Wartime Service Recognition Bill

Moved third reading of Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service.

He said: Honourable senators, I know it’s late, and it’s Thursday night, but given this effort that we’ve been involved in, I hope I can keep you here for a little while longer, because it’s more than just me reading a speech.

I rise today at third reading of Bill S-246, the wartime service recognition act.

At second reading, I spoke about the need for a fair, transparent and consistent process for recognizing wartime service in modern conflicts. Since then, the bill has been studied by committee.

I would like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs for their careful consideration of the bill.

I would also like to thank the veterans, veterans organizations and representatives of Indigenous veterans who appeared before the committee and shared their experiences, expertise and perspectives. Their testimony reinforced an important point: This issue is not about revisiting the past; it is about ensuring that recognition keeps pace with the realities of modern military service.

Honourable senators, several themes emerged during the committee’s study. First, we heard that recognition matters. Persian Gulf War veterans and Afghanistan veterans described serving in conflicts that Canadians broadly understand as wars, yet were not formally recognized as wartime service veterans by their country.

As Persian Gulf veteran Mike McGlennon told the committee:

. . . 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.

That statement, I think, captures the central issue before us. Recognition is not an abstract policy discussion; it is a question of whether service is acknowledged in a way that reflects the conditions under which it was performed.

Witnesses spoke about sacrifices, duty and service. They also spoke about dignity, respect and the importance of knowing that their country — Canada — understands what they were asked to do.

Secondly, we heard that many veterans believe the current approach lacks consistency and transparency. Witnesses described a system where recognition questions can remain unresolved for years and, in some cases, decades. They spoke about the absence of a clear framework and the challenges of relying on ad hoc efforts to address concerns that affect entire generations of veterans. The testimony revealed an overwhelming common desire for a process that is understandable, transparent and accountable.

Thirdly, we heard that future veterans should not have to fight a second battle simply to have their service properly recognized. This theme emerged repeatedly throughout the testimony of the witnesses.

Witnesses spoke about the importance of ensuring that future generations of service members are not left to advocate for recognition years or decades after their service has ended.

I believe this is one of the most important ideas behind this bill. The men and women who serve Canada should not have to spend decades advocating for recognition because there is no clear process for assessing their service to our country.

Honourable senators, Bill S-246 responds to those concerns in a practical and balanced way. The bill does not attempt to predetermine which operations should or should not be recognized as wartime service. Nor does it ask Parliament to make those recommendations itself.

Instead, it establishes a framework. It requires the development of objective criteria grounded in the conditions of service. It requires consultation with veterans, stakeholder groups and subject matter experts. It requires transparency. It requires public reporting. It requires the review of past and future military operations through a consistent process, and it requires the government to explain how decisions are made.

At its core, the bill seeks to ensure that recognition decisions are guided by a framework that is fair, accountable and publicly understandable for veterans and their families.

Importantly, it also preserves government decision-making authority. The final determination remains with the government. The bill establishes guardrails. It does not establish outcomes.

During the committee’s study, several important questions were raised. One question concerned whether this bill creates benefits, pensions or compensation.

The answer is no. This bill is about recognition and recognition alone. It does not amend the Veterans Well-being Act. A lot of effort and a long process went into establishing that legislation, and it does not touch that.

It does not amend the Pension Act. It does not create new financial entitlements. Recognition and compensation are deliberately treated separately.

Another question concerned whether the bill automatically recognizes specific missions as wartime service. Again, the answer is no. The bill creates a process through which those determinations can be made. It does not predetermine the result. The role of the framework is to ensure that decisions are made consistently, transparently and according to objective criteria.

A further question was why legislation is needed. I believe the committee heard a persuasive argument. Veterans have been raising this issue for years. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs studied it and identified concerns regarding recognition, transparency and consistency.

The government itself recognized the issue in its 2025 election platform by committing to review recognition of missions, including the Persian Gulf. There is now broad recognition that this issue deserves attention.

The question is no longer whether the issue exists. The question is how we address it. Bill S-246 provides a practical answer to that question.

