, including the answer, so I’ll ask you to keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible. I will offer the first question to Senator Carignan, on behalf of the steering committee.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Drapeau.
I read your opening remarks and listened to you. You say that the government is intervening to avoid repaying amounts owed under a class action settlement. I have a hard time seeing how the government can retroactively avoid paying out money that was awarded in the class action settlement. You had an out-of-court settlement that was enforceable. Hasn’t the government already paid out that money, and will it now be seized with the passage of this bill? That’s not clear to me.
Mr. Drapeau: I will clarify it for you.
There was a class action lawsuit called Manuge, which settled the amounts owed to veterans as a result of an indexing error for the period between 1993 and 2024. That has been settled. Mr. Manuge does not agree with the settlement as a whole, but 330,000 veterans received benefits and those people continue to be paid. There are other veterans who have also suffered similar harm, including the one I mentioned earlier, those in long-term care facilities.
Senator Carignan: Who were not covered by the class action lawsuit?
Mr. Drapeau: They were not covered by that class action lawsuit.
Senator Carignan: I understand. So, this covers those who were not covered by the class action lawsuit?
Mr. Drapeau: This covers those people. The agreement reached with the Department of Justice for the first Manuge settlement expired at the end of 2023. The year 2024 was not included in any of this. At the time, we were hopeful that the government would change the law or at least require veterans to comply with the law that requires the territory with the lowest rate to be used. This was not the case. These amounts are still owed to our veterans for the year 2024.
Senator Carignan: I understand.
Mr. Drapeau: There will be a new class action lawsuit to ensure that veterans are reimbursed.
Senator Carignan: I understand.
And you filed another class action lawsuit that circumvents the second class action lawsuit by changing the law?
Mr. Drapeau: Yes. I think we’re going to mix everyone up. There’s a class action lawsuit, Manuge, which has been settled —
Senator Carignan: That’s right, but there’s another suit under way.
Mr. Drapeau: There are two other class action suits currently under way. One of them has already been certified by the court. We are well into the process. The second one has not yet reached that stage.
Senator Carignan: Bill C-15 pulls the rug out from under this recourse?
Mr. Drapeau: Exactly. The law is being changed retroactively.
Senator Carignan: Retroactively, so it renders your appeal completely null and void?
Mr. Drapeau: Perhaps. However, there are other issues. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, there is the whole question of Charter rights. That will certainly come into play, especially in the case of veterans in long-term care, those who are the most vulnerable. I am referring, for example, to Lieutenant Colonel Broski, who was 94 years old when he died after nine years in these circumstances. It was his son who wrote to the committee, Dr. Broski, who finds this intolerable. This is money that is owed to his estate.
Senator Carignan: You are saying that additional obstacles are being created, which means that instead of just arguing the merits of our case, we have to add Charter arguments to fight Bill C-15?
Mr. Drapeau: These aren’t obstacles. We all have financial obligations. If you were told overnight that your rent would go from $2,000 to $3,000 a month and that you had to make four or five years of payments, what would you say? Or that the payments for the car you decided to buy are no longer $45,000, but $55,000, and it’s retroactive?
For these veterans, it’s $3,130 per month to be precise. Over nine years, that’s nearly $35,000 that this elderly gentleman and his family would have received. Through the class action lawsuit we are filing, this is money that the estate will receive.
Changing the law in this way took us by surprise. There are all the interests of all these veterans.
In Canada, there are 500,000 veterans, many of whom are affected by this. I cannot give you the exact number for each class action lawsuit, but in Manuge, there were 330,000 such veterans.
We are talking about money and principles. I am a veteran, my father was a veteran, my grandfather was a veteran, my godfather was a veteran. I am in good company when I see these people. I am fortunate to be in good health, but that is not the case for all my colleagues and fellow citizens. I believe Canada has a sacred obligation to support veterans. We are talking about a 94-year-old veteran who served 35 years in the infantry. In his letter, Dr. Broski explains in great detail the various missions his father carried out, that sort of thing.
Senator Carignan: Thank you. That is much clearer.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We’re a little bit over, but that’s okay.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Mr. Manuge and Colonel Drapeau, for being here. Colonel, you’ve given a lot of service to veterans over a long period of time. I want to congratulate or thank you for that. You often appear in the media to explain these issues to us, and I think that’s a great benefit to us all, so thank you for making time, both of you, and for joining us today.
