Senate Debates — 26 March 2026 (Sitting 61, 44th Parliament, 4th Session)

2026-03-26 / Sitting 061 / 44-4 / E

Senate Debates

DEBATES OF THE SENATE 1st SESSION • 45th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 154 • NUMBER 61 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, March 26, 2026 The Honourable RAYMONDE GAGNÉ, Speaker

CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue). Publications Centre: Publications@sen.parl.gc.ca Published by the Senate Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair. Prayers. [Translation] SENATORS’ STATEMENTS SNOW CRAB INDUSTRY Hon. Réjean Aucoin: Honourable senators, I rise today to tell you about a resource that many of you here are not familiar with, even though it is essential to the economy of many coastal communities. I’m talking about the snow crab, the fishing season for which starts in a few days. Although snow crab is popular with connoisseurs, commercial fishing for this abundant crustacean really only began in the 1950s and 1960s.

At the time, it was a small fishery that often complemented other more traditional fisheries, such as cod. However, with the major collapse of cod stocks in the early 1990s and the expansion of the market, the snow crab industry experienced significant growth. In 2023, which was a banner year, the estimated value of landings was between $800 million and $1 billion, or 17% of all fish and crustacean landings. For many Gulf of St.

Lawrence regions, such as Cape Breton, the Acadian Peninsula in New Brunswick, Quebec’s North Shore and Newfoundland and Labrador, the snow crab fishery has become a true lifeline and the heart of economic activity. I cannot imagine what would happen to my village of Chéticamp or to Pleasant Bay and Neil’s Harbour if this fishery were to one day collapse like the cod fishery did. However, this resource remains fragile and is particularly sensitive to environmental fluctuations, including warming waters and changes in marine ecosystems.

Stock fluctuations over the years remind us of the need for sound management based on science, as well as close collaboration among fishers, scientists and governments. In 2024 and 2025, there was a significant drop in quotas and volumes in several areas of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as a result of which the total value of landings is now declining. It is always a great pleasure for me to visit the wharves in my region to observe the crab landings and to bring this precious commodity home to enjoy it. It reminds me of growing up and spending time with family and friends as we enjoyed snow crab.

I encourage you to pay special attention to this industry, its development and the challenges it’s facing. We must look beyond the figures and realize that the future of entire communities is closely linked to the health of this resource. To those of you who have the opportunity to taste snow crab, perhaps as early as April 1, I say bon appétit. Thank you. [English] INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I stand to pay tribute to the committee members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. This first tribute is specifically to the First Nations, Métis and Inuit senators.

Understanding the impact of politics and legislation on the lives of First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status peoples is no simple task. No people in Canada have interacted with as many complex layers of government and politics over the centuries as First Nations and Inuit Peoples have. No other people have their relationship with the state defined as First Nations and Inuit do. Thank you for reconciling your obligations with the complex challenge of recognizing and advancing sovereignty and nationhood.

As ambassadors for the Senate and our people simultaneously, you exist in two worlds: the colonial, democratic institution of the Senate, from where you provide service, advocacy, education, awareness and voice, but you also represent our people who are engaged in historical and ongoing struggles against oppression, discrimination and racism. Reconciling your roles within the context of these two worlds is at the heart of your representation. Thank you for everything you were before you came to the Senate.

You needed that lived experience, with its cultural teachings and ways of being and knowing, so that you could educate and build awareness to foster compassion within this chamber and in committee. Thank you for your dedication to see and fight racism, seek justice, and bring hope and change to First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status lives. As senators, you advocate directly for their interests, rights, priorities and goals, although the ways you do so are unfortunately shaped and constrained by Canada’s colonial institutions.

You skillfully manœuvre through both the opportunities and obstacles built into the system. As stated by one of the elected First Nations in a study: Every day as a Chief you’re fighting the government to make changes. One of the ways to make change is to get on the inside and make changes on the inside. You respect the nationhood of the nation that you come from. They want their sovereignty and self-determination. That is critical, that needs to happen. But you’ve got to find ways to make it happen. 1922 THE SENATE Thursday, March 26, 2026

When you saw something wrong, like discrimination, and you had the capacity to make it right, you understood the sacred responsibility to make it right and you did. How do you make a difference? Beautiful things start with just one, but when you work together, it is so much more powerful. Thank you. I am so honoured to walk this journey with you. Kinanâskomitinawow . Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Leah Ballantyne, lawyer and member of Mathias Colomb Cree Nation.

She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Pate. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN EVENTS AT THE PRISON FOR WOMEN IN KINGSTON Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, April 1 will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the Honourable Justice Louise Arbour’s report following the commission of inquiry into illegal treatment and human rights violations of women at the Prison for Women in Kingston. Most of the women were Indigenous; all had experienced abuse as children and adults.

In April 1994, they were unlawfully stripped, shackled and left naked in segregation cells by male guards. As the first outsider to enter after these events, I advocated with corrections, the Correctional Investigator and the minister for an urgent, independent investigation, remedying of the ongoing human rights violations and release of the women from segregation. •

(1340) When I reported what I had witnessed and heard from the women and staff, correctional officials insisted that laws and policies had not been breached and cautioned me about supporting “cons” and “con-lovers.” In the ensuing year, my integrity and employment were repeatedly threatened, and corrections tried to secure an injunction to prevent the media from exposing the events and their cover-up. Following an expose by the CBC’s “The Fifth Estate” and a special report of the Correctional Investigator, Solicitor General Herb Gray and Attorney General Allan Rock commissioned the Arbour inquiry.

Justice Arbour described the ignorance and absence of the rule of law in prisons, recommending judicial oversight of corrections and remedies for prisoners. Thirty years on, corrections’ human rights and Charter breaches continue. Justice Arbour’s approach, unclouded by electoral or political issues, illuminated our obligation to uphold dignity and human rights. During the inquiry, she insisted that the women with whom she met be unshackled, and she demonstrated the legal and moral imperative of recognizing their humanity, human rights and entitlement to the protection of the rule of law.

In 2019, the Senate passed amendments to Bill C-83 to require correctional authorities to apply to a Superior Court before isolating an individual for more than 48 hours and to implement remedies for prisoners. A 2021 Human Rights Committee report echoed these calls. In 2024, we passed Bill S-230 and sent it to the other place. As senators, our privilege of walking in and out of prisons comes with the responsibility of exposing and remedying the violations of human rights that we witness. Given what we have seen and heard, this chamber does not have the luxury of remaining silent.

To this end, today and every day, I thank Justice Arbour and each of you, honourable senators, for all you do to try and uphold human rights and the rule of law for all. Meegwetch, thank you. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. [Translation] VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Patrick Awashish Wapachee, a young member of the Cree and Atikamekw Nations. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Audette. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, Supreme Court hearings on the notwithstanding clause have put a debate that upsets me back in the news. The prohibitions in Quebec are piling up. First came the prohibition against teachers wearing headscarves, the hijab, which was then expanded to include all school staff and will soon be expanded again to include all early childhood centres. We’re talking about hundreds of Muslim women who wear the hijab in an education-related setting.

In the name of state secularism, a certain form of feminism and Quebec values, people are claiming to be liberating Muslim women from the oppression of the headscarf, without considering that the hijab means different things to different women in different countries. March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1923

I became deeply involved in this debate in my former role as president of Quebec’s Conseil du statut de la femme in 2023, when the government of the day introduced its famous charter of values. I publicly voiced my concerns over the consequences of this charter, which risked turning away Muslim women wearing headscarves from women’s shelters and depriving them of the very jobs they depended on for emancipation and integration. No one is denying that Quebec has had a troubled relationship with religion.

Before the Quiet Revolution, the Catholic Church dictated what women had to do: procreate, submit to their husbands and perform their marital duty. All of this has left a mark. However, times have changed. We cannot compare the collective oppression of that era with the fact that a number of Muslim women wear the hijab here in Quebec. Of course, some women face pressure from their communities, their spouses and the patriarchy, but others wear the hijab because of their faith, which is at the core of their identity.

Furthermore, there have never been any studies or evidence to suggest that these hijabi women are proselytizing in schools. These women are often afraid to speak out for fear of being further ostracized. Last Sunday, the Radio-Canada program “Tout terrain” introduced us to Nadia, speaking on condition of anonymity, who was forced to remove her hijab to continue working at a school in Laval. She said: It upset me. It upset me so much, I cried. I had a lot of sleepless nights. I’ve been wearing the hijab for a long time. I believe in my religion. I care about my religion.

I don’t understand why religion bothers them. We are doing our job. We’re there to support the children. This single mother can’t afford to lose her job, but she feels very guilty. Kadidja, meanwhile, decided to stop wearing her hijab because of the prevailing climate in Quebec. She said: I needed to stop being seen, to go unnoticed, to no longer have to endure those cruel, hostile stares. Another reason that drove me was the need for protection, to protect myself and my children. I didn’t want us to be the target of that hatred anymore.

These words powerfully convey the perverse effect that these various laws can have on the fabric of Quebec society and on openness toward others. It’s sad. [English] VISITORS IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Antonia Macris, a youth leader in corporate learning management, who is accompanied by her parents. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Loffreda. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! [Translation] REPEAT OFFENDERS Hon.

Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, on March 12, Chong Woo Kim was behind the counter of his little shop in Montreal’s Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood. The 55-year-old owner of the Fleur bleue convenience store was an honest man who ran a small retail business and was much admired by the community and local customers. He was a calm, unassuming and very hard-working man. He was well known to all the locals, a familiar face and a reassuring presence behind the counter of his convenience store, a part of everyday life. His family, too, is described as respected and hard-working.

They are, quite simply, good people. On March 12, fate put Mr. Kim on the path of a dangerous repeat offender. He was stabbed to death in his shop. This brutal, senseless and unthinkable crime has left a family and a community in shock. The 35-year-old man accused of this murder, Xavier Gellatly, has an extensive and disturbing criminal record. Over the past two decades, he has been convicted of armed assault, murder, assault, threats, possession of weapons and breach of conditions. In 2012, he stabbed two people in a Vancouver hotel room, killing Chelsea Holden, a mother of two.

Even in custody, he continued to display violent behaviour, stabbing an inmate and assaulting a correctional officer. Despite this history, despite warnings about how dangerous he was, he was released from custody on several occasions. This ticking time bomb was walking freely on our streets. Just recently, he was stopped in Montreal and he had a knife in his possession, yet he only received a fine. Now, Mr. Kim is dead. His family, friends and community have lost a loved one.

