THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 1, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8, an Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business); and, in public, to study Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service.
Senator Marty Deacon (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, senators. I declare the meeting in session.
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Marty Deacon, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
I’m joined today by my fellow committee members, whom I welcome to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos from Quebec.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm from Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff from Ontario.
The Chair: Just before we proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration, in relevant activities, like we talked about last week, I want to acknowledge the 20,000 registrants at the CANSEC trade show last week. It was like the midway, if you will, of defence on security and intelligence. It was good to get out there, try equipment, meet folks and listen to some pretty important messaging from around the world. I just wanted to acknowledge CANSEC.
We also have colleagues who are not here who are at NATO meetings in Lithuania carrying our flag and our work, so we do, on behalf of the committee, acknowledge and thank them.
Today, we are going to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts. We have officials from Public Safety Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada with us in the room, who are available to assist with any technical questions that may arise during this process. Welcome, and thank you all for the work that you are doing to support this and for being here this afternoon.
Before proceeding, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the bill, please ask for clarification. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments and debate and decide whether there has been sufficient discussion on a matter or order and make a ruling. The committee, as we know, is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators who wish to speak have the opportunity to do so, and for this, I depend on your cooperation and support and ask you to consider other senators by keeping your remarks as concise and tight as possible.
Finally, if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote that provides unambiguous results. Any tie vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions before we begin? Thank you.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed with leave that the clauses be grouped according to the three parts of the bill as described and the table of provisions of Bill C-8 when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 1, entitled “Telecommunications Act,” which contains clauses 1 to 10, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part 2, entitled “Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act,” which contains clauses 11 to 16, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall Part 3, entitled “Five-Year Review,” which contains clause 17, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the schedule carry? Page 95.
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to this report?
Senator Yussuff: I don’t necessarily want to speak to an observation, but I want to speak to the minister’s letter to the committee.
The minister took the opportunity to reflect on the totality of the hearings we have had with the witnesses and the committee. He addresses a lot of issues we were thinking about. I think that the interprovincial, territorial and municipal challenges that we face in this country have been properly addressed by him in his letter.
Of course, he did speak about the time frame of making a regulation in regard to the bill, so I think it’s important, as the bill gets tabled in the other place, that somehow we find a way to publicize his letter because it addresses some of the concerns that members may have had. His letter reassured us that he has the best of intentions regarding carrying out the bill to ensure the country at large is going to benefit from the legislation.
The Chair: Anybody else? Thank you.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No? Thank you.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, we have finished this part fairly quickly, and I would like to suggest that we move in camera to discuss a couple of issues.
Senator Yussuff: I know the officials have come over and are waiting patiently for some difficult questions that might be asked of them. Given the thorough job the officials did last time, the committee will allow you to leave early, but it doesn’t mean you can go to the bar. You have to go back to work, but in all seriousness, it is important to acknowledge the work that was done in regard to this bill. It’s been over two years, and on behalf of all of us, we thank you sincerely for the effort you have put in. Thank you for getting this in. Hopefully, we can get this done today, and we will see light at the end of the tunnel, and the bill will finally be passed before we have to go to another election or prorogation.
The Chair: Thank you. I concur. I had a couple of other descriptors I was going to use, but the message is exactly the same. It has been a few years. The bill has seen reiteration and a different number, but the essence of it is that of a bill that has been making motions for a while to get to this stage, at least through clause by clause, today. Thank you for joining us, and please thank your teams for the support you provided us. Run as quick as you can.
Senator Cardozo: I just wanted to add my thanks to officials for doing that over the years. I also wanted to thank Senator McNair for being the sponsor of this bill and for his diligent work both last time and this time around.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
To begin, we welcome our colleague The Honourable Senator Hassan Yussuff, sponsor of the bill. Thank you for joining us today. We invite you to share your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you have five minutes.
That timer will be tight. Please proceed when ready.
The Honourable Hassan Yussuff, sponsor of the bill, as an individual: I don’t know why I feel nervous. Maybe it is being on this side of the microphone and being among my esteemed colleagues who are not shy with their opinions.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I will start by saying Bill S-246 is not Hassan Yussuff’s bill. This bill is about the veterans, the men and women who have served this great country of ours. It’s about recognizing the service they have provided our nation. I am just a conduit to see that the government does the right thing in changing the legislation as currently drafted. Every part of this bill was developed with the men and women who are sitting behind me and who have informed me of their opinions and their experiences in regard to the service they have given to our great nation.
The core of the bill is about fairness and ensuring their service is recognized based on the conditions of service. It is about ensuring decisions are made clearly, consistently and transparently.
Here is the problem that we face under the current system. Canada has not formally recognized wartime service since the Korean War, 50-something years ago. Since then, Canadians have served in conflicts such as the Persian Gulf War and in Afghanistan. A gap has emerged between the reality of service and how it is recognized in our country. For a veteran, this is about whether their country recognizes what they have been asked to do. This is not about rewriting history. It is about ensuring that recognition keeps pace with the reality of modern military services in our country.
This bill provides a solution to what veterans have been lobbying for; the Persian Gulf War veterans, especially. This year marks 35 years since the Persian Gulf conflict — 35 years — since they were asked to go off and participate in that conflict.
The thing that really matters in regard to this piece of legislation is the conditions of service. Decisions should be based on conditions of service by veterans, not simply the label that our elected officials give them when they are sent off on a mission. It is critical for us to recognize that, quite often, people in the military and the Canadian Armed Forces are not sent to war; they are sent on a mission. The government gives it a label.