Honourable senators, for more than 70 years, Canada has not formally recognized wartime service beyond Korea. Yet Canadians have continued to serve in conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, that many Canadians would understand as wars.

The nature of military operations has evolved. Formal declarations of war have become increasingly rare by our government, but the realities faced by those in uniform have not disappeared.

Canadian men and women in uniform continue to serve in dangerous environments. They continue to face hostile conditions, and they continue to face risks that most of us will never experience. That reality is at the heart of this legislation. This bill is ultimately about fairness.

The committee heard direct evidence of those realities. Afghanistan Veteran Lieutenant-Colonel Dean Tremblay told us:

During that mission, I, along with the 146 soldiers in my unit, operated daily in an environment where threats were real, sustained and unpredictable.

That testimony speaks directly to the principle underlying this bill. Recognition should reflect the conditions of service that men and women in uniform face in this country. Simply, it should reflect what Canadians in uniform were sent into and what they faced.

It should not depend solely on the label attached to a mission at a particular point in time. That principle is reflected throughout this legislation. It is reflected in the requirement for objective criteria. It is reflected in the emphasis on consultation. It is reflected in the commitment to transparency, and it is reflected in the requirement to review both past and future service.

Colleagues, throughout the committee’s study, we heard witnesses describe this bill as being about fairness, consistency and respect. At its core, I believe they are right. This bill does not rewrite history. It seeks to recognize it honestly. It does not create benefits. It creates a framework. It does not remove decision-making authority from the government. It ensures that decisions are made through a process that is transparent and accountable.

And, perhaps most importantly, it seeks to ensure that future generations of veterans do not have to spend decades seeking recognition of their service.

Honourable senators, we ask Canadians in uniform to accept unlimited liability in service to this country. We ask them to go where they are sent. We ask them to face risks most of us will never know, and we ask them to do so in the service of Canada.

In return, I believe, we owe them something fundamental. We owe them recognition that reflects the reality of their service. That is the standard this bill seeks to establish.

After careful study, thoughtful testimony and constructive discussion, I believe Bill S-246 represents a reasonable, practical and balanced approach to an issue that has remained unresolved for too long.

I therefore respectfully ask for your support in adopting Bill S-246 at third reading.

Thank you.

Would Senator Yussuff take a question?

Yes.

Senator Yussuff, thank you for your speech, and I commend you for sponsoring such an important and long-overdue initiative.

As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, I was touched by the witness testimony we heard this past Monday, June 1, on Bill S-246.

At that meeting, I asked the witnesses — all front-line veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces — if, while advocating for this change, they found that Canada is an outlier in terms of recognition for the service of our veterans who have served in combat operations since the Korean War.

The clear response was that Canada is indeed an outlier and that other countries are much further ahead. The U.K. and Australia were specified with regard to the Gulf War and Afghanistan.

Senator Yussuff, very simply, why has the Government of Canada allowed this to happen? Why has this expansion of recognition, despite being a campaign promise of the government in 2025, not been introduced as government legislation?

First, Senator Boehm, thank you so much for your question. I can’t speak for the government or why they have chosen not to act.

What I can say is that veterans have been raising this issue for many years — as a matter of fact, for decades in some cases.

The Persian Gulf War ended 35 years ago. This year, I went to the memorial to acknowledge that. And I’m sure most of you will sit and scratch your head. How is that possible? It has been 35 years since the end of the Persian Gulf War, and we haven’t come to terms with the men and women who were asked to go on that mission. We haven’t recognized them.

They formed an organization called the Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada, and they have been advocating for eight years.

The committee heard evidence that some of our allies, including Australia and the United Kingdom, have adopted clear approaches in regard to recognition of service, including for the Persian Gulf War. So other countries and allies like Canada have done this in a way that, clearly, if we wanted to as a government and a country, we could have.

In my view, the question is no longer whether the issue exists but how we address it. I believe Bill S-246 provides a framework for our government, without predetermining which conflicts we have sent our men and women to should be recognized as wartime service.

In the process of consultation, the government will have to answer those questions, and, as such, they will have to tell Canadians in a transparent way how they arrived at those answers. I believe this bill can bring closure to men and women who have been advocates.