Honourable senators, we must ask ourselves a simple yet serious question: How could an individual with such a violent past have ended up free on our streets? This tragedy reminds us that judicial decisions have very real consequences, and that the lenient guidelines we, as legislators, provide to our courts are no different. When, due to our laxity or naivety, a violent repeat offender is still able to strike and kill, the public’s trust is shaken. Today, my thoughts are with Mr. Kim’s family, his loved ones and all those affected by this tragedy.

My condolences to the entire family. 1924 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Miville-Dechêne ]

[English] VISITORS IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of John McCoy, Executive Director of the Organization for the Prevention of Violence; Mike King, Deputy Executive Director; and Steve Camp, Project Director, Hate Crime Centre. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Wells ( Alberta). On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE Hon.

Toni Varone: Honourable senators, today, I rise to pay homage and to honour a defining moment in our nation’s history: the Battle of Vimy Ridge. In April 1917, four divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force united to reclaim Vimy Ridge, a strategic high ground that had eluded the Allied forces for two years. The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a defining World War I battle in Northern France, where all four Canadian divisions fought together for the first time, capturing the heavily fortified seven-kilometre ridge. It is a symbol of Canadian national pride and sacrifice, marking a major step toward independence.

It is now considered by historians as a major nation-building event. •

(1350) As the sun rose on the morning of April 9, the air was thick with anticipation and hope, tempered by the harsh realities of war, yet the exceptional bravery of our soldiers demonstrated collective resolve. Each soldier recognized that he was part of something greater than himself, fighting not merely for land but for their brothers in arms, their families and the essence of their Canadian identity.

It was here where Canada emerged from the shadows of its British colonial past, forging its own identity on the world stage where Canada achieved a victory that previous British and French assaults had failed to secure. Vimy was not simply a matter of military strategy; it was about the resilience and determination of a nation uniting for a common cause. The meticulous planning and innovative tactics illustrated the coming of age of a nation that had — until that moment — not yet understood its place in the world. The cost of this success was profound.

For every inch gained on that ridge, countless lives were lost. More than 10,000 Canadians were wounded, with some 3,600 making the ultimate sacrifice. As we commemorate this victory, let us not forget those young men, full of dreams and aspirations, who gave everything for their country. They were brothers, sons and fathers, and their loss left a deep void in families and communities across our nation. The memory of Vimy Ridge resonates in our hearts today, reminding us of the values that bind us as Canadians: courage, sacrifice and a commitment to stand shoulder to shoulder in adversity.

This truly was our first “elbows up” moment. Let us honour their memory by upholding these values and remembering that we are stronger together. In commemorating the Battle of Vimy Ridge, we celebrate a spirit forged in the trenches of war, tempered by loss but illuminated by hope. In this world, we should always strive for peace, understanding and unity — values that are deeply ingrained in our Canadian identity. Since 2006, the Vimy Foundation has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of this critical event and its lasting significance in Canada’s heritage.

Their efforts to educate us all and to commemorate those Canadian soldiers who gave of themselves 109 years ago in their service to this country are worthy of our remembrance of their sacrifice. As we approach Vimy Week, I invite you to consider wearing the Vimy Pins that I have left for all of you in the senators’ lounge. The Vimy Pin serves as a visible symbol of remembrance and unity. I am grateful for the support of Veterans Affairs Canada, and in particular, I would like to thank Minister McKnight for facilitating this important initiative.

Colleagues, it has been my honour to address you today, and I thank you for your time. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. VISITORS IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Indigenous youth leaders from British Columbia. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Wilson. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS FISHERIES AND OCEANS STUDY ON SEAL POPULATIONS—EIGHTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TABLED DURING THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FORTY- FIRST PARLIAMENT—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TABLED Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response, dated March 26, 2026, to the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1925

Oceans, entitled Sealing the Future: A Call to Action, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on May 23, 2024, during the First Session of the Forty-fourth Parliament. (Pursuant to rule 12-23(4), this response and the original report are deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.) [Translation] STUDY ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF HOUSING SEVENTH REPORT OF NATIONAL FINANCE COMMITTEE TABLED Hon.

Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, entitled Build Canada Homes: Proposals for Success and Accountability and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate. (On motion of Senator Carignan, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.) MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CRIMINAL CODE BILL TO AMEND—FIRST READING The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-9,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places). (Bill read first time.) The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time? (On motion of Senator Moreau, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.) [English] QUESTION PERIOD INDIGENOUS SERVICES SUPPORT FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: My questions are for the government leader in the Senate. My questions yesterday regarding funding for residential school survivors and mental health were not answered.

Finance Canada did not respond when these same questions were posed. Will you be extending funding for Indian residential school survivors and mental health before the end of March — yes or no? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I have no indication at this moment whether there will be additional funding. Like I answered yesterday regarding the question you asked, the government is committed to supporting Indigenous communities, Indigenous health services and Indigenous school programs.

At this time, I have no indication of any specific amount that will be released. Senator McCallum: Thank you. Yesterday evening, we met with representatives and Chiefs about the work being done in relation to the identification of unmarked graves. At that time, they told us work has stopped and they are still waiting for funding today. Will there be funds provided toward the efforts surrounding the identification of unmarked graves? Senator Moreau: Thank you for the question.

At this moment, to date, the government has invested more than $255 million toward 162 Indigenous-led commemoration and search projects through the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support Fund. There are funds available, and the government is committed to continuing to support Indigenous communities regarding the unmarked graves. NATIONAL DEFENCE CANADIAN FORCES SNOWBIRDS Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Moreau, two years ago, I asked former defence minister Bill Blair to commit to future funding for the gem of the Royal Canadian Air Force: the Snowbirds, also known as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron.

He refused to commit to even the ongoing $10-million annual funding. 1926 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator LaBoucane-Benson ]

•

(1400) Your Liberal government struggled to meet its 2% NATO defence spending obligation, let alone the anticipated 5% future target. This is the perfect time to buy replacement jets for the Snowbirds and keep them flying high for decades to come. This week, however, your government tabled its plan for cuts at the Department of National Defence.

It says that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will: . . . retire selected fleets that are nearing the end of their service lives, face rising sustainment costs, and that either no longer align with future Canadian Armed Forces operational requirements or for which replacement capabilities have already been identified. This sounds an awful lot like a plan to ground the Snowbirds forever. Is that true? If so, shame on your government. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Was that a question or an answer?

If it is a question, my understanding is that the investment pledge to NATO has been reached. The 2% of gross domestic product, or GDP, has been reached as of yesterday. As far as the Snowbirds are concerned, I have no specific information regarding your question, but I will raise it with the minister, and I’ll get back to you. I have no indication that there is any intention of indefinitely grounding the Snowbirds. It is not my understanding that the government is supportive of the answer you gave to your own question. Senator Batters: Senator Moreau, the Snowbirds are not a surplus item.

They are a critical recruitment tool for the Canadian Armed Forces and a mighty symbol of patriotic pride at a time when Canada needs — now, more than ever — to showcase our national strength and sovereignty. Which Canadian’s heart doesn’t soar as they watch the Snowbirds perform the Maple Leaf Split over Parliament Hill? Canadians love the Snowbirds. They unite us. Can you please promise today — for Canadians — that your Liberal government will not sacrifice our beloved Snowbirds? Senator Moreau: I must remind you that the government has made an unprecedented investment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Even the Conservative government has not invested as much as the Liberal government is right now. As far as the Snowbirds are concerned, I have no indication that the government intends to ground the Snowbirds indefinitely, but I will raise your question with the minister, and I will provide you with an answer. PUBLIC SAFETY EDMONTON INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN Hon. Paula Simons: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Today, in the chamber, we mark the thirtieth anniversary of the Arbour report, which would not have happened without the courage and vision of our colleague Kim Pate.

The Edmonton Institution for Women opened in 1995 in the wake of the events in Kingston — just after the Arbour inquiry began its work. Its new open campus facility, where women lived in homelike cottages instead of cells, was supposed to represent a more humane and rehabilitative institution. That was more than 30 years ago, and the last two times I visited the facility with Senator Pate, I was shocked to see how run down and ill repaired the living quarters had become. I was told, and I could see, that there was a huge infrastructure deficit and that there was no budget to do the badly needed renovations.

I actually filed an access to information and privacy request about the state of disrepair, and, years later, I have yet to receive a single document responding to my request. Today, I want to ask you this: Can you undertake, on my behalf and on behalf of this whole chamber, to provide a full and proper report as to the nature of the needed repairs at the Edmonton Institution for Women and a breakdown of what those repairs might cost? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): It would be my pleasure to bring the question to the minister and to provide you with an answer.

However, I have been informed that, six days ago, Minister Anandasangaree announced $4.7 million in federal support for the “Woman of Inner strength” project, led by the Thunder Woman Healing Lodge Society in Ontario. I don’t see why they wouldn’t make such a commitment for other installations elsewhere in Canada, but I will certainly raise your question with the minister, and I will get back to you with an answer. OVERREPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN PRISONS Hon.

Paula Simons: In 1996, the year the Arbour report came out, 23% of female offenders in Canada’s federal institutions were identified as Aboriginal. The last time I was at the Edmonton Institution for Women, a full 70% of the inmates were Indigenous, even though less than 7% of Albertans identify as Indigenous. Recent government legislation, such as Bill C-14, risks making the crisis of overrepresentation even worse. What substantive steps is your government going to take to reduce the disproportionate incarceration of Indigenous women? March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1927

Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Simons, I know that you were there yesterday when the Minister of Justice was at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and he broadly answered that question. He is very well aware of the overpopulation and overrepresentation of Indigenous women in the system.

The government is aware of that reality, but justice outcomes are often shaped long before someone enters the justice system, and that is why the government is investing in housing and other programs to — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA Hon. Bernadette Clement: Senator Moreau, I stand with my colleagues on this anniversary of the Arbour report. I want to highlight one portion of the report’s recommendations: . . . that in programming, priority be given to the development of work programs that (

i) have a vocational training component; (ii) provide a pay incentive; or (iii) constitute a meaningful occupation; and . . . that the first priority . . . be the release and reintegration of women in custody. Recently, as Correctional Service Canada is making cuts to its budget — to librarians, community employment coordinators and jobs for incarcerated people — we’re hearing that meaningful work opportunities at Grand Valley Institution for Women are being cut, specifically in their horticulture program.

Senator Moreau, I’m worried that, 30 years after the Arbour report, we’re still not adequately preparing women for reintegration. In fact, we’re moving away from methods that have been proven to work. When are we going to get back to true rehabilitation? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government knows that federally sentenced women have unique needs and that impacts the way they respond to correctional programs.

The government provides a gender- and trauma-informed approach to address the specific needs of women, with programs focused on how an individual’s behaviour can influence situations and relationships. Correctional programming offers a continuum of care from admission to sentence expiry. The goal is for individuals to learn to live a crime-free life and successfully reintegrate into the community.

