Budget 2025 Implementation Bill, No. 1

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.

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.

I’m not sure if that’s a record.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Part 5, perhaps, is where committee members and witnesses appearing before committee spent most of their time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Senator Gignac, do you have a question?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

Will Senator Patterson take a question?

I will.

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?

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.

Would Senator Patterson take a question?

Yes.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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 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.

Thank you, senators, for that very enlightening discussion, I really appreciate it.

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.

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.

Yes, I will.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.