I want to understand the setting of rates. We’ve been talking about CPI or wage rate, but there’s the issue of the territories and how, by excluding them — at the end of the day, everybody gets the same payout, whether they’re in a territory or province. Do I understand correctly from what you said that by not including the territories, you probably end up with a lower rate because the expenses are higher?
Mr. Drapeau: Without going into the details, let me give you an example in order to illustrate the point. In the case of the wage rate, we have an opportunity, in fact, to use the rates of any provinces. As defined in the Interpretation Act, it includes the 10 organizations that are known as provinces but also the three territories — Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon — and the law specifies that we will use the lowest rate. The lowest rate could be Nunavut, but it happens to be the Northwest Territories. Veterans Affairs did not do this. Instead, without being specific, they use the Ontario rate, which was significantly less, depending on what you look at. In meals and accommodation, it was more than the territory that should have been used. It’s as simple as that, but it has a multiplying effect over a number of years and a number of people.
Senator Cardozo: With regard to the payment for long-term care, if you’ve got a veteran in long-term care for a period of time, they’re there. They’re paying a certain rate for a meal. Through your class action suits, you verified that they were overpaying —
Mr. Drapeau: We knew that for a fact. That’s right.
Senator Cardozo: Now the issue is if they get paid back or not, and your concern is, with this act, they will lose that ability to receive the repayment, correct?
Mr. Drapeau: Yes. The accommodation and meal rate has been set at a certain amount in the territories, and the Northwest Territories should have been used. Instead, it happened to be Ontario. In the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Broski, he would have overpaid $3,130 per year. If the law is changed, first of all, we have to do away with the class action, and his claim for having been overcharged is wiped out, according to the law which retroactively said that’s what it’s going to be. We will challenge that, obviously, and as I said, I think we have some serious Charter arguments to raise if that were to happen. This is the legislation that is before you, and it will have a very negative impact on a number of veterans and a negative impact on those who believe that there’s a sacred obligation that Canada has recognized for years to support veterans, particularly those who are the most vulnerable and the most requiring services and requiring support.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Thank you both for your opening statements.
Part of my question has been answered, but Colonel Drapeau, I want to go back to the concept of social contract and sacred obligations. I know this has been bantered about over the last 20 or so years as, “No, we don’t; yes, we do.” I’m very curious as to how you can see this applying into this particular bill. How would we apply that social contract? What would it look like?
Mr. Drapeau: The law, as it existed in 1993, to use a point, was clear, and it could be interpreted only one way. It says the lowest rate in a province. And when you go to the Interpretation Act, in the Interpretation Act, the provinces includes the territories and the provinces, so it’s very easy to go through. A Grade 3 student should be able to say this is the rate you need to apply. They haven’t applied, and hence we have a class-action suit in order to ensure, in fact, that this money can be recouped and paid to these veterans. At the moment, if the bill were to pass as it is, then, in fact, we’re changing the books. We’re changing the commitment. We’re saying, “Oh, no, you were mistaken all along,” because now we’re redefining “province” as it should have been read in 1993 or any time in between.
When we said sacred obligation, yes, there is some dispute whether or not there is a sacred obligation, but if you look at the literature and if you go back to 1917, when the prime minister of the day referred to sacred obligation, over the years I think it’s been accepted across political lines in Canadian society, and many other of our allies, that there is an obligation. If we’re going to be asking men and women to serve in uniform and be subject to the ultimate sacrifice, if you get hurt or if you go, the nation will look after you and your family. That’s what it is. From my perspective, you don’t change horses midcourse. That was a commitment we made to those veterans, including Broski when he was hospitalized for nine years, and that’s the rate he should have been paid, and he didn’t know it, so he overpaid. We owe him this money. I don’t think there’d be any argument there. You can change the law, but in the minds of people, in the minds of those half a million veterans and their families, they’ve been short-changed. As a veteran, I don’t think this is what Canada stands for.
Senator Patterson: I can see that connecting also to the social contract that you stated and articulated in your note to us. Thank you for that as well.
Given your legal background, even if this bill does move forward — and I’m going to ask again, and I know you’ve been asked — are people like the estate of Mr. Broski or others going to be able to appeal this decision?