Their reintegration is the fundamental goal of the correctional system, and the government remains committed to their successful reintegration into the community, for both the general women’s population and the Indigenous population as well. [Translation] Senator Clement: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] JUSTICE CANADA’S BLACK JUSTICE STRATEGY Hon. Bernadette Clement: You have heard me talk about the Black Justice Strategy many times in this place.

The Arbour report didn’t make any recommendations with regard to Black people and their needs, but the Arbour report and the Black Justice Strategy have some things in common: Smart people took the time to provide great recommendations for us to do better, and these are reports requiring action. How is the government going to do better to implement recommendations made to improve the well-being of people in the custody of Correctional Service Canada? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): In February 2025, the Government of Canada published Toward Transformative Change: an Implementation Plan for Canada’s Black Justice Strategy. Notably, the government made a 10-year commitment to necessary, on-the-ground, transformative change in order to reduce the overrepresentation of Black people in the criminal justice system, including victims of crime. The commitment is concretized by five pillars of action, backed by $276 million in government spending. INDIGENOUS JUSTICE STRATEGY Hon.

Paul (PJ) Prosper: Senator Moreau, in November 1996, the Auditor General of Canada released a report on the reintegration of offenders. The report notes that: Correctional Service Canada has two main responsibilities — the incarceration of offenders and their safe reintegration into the community. The Indigenous Justice Strategy was unveiled on March 10, 2025, and it clearly outlines the need for stable, long-term investments for

Section 81 healing lodges to safely reintegrate First Nations people into their communities. 1928 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026

Senator, when will your government announce the stable, long- term investments they reference throughout the justice strategy? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Prosper, for the question. The government is aware that Indigenous people in Canada face unfair treatment and are overrepresented in the justice system. This must change. That is why, after collaboration and engagement with Indigenous partners, rights-holders and community leaders, the government released the Indigenous Justice Strategy, which lays the foundation for meaningful, long- term reform.

To answer your question directly, I do not have a specific date, but there is a general commitment on the part of the government to back that strategy and to ensure that we are addressing this issue meaningfully. •

(1410) Senator Prosper: Am I correct in thinking that it’s still being worked on and we’re awaiting further announcements on funding and progress? Senator Moreau: Yes, the implementation is under way. Government departments are working directly with Indigenous communities to set priorities and design the Indigenous-led approach outlined in the strategy.

Last week, the government announced $4.7 million for the Thunder Women Healing Lodge Society to support Indigenous women reintegrating from federal and provincial correctional systems. [Translation] PUBLIC SAFETY INCREASING OVERREPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN IN CANADIAN PRISONS Hon. Michèle Audette: My question is for my esteemed colleague, Senator Moreau. The government has not fulfilled its commitment to eliminate the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in prisons by 2025. It is now 2026.

Unfortunately, Indigenous women, who were the focus of Justice Arbour’s findings in 1996, remain the fastest-growing segment of the prison population. Call for Justice 5.14 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls for action to address the over-incarceration of Indigenous women and the practices within the justice system that contribute to it. With that in mind, Senator Moreau, now that it is 2026, what is the government’s timeline for reducing the criminalization of victims of violence and promoting the reintegration of Indigenous women into their communities? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The truth is, reducing the overrepresentation of a particular group, such as Indigenous women, in prison is not a problem that can be solved overnight. The government is firmly committed to solving this problem. You referred to Justice Arbour’s report, which contained 14 recommendations. Recommendation 4(a), which sought to create the position of Deputy Commissioner for Women, was fulfilled; Amy Jarrette currently holds that position. Recommendation 7(

a) sought to make the healing lodge available to Indigenous women. I don’t believe you were at the Legal Affairs Committee meeting yesterday, but the Minister of Justice indicated that work must be done upstream. That’s what the government is doing as part of the strategy by investing in housing, health and Indigenous businesses to prevent members of these communities from becoming involved in the justice and prison systems. Senator Audette: I agree with you, but the rate is extremely high right now.

I’d like you to ask the government the following question: Is the Centre Gilles Jourdain in Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam on the list? You may not be able to answer that today, but I’m asking you to ask the minister that question. Is that centre one of the ones that could be subsidized? We are talking about people who have been incarcerated in federal and provincial prisons. I would like that centre to be on the list and to be considered an organization. Senator Moreau: The government is well aware that infrastructure requires investments in many cases.

I answered a question from our colleague Senator Simons earlier regarding a specific case in Edmonton. I can ask about the case you have raised, but the government does have genuine intentions in this regard. The investments announced by the Minister of Public Safety just a few days ago for a centre in Ontario demonstrate the government’s willingness to move in that direction. [English] OVERREPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN PRISONS Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: This question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Following her investigation of the illegal strip-searching and lengthy segregation of Indigenous women and their transfer to a predominantly men’s prison, 30 years ago, former Justice Arbour recommended the placement of limits on the use of segregation and noted the need for correctional accountability and remedies for prisoners whose rights were violated. These issues continue, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous women and girls is now far worse and increasing. What plans is the government implementing to address these issues? March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1929

Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): As I mentioned to your colleague Senator Audette, we cannot solve the issue overnight. However, the government is committed to doing so, specifically with respect to overrepresentation of Indigenous women in the system. The government has taken multiple actions and concrete steps to improve conditions and oversight in federal corrections, including reform of administrative segregation, increased external oversight and expanded support for mental health rehabilitation.

The government also continues to invest in Indigenous-led solutions, such as healing lodges and community- based reintegration programs, recognizing these approaches are essential to breaking cycles of incarceration and improving outcomes for Indigenous women. Senator McCallum: Truth and Reconciliation Commission Call to Action 30 was accepted by the government, but 10 years on, the massive overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples continues. When and how will Canada meet its commitments and address these issues?

Senator Moreau: As I mentioned, the reality is that justice outcomes are often shaped long before someone enters the system. That is why, as a global strategy, the government is acting in advance of Indigenous or other communities entering the justice system. This is why we are investing in housing, child welfare and entrepreneurship. For Indigenous communities alone, the government has committed $2.8 billion for Indigenous housing and $1.5 billion for child care — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau. Thirty seconds go by quickly. [English] HEALTH SUPERVISED CONSUMPTION SITES Hon.

Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, a new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Addiction has confirmed what Conservatives have been raising for years: Supervised consumption sites are not the solution for Canadians struggling with addiction. The study found that the closure of such sites did not lead to an increase in medical emergencies or deaths. In fact, it found that closures were associated with more individuals seeking addiction treatment. For decades, Liberals have supported this policy despite spiking drug use and overdose deaths across the country.

Leader, in light of this evidence, is your government prepared to re‑evaluate its position on supervised consumption sites? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Speaking generally, the government is committed to working with provinces across the country to support communities with responsive programs that support public health and safety with respect to the issue that you raise today. It is an important issue, and the government wants to work with provinces to ensure we find solutions to this situation.

Senator Martin: Senator Moreau, in my home province of British Columbia alone, more than 18,000 lives have been lost to drug overdoses over the past decade, and since 2016, unregulated drug toxicity has remained the leading cause of unnatural death, creating an ongoing public health emergency. Leader, these sites cannot operate without explicit authority from your government. Will you listen to the science and commit to Canadians that no more sites will be authorized to operate in the future? Senator Moreau: Senator Martin, you raise a very important issue.

Yesterday, we had the health minister here in this chamber, and she committed herself and the government as a whole to working with provinces to find solutions to this very important situation. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN EVENTS AT THE PRISON FOR WOMEN IN KINGSTON Hon. Kim Pate: Senator Moreau, in her report examining the mass rights violations of women in prison, former Justice Arbour affirmed that when someone is sentenced to prison, separation from the community is the punishment. Further punitive measures must be subject to the rule of law.

She recommended: If illegalities, gross mismanagement or unfairness in the administration of a sentence renders the sentence harsher than that imposed by the court, a reduction of the period of imprisonment may be granted . . . When Charter and human rights violations occur in prisons pre-sentencing, they result in sentence reductions or even stays of charges. When they occur after sentencing, there is no meaningful remedy. •

(1420) This gap in the law has persisted for decades and undermines the integrity of the rule of law. What concrete measures is the government taking to redress this and implement the Arbour remedy? 1930 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026

Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Generally speaking, the Arbour report was a defining moment in exposing systemic failures in the treatment of women in federal custody, and I agree with the premises of your question. That is the reason for some implementation of the recommendations of the report, like Recommendation 4 for a Deputy Commissioner for Women, Recommendation 7 for healing lodges for women, and investment to make sure that the infrastructure is maintained. There are many questions today concerning the Arbour report.

There is a serious commitment on the part of this government to make sure that the recommendations are taken into account. It is a long process, but it is a very serious commitment of our government. OVERREPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN PRISONS Hon. Kim Pate: Thank you very much, Senator Moreau. As you know, government data indicates that 96% of women in structured intervention units are Indigenous. Most of them are struggling with mental health issues. Isolation prevents women from completing their correctional plan, delays access to parole and means they spend a longer time in prison.

As you have heard from our colleagues, the government missed its Truth and Reconciliation Commission commitment deadline, and right now we are looking at legislative measures that will likely — The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Pate. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Pate, I know that you were present yesterday when the Minister of Justice was at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and you raised those important issues with him. He made a commitment.

He knows that we have to work upstream to reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous women, for instance, in prison, and that is why the global strategy of the government is working to address the issue before people enter the justice system. I’m sure that working in the committee, you will — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] INNOV ATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CANADA FOR THE REGIONS OF QUEBEC Hon.

Tony Loffreda: Senator Moreau, the mandate of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is to support long-term economic development across the province, with particular attention to regions facing slower growth or limited employment opportunities. According to the Main Estimates for 2026-27, the agency is expected to receive nearly $416 million in funding. At a time of significant geopolitical and economic uncertainty, marked by industrial transformation and shifting global value chains, the agency has identified support for SMEs and communities as a key priority.

In this context, how will the federal government ensure that regions across Quebec are equipped to adapt to these changes? What concrete measures will be implemented to support local and regional economies and help them prosper during this period of transition? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. This is why the government is establishing targeted measures and making flexible investments to help Quebec’s regions to adapt, compete and grow in the geopolitical situation you were describing.

The government is supporting small- and medium-sized businesses in boosting productivity, adopting new technologies and integrating into evolving global value chains, ensuring they are well positioned for this period of industrial transformation. This includes concrete measures, like the Regional Tariff Response Initiative, helping businesses respond to U.S. trade pressures by raising productivity and diversifying markets. Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer.