Regarding transparency, veterans should know how decisions and their service have been viewed. Veterans should know why decisions are made. Right now, we have no clue. I think veterans deserve to know how, why and when decisions are made about them.
Regarding past and future services, this bill attempts to do more than one thing. It attempts to evaluate all past services since the Korea War and determine whether it should be declared wartime service or not. That has to be examined. The framework would review both future and past missions so that future veterans won’t have to fight the same battle that Persian Gulf War veterans have been fighting for decades to get recognition. It provides the context in which all future services will be reviewed to determine whether they should be recognized as wartime service.
The bill does not create a new benefit. It is important to note that. It does not create pensions. It does not amend the Veterans Well-being Act. These are important pieces of legislation that serve veterans in this country. It does not amend the Pension Act. It took many years to create and amend those pieces of legislation, and we should not be tampering with them without serious understanding of what the implications might be. The bill is not about compensation in any form. It is about formal recognition.
Why have veterans been raising the issue for decades? The House of Commons committee recognized the recognition gap that is currently in the legislation. The government, in the last election, committed to reviewing the recognition of missions, including the Persian Gulf War. It was clearly stated in the government’s platform in the last election. Of course, that has not been done since the election. The question is how we address it.
The bill does not predetermine the outcome as to how missions might be labelled or designated. It creates a process. It creates transparency so veterans and their families would understand the decisions. It creates accountability, and it preserves the government’s decision-making authority. That is not taken away by this bill in any form. The government has full decision-making authority. Recognition should reflect that a service has been performed, not simply attach a label to a mission.
Colleagues, you will hear from witnesses shortly, including the veterans who served in Afghanistan. I don’t think there is anyone in our country who can look at the Afghanistan mission, the most recent in our country’s history, and conclude that it was not a war. If you ask those veterans, they will tell you they were fighting a determined enemy. They were in a conflict. There was real harm. More importantly, after they came back, some who are now here at home — not all but some — are still serving. They suffered serious psychological and physical harm with some of the injuries that they sustained during that war.
Despite the 154 who died in that mission and the roughly 40,000 who rotated throughout that period on that mission, they have yet to recognize the Afghanistan mission as war and as wartime service.
I will conclude, colleagues. This bill will provide time frames for the minister to review all past missions. It will also ensure that the minister has the opportunity to consult and, more importantly, the obligation to disclose what their decisions are at the end of the day so that veterans will know whether or not the mission they served is recognized as wartime service or not.
Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you.
I’d like to warmly welcome Senator Dean, a senator from Ontario who has joined us and who is also a former chair of this committee. Welcome, Senator Dean.
We will now proceed to questions. Senator Yussuff will be with us until six o’clock today, and until that time, we will do our best to give those who wish to ask questions an opportunity to do so. With this in mind, we ask you to keep your questions succinct.
Senator Al Zaibak: Senator Yussuff, thank you so much for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. Thank you for your passion and commitment to this cause.
I understand that there is no additional financial benefit resulting from the bill, but I would ask you to elaborate on why you believe Canada’s current approach to recognizing military service no longer adequately reflects the realities of the modern military, particularly for veterans of the Persian Gulf War and Afghanistan conflict.
Senator Yussuff: When we look at how other countries evaluate missions and make a determination, we can see — and we’ve known for quite some time — there is a gap in the current legislation.
That gap speaks to the last time when we had to evaluate the Korean War and then determine that it was a war and that the men and women who were sent off on that mission should be recognized. The legislation that the government had to determine that conflict hasn’t changed since. They may have determined that one particular conflict was a mission. The gap exists in our current legislation. We looked at what the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended. We also looked at other countries and how they go about evaluating missions that their forces are sent to. I think we can do better as to how we go about recognizing when we send our men and women off on missions. I think this bill provides a floor for some core principles that the government must consider, but the government will also have to go out and consult with veterans and military historians in the context of their understanding of how we determine that. The experts would also have to consult with Veterans Affairs to get their perspective, and I think that will form a very thorough understanding of how we go about evaluating missions. That will then form the basis of them looking at all past missions going forward as to how they can then evaluate those missions and determine whether there were wartime service missions and ensure those veterans get the recognition they deserve.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, Senator Yussuff.
One of the strengths of your bill is that it focuses on the actual experience of service members rather than the political label attached to a mission. I wonder, how did you arrive at the proposed objective criteria? And do you believe they are sufficiently flexible to address future military operations?
Senator Yussuff: Let me describe it this way, based on what the veterans have told us. One of the veterans from the Afghanistan war said, “When I went to Afghanistan, there was an armed enemy shooting at me. I knew they were real bullets. More importantly, my experience taught me that this was a real conflict where I could potentially lose my life.” I should correct what I stated earlier; 158 lost their lives. Thousands more were injured in that conflict.
The four criteria determined were informed by the veterans themselves that they are core and foundational, but it doesn’t restrict the government from adding to the criteria. The government could add to them during consultations if they determine other criteria are necessary. We didn’t say that this is the only criterion you must consider, but it is based on what we were informed from the veterans we spoke to in terms of the draft of the bill.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for introducing this bill. I think it is very important.
In my previous life, I worked with many women and men in uniform, precisely those who had served in different places in the world, particularly Afghanistan. I have some experience with framework bills, having worked with Senator Housakos on a bill to establish a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder. Bills like this can provide the tools and the framework for the government to act, but getting it to do so is sometimes a different story. In our case, the plan the government came back with was lacking, and the advocates rejected it, basically.
While expanding recognition of service was an election promise for the government in 2025, how confident are you in the likelihood of the government providing a framework that advocates will support? To the point of it being an election promise, why has the government not introduced this change on its own in a government bill?
Senator Yussuff: That’s a good question. I think if you were to ask the men and women behind me, my colleagues and friends, you will hear them very shortly speak to their own experiences.
I find it quite mysterious that, despite all the factual evidence that would indicate the government should have done this, I’m glad they acknowledged it in their platform in the last election. As to why they haven’t done so, I don’t know. There are a lot of priorities in the government, and quite often they determine this is not a priority. But I think we’ve made the decision as a country that we will spend billions on rearming our Armed Forces and providing the necessary equipment so they can do their jobs effectively with the tools that are necessary. I believe if we can do that with the kind of haste the government has demonstrated, I think, at the same time, we could do so. If the government introduced or proposed a bill, I would be the first to support it.
The Persian Gulf veterans who came to see me have basically been lobbying the government for years in trying to get the government to act. The Veterans Affairs Committee, in the other place, tabled some recommendations that were accepted by the entire committee unanimously. Here we are, and it still hasn’t happened.
My point is, I’m hoping, given the broad support in the other place — and I’ve talked to MPs from the other parties, and no one disagreed that we should do this. They believe this bill provides them the opportunity to act. One of the members in one of the other parties in the other place was a colonel in the Afghanistan war. He supports the bill 100% wholeheartedly and will do everything within his power to try to get it passed in the other place as soon as possible.
As I am talking to you right now, I just learned today that a veteran from the Persian Gulf War has died. He had been waiting for the government to make a decision about his service. Every day we wait, another veteran from this country will die without getting the recognition they deserve. I believe we can accomplish this in a timely manner. We will meet the government’s own commitment, but equally, we’ll meet the veterans’ commitment that they’ve been lobbying now for decades.
Senator Boehm: Just in general terms, how many people do you expect will be impacted by this expansion of recognition?
Senator Yussuff: It is in the thousands. If you think about the Afghanistan conflict, there were 40,000 members rotated at different times throughout that conflict. They would be impacted by it, as well as anyone in the Persian Gulf. There are a number of other conflicts that are listed here that I haven’t spoken to directly, that if the government went back to review and determine they could also be covered by wartime service, Bill S-246, they would also be required. There are a number of missions, as you know, we dispatched people to where they were in armed conflict and they had to defend themselves. We didn’t list them all because the bill would do an injustice to the broader scheme of missions that deserve to be acknowledged.
Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for your initiative and leadership in taking this on. You are characteristically modest about your own role in this, but it has taken a lot of work to do it, and others have failed before you.
Has any explanation been provided to you by anybody in the course of this work as to why these matters haven’t been addressed already?
Senator Yussuff: That is a very interesting question, but it is also a very mysterious one. No one has ever provided a single answer as to why this hasn’t been done. If we were to look at some of our allies and how they go about doing this, it is certainly not rocket science because our allies have done this in a very clear and transparent way. We looked at the United States, the U.K. and Australia as we were doing the research in regard to drafting the bill, and all of them have a process that they follow. The Australians evaluate the mission a year after a mission to determine whether it should be recognized as wartime service.
How is it that Australia can achieve this, yet we have known since the Korean War that there is a gap as to how we go about recognizing missions that we dispatch our Armed Forces to but haven’t given them the recognition once they return home? I’ll go one step further.
I was doing a lot of media with regard to the bill. Everybody looked at me and said, “I cannot believe this gap exists in our legislation.” I don’t think it was ill-intended, but for whatever reason, we haven’t been able to fix it. I think this bill tries to get to that. I hope it moves the government to do the right thing.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for bringing this bill forward. Might I just add my thanks to all the people who have assisted you on this, some of whom are here in the room.
I would like to ask a couple of precise questions that are quite short. First, how exactly will the recognition be provided? My sense is that a number of Armed Forces personnel who have been at these various missions have received medals from there. Please correct me if I am wrong. What is the recognition that will be provided?
Second, how long do you think this will take, given that we are going back to 1953?
Senator Yussuff: We did provide some timelines for that to happen, and it’s critical because, as you know, the bureaucracy can sometimes go through an endless charade and never get to the answers that are required for the men and women who are seeking those answers.
Yes, a lot of medals have been issued by the Department of National Defence when people serve on missions, and my colleagues and friends will speak to that much more eloquently than I can.
The bill provides one year to develop the framework once the legislation passes through Parliament and receives Royal Assent, 180 days to evaluate all the missions since the Korean War, five years to do a mandatory review going forward and every 10 years to do another review thereafter. There is a time frame to get all of these mechanisms done.
Every bit of the perspective will be looked at and how the government can get there. This is not like they have to go and sort through military records to figure out whether we had a mission. We have been talking since the Korean War to current missions at the end of the day.
There is a time frame for the minister to meet and do all of this and get his department and officials to make sure they do it in a very thorough way. They will, of course, have to share that information with veterans, and once they have done so, they will provide the reasons and the logic as to how they did each mission and what the evaluation results were.
In addition to that, they have to make it a public, searchable website. As you know, not all veterans live in this country, but they have family members who can help them with that. They can go to a public, searchable website and see the information there. If they choose to challenge that information or contest it if they didn’t get the correct evaluation, they can now do so in a transparent way. In the same way, the government will share their review of all the missions in a way that veterans can see what the government did in their review of that mission to make a determination.
Senator Cardozo: How exactly will the recognition be made? Will they receive a commendation or a letter from the minister?
Senator Yussuff: We didn’t deal with that specifically. My friends will speak to what their expectations are, but I think the key is that veterans will tell you that they want it to be acknowledged that they were in a war. They fought in a war. In many cases, they were injured in a war, and in some frequent cases, they died in a war. Their families want to know that they have been recognized for the service they provided to this grateful nation, and they want them to be acknowledged for it. It is as simple as that.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, and thank you to the veterans who have been part of this campaign.
Senator McNair: Senator Yussuff, as all of our colleagues have said, thank you for your work on this bill. It is important and it’s timely, especially in light of learning that another veteran passed away today.
As you know, in December 2024, as part of the study on the status of military operations, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, or ACVA, tabled a report entitled The Persian Gulf War Was a War. The report, as you know, recognized the need to acknowledge, in a formal manner, certain military operations involving combat in a war zone.
I am curious to know when developing Bill S-246, to what extent were the ACVA recommendations considered? I have a nuanced question about why the decision was made in Bill S-246 to give the Governor-in-Council the power to designate wartime service, when the Minister of National Defence, in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, currently has similar designation powers under the Veterans Well-being Act.
Senator Yussuff: Certainly, the Veterans Affairs Committee’s recommendations were key and foundational to the bill, but also, other factors had to be taken into consideration in drafting the bill. How would you go about achieving this? More importantly, what is the time frame to ensure it will be done in a timely manner and reported to veterans in a transparent way so they can at least be knowledgeable of the conflict to which they were sent and how that specific conflict was evaluated?
We wanted to ensure that there are clear guidelines for the government, but equally, something the government could add to. We didn’t see the proposal in the bill as finite for the government, but it provides enough space for them to determine that at the end of the day in reviewing each conflict.
As you know, the minister will have to review every mission and determine whether or not that mission was a wartime service mission or not. In addition to that, of course, she would have to make recommendations to the cabinet and get the cabinet to go along with that. That’s where the order-in-council would come, not before. They first have to determine whether the mission was wartime service or not. If they determine that, so be it; it would be transparent for the veterans to follow. Veterans might also want to appeal if they didn’t get the correct designation.
At the end of the day, if all of that is accomplished and the order-in-council is confirmed, the minister and cabinet make a decision about the recognition that they would give.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you for this bill, Senator Yussuff. In reading it and listening to your speech, I think once again that we are redefining not only the recognition of service, but also the way Canada understands war.
My question is about experiences; you mentioned the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia. What lessons are you taking from those models? In those countries, is the recognition mostly symbolic, or is it associated with other concrete benefits?
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Every country takes a bit of a different approach in that context. To be specific, in the Australian legislation, not only do they determine whether it was wartime service, they also determine the benefits. It’s both in that legislation.
As you know, senators, if we were to propose a spending bill, it would require a Royal Recommendation, and we didn’t want to fall into that category, where the bill would die from the get-go. We tried to avoid that by not drafting a bill that would take that into consideration.
The key here is the importance that those countries placed on recognizing those who came back from a mission as quickly as possible, in order to give them the understanding that the country thanks them for their services. Equally, they recognize them as quickly as possible when they come back, so they and their families know the outcome of what the government has made in terms of a determination.
I think it’s quite unfortunate that, in our country, we don’t have a mechanism for doing that. As you know, the last time we declared war, if I’m right, was World War II. We haven’t done that since, but we’ve given labels to every mission we have sent veterans on. The men and women who served on those missions will tell you their experiences speak to their reality. I think it’s about time our government has legislation to speak to their reality, especially if they are going to serve.
The last point I would make on this is that one thing the Persian Gulf War veterans were conscious and clear about was that they didn’t want the bill to be just about them. They wanted to ensure that this bill would recognize others. They have an organization. Afghanistan veterans don’t have an organization, and many other veterans from past conflicts who were sent off do not have an organization. They also want to ensure, for the future, that nobody has to fight their battle and that the country has a way of deciding how these things will be evaluated going forward.
Many of you have given me a lot of recognition for this, but I want to thank the veterans for their courage and conviction to keep fighting for what they believe they deserve. If there is any recognition to be given regarding this bill, it should be given to them. I’m just fortunate to be in this chamber at this time to try to put forward something to get our government to act in the right way.
I hope the other place sees it the same when it goes over there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This concludes our time with the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Yussuff, I know you’ve minimized the focus of attention. Still, a champion is needed, and I want to thank you for championing this bill. If I had a camera, I couldn’t tell you how powerful the photo would be of you as the sponsor with the support that you have around. I just want to thank every single person at this moment behind Senator Yussuff. It is very powerful. We greatly appreciate that, and we thank you.
For those of you tuning in across Canada, we are meeting to study Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service.
For the second panel, we’re honoured to welcome Gordon MacEachern, Dominion Vice President and Advocacy Chair, The Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada; Warrant Officer (Retired) Michael McGlennon, Vice President, Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada; Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Dean Tremblay, Afghanistan Veteran; and, by video conference, Sergeant (Retired) Wendy-Anne Jocko, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones.
Thank you, truly and deeply, for joining us here today.
We are now going to take the opportunity to provide you some time for opening remarks to be followed by questions from the senators. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your opening statement, and we do try to keep it pretty disciplined there so we can have lots of questions.
We’re going to begin with Mr. Gordon MacEachern. Please go ahead.
Gordon MacEachern, Dominion Vice President and Advocacy Chair, Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada: Thank you, honourable chair, distinguished senators. I appear before you today in strong support of Senator Yussuff’s wartime service recognition act. This legislation speaks not only to policy but to principle, and it asks us to reflect on who we are as a nation and how we honour service and whether we have truly learned from our own history.
Every individual who dons the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces makes an extraordinary commitment. They give the assurance — quietly and resolutely — that they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. That truth does not change based on the geography of the mission or the mission type. Whether in training or deployment, whether at home or abroad, service carries an inherent risk. Every operation, every exercise, every posting holds a potential for danger. This we must recognize and honour all those who serve for what they did to protect our country.
But, honourable senators, we must also be honest with ourselves. While all service involves risk, not all risk is equal. There are clear and undeniable theatres of war where that risk is not just present but profoundly and explicitly elevated. To fail to acknowledge that distinction is not fairness, it is avoidance. We must have the courage to recognize that when our forces are sent into war, they face a level of danger that demands clear and immediate recognition.
Our history shows the consequences of not doing so. The veterans of the Korean returned home without the recognition that they earned. Their service in what was undeniably a war was too often minimized or overlooked. Many waited over 30 years for their contributions to be properly acknowledged by the government.
It became known as the forgotten war, but for veterans who lived it, it was anything but forgotten. The delay of recognition compounded the burden they already carried. Similarly, the Merchant Marines — civilians who risked their lives transporting essential goods through dangerous waters during wartime — faced a particularly long and painful struggle. Despite operating in active combat zones and experiencing casualty rates comparable to and in some cases exceeding those of uniformed service members, their service went unrecognized for decades — almost half a century. Many never lived to see the day when their country formally acknowledged their service. That is not a legacy we should accept or repeat.
Despite those lessons, we have seen similar patterns emerge again. Veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the Afghan mission have had to advocate once more for clarity and recognition of their service. These were not ambiguous missions. These were active theatres where Canadian personnel faced significant and sustained risk. Yet, questions around recognition and classification have, again, required veterans to fight not on foreign soil but on our home ground for the acknowledgment that they deserve. This is precisely the cycle we have to break.
This bill recognizes two essential truths that must coexist together. First, that all who serve deserve respect, recognition and gratitude for the commitment they have made to defend our country. Second, when we send Canadians to war — real, defined areas of conflict — we must be unequivocal in acknowledging that reality and the heightened risk that comes with it.
The wartime service recognition act establishes a framework that moves us beyond hesitation and inconsistency; it ensures that recognition is not delayed by politics, ambiguity or shifting interpretations. It creates a system that is clear, principled and ready to respond in real time, so those who serve in high-risk wartime environments are recognized as such, without delay and without need for prolonged advocacy. This is about fairness, but it is also about honesty.
If we ask our service members to step into war, then we must be equally prepared to name it as such. If we accept the benefits of their courage, we must also accept the responsibility of acknowledging the full extent of the risk they face. This legislation ensures that future generations will not have to revisit the same struggles faced by Korean War veterans, the Merchant Marines and, more recently, veterans of the Gulf and Afghanistan conflicts. It gives us a durable and enduring framework that respects both the universality of the service and the realities of war.
In doing so, it strengthens the bond between our nation and those who defend it. It tells every member of the Canadian Armed Forces your service is seen, your risks are understood and your sacrifice — whatever form it may take — will not be subject to delay or debate.
Honourable senators, we cannot change the past, but we can ensure that its lessons guide us toward a better future. Let us recognize all those who serve and let us speak honestly about the realities of war. Let us put in place a framework that ensures no veteran is ever again left waiting for the recognition that they have already earned. I urge you to support Senator Yussuff’s bill, and I thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are now going to hear from Warrant Officer Michael McGlennon.
Warrant Officer, Retired, Michael McGlennon, Vice President, Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada: Good evening, committee members.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear and testify on this important bill that will directly and positively affect past, present and future veterans.
As of today, Canada has not formally recognized wartime service since Korea. Yet, Canadians in uniform have continued to serve in conflicts such as the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan — conflicts that most Canadians would understand as wars. For many veterans, the service was recognized by our allies, recognized by history, recognized by Canadians, but not formally recognized by my own country.
The good news is that Canada has done the right thing before. Korean War veterans and Merchant Navy veterans eventually succeeded in petitioning Canada to have their service formally recognized as wartime service. The unfortunate reality is that they both waited decades to receive that important recognition — to be specific, 27 years for Korea after they got home, and 45 years for Merchant Navy veterans.
Bill S-246 gives us an opportunity to directly resolve this issue and ensure future veterans do not have to advocate for changes to their own service.
Before you sit two special-duty service veterans. I’m a 35‑year Persian Gulf veteran, and Mr. Tremblay, to my left, is now 12 years and counting. We sit here together. Whilst we are a generation apart in service, we have the shared experience of having both served in conflicts that Canadians generally understand to be wars; and yet, neither of us is recognized by our country as a wartime veteran. We live daily with the consequences of not being properly recognized. This hurts.
We both served without reservation and without complaint. We both assumed if we needed our country because we were ill or injured, that we would be cared for and our needs met. It never occurred to either of us that our service history would be an issue. It never occurred to us that one of the longest and most difficult battles we would face would be for proper recognition from our own country. This hurts.
This bill is fair, transparent, removes the burden of further veteran advocacy and assigns responsibility to Canada. It addresses three critical issues.
First, the establishment of a mandatory, timely, consistent and transparent administrative review of active-duty military service will be substantive in the removal of politics, bias and opinion, which are the current construct of obtaining recognition decisions. Veterans should not have to spend decades fighting to have their service properly recognized because Canada has no defined, clear and consistent process for assessing it.
Second, performing a holistic review of all post-operational, active-duty service between 1953 and 2026 will help ensure that service is properly recognized for what it was.
Third — my favourite, actually — the mandatory legacy requirement will terminate further advocacy requirements of future generations of military members and veterans.
Veterans themselves have the lived experience of combat. When we joined the military, we swore allegiance to our monarch and voluntarily agreed to the unlimited liability associated with these conflicts. Zero protections from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canada Labour Code or workplace safety regulations.
Our reward for this service you ask? Our reward, if we survive our service, is to bear post-operational moral injuries, perpetrated by our own country when our service and sacrifice are marginalized and minimized for decades.
Bill S-246 will repair and restore lost dignity and pride in service. It will additionally benefit veterans’ families, ensure historical accuracy for education in our school systems, and finally provide Canadians with a heightened awareness of the past service of their military, with a reminder that freedom is not free.
Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada are very grateful and fully support Senator Yussuff, his Bill S-246 and its objectives.
Finally, I ask for the full support of the Senate and hope for a unanimous vote when sending it to the House of Commons. Please send a strong and powerful message. We lose veterans daily — I lost another one two days ago — and further inaction denies them the awareness that their country finally sees them as Canada should, as a war veteran.
This concludes my statement, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, WO McGlennon. Next we invite LCol. Tremblay.
Lieutenant-Colonel, Retired, Dean Tremblay, Afghanistan Veteran, as an individual: Madam Chair, honourable senators, good evening.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the significance of Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service.
During my 25-year career in the Canadian Army, I deployed on multiple operations in support of Canada’s national interests, international commitments and security objectives.
I speak to you today as an Afghanistan veteran. I deployed as a combat team commander to Kandahar Province between September 2008 and May 2009.
During that mission, I, along with the 146 soldiers in my unit, operated daily in an environment where threats were real, sustained and unpredictable. The operational tempo was intense, and the physical and mental toll endured throughout our time in Afghanistan was significant. We were exposed every day to a hostile armed enemy, and the threat to life was a routine part of our existence.
During my deployment, sadly, four of my soldiers were killed by enemy action, and another 34 were injured; 22 of whom returned home due to significant injuries. These figures reflect our lived reality that 26% of my unit became casualties.
Furthermore, these figures do not even begin to account for the longer-term consequences of injuries, be they seen or unseen, many still manage today.
These proud Canadians accepted unlimited liability in service to Canada, and many, including their families, remain affected by that service — and, in my case, some 17 years later.
To me, we were clearly and undeniably at war in Afghanistan. I am immensely proud of my service to Canada. Those years in uniform underscored the most powerful and profound experiences of my life. That is why I believe Bill S-246 is so very important. This will set the conditions to acknowledge, in an enduring and credible manner, the sacrifice and lived realities of military members and veterans who served on operations.
More specifically, I want to highlight three important strengths of Bill S-246 from my perspective. First, Bill S-246 recognizes wartime service based on conditions actually faced, not simply on the administrative label given to a mission at the time of creation. It allows recognition to apply to all or part of a mission because service conditions can change over time — in some cases years or even decades — and recognition should reflect that reality and the maturation of the mission itself.
Second, Bill S-246 creates a clear, transparent and criteria-based process that supports fairness, consistency and accountability. It requires objective criteria, consultation with veterans and relevant experts, to review all Canadian Armed Forces operations since July 1953, and the assessment of future operations within defined timelines.
It also provides for a public, searchable record of operations and decisions, with explanations of how the criteria were applied. In doing so, it shifts the burden away from veterans and their advocates and back to the system where it belongs.
Third, Bill S-246 is about recognition, not compensation. It does not create new benefits or pensions. Instead, it establishes recognition clearly in law, on its own merits, and in alignment with reality. It sets the record right and helps ensure consistency across generations of service. Recognition is about accuracy. It is about knowing your service is seen for what it was, not filtered through labels that do not reflect reality.
Bill S-246 is not about rewriting history; it is about recognizing it honestly. This bill respects those who have served and those who will continue to serve our country long into the future.
I want to extend a specific thank you to Senator Yussuff and all those who have supported the advancement of this bill for many years. Your leadership on this issue matters deeply to serving members, veterans and their families.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening, and thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, LCol. Tremblay.
Our final witness joins us by video conference. Sgt. Wendy‑Anne Jocko, the floor is yours.
Sergeant (Retired) Wendy-Anne Jocko, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones: Honourable senators, meegwetch and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I am here today on behalf of Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones. I served 23 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, including two tours of duty in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s.
I come before you with pride in that service, and with a clear message on behalf of many who have worn Canada’s uniform. I speak in solidarity with all veterans and with those who currently serve. We honour those who did not come home, including the hundreds who died in Afghanistan. We also honour those who did, but whose lives were changed forever by war and by operations that demanded everything of them, and of their families.
Canada asks for extraordinary things of people who serve in uniform. In modern conflict, the front line is not a line at all; threats are persistent, unpredictable and close. Too often, the real costs of service follow people home for years, sometimes for a lifetime.
That is why Bill S-246, the wartime service recognition act, matters. At its heart, this bill is about fairness and consistency in how Canada symbolically and commemoratively recognizes wartime service.
It does two important things. First, it requires the Minister of National Defence to establish a public, accountable, national framework for wartime service recognition; not a patchwork, not a set of decisions hidden behind administrative language. A framework Canadians can understand, and service members and veterans can trust.
Second, it requires the government to review all Canadian Armed Forces operations since July 27, 1953, and to designate wartime service by order-in-council when objective criteria are met.
Why does this matter now? Because recognition must match reality. Canadians have served in complex and dangerous operations that were not always described as “war” at the time, but many of those operations involved hostile action, prolonged exposure to trauma and sustained operational tempo. A label should never outweigh lived experience.
A clear Canadian example is the Battle of Medak Pocket in Croatia in 1993. On September 14, members of 2 PPCLI, under UNPROFOR, entered what was meant to be a neutral zone and came under heavy machine gun and artillery fire. Canadians fought for hours, suffered injuries, and Captain Jim DeCoste was killed. The unit later received the Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation.
Medak was not an abstract peacekeeping story. It was combat, and it proves a simple truth: Labels can mislead.
Bill S-246 focuses on the conditions of service. Those conditions include exposure to hostile or life-threatening situations, the scale and intensity of operations and circumstances capable of causing physical or psychological injury, including in armed conflict, regardless of a declared state of war. It also prevents the government from using formal wording as a reason to deny recognition.
When wartime service is not recognized, the consequences are not theoretical. Non-recognition can deepen injury, isolate families and erode trust in the institutions that ask people to carry extraordinary risks. It can create inequality among peers who faced comparable danger, and it can weaken public understanding of what Canada asks of its service members.
Honourable senators, this bill is not about rewriting history, as we’ve all heard prior to me. It is about recognizing service as it was actually lived. It tells veterans and serving members that Parliament sees their risk, respects their sacrifice and will apply clear criteria openly and fairly. I urge you to support Bill S-246. Meegwetch. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Sergeant Jocko.
We will now proceed to questions. Our guests will be with us until 6:55. In that time, we will do our best to give the chance for those who wish to ask questions to do so. With this in mind, I ask you to try to keep your questions succinct and identify to whom you are directing your question.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here. My question is directed to Warrant Officer Michael McGlennon. It is so nice to see you again. I recall so clearly having met you so briefly on the thirty-fifth anniversary of Operation Friction at the end of the Gulf War. Thank you for being with us here today.
I recall, also, that you were stationed in Bahrain during the Gulf War, and you visited the occupied Golan Heights and my birthplace, Damascus, Syria. So you brought back great memories to me.
My question relates to your organization, which has advocated for recognition of Persian Gulf veterans for many years. Why do you believe that veterans of that conflict continue to feel overlooked, despite the significant risks they faced during deployment?
WO McGlennon: It is a great question. Like many things in life, there is no single reason. I’ve not been successful in discovering why Canada has this systemic issue. It’s been in existence since 1945.
In our Canadian history, we declared war four times — in 1914, 1939 and on December 7, 1941; on the same day, we declared war twice. Not many Canadians know that. But in all the military service after 1945, we have not declared wars. We use our relationships under UN and NATO authorities, and we go into conflict zones, and we have undertaken a lot of peacekeeping missions.
That all gets jumbled up into the same pot, but, right now, without further wartime veterans identified by Canada, we’re on the same level as peacekeeping operations. We’ve done, as a country, over 100 of them, I assume. I haven’t sat down and counted them, but our peacekeeping contribution is something Canada can be very proud of.
But when I went to the Gulf War, I wasn’t wearing a blue beret, and it was the largest assembly of manpower and equipment since the Second World War — almost 2 million men and equipment in the theatre. I was told, if it takes years, you’re not going home. And it turned out to be one of the globe’s shortest wars, but I came home. I don’t think I answered your question.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. How important, from your perspective, is formal wartime recognition for surviving veterans and their families, and for the families of those who did not survive?
WO McGlennon: To me, it’s priceless and a legacy that I leave for my family and for generations long after I am no longer here. Somebody will go on Ancestry.com or something and find out that someone on our family tree did something of significance. But my military service record does not reflect that I am a wartime service veteran. I think of myself as one, as Mr. Tremblay does and many others, but we are not allowed to use those labels because we’d be dishonouring those veterans who have received that recognition from Canada.
If I am privileged enough to be identified as such by Canada one day, then I can think of myself as does a Korean War veteran or as a First World War veteran or in that similar vein. But until that day comes, I just have to sit here and accept the journey. I have spent eight years on this, and I’m not stopping until I get this done.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you to our witnesses, not just for your service but for your eloquent testimony today. I think we are all touched by it.
This is a question for any of you who wish to attempt to answer it. You’ve advocated for an expansion of service recognition in Canada. In doing so, have you worked with current and former fellow service women and men of allied nations with regard to the service recognition regimes in their countries? Are we in Canada an outlier in terms of recognition for the service of our Gulf War, Afghanistan and Balkans veterans? Or is expanding recognition something that’s currently being worked on in other countries, too?
Lieutenant-Colonel Tremblay, do you want to start? Am I putting you on the spot?
LCol. Tremblay: A little bit on the spot; thank you for that.
I have no direct contact with folks from allied nations, but I think it’s fair to say there’s a disparity across nations. I can’t speak to individual nations who are further ahead than others. I think, suffice it to say, there are some great examples out there, and Senator Yussuff did make recommendations and suggestions as to some of those nations that have put some thought and energy into it.
WO McGlennon: My organization has a senior demographic, but we have excellent connections with the U.K., Australia and America. In fact, we’re going down to Washington, D.C., later this year, because the Americans have built a monument on their National Mall for the Persian Gulf War down there. Kuwait has funded or provided a lot of the money toward the building of it. Canada sent C$25,000.
