The Carney government is facing sharp criticism from veterans’ advocates and legal experts after inserting an amendment into its sprawling 637-page budget bill that would retroactively change how long-term care costs for veterans are calculated — a move lawyers say is designed to shield Ottawa from liability for decades of overcharging.
According to Malcolm Ruby, a partner at Gowling WLG and co-counsel in a proposed class-action lawsuit, the amendment appears aimed at rewriting the law after the fact to “legalize” what he and his colleagues argue was a longstanding misinterpretation by Veterans Affairs Canada. “Instead of owning up to their error, they are trying to change the rules after the fact,” Ruby said, calling retroactive legislation “a thermonuclear weapon” unavailable to any ordinary litigant.
The issue gained national attention in 2024 when sources revealed that Veterans Affairs had been excluding the territories in calculations meant to determine how much veterans should pay for room and board in long-term care. Under federal law, “province” has always been defined to include territories — and the Northwest Territories has long had the lowest rates. By omitting it, the department may have overcharged veterans by an estimated $3,130 in a single year alone, with the practice potentially dating back to 1998.
Ruby and co-counsel Michel Drapeau argue that the error resulted in “fairly significant overcharges” for tens of thousands of veterans. They launched a class action soon after, alleging that Veterans Affairs had known about the issue internally but failed to correct it. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau said at the time that officials were “investigating.”
However, instead of addressing past miscalculations, the Carney government’s budget bill proposes to retroactively redefine “province” to exclude the territories, effectively erasing the grounds for the lawsuit and eliminating any obligation to reimburse affected veterans. Critics say the amendment would shut down the class action before it reaches a certification hearing in 2026.
Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne defended the changes, saying the government has invested more in services for veterans and is within its rights to clarify legislative intent. A spokesperson added that Parliament can choose to make laws apply to past events when intention is explicit.
Drapeau, a retired colonel with more than 30 years of military service, rejected that defence. “I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said. “This is not law. This is fiction.”
The amendment will only take effect if the budget bill passes Parliament — a process now certain to draw intense scrutiny from veterans, opposition parties, and constitutional experts.