The agency acknowledges in its Departmental Plan that the challenges facing Quebec’s businesses and regions could dilute the overall impact of its interventions. Given ongoing trade tensions and uncertainty, how will the agency ensure greater flexibility and agility in its programs and interventions? More specifically, how will it position Quebec to seize emerging opportunities and strengthen its competitive advantage? Senator Moreau: Flexibility is the most important word here. That’s why flexibility is the core of how Canada’s economic development operates.

For example, the Regional Defence Investment Initiative actively integrates Quebec businesses into domestic and international defence supply chains, strengthening both resilience and competitiveness. March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1931

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD SUPPORT FOR FARMERS AND PRODUCERS Hon. Todd Lewis: Senator Moreau, the Government of Canada recently announced plans for a national food security strategy. I’ve heard concerns from farmers that measures to artificially constrain food prices, such as price fixing or mandated price caps, end up passing costs down to farmers, who are already struggling to maintain profitability during these turbulent times.

How will the government ensure that this strategy supports Canadian farmers by enhancing resilience in Canadian agri-food supply chains and, by extension, enhancing Canada’s food security? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): That is a very important question. Food security and affordability are a real concern, and the government recognizes that blunt measures like artificial price controls can risk shifting pressure onto farmers and producers, who are already facing significant challenges. That is why it is not the way the government wants to operate.

The government’s approach is targeted. The government is strengthening competition in the grocery sector, supporting Canadian farmers and investing in the resilient food supply. At the same time, the government is providing direct affordability supports to Canadians, including the increase in the GST tax credit — Bill C-4 — rather than distorting the market in ways that could harm farmers. The government is very aware of the pressure on farmers and wants to ensure that the programs it provides will not harm them even more. Senator Lewis: Thank you.

Producers are pleased that there is recognition of the important role that food security plays for all Canadians. Canada is blessed with abundant resources in our agri-food industry. The entire value chain will continue to provide a safe, reliable and affordable food supply for not only Canadians but our international customers as well. Please ensure that the strategy goes forward, and we look forward to participating in it. Senator Moreau: I certainly will, Senator Lewis. It’s important.

I can tell you that, to lower the cost of food production, the government is introducing immediate expensing for building greenhouses. I know for farmers that is very important.

This allows producers to fully write off greenhouses acquired on or after November 4, 2025, and that becomes available for use before 2030. [Translation] MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STRENGTHENING CANADA’S IMMIGRATION SYSTEM AND BORDERS BILL MESSAGE FROM COMMONS—AMENDMENT, CONCURRENCE WITH A SENATE AMENDMENT AND DISAGREEMENT WITH A SENATE AMENDMENT The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons which reads as follows: Thursday, March 26, 2026 EXTRACT, — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-12,

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, the House: proposes that amendment 2 made by the Senate be amended by replacing the text of paragraph 75.1(3)(

c) with the following: “the proportion of refugee protection claimants referred to in paragraph (

b) who exited and re-entered Canada after the day of entry referred to in paragraph 101(1)(b.1) of that Act;”; agrees with amendment 3 made by the Senate; and respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 because the amendment would remove Canadian citizens and permanent residents from the clear and transparent information-sharing framework established by

Part 5 of the bill, because information-sharing relating to these individuals already occurs under existing statutory authorities and would continue to occur in their absence from the framework established by Bill C-12, as the purpose of

Part 5 is to replace the current patchwork of authorities with a single coherent regime that establishes consistent partners, clearly defined purposes, and modern privacy safeguards, and furthermore, because excluding Canadian citizens and permanent residents from these provisions would perpetuate existing inefficiencies, undermine modernization initiatives within the immigration system, and reduce the transparency and accountability that Bill C-12 intends to strengthen. ATTEST Eric Janse Clerk of the House of Commons 1932 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026

Honourable senators, when shall this message be taken into consideration? (On motion of Senator Moreau, message placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.) • (1430) [English] ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE SENATE Hon.

Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-12(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: third reading of Bill C-15, followed by the consideration of the message from the House of Commons concerning Bill C-12, followed by third reading of Bill C-23, followed by third reading of Bill C-24, followed by second reading of Bill S-5, followed by second reading of Bill C-13, followed by Motion No. 63, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

BUDGET 2025 IMPLEMENTATION BILL, NO. 1 THIRD READING—DEBATE Hon. Sandra Pupatello moved third reading of Bill C-15,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. She said: Honourable senators, I am delighted to stand here again and to address Bill C-15 in this third reading. If it feels as though we’ve been talking about this budget bill for some time, it’s mostly because we have. It has gone on for quite some time. [Translation] The Minister of Finance and National Revenue tabled his budget last November.

When the budget implementation bill was tabled in the other place, we began our pre-study, fully aware that a bill of such magnitude, as evidenced by its 600 pages, required from us that we take time to examine it properly, to ask the necessary questions and to ensure its final content. Bill C-15 was referred to 11 committees for pre-study. [English] I’m not sure if that’s a record. [Translation] The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance did the bulk of the work and reported back to this chamber after months of study and numerous comments. [English] So what was in this bill? It was laid out in five parts.

Part 1 dealt with innumerable tax measures. We have listed them many times, for individuals and businesses, including these examples: a temporary tax credit for personal support workers totalling $1,100 per year; expanding the list of items included in the Disability Supports Deduction, items that can be, in addition, used to enhance work opportunities; exempting the Canada Disability Benefit from income.

Some benefits to businesses include the introduction of a productivity super-deduction, a set of enhanced tax incentives covering all new capital investments; and supercharging investment in research and development by enhancing the Scientific Research and Experimental Development, or SR&ED, tax credit. Examples to further support a clean economy include a clean electricity investment tax credit, as well as enhancing the suite of existing Clean Economy Investment Tax Credits to further support investments in clean technologies, clean-tech manufacturing and carbon capture, utilization and storage.

Some were really self-explanatory, like the elimination of the underused housing tax. The amount collected did not warrant having that tax in place. Other measures are a bit more convoluted, like “. . . removing the tax-indifferent investor exception to the synthetic equity arrangement anti-avoidance rule . . . .” I’ll wait for the Q & A on that one. [Translation]

Part 2 repeals the Digital Services Tax Act and its regulations and makes the necessary amendments to other related legislation.

Part 3 contains additional tax changes related to the tax on select luxury items.

Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to allow Indigenous governments, if they so choose, to impose their own sales tax on certain items sold on their reserves or settlement lands. [English] Division 1 of

Part 5 enacts the high-speed rail network act. This saw a great deal of interest by the committee and certainly by members of the public. Alto, the public company in charge of it, was called before the Finance Committee. The Transport Committee studied it in depth as well, as did many others. Many questions were put to officials, especially around the expropriation language in the bill. [Translation] Two weeks ago, the Minister of Transport, Steve MacKinnon, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and also spoke at length about the oversight mechanisms necessary for the proper management of this vast, multi-year project. [English]

Part 5, perhaps, is where committee members and witnesses appearing before committee spent most of their time. March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1933

There are elements to combat finance fraud, requiring banks to have policies and procedures to detect and prevent consumer- targeted fraud; enhancing access to funds deposited by cheque; helping credit unions grow and compete by making it easier to enter the federal framework; completing the consumer-driven banking legislative framework; creating a regulated space for stablecoins to support innovation but also to build trust in digital payments. I congratulate the Banking Committee for a tremendous amount of work in this area.

Importantly, this bill also has measures to help renew the public workforce by offering an early-retirement incentive program to help attrition drive workforce reductions. [Translation] I’d like to return to the budget presentation from last November.

The government set some key objectives for itself, including leveraging our strengths and resources, supporting a skilled workforce, building our nation, investing in technology, transitioning to a low-carbon economy and making housing affordable. [English] There is also leverage to increase defence spending to grow our economy, like the use of the Buy Canadian policy; unify our economy and eliminate internal trade barriers; diversify our trade; and bring all of that together with a policy framework to drive investment by incenting business investment and creating a more efficient and competitive marketplace.

So, pick any measure that we see in the budget bill, and it will relate back to these five core actions and outcomes in the Canada Strong Budget 2025 document. Take the $182 million over three years for defence to establish sovereign space launch capability — a favourite of mine. It is critical for the independence of Canada’s telecommunications ability. This is building Canada in so many ways. As I mentioned at committee on Tuesday, 14 years ago, a national Aerospace Review called that out and identified that lack of space launch capability as a deficiency in our sovereignty.

Imagine being beholden to other nations or private sector interests for the launch of our own telecom satellites. [Translation] For those interested in the economy, the budget sets out six priority areas aimed at addressing major strategic challenges through a renewed industrialization of Canada. These include the new Major Projects Office, the Canada Homes Agency and the new Defence Industrial Strategy. [English] There is also the Buy Canadian Policy; Climate Competitiveness Strategy; and our trade diversification strategy.

This approach is being supported by two fiscal anchors — balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio — and by catalyzing $500 billion in new private sector investments over the next five years to create that cycle of investment and economic growth. Much has been said about Canada’s financial status here in this chamber. Budget 2025 outlines the size of Canada’s government at $508 billion in program spending. •

(1440) Let’s go back in time for a minute. In 2007-08, there was no deficit. That government was handed no deficit by the government coming before it, the Paul Martin government. In 2009-10 that deficit was a whopping $55 billion from 0. Yes, there was an economic recession in those years. Support was required for people and business, not in all sectors but in many sectors, especially in my province. The government of that day went from a balanced budget to a $55 billion deficit in one year, with a total program spend of $236 billion. So the contrast is that it was, indeed, a smaller government at that time.

In 2020-21 — we all know what was happening then — the deficit was $327 billion. Why? Everyone needed support — every sector across all of the provinces — in those years. We supported businesses, we kept companies afloat, and we helped people save their homes. The deficit projected in 2025-26 is $78 billion, with a total projected program spend of $502 billion. The context is really important here. This is at a time of global trade wars, unpredictable policies abroad harming investment in Canada and support that’s required in virtually every trading sector in every province.

The severity of economic risk today is easily tenfold compared to 2008. Context is really important. I am certain that you also support the government’s initiative of the comprehensive expenditure review destined to find $60 billion in savings over five years. Yes, context is important there, too. When we throw around deficit numbers, we need to know what is happening in our economy at the time. It is true; Canada and one other EU country, Germany, have the strongest net debt-to-GDP ratio of all of the G7 countries. 1934 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Pupatello ]

[Translation] Lastly, I want to acknowledge the National Finance Committee. It was my first time attending all these meetings, where witnesses provided testimony on various aspects of Bill C-15. [English] Our chair, Senator Carignan, took care to see that all committee members were happy, and by leading a very able staff at the National Finance Committee, Sara Gajic very aptly co‑ordinated every aspect of a busy

schedule with a demanding chair, I might add. I want to acknowledge the 16 years that Senator Elizabeth Marshall spent at the National Finance Committee. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. Senator Pupatello: Now, she did tell me that she is still following the committee and following the chamber, so I hope that she will hear us today as well. She used her fine auditor skills to strip down budgets to their core, putting officials on their heels and cleverly asking questions when she likely already knew the answers. I’m glad that I had at least several months of overlap with her. Congratulations, Senator Marshall.