As we started the committee hearing on Monday, I was told one of the veterans of the Persian Gulf War passed away. He died before his service to his great country was recognized.

Two weeks ago, another two veterans from that same war died, not knowing whether their service would be recognized.

Further, 158 who served in the war in Afghanistan died, and we haven’t recognized their service as wartime service. In the war in Afghanistan, 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces rotated. I’m a simple person. I think of those men and women and their families. We owe them a debt of gratitude. This bill is about their dignity and about the recognition they deserve.

Honourable senators, thank you for allowing me to speak on this very important and meaningful bill at third reading.

I rise today at third reading of Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service, also known as the wartime service recognition act.

I want to begin by acknowledging our colleague, the Honourable Hassan Yussuff, for his heart, passion and sincere wish to give recognition where it is deserved.

Senator, thank you for your advocacy and your efforts, and thank you to the committee for prioritizing this bill to bring it back to third reading at this time.

My purpose today is to speak in support of this bill at third reading. Although Bill S-246 is a focused measure, it touches on a long-standing challenge that Conservatives have highlighted for years: the inconsistent recognition of wartime service and sacrifices made by Canadian Forces members in high-risk modern operations, even as we stand united in our commitment to honour all who serve.

This bill is significant because it seeks to address a real and long-standing gap in how Canada recognizes wartime service in the modern era. Its purpose is not to create new benefits but to establish a fair, transparent and accountable process that reflects the realities faced by those who served in demanding operations.

This is a goal I wholeheartedly support and I know all other senators support as well. Bill S-246 requires the development of clear, objective criteria based on the actual conditions of service; mandates consultation with veterans, experts and other stakeholders; and calls for a review of all Canadian Armed Forces operations since July 27, 1953, the day of the signing of the Korean War armistice.

It also requires future operations to be assessed within defined timelines, creates a searchable public list of operations and decisions and requires explanations of how the criteria were applied in each case.

This objective transcends partisan lines. Veterans from coast to coast to coast who served in high-risk modern operations continue to be denied timely, consistent and meaningful recognition of their wartime service, despite the real dangers and sacrifices they endured to protect Canadians and Canadian values.

As a beneficiary of Canadian sacrifice during the Korean War, I truly believe in honouring our veterans’ sacrifice, supporting our military and keeping faith with those who defend Canada and nations around the world.

Bill S-246 starts from a strong foundation. It does not create new layers of bureaucracy or open-ended spending. Instead, it establishes clear, objective criteria based on actual conditions of service and brings transparency to how wartime service is recognized. These are principles that should resonate with all senators, and they align closely with the work I have done over many years to honour our heroes of the Korean War.

I am forever grateful to our Korean War veterans, without whom I would not be standing here today. That personal connection drives my work every day in this chamber. I have visited veterans in long-term care facilities and organized and attended commemoration events. Their experiences of exposure to life-threatening conditions, intense combat and physical and psychological hardship — and their clear mission to defend freedom and democracy — have shaped my deep commitment to ensuring that all who serve in Canada’s uniform receive the recognition they deserve.

Their stories reinforce why Bill S-246 matters. It ensures future generations will receive the clear, consistent recognition too often missing for high-risk modern service.

While a comprehensive review of all Canadian Armed Forces operations since the Korean armistice on July 27, 1953, is a necessary and welcome step, we must ensure it is conducted efficiently. The bill’s 180-day timeline will help ensure it moves swiftly. This is an important provision that gives veterans of missions like the Gulf War and Afghanistan the timely answers they deserve.

However, we know from past experience with government reviews, timelines can slip if not tightly managed. Veterans of the Gulf War, who served in harsh desert conditions with real threats from chemical agents and Scud missiles, have waited decades for proper recognition. So have those who served in Afghanistan, where more than 40,000 Canadians deployed and 159 made the ultimate sacrifice in some of the most dangerous combat zones of that war.

We cannot allow another generation of veterans to wait while paperwork piles up in Ottawa. With the passage of this bill, we can keep the process on track to prevent further delays.

Second, the objective criteria must be developed with a clear focus on the actual conditions faced by veterans in high-risk modern operations such as the Gulf War and Afghanistan. The real dangers and conditions experienced by those who served in desert heat, under threat of chemical exposure or in the intense combat zones of Afghanistan must guide how we assess risk exposure, sacrifice and service. This ensures the framework remains true to the lived realities of wartime conditions without diluting the honour due to any generation.

The bill rightly calls for criteria grounded in actual conditions of service, including exposure to life-threatening situations, risk of physical or psychological injury and the scale and intensity of missions. This evidence-based approach helps ensure fairness and consistency across different operations.

The committee process has provided an opportunity to highlight these modern realities, and I trust the regulations will reflect this clarity.

Third, the consultation requirements are important and will bring vital voices to the table. Veterans, experts and key stakeholders, especially groups representing Gulf War and Afghanistan veterans, deserve a meaningful say in shaping these criteria.

The committee heard from many of these voices, and I am confident their input will help make the criteria as effective as possible while avoiding consultation fatigue through a structured approach.

Fourthly, the creation of a public searchable list of operations and decisions is a welcome transparency measure that will let veterans and families see exactly how decisions are made. They deserve clear explanations of why a mission received or did not receive a wartime designation. We must ensure existing security protocols under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, alongside Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces safeguards, appropriately protect sensitive operational details, classified tactics or alliances, while delivering the openness veterans have earned.

Lastly, this bill focuses solely on the recognition our veterans truly deserve without creating or changing benefits, pensions or compensation regimes. We can support its lean design by ensuring the framework integrates smoothly into existing Veterans Affairs Canada processes. This keeps administrative costs minimal, directing every resource toward honouring service rather than new bureaucracy.

Honourable senators, let us remember the veterans of high-risk modern operations — the Gulf War, Afghanistan and other demanding missions since 1953 — who answered the call with extraordinary courage and sacrifice. Their courage and sacrifice remind us why recognition is so important. Let us pass this bill and continue championing our veterans, our military and a Canada that never forgets the price of freedom.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, senator. I cannot answer that exact question you are asking. But what I can say is that, as a nation, we have asked Canadians to put their lives on the line to go and serve in these very dangerous wars. The Korean War was called a conflict in order for the United Nations to be able to send in support to Korea, so it wasn’t declared a war. Therefore, when our veterans came back after three years of combat and war, they were not categorized and recognized as veterans. It actually took 55 years, till 2008, when the late Greg Thompson, the former minister of Veterans Affairs, actually invited them into the benefits program. It took 55 years for that.

All I know is that we have been asking Canadian families to allow their sons, husbands and brothers — and women, including our own colleague Senator Patterson — to go into these places.

What I would simply say is that I hope that this will receive speedy passage in the House. I hope the government of the day will be able to address what needs to be done in order to recognize the service that these veterans deserve.

So I didn’t answer your question, but perhaps there will be a question from the sponsor that I could answer. Thank you.

Just one thing I know I mentioned in my speech is that it is not creating more bureaucracy. We’re not talking about benefits at this time. This bill is very focused. So I hope that this bill will receive speedy passage. Again, I know the sponsor should have received this question. However, though I don’t have the answer, I feel that this bill is widely, broadly supported, and it will be sent to the House once we adopt it here in the Senate.

Would Senator Martin take a question?

Yes.

It was interesting listening to the question you received from my good friend and colleague. In drafting this bill, that was one of the fundamental questions that had to be resolved because any spending bill will require a Royal Recommendation. The bill was drafted with the guidance of the Parliament of Canada, and we deliberately did it in a way that would avoid the government having to give a Royal Recommendation. We’re not touching the Pension Act or the veterans’ piece of legislation that also protects other services they receive.

I think that should clarify for my colleagues in this house why it will not require a Royal Recommendation. The question I wanted to ask you is very simple: Given your relationship with your caucus colleagues, would your colleagues support this bill when it gets to the other place?

I can’t say 100% because I have not talked to all of my caucus colleagues, but, as I said in my speech, we have been calling for support. As Conservatives, we stand with veterans. I will definitely speak to my colleagues, but I imagine this will receive broad support.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)