Mr. Drapeau: I don’t know. I can tell you from my legal training that there is a Charter issue here. I’d need to be convinced otherwise. I’m not. I discussed that with some of my mates, and we think there is, and we think Canada, under the circumstances, has a fiduciary duty toward the veterans, particularly those who are disabled. We’ll be examining this in detail. We’re not going to take this sitting down. I think we’re duty-bound to fight on behalf of those veterans, and we will. We have a record of doing so, and we’re not going to stop now.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much. You’ve helped me clarify between the social contract and how you can continue to support veterans. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Mr. Manuge, earlier we talked about consulting with veterans and pensioners in the context of budget preparation. I would like to take this a step further: Do you think veterans should play an official role in developing policies and oversight mechanisms related to pension calculations, etc.?
[English]
Mr. Manuge: Thank you for the question, senator.
I don’t know if veterans specifically need a role. I do know some very smart, fiscal veterans that could probably contribute. What I think is needed is for the government to do right by us instead of nickel and diming us. The only reason the territories aren’t included is so the rate for all of us is lower, and, over time, I’ve been told by some of my smarter veteran colleagues when it comes to this, that in 25 years, that could look like $80,000 less to the veteran, just on the indexing. Maybe we need that in writing from the people that do this for a living. I’m an army mechanic.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: After two class action lawsuits revealed systemic errors in the calculation, instead of involvement, could we have independent monitoring or auditing measures for returns to ensure transparency?
[English]
Mr. Manuge: Right. Absolutely, oversight. I mean, again, the senators and Canadian people have to understand how complex this stuff is. Ma’am, I have five diagnosed mental illnesses, and I’m saying what I’m saying. We need help. We need a cavalry. We need senators and politicians to do right by us. We’re not asking to be rich. We’re asking to be treated fairly and appropriately, and if there are veterans from the territories that serve, why don’t we use the tax rates from the territories they serve from in the calculations so that veterans get that? Let’s apply that to everything. Long-term care, meals. It’s not rocket science. Again, I’m an army mechanic, but this stuff continues to go on, and we pay the price. And we’re fearful.
People see, in this economy, an opportunity that they’re going to get less, however little that is. You know what it costs to live in Canada right now. That’s the point to this. We’ve taken it from all sides here. We had an opportunity with the case that is settled, with this miscalculation, and the lawyers chose to settle it and not hold out to immortalize the formula including the territories. That’s the issue. And it was ordered by the Prime Minister’s Office. That’s the other issue. Why do they do that? To save money. That’s why they do that, because they were going to legislate it away, i.e. the budget we’re all here talking about.
Thank you for that question. It was outstanding.
The Chair: We’ll move to the second round.
Senator Patterson: This is more of a forward-looking question, given your experience trying to advocate and go through, unfortunately, legal processes. I know how hard that is, and how challenging it is. Dennis, thank you for all that you’ve done stepping forward, and yourself. Given all of your experiences challenging the various aspects of the Veterans Affairs system, if you could, what additional reforms would you prioritize to ensure fairness and clarity for future veterans? We’ve covered a number in terms of formulation. Is there anything else you’d like to add? Dennis, I can let you go first, if you’d like.
Mr. Manuge: Thank you for the question, senator. And until I got off my little tangent there, the previous senator did a great job.
It’s auditing. There is no trust. There is no trust, and we continue to get bad news and cost-cutting. That’s what the New Veterans Charter was. We got rid of the Pension Act pensions, the lifelong, costly pensions over time, for cheap lump sums. That’s by design to save money, so very much auditing. I can use myself as an example. I’m covered by three pieces of legislation under Veterans Affairs Canada. Imagine the person I call on the other end of the phone and what they’re interpreting in the layer upon layer of bureaucracy and silliness.
The other thing that is important to me is the disability tax credit and CPP disability. That’s federal government. If a veteran is deemed permanently incapacitated and on income replacement benefit, why are they doing another application for a disability benefit with the federal government? If you want to reduce cost, cut the people in three places that do the same thing and adjudicate a disability claim.
My apologies for getting amped up, but it’s ludicrous that we have to continue to be placed below. We’re not asking for special; we’re asking for fair. If this country includes the territories, well, then they should be included in calculations.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Dennis. Never worry about how you speak. We ask the question, and we respect your answer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Drapeau: In my practice on a day-to-day basis, I meet with veterans. For the past 25 years, I’ve seen a number of those. Overall, I must say that Veterans Affairs is doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances. That’s my assessment of it. I think the veterans are, on the whole, well looked after. There’s never any perfection in anything that we do, but they do try.
