Standing up for vulnerable veterans

In a nutshell

The CBA’s National Elder Law Section is urging the federal government to reconsider clauses 373 to 375 in Bill C-15, the Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1. These clauses would amend the Veterans Health Care Regulations to redefine “province” to exclude the territories, retroactive to 1993. This would validate a longstanding error by the federal government and extinguish ongoing legal claims by vulnerable veterans seeking reimbursement.

Key concerns

The CBA has serious concerns about both the legal implications of this redefinition and the fairness of applying it retroactively to vulnerable veterans:

• Definition of Province and the Interpretation Act: Redefining “province” to exclude the territories is inconsistent with section 35(1) of the Interpretation Act, which expressly defines “province” to include Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. In the absence of an express definition in the Veterans Health Care Regulations displacing it, the Interpretation Act governs. Canadian law recognizes a strong presumption that defined terms in the Act apply to federal legislation unless expressly modified. This approach reflects longstanding federal drafting practice and promotes statutory consistency. Altering that meaning retroactively undermines the coherence and predictability of federal statutory interpretation.
• Retroactive Legislation and the Rule of Law: It is unfair to change the law after the fact when individuals have reasonably relied on it to determine eligibility for important benefits. While retroactive changes are not automatically prohibited in civil matters, Canadian law recognizes a strong presumption against altering the law in ways that interfere with crystallized rights. Retroactively redefining “province” would eliminate claims that arose under the Interpretation Act’s existing definition and validate past calculations that are now being challenged. This raises serious concerns about fairness and access to justice.
• Financial Impact on Veterans: Under the current framework, veterans have advanced credible claims that accommodation and meal costs should have been calculated based on the lowest provincial or territorial rate. The Interpretation Act definition supports the inclusion of territorial rates in that calculation unless expressly displaced. Retroactively redefining “province” would override that statutory rule, validate past miscalculations, and deny veterans the compensation owed to them.

Why this matters

Redefining “province” contradicts the existing definition in the Interpretation Act, which applies unless expressly displaced. Changing that definition retroactively would validate a historic error and undermine legal certainty and fairness, core ruleoflaw principles on which Canadians rely when engaging with federal programs. In this context, retroactive legislation would unfairly shift the consequences of a federal error onto elderly, disabled veterans with significant care needs and financial vulnerability. These veterans relied on the law as written and should not bear the cost of correcting a government mistake.

Read the full submission.