You have cut a path through your years in the Senate that will be very difficult for others to follow. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. Senator Pupatello: Senators, I want to thank you for your kind attention to this deliberation of Bill C-15. It becomes the backbone legislation for much of the work of the government as a whole. This bill is the backbone that accompanies the budget Canada Strong. I look forward to seeing many of these measures come to fruition. Thank you. [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Gignac, do you have a question? Hon. Clément Gignac: Yes.

I would like to congratulate the bill’s sponsor. I would also like to congratulate her on the quality of her French, which could serve as an inspiration to the president of Air Canada. Maybe you could tell him how it’s done. The Quebec finance minister sent a letter to his federal counterpart on February 19 to express his concerns about the open banking system. Do the amendments that were made in the House of Commons and the discussions that followed mean that Quebec no longer opposes the part of Bill C-15 that deals with the open banking system? Do you have any new information on that?

Senator Pupatello: Unfortunately, I’m very disappointed that I don’t have any new information on that. However, I’m sure there have been many discussions since then, because as soon as the bill passes, we’ll move on to the next step, which will be to determine how Canada can gain access to this new banking zone. I hope your upcoming discussions go well. [English] Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Honourable senators, before I begin my remarks, I want to let senators know that I will not be moving an amendment to Bill C-15 at the conclusion of my speech today.

In conversations that I have been having with the Government Representative’s Office, GRO; the bill’s sponsor, Senator Pupatello; and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I have agreed to raise my concerns in speaking to Bill C-15 and to also send a letter requesting further information and clarity about the items that I will speak about momentarily. That letter has been sent to the Government Representative here in the Senate, Senator Moreau, and, with your indulgence, I will read the letter into the record. Senator Moreau, I am writing today concerning Division 19 of

Part 5 of Bill C-15,

An Act to Implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. I have specific concerns regarding Clauses 372 to 375, inclusive, of Bill C-15 which affects vulnerable veterans who live in long term care facilities. Clauses 372 and 374 grants the Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations to define a “province“ to the exclusion of the three territories for the purposes of any provision of the Veterans Health CareRegulations . This is in contrast to

Section 35 of the

Interpretation Act which expressly defines a “province“ as including the three territories. Clauses 373 and 375 seeks to apply this new and extraordinary definition retroactively to 01 April 1993 and 15 July 1998 respectively. Myself and others, including the Veterans Ombud, are concerned this will unduly disadvantage already vulnerable veterans who live in long term care facilities if territorial rates are excluded from the calculation of the rate that veterans must pay for accommodations and meals in long term care. As you know, this is a complex formula.

This is because territorial rates for long term care can be lower than those set by the various provincial governments. As per my discussion with the Bill’s sponsor, Senator Pupatello, I would like to request a response from the Minister of Veterans Affairs providing clarification on the following issues which have not been clearly articulated by officials to date: What is the rationale for the change in the definition found in Clauses 372 and 374, and how does this benefit veterans; and March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1935

Why in Clauses 373 and 375 is the definition being applied retroactively going back over thirty years, and how does this benefit veterans? Additionally, in testimony during the pre-study of Bill C-15, Senators learned that for the past thirty plus years the Department of Veterans Affairs has already been excluding the territories when calculating the rates that veterans pay for accommodations and meals in long term care, absent the legislative authority to do so contained in Bill C-15. Of concern to myself, the Chair, National Elder Law

Section of the Canadian Bar Association, and the Veterans Ombud, is that this administrative practice over the past thirty-three years may have impacted negatively on veterans, hurting them financially when they are already vulnerable. Therefore, I would also like the Minister of Veterans Affairs to address: Why the department has historically excluded the territorial rates in their calculations of this benefit, contrary to the express provision of the

Interpretation Act , and what benefit there was to veterans in doing so, How many living veterans will there be in long term care facilities at the time Bill C-15 comes into force, Up to the coming into force of Bill C-15, how much were those veterans paying, and how would those amounts change if territorial rates were included in the calculations; and What are estimated costs to the Crown, should it consider making an ex-gratia payment to those affected veterans, if territorial rates had been included in the calculation of the rate that veterans must pay for accommodations and meals in long term care.

Maintaining the trust of the veteran community is critical to ensure the confidence of these vulnerable veterans. For these reasons, I look forward to the Minister’s response no later than the first week of June 2026, in language that is clear, concise and understandable, not just for myself and my fellow Senators, but also for the veteran community. Sincerely — — yours truly. •

(1450) As you know, I have had the privilege of serving — you hear it all the time, but it was an enormous honour to serve alongside Canadians who have consistently put service to Canada above themselves and put their lives on the line for what we value most. I tell you this today as I rise to speak to Bill C-15,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. I specifically want to address Division 19 of

Part 5 of the bill. It will help provide some granularity on the letter that I just read to you. Division 19 amends three acts: the Pension Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. While I will offer some comments on the amendments to the first act, the focus of my speech will be about the changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, which affects the accommodation and meals rates that are charged to Canadian Armed Forces veterans living in long-term care.

While I am a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, I want to be clear that I do not receive any veterans’ benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada at this time. The division of the budget implementation act that I’m about to address does not affect me personally. It deals with pensions and rates that veterans pay if they reside in long-term care. As you can see, perhaps by me standing here today, I do not live in long-term care.

All that to be said, colleagues, I want to assure you that this is not a personal matter in how it affects me, but it is a significant issue for a group of vulnerable veterans, and I hope it is for all of you as well. Canadian veterans have earned the right to demand consistency, equity and justice in their benefits provided for in law and regulation. Those veterans’ benefits go beyond what is provided within provincial and territorial programs and regulations, as we cannot forget that veterans are members of these systems and also eligible for those benefits and support.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to listen, learn and consult with Canadians. While we do not have constituencies like our colleagues in the other place, we do have communities that we speak up for — they’re often minority voices, whether they be Indigenous Peoples, racialized Canadians, official language minority speakers or, in my case, those who serve in the Canadian military, those veterans who see their service in the rear-view mirror and their families. Why should this matter to you as parliamentarians?

Those who serve or who have served Canada, whether it be across the world or here at home, have literally signed up to put their lives on the line for Canada and for the safety and security of all Canadians. They serve Canada with the expectation of unlimited liability. This is the first note to help you understand why this is an issue for veterans. This means that they accept that their service may ultimately result in suffering or injury or they may even be ordered to their death. Those who were fortunate enough to make it home may or may not have suffered service-related injuries.

And other former Canadian Armed Forces members who complete their military service to Canada may also be suffering from physical and mental health injuries as a result of exposure to innately dangerous situations faced during training, operational deployments, et cetera. Please know that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not covered under any provincial workers’ compensation programs because who the heck would insure somebody who steps into harm’s way?

That leaves the federal government responsible for their care, support and benefits while they are serving and after their service. 1936 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Patterson ]

This is what makes a veteran unique. And I will talk exclusively about Canadian Armed Forces veterans. We eventually need to have another conversation about Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans. This is something I think about every day when I approach my continued service here in the Senate. My goal is to be a voice for the voiceless. Why do I stand before you today to debate components of Bill C-15? When Bill C-15 first came before us last year by way of a pre-study, Division 19 of

Part 5 caught my attention. On December 8, 2025, I attended a meeting of the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee, dealing with that portion of the budget bill. At that meeting, I learned through official testimony and witness testimony that the government was amending the legislation and regulations affecting veteran pensions and the accommodation and meals charge to clarify the rates paid and charged to veterans, whatever their case may be.

In her opening remarks, Julie Drury, Acting Director General of Policy and Research at Veterans Affairs Canada, said: Bill C-15 also proposes amendments to the Pension Act, the Veterans Well-being Regulations, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the Veterans Health Care Regulations. With respect to the Pension Act, the amendments clarify that the term “province” does not include Yukon, Northwest Territories, or Nunavut for the purposes of the annual adjustment calculations for disability pensions and related benefits.

I am not a lawyer — and I look to my colleagues who are — but I thought I knew what a province was in Canada, and it included our fabulous territories. Colleagues,

section 35 of the

Interpretation Act, which would have been in effect in the absence of other clarifying legislation, defines “province” as the following: province means a province of Canada, and includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut . . . . But it would seem that the government, specifically Veterans Affairs Canada, did not and does not feel the same. You can appreciate my confusion and that of a number of our colleagues that day. You can see this just by looking at the transcript of the questions we were asking.

In response, Nathan Svenson, Senior Director of Disability and Health Care Policy at Veterans Affairs Canada, said: The entire premise is looking back at the intent and the original design of the program, and there was a lack of clarity in the legislation, so the amendments that were brought in are simply clarifying this is how the calculation has been done and will continue to be done, and that’s why we state that there’s no change in the value of the benefits to CAF veterans. It’s clear as mud, right? Yes.

We are being asked to approve changes to clarify the definition of “province,” which will invariably affect the benefits that veterans receive, but we’re also being told there will be “. . . no change in the value of the benefits to CAF veterans.” I have since come to learn that it is not unusual that there be laws passed by Parliament where

definitions vary for a specific reason from those found in the

Interpretation Act, and I accept this. However, what are the reasons behind amending in this instance, other than correcting an administrative error in how things have always been done? Of course, we know this is Parliament’s right. This is why Bill C-15 is the right place to put this clarification. However, we have to also consider that it may do a disservice to Canadians who are looking for consistency from Parliament and parliamentarians, especially in this instance because this definition impacts how we are dealing with some very vulnerable people. It also deals with benefits and pensions. Not only does Division 19 of

Part 5 amend the definition of “province” in the affected acts, it does so retroactively to 1993 because as per a follow-up letter from Veterans Affairs Canada to the committee chair: The amendments reflect the way the monthly Accommodation and Meals charge has been calculated since annual adjustments began in 1993. These amendments resolve any differences in how the calculations are interpreted and will avoid ambiguity going forward. I can see how this makes sense going forward, but my question is: Can you retroactively correct your mistake by changing legislation? You can.

Colleagues, I have mentioned that it is the right of this Parliament — and those who came before and those who will come after — to pass legislation as it sees fit and not be bound, necessarily, by the decisions made by previous Parliaments so long as the bill is constitutional. However, I feel it is an affront to Canadians and, in this instance, to veterans — who are already suspicious of the system — that Parliament is reaching so far back into the past to change the law and regulations to meet the administrative actions that took place during the period in question.

It is no wonder that Veterans Ombud, Colonel (Ret’

d) Nishika Jardine — who is a Governor-in-Council appointment, by the way — raises the issue of retroactivity in an open letter posted on their website and addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Veterans Ombud said: Ultimately, it is clear to the Veteran community that Bill C-15 sections 373-375 are meant solely to correct an error made by the Department and to deny them compensation for the overcharge. VAC already faces growing reputational backlash over the manner in which it communicates with Canada’s Veterans, their families and Survivors.

I fear this retroactivity measure, if enacted, will only increase the deep distrust in Veterans Affairs Canada that, sadly, I hear about far too often. March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1937

•

(1500) My staff and I have been told, whether in testimony, briefings or in conversations, that the reason behind the retroactivity of this definition change is to fit the original intent of the law. I cannot put myself in the time and space of the members of this place or the other place to determine what the original intent was when adopting these acts and regulations initially — those three I discussed previously. Therefore, I cannot opine as to whether this was their intent. But I can, as a senator in the here and now, examine, debate and raise awareness from this point onward. Senators, while I respect Parliament’s right to enact legislation with different

definitions and

interpretations, I am still challenged. I referred to changes to the definition of “province,” which are set to cover multiple acts and regulations. I will break this down a bit. There are two key acts affected by this definition change that concern me. The first affects the Pension Act in clauses 363 to 370. This, if I understand it correctly, relates to a class-action settlement reached by the Department of Veterans Affairs and a number of veterans in the Manuge v. Canada case. It concerned the payment of pension benefits to veterans based on provincial rates and

definitions. Per the Library of Parliament’s legislative

summary, the courts ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, and as part of the settlement, the government was required to pay over $800 million to those affected veterans, dating back to 1985. As clauses 363 to 370 flow from that settlement, while important for me to share with you, they are being dealt with appropriately via various machineries of state accordingly and are well suited to be found in this budget implementation act, or BIA.

But here is the rub: The government, specifically the Department of Veterans Affairs, appears — I use the word “appears” deliberately here — to have taken the amended definition of “province,” pursuant to the class-action settlement agreement, and for purposes of clarity, which I spoke to previously, will apply that definition to other veterans’ benefit calculations found within the BIA. You see, colleagues, the second change using this proposed definition applies to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the Veterans Health Care Regulations found in clauses 372 and 374.

However, unlike the previous example, which impacts pension payments, these clauses affect the accommodation and meals charge benefit rates that are paid to veterans who live in long-term care in any province or territory of Canada. Of course, clauses 373 and 375 would apply this new and extraordinary definition retroactively as far back as April 1, 1993. While still a benefit, this is different from the pension benefits found in the earlier clauses. So when it comes to pension benefits, those benefits are paid to the veteran, cash in hand.

With regards to accommodation and meals in long-term care, the calculation establishes which expenses are going to be out of pocket for the veteran occupying long-term care and which expenses will be covered in terms of accommodation and meals by Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, and it is paid directly to the facility in which the veteran lives. For those who are wondering, yes, there is provincial and territorial rate-setting for beds. I’ll use Ontario as an example. There is a base rate for an occupant, which still applies to military veterans because they are members of provinces and territories.

But to be clear, if you are a veteran who qualifies for and lives in long-term care in Canada, there is an additional, federally funded benefit program available to you because of your service to this country. The veteran is responsible for paying the amount determined by the calculation we just talked about, which is determined by Veterans Affairs out of pocket. This is what they pay. I will make a side note here for any of us who know a lot about long-term care. Injured people in Canada tend to suffer higher rates of poverty, ill health, et cetera.

They may go into long-term care and are very needy as they go in, so $300 a month makes a difference to someone going into long-term care because any expenses beyond that base rate that are attributable to meals and accommodation are paid directly to the long-term care facility — so it is not cash in hand. That in itself is not a problem. It is that base rate we are talking about. This is the benefit referred to by the clauses I just mentioned.

This benefit program is only available to eligible veterans, specifically if that veteran has a low income, and they have to have experienced a service-related disability, or from service to country, and they must also have a need for long-term care. The manner in which the department sets the rate charged and paid by veterans is based in regulation on the lowest subsidized rate paid in any province across Canada. Why? It’s because veterans are not seen as a provincial asset. They are seen as equity throughout Canada because equity throughout Canada is federal. That is where this came from.

I am going to talk about clause 33.1(4)(

a) of the Veterans Health Care Regulations, which says: (

a) the lowest monthly user charge for accommodation and meals permitted by a province, under

section 19 of the Canada Health Act, on July 1 of the same year . . . . This is why it matters to these veterans whether a territory is considered a province. These numbers are in open source, and they are estimates. This is what is circulating in the community and, I believe, through a CBC News article. Senator Anderson would be able to share some other interesting information. 1938 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Patterson ]

For example, the Northwest Territories, per a recent CBC News story, has the lowest monthly rate at $976 per month for low-income persons living in long-term care facilities. But — and again this is from CBC News — in 2024, the rate used by Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, was that of Manitoba’s monthly rate of $1,236.90 per month. That is a difference of $260 per month — this is your example — meaning that a veteran living in a long-term care facility was out of pocket $3,130 annually based on this rate differential.

Per VAC’s own data that was provided to my office by the Office of the Veterans Ombud, as of February 2025, the department is supporting more than 1,800 veterans in long-term facilities in Canada right now. Now, if we were to go back more than 30 years to the inception of this program, there would likely be many more. But people don’t last very long in long-term care facilities. Their lifespan is not long, sadly. To illustrate this point, I will go back to 2012, when VAC was funding long-term care residency for almost five times the 2025 number.

And we are recruiting heavily for the Canadian Armed Forces now, and we have a future that we need to think about. This bill not only moves to exclude the territories in the definition of provinces on a go-forward basis, as the government has a right to, but as I mentioned, it would also go back retroactively 30 years, which, even according to our law clerk here, is quite extraordinary. Officials at the committee testified that this is to retroactively cover what they called “an administrative error” in how they had been undertaking the accommodation and meals calculation since 1993.

The officials claimed that the program was never intended to include territories as provinces when first enacted in 1993. That may be so, but the

Interpretation Act existed at the time, which included territories in the absence of other clarification, which is in Bill C-15 now. Far be it from me to try to determine what the government or Parliament intended in 1993. I never thought that I would become a parliamentarian back then, for sure. I never thought that I would be a veteran. All I knew then was that I was still serving in the deserts of Somalia at that point, that I was wearing a Canadian flag on my shoulder and that I was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I didn’t believe that this would be my future.

Maybe it sounds like something very simple. The explanation may be that there were no homes in the territories when this was started in 1993, and that is okay. However, this has never been articulated to veterans. This may be why territories have been excluded. But I believe that is a question best asked of the government by the document that I tabled before I started speaking. Trust me when I say this: I have asked these questions in writing with an expectation for a clear answer.

I don’t need to be told again, “It’s clarification of framework legislation.” There is not one veteran out there who understands or cares what that means. This is why I say thank you for accepting these questions. They have a right to understand the rationale behind it in clear and concise language that is meaningful to them. The reason is because this bill will pass; this bill should pass. But I hope I can share those responses with you soon because all of us, no matter where we come from in Canada, come across veterans, know veterans or maybe even have them in our families. •

(1510) Senators, there is something else about applying the definition retroactively that I also found interesting. For me, this is information, but this retroactive clause would also cut the legs out from under another class-action lawsuit that is looking to be certified. You see, there are presently three class actions being brought against the government related to veterans benefits, one of which is specific to the long-term care rates veterans pay, and it is called the Estate of Gordon Allen and Stanley Broski v. His Majesty the King. They haven’t been certified yet.

They have been put on hold pending this legislation. This class-action lawsuit has been paused. The presence of potential class actions, like I said, is for your information only, but you can imagine there are veterans who, believe it or not, will listen to this speech today and are wondering about this. This is why we need clear answers. So why I am I sharing? I want to do this for illustrative purposes of the impact of the changes that will go ahead. The primary plaintiffs, the estate of Gordon Allen and Mr.

Stanley Broski, have estimated their losses due to what they consider overcharging because of the exclusion of territories in the definition — it is the root of the calculation — at $7,261 and $26,194, respectively. In material prepared for the class action, it has been estimated by the accounting firm KPMG, which is the firm handling the payout from that other settled pension suit I referred to earlier, that in 2008 the overcharging affected over 10,000 veterans — many of them have since passed, of course — or their estates.

In that period between 2008 and 2025, the total loss with interest was approximately $246 million. Remember that these calculations are by private industry and that they are estimates. They are not even necessarily up to date. So I’ve actually asked, as one of my questions to the government, for them to provide the number of living veterans affected by this change, how those rates were calculated in the past and what the difference would be if we changed that calculation.

Many of the veterans who are affected are those whom Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, would refer to as “frail veterans,” because, as I said earlier and I will repeat, to qualify for this type of support, the veteran is either low income or experiences a service-related disability or health need for long- term care. In the latter case, that means they have a condition that affects their daily functioning and have risks of things like falling, injury and illness, requiring supervised care. Remember that for a frail, elderly person, falling may end their life, so putting them somewhere safe is critical.

Colleagues, while estimated numbers of affected veterans may seem low compared to the overall population of Canada at approximately 100,000, as per the law firm McInnes Cooper, March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1939

these are not only vulnerable Canadians; they’re also people who put country before self and served in the Canadian Armed Forces to defend us all. After decades of office closures and being told they’re asking for too much, how can we not speak out when there is an issue of concern? After all, was it not Parliament, when enacting the Veterans Well-being Act, that said, and I quote from

section 2.1 under “Purpose”: The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled. Colleagues, I want to be crystal clear.

I am not talking about Parliament’s right to enact or amend laws as they deem fit. This is how I feel about what I’m hearing and the people whom I help to represent. If Parliament decides to, for very good purposes, use a definition of a province that is different from what is found in the

Interpretation Act, so be it. My concern is the government making changes that will retroactively apply such a definition that will potentially economically hurt already disadvantaged veterans. As such, I wanted to put this on the record here today. But, given all of this, I do support the passage of Bill C-15, and I want to thank you for your attention. Hon. Pat Duncan: Will Senator Patterson take a question? Senator Patterson: I will. Senator Duncan: Senator Patterson, I have to say thank you for your dedicated representation of veterans and Canada’s Armed Forces. I believe all senators appreciate your efforts.

