OTTAWA - There are rumblings in the corridors of power on Parliament Hill that MPs have grown impatient with the cost burden imposed by Canada's military veterans, one of the country's most prominent former soldiers said Thursday.

Sen. Romeo Dallaire, a former lieutenant-general and ex-commander of the ill-fated peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, described a number of recent encounters with "politicians who are second-guessing the cost of veterans."

Dallaire — who made the comments in an interview with The Canadian Press before testifying Thursday at the House of Commons veterans committee — did not identify the individuals in question.

But he said he's been hearing privately from politicians who complain about the price tag: the Conservative government spends roughly $3.8 billion each year on the Veterans Affairs Department.

"And I say: Oh, yeah?" said Dallaire, describing how he walks them through the dollar cost of equipping and deploying the military on missions like the recently concluded 12-year mission in Afghanistan.

"And then I say, 'Now that they're home — and the ones that are injured — they cost too much?' This has been sniffing its way around the Conservative hallways and it's pissing me off."

The rumblings stand in stark contrast to the Harper government's political messaging, which has been to strenuously insist that the Conservatives bend over backwards for Canada's veterans and will continue to do so.

Dallaire's remarks drew an immediate, sharp rebuttal from Nicholas Bergamini, a spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino.

"It is not appropriate to spread rumours without any kind of attribution," Bergamini said. "The fact remains that no government in modern history has invested more money for veterans services."

Yet, the government has pointedly failed to reconcile its political talking points with the legal stand being taken by Justice Department lawyers in a prominent class-action lawsuit being brought by veterans of the Afghan war.

In a statement of defence filed with B.C. Superior Court, the government argues there is no "social contract" between the country and its soldiers, despite their commitment to lay down their lives without question, and that promises made by past governments to care for the wounded are not binding on current and future governments.

Story continues below slideshow: