Bill C-45 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act
An Act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 20, 2005
- Debated in principleMay 10, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 10, 2005
- Passed the second chamberMay 11, 2005
- Became lawMay 13, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (17,011 words introduced, 16,612 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core definitions, eligibility rules and structure for services to Canadian Forces members and veterans. Procedural front matter was stripped out while new subsections on needs assessment and job placement plans were inserted before royal assent.
- Removed first reading date, minister name and document number from the title page.
Before: “FIRST READING, APRIL 20, 2005 THE MINISTER OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 90319”
- Added two new subsections directing the Minister to assess needs and develop a job placement plan.
After: “Assessment of needs (2) The Minister may develop and imple- ment a job placement assistance plan to address the needs that are identified in the assessment.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act mixes a few fixed numerical rules with repeated reliance on ministerial opinions and undefined standards. Most eligibility and payment decisions turn on subjective judgments rather than clear tests.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Minister, the member or veteran was at the time of that marriage in such a condition of health as to justify their having an expectation of life of at least one year”
Eligibility after recent marriage rests on the Minister's personal assessment of health and life expectancy.“subject to any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate”
Exemptions from rules can be granted or cancelled on whatever conditions the Minister deems suitable.“the administrative costs of recovering the overpayment are likely to equal or exceed the amount to be recovered”
Remission of overpayments uses a predictive and comparative standard open to wide interpretation.“an operation that, in the opinion of the Minister of National Defence, is a search and rescue operation”
Designation of special duty operations depends on one minister's view rather than statutory criteria.
Clear-cut
“under the age of 18 years”
Dependent child and orphan status is fixed by a clear age threshold.“having so cohabited for a period of at least one year”
Common-law partner status uses an objective one-year cohabitation period.“which shall not be greater than the amount set out in column 2 of item 4 of Schedule 2”
Clothing allowance is capped by a specific statutory schedule amount.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is granted to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence through phrases such as 'in the opinion of the Minister' and 'considers appropriate', plus broad regulation-making power under section 41.
Challenging the law itself. Vagueness and overbreadth arguments under Charter section 7 could be raised against provisions that hinge on ministerial opinion without clear standards.
Disputing a charge under it. The Act creates benefit entitlements rather than prohibitions, so disputes centre on eligibility assessments rather than proving breach of a conduct rule.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
Departmental evaluations of programs established under the Act, such as the 2016 Financial Benefits Program evaluation, found that immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes are generally being achieved with efficient delivery, though opportunities exist to improve effectiveness including rate adjustments and monitoring. Criticisms from parliamentary discussions and PBO analyses highlight that the New Veterans Charter did not deliver benefits as promised compared to the prior Pension Act regime, with ongoing issues in processing and adequacy noted in Auditor General reports.
- Office of the Auditor General of Canada Report 2 – Processing Disability Benefits for Veterans (2022)auditVeterans faced long wait times for disability benefit decisions (median 39 weeks vs. 16-week service standard), with poor data organization and processing issues under programs stemming from the Act.
- Parliamentary Budget Officer report referenced in Senate proceedings (2019)reviewFrom the perspective of the veteran, virtually all clients would be better off if they were to receive the benefits of the Pension Act rather than the New Veterans Charter enacted by Bill C-45.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.