My question concerns the references you’ve noted in Bill C-15 regarding the territories. Are you aware, senator, that the long- term care facilities available in Canada’s North — and I’m speaking specifically of the three territories — are all public facilities? The territories received formula funding in 1985. This funding worked like an equalization payment, and it allowed the territories, for the very first time, to budget and plan more than a year in advance. The population over this time period — I’m speaking of the Yukon and, in part, the Northwest Territories — has changed vastly.

It’s no longer a transient population. People are retiring, and they’re staying and living there for a long time. The very first long-term care facility outside of a hospital opened in Whitehorse in 2002. Residents with a Yukon health care card pay $40 a day for their care. I note that veterans are advised when they retire to transition to the provincial or territorial health care card.

Those who keep an eye on budgets would go, “Why are you only charging people $40 a day when, in a long-term care facility, it’s clearly a very expensive cost?” The duly elected territorial governments have chosen to provide long-term care as publicly funded facilities. It is part of the public health care system. We also have to note that development of a privately funded facility is simply not feasible when you have a very large land mass and a very sparse population. With this information in hand, would you agree that the territories should not be included in this specific

section that only applies to the provinces? Senator Patterson: Thank you very much for the question. That is the type of clarity that I believe veterans deserve to hear: how those considerations were figured in and why, back in 1993 — because that’s even earlier — they would not have included rates. I want to thank you for providing that information, and, while we don’t know what was in their heads at the time, I think that is very good information for anybody who is listening. Thank you. Hon. Krista Ross: Would Senator Patterson take a question? Senator Patterson: Yes.

Senator Ross: Senator Patterson, first of all, thank you for your service and for your care and concern for all veterans. In your remarks, you read a letter and you made a specific request for a detailed, written reply from the minister. However, I’m interested to know, specifically: What is it that veterans, in simple terms, are seeking from the government in response to this letter and in response to this very complicated situation? Senator Patterson: I will put some military into this.

The bottom line up front is that they want to be clearly communicated with and to have explained to them why the decisions were made, number one. Number two, it has been acknowledged that, going forward, this is the way it is. Their biggest concern is the retroactivity clause. They want to know they have not been disadvantaged — remember, perception is reality — by this calculation over the long term.

This is why asking for clear, concise answers — there are many good technical answers, which is not what we’re interested in here — will help them understand and give them the tools so that if someone wishes to move forward, they can. Thank you. Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Patterson, as you may know, historically the Senate has been very reluctant to agree to retroactive legislation because it was always our position that it is not our job to fix mistakes made by departments. That appears to be what is happening here again, and some Canadians will suffer because of those mistakes made by the department.

Given you withdrew your amendment, do you have any indication from the minister or the government leader that action will be taken to protect those veterans? 1940 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Patterson ]

Senator Patterson: I was able to speak directly with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is an interesting position to be in. I believe that’s a very challenging portfolio to begin with. There is a lot of distrust. One of the key issues that they’re having is around clarity of messaging and information passage. •

(1520) So, while I cannot compel any government official to do anything, with this letter, I feel my trust will rest in their being true to their word to come back. If you notice the deadline that I have spoken about — and I’ve spoken with the ombud about this because I want to ensure we get a clear answer — the time has been given. I have to hope as a course of action in this case, but I have faith as well. Also, they will have me on their tail. I would like to respectfully provide notice that I will be asking questions to ensure this documentation comes back.

I hope I will have the support of my colleagues as well. Hon. Scott Tannas: In your speech, Senator Patterson, you mentioned there was testimony at committee from the department that said there would be nothing here that would diminish the value for veterans. Yet when I listen to the rest of your speech, it appears that may or may not be the case. We’re taking the government’s word at face value. If it turns out through the truthful answer we receive that veterans are being damaged, then I would presume that this chamber, led by you, would want to revisit the fact that Parliament has been misled. Is that fair?

Senator Patterson: That is a very interesting comment, and that is very much one of the tools that we have, collectively as senators, for accountability. I don’t believe there was any malice in this. Sometimes, you can be in committee and ask questions, and it is quite exceptional to afterward find a group of senators who — as brilliant as this group is — looking stunned. We are all asking the same variation of the question. They usually say that if everyone is confused, it’s probably not you. Again, I do not believe there was any malice in it.

When it comes to understanding what it means and breaking it down into small parts — and it is also the legal advisers at the Office of the Veterans Ombud who have clearly stated that, of course, there is no difference in benefits because you may have been using the wrong calculation. It’s like saying, “I know I’m not a liar because I said —” However, that is not what I’m saying. Let me pick a different example: “I know I’m not on fire because I said so.” Is that a better example? I don’t think there was any intent to mislead; there was nothing that they provided like that.

However, if you get down to it and don’t use the

Interpretation Act — because the government has the right to do what it likes — but if you are not following, the

Interpretation Act was in place. It stated clearly — and that was the calculation they were using, “province,” which is the root of all of this. They were saying they weren’t doing that, and of course there is no effect on benefits because they weren’t doing that anyway. The question is this: Legislatively, should they have been doing that? So that is where the rub is, where the trust is and why the retroactivity

part is the biggest challenge for their advocates and the veterans themselves. I hope that is okay. I think it is about helping folks understand, including our departmental officials, that these complex calculations of this act this bounce off that. One of the challenges for Veterans Affairs — and I can certainly have empathy for the minister and colleagues there — is there are multiple acts impacting everything they do, and it is complex. Again, that is not the veterans’ fault. I will return to what you said.

In order for them to be able to see whether they have been treated fairly and justly, you need to do it honestly and say that it is retroactive because we have always done it this way. Going into what we asked in the letter — show us on paper that it was the fairest for veterans based on what is in the Veterans Well-being Act. Thank you. Senator Downe: Senator Tannas’s question and Senator Patterson’s response motivate me to ask another question. There has been a long-time discrepancy between the words spoken in the chamber about how important veterans and their families are and the actions.

I have been here long enough that I remember when we did the New Veterans Charter. What happened was our then-leaders — former Prime Minister Martin, former opposition leader Harper and, I believe, former NDP leader Layton — were in Europe for a very moving ceremony. They decided on the plane flying back that they would immediately put in the New Veterans Charter because it would be so good for veterans and their families. They spent 30 seconds on it in the House of Commons. It came to the Senate, and let me tell you, colleagues, it was not our finest moment.

We referred it to the next committee sitting, which was Finance. I happened to be on it at the time. We spent one meeting on it. We had Sean Bruyea, a veteran who suffered from post- traumatic stress syndrome — I’m not telling any secrets here as he’s made that public — expressing real concern about it. Everyone else assured us of how good it was going to be; the department assured us. We passed it. There was a one-hour speech in the Senate. We all thought we’d done wonderful work for veterans and their families. Years later, the PBO did a study.

Veterans were denied millions and millions of dollars that they would have received if we had not changed the rules. One of the main rules was a yearly pension as opposed to immediate disbursement for members. So I caution, colleagues, that our nice words must be followed by action. Senator Patterson, my question is this: Were you aware of the New Veterans Charter and the problems that came up after the fact? Senator Patterson: Yes, thank you. I most certainly was. I will expand on that.

We understood that the quickness with which it passed was to support veterans, but most of us only see veterans when we wheel them out on November 11 or they put their medals on. Veterans Affairs is commemoration; that is an important part of recognizing things that they do that you just can’t imagine. It is March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1941

out of our context as Canadians to understand. You wheel them out, and that is being a veteran. But there is the hard work that goes with it, and it costs money. It goes to the comment I made that was built into one of the acts, which says that it is to recognize service. Please keep in mind that if you were to go on holiday and were hit by a tsunami or war event, your insurance would be null and void.

So when you actually do that for a living and come back — and apparently we all age and our bits and pieces get old and wear down and our injuries expand and become worse — there is nobody who will compensate you for that because you did it because of your job. It is your job’s fault. Because you have to exclude, with unlimited liability, you can’t be a veteran without being a member of the Canadian Armed Forces or the RCMP. Because you served with unlimited liability and have lost two legs, there is no workmen’s compensation that will cover that or long-term disability like most of us know.

This costs money, and there is that duty of service. So I want to thank you for that comment because, while it is appreciated, the hardest part for veterans and veterans’ benefits is hard lines. One of the other ones — like you said, one day it is a lump sum, and the intent was good. You can choose to take a lump sum, which a modern, younger veteran who can invest it might do well with, but there are other people who live paycheque to paycheque and need the stipend. When some of these new acts came in, they broke the war in Afghanistan in half.

So if you were injured on, for example, July 1, you could have the old program; but if you were injured on July 2, you had to take the new program whether you wanted it or not. So when we go through this legislative process, my hope is that we think of it as a continuity. It costs taxpayer money, in terms of pension and benefits and support, because it is not available anywhere else. At the end of the day, the one who will always be left behind is the veteran. The other

part is that, regardless of whether one is an RCMP veteran or a Canadian Armed Forces veteran, the one thing we do is put service before self. Sit down and shut up — that is what they have decided. This is why, when we hear veterans rise up and start talking about things, while you can’t get everything you want, I think we need to listen. That is really behind this. So thank you very much for your comment, and I feel very comfortable that we will all be thinking about these things moving forward. Hon. Donna Dasko: Thank you, senators, for that very enlightening discussion, I really appreciate it. •

(1530) Honourable senators, I rise today to draw your attention to a

section of Bill C-15 which is easy to miss in this bill of over 600 pages. It is found in

Part 5, Division 18, and it amends the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, with the goal being to strengthen Canada’s sanctions regime. SEMA is Canada’s principle legislation. It has been effective since 1992 for implementing economic measures and sanctions, such as imposing trade embargoes, freezing assets and controlling financial transactions in response to serious international threats. Canada has been a leader in developing our sanctions regime since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Soon after that invasion, Canada and other Western countries froze hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian state assets, as well as the private assets of oligarchs, such as planes, yachts and real estate. The bulk of the frozen state assets sit in Europe, with Belgium’s Euroclear holding the largest share. Soon after that, Canada took a much bolder leap. In the Budget Implementation Act, or BIA, of June 2022, the government amended SEMA to go beyond freezing the assets of sanctioned individuals and entities to permit the outright seizure and forfeiture of such assets.

With this move, Canada became the first G7 nation with the power to not only freeze but also permanently seize and redistribute the assets of sanctioned individuals and entities. Now, according to officials who testified on December 10, 2025, at the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and who responded to my follow-up questions, the current amendments to SEMA in Bill C-15 are motivated by the very same circumstances.

The collective experience of Canada and our allies in dealing with Russian assets in the intervening years since 2022 has prompted these measures to strengthen our sanctions design. Today, around €210 billion in Russian state assets remains frozen globally, and Euroclear, which is a Belgian financial securities depository, holds around €180 billion of these state assets. Euroclear has also reported roughly C$22 billion held in Canadian dollars.