I was particularly pleased to hear that Minister McKnight appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of the House, and she said, “We owe a debt of gratitude to veterans.” Recently appointed to that position, she recognized the duty she owes to veterans. That was very welcome to say. She said that veterans receive the compassionate support they deserve. That’s basically the task she has.
She went on to talk about the bill itself, and she said that the amendment will clarify and will provide adjustment and clarification. I didn’t quite know what she meant by this. She said, at 15:45 of her comments, that it “will not change.” We will not have a “retroactive effect.” That’s what the minister said before the committee. I take her commitment, which I accept and I salute. It’s in accord with what normally issues regardless of what the parties have done over the past decades since I’ve been in office. There is some hesitation on her part to recognize, in fact, that this bill, if passed, would have negative consequences, serious consequences, to a number of veterans, and that has to be recognized.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question is for the two witnesses.
Bill C-15 confers significant discretionary powers with regard to the budget. The amendment states that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has the legal authority to administer, decide on, and pay past and future benefits provided for in Part 2. The legislative amendment clarifies this. Do you think this new provision will have an impact on the protection of veterans’ rights?
Mr. Drapeau: I don’t remember the text, so I can’t tell you. I have no problem with what you just read to me. It’s a clarification of the term. I have no problem with that.
Senator Youance: Does this have any consequences on or advantages to protecting veterans’ rights?
Mr. Drapeau: This does not mean that the minister will retroactively change the law as it existed several years ago and have a negative impact on the compensation paid to veterans. That is not mentioned in what you have just told me.
Senator Youance: There is no need to add legislative safeguards for potential —
Mr. Drapeau: I don’t think so. Clauses 19 and 20 of the current bill do not address the retroactivity of this issue. There are negative consequences not only financially, but also in terms of respect for veterans, the morale of those currently serving in the Canadian Forces, and those whose fathers and mothers see them as future recruits of the Canadian Forces. If the message we send is that we do not honour our commitments and that we can change the law at will, that is not consistent with the sacred obligation that Canada has always recognized toward our veterans.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
Mr. Manuge, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Mr. Manuge: No. I think Mr. Drapeau covered it well.
Senator Hay: Thank you both for your work and your testimony today.
I do want to talk a little about mental health and both your experiences. I’ll be very specific for you, Colonel Drapeau, but Mr. Manuge — Dennis, if I may — when you speak as an advocate and on behalf of yourself but with others, what are the impacts to mental health with this prolonged dialogue and wait times on getting answers and changes in decision? Just talk about mental health a little. You made a comment that it’s hard to heal from trauma when there are feelings of being retraumatized. I do want to speak about that.
If I may, my follow-up would be for you, colonel. When you talk about the long-lasting consequences about reduced morale, does this increase risk of litigation because of risk of mental health impact, lower morale?
First, what are you seeing on the ground, Dennis, about mental health — you can speak to it yourself — and then additional risk to litigation, if I could, on the follow-up.
Mr. Manuge: Thank you, senator, for the question. It’s probably one of the best questions I’ve ever been asked. It’s catastrophic on our mental health, especially people with OSI — Operational Stress Injury — concussions, head trauma. It’s tough to put into words. When you chose to volunteer abroad and at home, the Canadian Forces does a ton in this country, inside this country, to help. We all know the world is a pretty different, scary place, so none of us even feel safe in our own homes. I shouldn’t speak for everybody. A lot of us, ma’am, sorry. A lot of us, some of the people. One of my best friends wears the Star of Courage. He’s a mess. He saved lives, and he’s a mess. He is 65 years old, already dropped significantly in his Income Replacement Benefit at 65, and now has received a letter to pay back money. Yeah, great question. I think you can tell by my emotion.
Senator Hay: For sure. Thank you so much for sharing.
Mr. Manuge: I don’t just carry it for me. You have got to understand: I was in front of this committee 17 and a half years ago. That’s why I got into all of this, was to do right by veterans, because that’s what I was taught. So thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you for sharing.
Mr. Drapeau: I am probably going to say something I have never said in public before. After my 25 years practising with veterans, and seeing on a daily basis some of the serious injuries and so on, I am impressed by the type of quality and the time by which, in fact, services are provided by Veterans Affairs. We could not do it if we had to go to the civilian court for an injury claim. We could not match what the individual receives, first, and the speed by which he receives it. Let me explain.
When a submission is made to Veterans Affairs — and someone can go to the Legion to assist that person to make the claim or have somebody else to assist him — the department issues a ministerial decision. Most of the time, a ministerial decision can be appealed. It can be appealed at three levels. It can be sent to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is at two levels. At the review level, the individual is met either in Ottawa or someplace across Canada, meets the individual before the committee members, and they decide what type of services, what type of allowances, what type of support he would obtain. If he is not happy with that — and this will happen within a year or year and a half at the most — he can go to the appeal, which happens to be in Prince Edward Island, and he will be assisted free of charge by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates for veterans to go through that particular process. Normally, 99% of cases are settled at that particular level. If that doesn’t work, then they come to us, as a law office, and then my colleague and I will apply to the Federal Court of Canada on an application for a judicial review. We may do one, two, three or four a year of these Federal Court applications, and we win 50% of those.
Basically, the system works and works faster than any other legal system that I know of for injured people. The individual gets it with no legal costs attached to it, represented by trained legal people through the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Is it perfect? No. I have never said it publicly, but I do now: Veterans Affairs has got a quite a challenge, and they are meeting it in a very honourable fashion.
Senator Hay: Thank you, sir.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of the questions.
Let me take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Manuge, for your service to a grateful nation. Thank you for what you do in advocating, of course, for your colleagues who are veterans in regard to the enormous effort and time you put in to remedy a wrong that has been done by the department. Thank you, Colonel-Maître Drapeau, for your lifelong service to the nation and all you continue to do to ensure veterans are respected and treated honourably in regard to our responsibility to them. We would not be the kind of country without your advocacy and service. To both of you, thank you so much for being with us today. I think you have added value to our investigation on this particular part of the legislation. We will do our best to reflect on this. Again, thank you for your experience and thank you for being here today.
Colleagues, thank you for such rich indulgence with our witnesses for the last little while here. I will come back to how we deal with testimony before the committee, but before I do that, I want to bring your attention to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. I would like to propose the creation of the subcommittee and authorize the subcommittee to take on the work related to veterans affairs on behalf of the committee.
I will read the motion for the creation of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs:
Is it agreed
That the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs be established to study matters which may be referred to it by the committee.
That the membership of the subcommittee be as follows: the Honourable Senators: Anderson, Ince, MacAdam, McNair, Muggli and Patterson, three of whom shall constitute a quorum; and
That the provisions of rule 12-5 for membership changes apply to the subcommittee.
That, pursuant to rule 12-9(2), the committee’s authority to send for persons, papers and records, whenever required, and to publish from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, be conferred on the subcommittee;
That, pursuant to section 6(1), Chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, the committee’s authority to commit funds be conferred on the subcommittee;
That, pursuant to section 7(1), Chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, the committee’s authority for certifying accounts payable be conferred on to the subcommittee;
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the committee’s authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair of the subcommittee.
That the committee’s authority, pursuant to paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, be conferred on the subcommittee;
That the committee’s power to permit coverage by electronic media of its public meetings be conferred on the subcommittee;
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the authority of the committee to reimburse reasonable expenses for witnesses, be conferred on the subcommittee.
Do I have your support?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the following order of reference adopted by the Senate on October 8, 2025, be delegated to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to examine and report on:
(a) services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, to veterans who have served honorably in the past, to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents, and their families;
(b) commemorative activities undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada, to keep alive for all Canadians the memory of the Canadian veterans’ achievements and sacrifices; and
(c) continuing implementation of the Veterans Well-being Act; and
That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later on October 10, 2027, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Chair, can I ask a quick clarification, because I think my brain just putzed out for a second there. Could you please go back to who this would apply to? Did you say the Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans, and did you say RCMP members and veterans? I’m sorry. I missed that part.
The Chair: So:
. . . services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, to veterans who have served honorably in the past, to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents, and their families;
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: I think I heard you say loud and clear that you agreed to the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Our next item for discussion is about the instructions we would like to provide to our analysts as they begin drafting the report for our study of the Budget 2025 Implementation Act. Is it agreed that we proceed in camera to have this discussion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)