Our community has been accepted and celebrated by the Kuwait embassy in Canada by the Kuwait ambassador. We’ve been invited for the last three or four years to attend their national function. Their national day is February 25 of every year; that’s their equivalent to Canada Day. They call it Liberation Day, marking the end of the first Gulf War. So I am celebrated better by Kuwait than I am by Canada.
Senator Boehm: So you would agree that we are an outlier in terms of this?
WO McGlennon: We are an outlier, definitely, and we have been for decades. I talk to my counterparts: Are we there yet? No. What’s the problem? I don’t know.
Senator Boehm: Do you have a view on this as well?
Mr. MacEachern: I know that the British and the Australians do recognize their service in Afghanistan and in the Gulf War a lot more than we do.
Senator Boehm: Sargent Jocko, do you have a view on that with your organization?
Sgt. Jocko: Yes. I understand that recently there was a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Afghanistan memorial, and I understand that there were no Afghanistan veterans present. If that was an oversight, I think that there should certainly be an examination of who gets invited to these commemoration events as well.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much. I certainly get the picture.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Sergeant Jocko, you mentioned the date of July 27, 1953, when the armistice that ended the Korean War was signed. Are the armistice periods that follow wars recognized as wartime service in Canada? Does anyone else have the answer?
[English]
Sgt. Jocko: That is a good question. I believe Warrant Officer McGlennon did mention the fact that it was years after that Korea was recognized.
WO McGlennon: In 1980.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Is service on the ground during an armistice period, for example, in Korea after July 27, 1953, recognized as wartime service? We’re talking about lived reality. Does a military member deployed after the official end of the war live in peace, or do they still undergo the stress associated with the risks?
[English]
Mr. MacEachern: The stress of war never goes away. You could live for 100 years, and the stress will never leave your body. Although it took so long for them to recognize it, those veterans live with that stress.
Sgt. Jocko: Following up on that, prior to even going into a theatre of war, there is training. You could arrive in theatre, and then it is declared over, but you still have that stress, even though you are just arriving one day into the battle. Of course, it’s the aftermath. Sometimes, for veterans who have served, it is not over, ever.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Someone recently mentioned UN missions. Do military members experience the same level of risk and stress there as in other post-conflict settings?
[English]
Sgt. Jocko: When I mentioned going to Bosnia myself — and I was there in 1993 — there were many casualties. As you know, in the Medak Pocket, there were casualties. When I was there, a few Canadians were killed. They called this peacetime, but, like I said, it’s a label and not a clear one. The Dutch contingent lost six soldiers. Somebody sent a mortar round into the marketplace, and they were killed. Was it intentional? We don’t know.
Another young soldier was on patrol. We were all gathered. I remember the sergeant and the warrant officers came and gathered us up to basically have a bit of a memorial because one of our own soldiers was cut in half by an M72 when he was on an observation mission. It was supposed to be a peacekeeping mission.
Even in training, there are always casualties, even before deployment. It’s just a label. There should certainly be a bit of a microscope put on that word, “peacekeeping.”
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I have one last quick question for you: How do you think Bill S-246 covers these areas of peace and instability?
[English]
LCol. Tremblay: I think it will recognize the reality of those folks who were deployed to those regions. I have a laundry list of things in my head after all these questions.
War or conflict is a human thing, and that is always with you. It’s not a light switch that starts and stops; it is an enduring thing. I think the example that my good colleague has highlighted is very factual, and it doesn’t go away. The mental scars, if you will, consistently endure. That is not unlike other traumatic events for folks who may experience them.
I think the bill has inherent flexibility to assess the realities of those missions, be they a UN mission, where in UN operations around the world right now, UN soldiers are being killed. If you are put in between warring factions, for example, you are at significant risk. It is important to have an inherently flexible bill that looks at the dynamics of that particular environment appropriately.
Senator Al Zaibak: Sergeant Jocko, Indigenous Peoples have served Canada with distinction throughout our military history.
Do you believe Bill S-246 offers an opportunity to better recognize Indigenous veterans whose service may not have received the attention it deserves? From your perspective, how can the proposed framework ensure that Indigenous voices and experiences are appropriately reflected in future wartime recognition decisions?
Sgt. Jocko: Thank you for that question.
I certainly thank you for recognizing Indigenous peoples’ contributions to Canada’s service. It actually started before Canada was even Canada. Don’t forget, during the War of 1812, thousands of Indigenous peoples served, including members of my own family. Indigenous people certainly have the experience of not being recognized and not receiving benefits. Hopefully, Canada has learned from that history. Starting with Bill S-246, that recognition can be focused upon going forward for not just Indigenous people but for all veterans.
Hopefully, various institutions, like the Assembly of First Nations, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones or any other Indigenous organization, can contribute to this conversation, and hopefully, Canada will be open to that and invite Indigenous people to the table. There are many Indigenous veterans out there.
The Chair: Thank you for your response.
Sgt. Jocko: I hope that has answered your question.
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes, it does. Thank you so much.
The Chair: I would like to say thank you again to you and the people sitting behind you for taking the time to appear before us today. There has definitely been a lot of time and effort invested into this testimony. I’ve heard your numbers about the effort you have put into this. We hope that it proceeds in the direction that it needs to go in to honour, recognize and respect your commitment and sacrifices, as well as your passion in trying to do this for so many others. On behalf of this committee, we thank you.
We will now proceed to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service.
As discussed at the beginning of the meeting, if at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the bill, please ask for clarification. Are there any questions before we proceed? No. Okay, we will proceed.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to this report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I respect our guests and what this must have sounded like today. I know it sounds different, but it does get us through this bill, and we’re excited to get that back to the Senate.
This concludes the agenda items for today’s meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)