According to experts, these Canadian-dollar assets are likely held in correspondent accounts in Canadian financial institutions, but little more is known about this Canadian component, even though we have made efforts many times to seek answers to this. The government’s amendments to SEMA are a welcome step. First, the Minister of Finance would have to be consulted on any actions that are contemplated under these regulations.

Under these regulations, financial institutions would be required to provide information on frozen sanctioned property that’s in their possession and information on the profits realized from this property. And, finally, the government may require that these profits from these frozen assets be paid to the government. This authority does not currently exist under SEMA. 1942 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Patterson ]

This mechanism in Division 18 mirrors the European approach, where Euroclear’s frozen Russian state assets yield about $5 billion annually. Clearly, windfall profits are being realized from these frozen Russian assets and these profits are being redirected to Ukraine via mechanisms that the EU has created. For Canada, this mechanism also opens up new funding streams to support Ukraine. The amendments to SEMA in Bill C-15 also unlock and extend reporting obligations such that the information can now be used for policy purposes, and not just by law enforcement.

Upon passage of Bill C-15, I urge officials to quickly develop the accompanying regulations to put these amendments into action. Let’s learn about the Euroclear Russian assets now held in Canadian dollars. Let’s examine the profits made and also how we can use them to assist Ukraine. Let’s also pass the amendment to SEMA in my bill, Bill S-214, to ensure that our access to Russian and other state assets themselves — the actual principal, not just the profits — is not impeded and is facilitated. And if we’re very lucky, we may just hear more this evening about Bill S-214. Colleagues, this is not abstract policy.

This is justice in action. I urge this chamber to endorse all these measures decisively, and I urge the government to move quickly. Let us lead the world again in the cause of freedom and against tyranny. Thank you. Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. Hon. Paula Simons: Will Senator Dasko take a question? Senator Dasko: Yes, I will. Senator Simons: You mentioned that your own bill is on the Order Paper for this evening and, God willing and the creek don’t rise, Senator Wells and Senator Housakos are on the list to speak to it. I wish to understand how your bill works in relationship to Bill C-15.

Is there something in Bill C-15 that makes your bill redundant, or how will your bill be in conversation with these changes? Senator Dasko: Thank you, senator, for those questions. They are excellent questions. Actually, they work very closely together because the amendments in Bill C-15 allow the government to collect more information than they can now. They also permit the government to actually seize the profits from the assets that are currently frozen. That’s there. These provisions were not there before; they are there now. That actually creates another mechanism for funding these profits.

Profits have been used by the Europeans. They have a mechanism. We are kind of doing what they did. We are putting in place what they did, with Bill C-15. My bill, Bill S-214, takes another step to enable us to use the principal of the assets, going beyond the profits to the principal. Again, it does not require us to take any assets, but it provides the basis for taking the actual assets themselves. This was actually intended in 2022, but the mechanism was flawed. There is a catch there. Bill S-214 undoes that. They fit together very well.

I think that, as a package, they are perfect, and I recommend to everyone, including the government, that they take up Bill S-214. Thank you. [Translation] Hon. Danièle Henkel: Honourable senators, I rise today during the consideration of Bill C-15 to speak on a pressing issue that directly affects the financial security of millions of Canadians: bank fraud. We hear about it in our offices, in our communities, in our families. In short, we hear about it everywhere. This is not an abstract issue. It is not a theoretical debate reserved for lawyers and financial sector specialists.

Behind the figures I am about to mention are faces, families, lives turned upside down and someone’s existence shattered by a single click. [English] In 2024, scammers defrauded Canadians of $638 million. In 2025, that figure rose to more than $704 million, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. Yet, these figures capture only a fraction of the problem. The RCMP itself estimates that just 5% to 10% of victims report fraud. The true cost is likely in the tens of billions of dollars, and the trend is worsening year after year.

Every dollar stolen from a Canadian does not simply disappear; it fuels criminal networks that then act against Canadians. At a time when we are working to rebuild our economy, we are allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to slip away every year into the pockets of fraudsters. That is money lost to our families and to our communities, and it’s money gained by organized crime. •

(1540) But beyond the numbers lies an even harsher reality: Lives are being shattered. Retirees are losing their life savings. Families are watching their emergency funds vanish. Vulnerable individuals are suddenly left without resources or recourse. [Translation] Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre confirms that fraudsters target people under the age of 50 the most, but victims over the age of 50 suffer much greater financial losses on average. Furthermore, beyond the financial losses, there are significant psychological and social consequences: distress, shame and isolation.

All too often, victims are unfairly blamed. These people are not careless. They are confronted with increasingly sophisticated schemes: phishing, SMS fraud, identity theft and fake investment opportunities. These scams rely on manipulation, the hope of a better life and a sense of urgency. Even the most cautious people can fall for them. March 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1943

Like many other public figures, I myself have been a victim of identity theft: my image and even my voice were used without my knowledge to convince Canadians to invest in bogus financial opportunities. I therefore know first-hand the helplessness one feels when faced with this machine. But for Canadians who lose their savings, the ordeal doesn’t end with fraud. It keeps going when they contact their bank only to learn that the bank has authorized the transaction. They’re told that they’re liable.

Then they’re confronted with inscrutable internal policies that change from one institution to the next, all of them particularly unfavourable to victims who are left feeling completely powerless. Consumers are systematically left holding the bag, while the banking system shows little inclination to cooperate. Yet this situation is by no means inevitable. In cases of credit card fraud, the law protects consumers. The consumer’s liability is capped at $50, and in practice, credit card networks often have a zero liability policy.

However, if the fraud involves a debit card, Interac transfer or online payment, there is no federal law — none — requiring that banks refund fraud-related charges. In practical terms, consumers are left to deal with their bank on their own. The bank is the one that decides based on its own rules. It’s no accident that this is precisely where the losses are greatest. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre reports that, in 2024, e-transfers and money transfers accounted for more than $200 million in losses compared to about $30 million for credit cards.

The conclusion is clear: Where protection is provided by law, the losses are contained; where no law exists, the losses are astronomical. [English] Given the scale of the problem, our Banking Committee examined Division 16 of

Part 5 of Bill C-15, which amends the Bank Act to introduce provisions targeting consumer fraud. We heard from witnesses, experts, consumer protection agencies and public organizations responsible for overseeing the banking and financial system. The conclusion was clear: The measures in Bill C-15 are woefully inadequate. In practice, the bill largely requires banks to establish their own policies to detect and prevent fraud and to mitigate its impacts. This is a shift of responsibility disguised as reform, not a meaningful framework for consumer protection.

The bill also requires banks to report certain fraud-related data to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. However, this data would not be made public, yet transparency is precisely what is required to meaningfully change the game. Imagine a public report listing each bank’s fraud rate. If one bank reports 1% and another reports 5%, the consumer choice would be clear. Transparency would drive competition, giving banks a strong incentive to invest in prevention. Their reputation and their clients’ trust would be directly at stake.

The minister — and many public agencies that appeared before the Senate committees — described these provisions as a first step. I respect this caution, but I cannot share it. When losses reach this scale, we are no longer at the stage of first steps; we are already behind. And this is not just my assessment; it is the conclusion of the very agencies tasked with protecting consumers.

They are calling on the government to take the lead and significantly strengthen the legislative framework. [Translation] While Canada remains in wait-and-see mode, similar countries have decided to act swiftly to protect their citizens and correct the prevailing power imbalance. In the U.K., when a customer is tricked into making a fraudulent money transfer, the bank must now reimburse them unless there has been gross negligence. The burden of proof rests with the bank, not the victim. The results are very clear.

The number of claims for this type of fraud fell by around 15% in the months after the new regime came into force because banks now know they will have to compensate victims, so they are investing more in detection and prevention. Australia, for its part, has introduced the Scam-Safe Accord, which involves banks, telecommunications providers and public authorities. This, too, has produced tangible results. From 2023 to 2024, the number of fraud reports fell by around 18% and financial losses dropped by nearly 26%, according to the National Anti-Scam Centre.

While other democracies are protecting their citizens, Canada is currently leaving its consumers to face fraudsters alone. Situations like these make me wonder: If solutions exist, why aren’t we implementing them? My point is that fighting fraud is not an expense; it’s an investment. Banks themselves lose millions of dollars every year. By investing in robust anti-fraud systems, they can protect consumers, but they will also protect their own bottom line. At the end of the day, everyone wins.

That’s why I can’t fathom why no substantial amendments were adopted during consideration of the bill in the other place. • (1550) [English] This also concerns a fundamental pillar of our economy: confidence in the banking system. When Canadians lose their savings because of fraud and their bank fails to support them, confidence in the system begins to erode. 1944 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2026 [ Senator Henkel ]

At a time when our government is focused on strengthening the economy and protecting Canadians’ purchasing power, addressing this gap would support economic stability and reinforce public trust. It is my sincere hope that the government will take seriously the message we, as senators, are sending on this issue and act urgently on this matter. Honourable colleagues, it is precisely the role of the Senate to raise the alarm on these issues. Free from immediate pressures and with a long-term perspective, we have a responsibility to give voice to these concerns when Canadians are not sufficiently protected.

The proposals made in Bill C-15 fall short of what Canadians have every right to expect. It is time for the government to create a framework that truly protects Canadians, holds banks accountable and sends the clear signal that Canada will no longer be an easy target for fraudsters nor a playground for organized crime. Thank you. Meegwetch. BUSINESS OF THE SENATE The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call upon Senator C. Deacon to speak on this bill, I wish to remind you all to ensure that your cellphones and other electronic devices are on silent mode.

That is for both audio notifications and vibration. It impacts the audio quality and the work of our interpreters. Thank you. BUDGET 2025 IMPLEMENTATION BILL, NO. 1 THIRD READING—DEBATE On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pupatello, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the third reading of Bill C-15,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, thank you, and thank you, Senator Henkel, for your excellent focus on that issue. I will say a few words, but not nearly as eloquently as you have. I am glad to be able to speak in support of Bill C-15 at third reading. Budget 2025 represented a recalibration from past budgets, particularly because it was far more focused on economic matters than we’ve seen. As an illustration, 178 out of Bill C-15’s 606 pages, or about 30% of them, were referred to the Banking Committee as part of the pre-study. This represented 16 of the 45 “Various Measures” divisions in

Part 5 of the bill. The fact that

Document details

Collection	Senate Debates
Citation	2026-03-26 / Sitting 061 / 44-4 / E
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	2026-03-26 / Sitting 061 / 44-4
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	HANSARD_SEN
Identifier	a29010b1ca0e1acf1da462fb90f115672ed58078

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).