Bill C-15 — Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

Via email: nffn@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator, The Honourable Claude Carignan, P.C.
Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4

Dear Senator Carignan,

Re: Bill C-15, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

We write on behalf of the National Elder Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA Section) regarding clauses 373 to 375 of 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. In practical terms, this would validate a longstanding error by the federal government and extinguish ongoing legal claims by vulnerable veterans seeking reimbursement.¹ The CBA Section has serious concerns about both the legal implications of this redefinition and the fairness of applying it retroactively to vulnerable veterans.

The CBA is a national association of over 40,000 members, including lawyers, notaries, academics and students across Canada, with a mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice. The Elder Law Section represents lawyers across Canada who uphold the rights and well‑being of older adults and bring expertise to issues affecting the security and dignity of seniors.

Definition of Province and the Interpretation Act

The CBA Section submits that 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.² 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. For example, federal legislation such as the Access to Information Act and the Financial Administration Act also use the term “province” without providing an alternative definition, meaning the Interpretation Act governs and the term necessarily includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.³ Altering that meaning retroactively undermines the coherence and predictability of federal statutory interpretation.

Retroactive Legislation and the Rule of Law

The CBA Section has serious concerns about retroactive legislation. The CBA has previously argued that it is unfair to change laws after the fact when individuals have reasonably relied on them to determine eligibility for important benefits.⁴ Individuals are entitled to rely on a law as it exists when their rights crystallize. 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.

In this case, 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. More broadly, redefining a longstanding statutory term risks weakening confidence in the consistent application of the Interpretation Act across federal legislation. Canadians are entitled stability and coherence in statutory meaning, particularly where financial entitlements are at stake.

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, including that of the Northwest Territories. 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. Veterans who entered long‑term care were entitled to rely on the law as written and to expect that it would be applied consistently. Amending the law retroactively allows the federal government to avoid ongoing litigation and shifts the consequences of its error onto vulnerable elderly persons, the very individuals the legislation is meant to protect.

Conclusion

The CBA Section urges Parliament to reconsider clauses 373 to 375 in Bill C-15. 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 rule‑of‑law 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.

Yours truly,

(original letter signed by Yasmin Khaliq on behalf of the Section Chair listed below)

Sara Pon,

Chair, National Elder Law Section

Cc: The Honourable Stephanie McLean, P.C., M.P.
Secretary of State (Seniors)
stephanie.mclean@parl.gc.ca