Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 45th Parliament
Volume 154, Issue 99
Tuesday, November 3, 2026
The Honourable René Cormier, Speaker pro tempore
- SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
- Cutting Red Tape for All Canadians Bill
- Hellenic Heritage Month Bill
- Competition Act
- Living Donor Recognition Medal Bill
- Enacting Climate Commitments Bill
- Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Bill
- The Senate
- Nation-Building Value of Tourism
- Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Korean War Years
THE SENATE
Tuesday, November 3, 2026
The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker pro tempore in the chair.
Prayers.
SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
The Late Lloyd Swick
Animals in War
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today in this chamber to commemorate the fourteenth annual Animals in War Day and to honour a remarkable Canadian and a veteran of both the Second World War and the Korean War: the late Lloyd Allan Swick.
Today marks the fourteenth anniversary of the unveiling of the Animals in War Dedication in Ottawa’s Confederation Park — a lasting national tribute made possible largely through Lloyd’s vision, perseverance and deep love for animals.
I first met Lloyd in Winnipeg at The Last Hurrah, a final national gathering of the Korea Veterans Association. With his bright blue eyes and charismatic twinkle, Lloyd approached me, asked for five minutes of my time and opened his laptop to show me a PowerPoint presentation about his dream project. At the end, he looked at me and asked, “Will you help me with this project?”
As the daughter of two survivors of the Korean War — a war in which brave Canadians like Lloyd served and sacrificed so deeply — how could I say anything but yes?
I was privileged to join the committee that helped Lloyd make his dream a reality. Under his passionate direction, we met several times alongside our talented sculptor David Clendining, whose own German shepherd served as the model for the monument’s life-sized bronze medical dog.
The memorial we built honours the horses, mules, dogs, carrier pigeons and countless other animals that served, suffered and died alongside Canadian and Allied forces from the Second Boer War onward. Visitors to Confederation Park can walk alongside stamped paw and hoof prints in the pavement, pause by the bronze medical dog wearing its WWI-era backpack and read plaques detailing how dogs saved lives, horses and mules hauled heavy supplies across treacherous terrain, and carrier pigeons flew through enemy fire.
Beyond their practical service, these animals offered something just as precious: the comfort of companionship. We are reminded of stray dogs that comforted Canadian soldiers defending the hills of Korea, offering warmth and reassurance to those far from home.
I remember standing proudly at the unveiling ceremony on that crisp morning of November 3, 2012. Today, as we mark this anniversary and look toward Veterans’ Week, I know Lloyd is looking down on us in this chamber with those same twinkling eyes. He is smiling as he watches visitors of all ages — including the many school classes learning from Veterans Affairs Canada’s educational resources — discover the legacy of the faithful companions that helped carry Canada through war.
Thank you, Lloyd, for your service, your vision and your heart. We will remember them.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Visitor in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Fawad Quraishi. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Woo.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
The Late Fabien Sinnett
Hon. Éric Forest: I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Fabien Sinnett, founder and longtime president of the corporation that operates the Gaspé, Birthplace of Canada historic site.
He passed away on October 26 at the venerable age of 94. For decades, Fabien Sinnett dedicated himself to his community, volunteering with young people in various sports organizations.
Throughout his life, his community involvement was driven by an abiding passion for the history of his town and the preservation of its heritage. Fabien Sinnett truly believed that Gaspé’s history was worth telling, sharing and passing on. Together with Mario Mimeault, he authored an important volume entitled Gaspé au fil du temps.
He also wanted to provide people with a place to gather by the water, right in the heart of town. That dream became a reality when he founded the corporation in 2002. He tenaciously recruited volunteers to the cause, rallied partners and secured enough support to carry out a project of which the whole community can now be proud. Opened in 2016, the Gaspé, Birthplace of Canada historic site stands as a powerful testament to his perseverance. With one original heritage house and six reconstructed buildings, the site represents the heart of the village of Gaspé as it was in the early 20th century, with a warehouse, a tavern, a shop, a general store, a seaplane base, a residence and a naval base.
The symbolic significance of this site extends far beyond the borders of the Gaspé. It reminds us that Jacques Cartier reached Gaspé Bay in 1534 and erected a cross on July 24 of that year. That was a major milestone in the history of the French presence in North America and in the history of Canada. This memory is also part of the much older history of the Indigenous people who were already occupying and using these lands.
Fabien Sinnett helped create a vibrant, accessible and unifying space to bring this history alive, a place where young people can learn, visitors can explore and the people of Gaspé can proudly share their heritage.
His creation reminds us that the preservation of our heritage involves a duty to remember, which depends on the commitment of citizens who choose to put their time, energy and heart into honouring history.
On behalf of my colleagues, I want to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Claudette, his children, his family and his loved ones, as well as to the members, volunteers and partners of Gaspé, Birthplace of Canada.
I also want to express our appreciation to all those who are carrying on his legacy.
Mr. Sinnett, you helped a community bring its history to life. Now your contribution is part of that history.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
(1410)
[English]
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Charles Clayton Scott, historian, author and recently appointed member of the Order of Canada. He is accompanied by his wife, Kathy Madill-Scott, and other members of their family. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Sorensen.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Charles Clayton “Chic” Scott, C.M.
Hon. Karen Sorensen: Honourable senators, I am delighted to congratulate a fellow Banff resident, mountaineering legend Charles — or, as we call him, “Chic” — Scott, on his appointment to the Order of Canada.
Descended from a long line of athletes, Chic’s passion for adventure took him into the mountains, where he has earned a reputation as an ambitious mountaineer and a skilled guide.
Since 1962, Chic’s journey has taken him from the Canadian Rockies to the great peaks of Europe and all the way to the Himalayas. In 1973, he became the first Canadian to climb a Himalayan mountain when he made it to the summit of the 6,000-metre Myagdi Matha.
This was not the first pioneering expedition Chic completed, nor was it the last. Closer to sea level, Chic founded the Canadian Himalayan Foundation, a charity that raised $250,000 to support Canadian climbing expeditions, and held roles with organizations like the Alpine Club of Canada, the Calgary Mountain Club, Britain’s Alpine Climbing Group and the Bow Corridor Organization for Responsible Development.
Working with the Alpine Club of Canada, Chic organized cross-Canada lecture tours by esteemed mountaineers and was the original proponent of a film festival at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity, which grew into the annual Banff Centre Mountain Film and Book Festival.
Chic, of course, has his own place in film history. In 1974, he worked on the Clint Eastwood film The Eiger Sanction, which was filmed in the Bernese Alps of Switzerland. Over the decades, Chic continued to balance his own expeditions with his work as a community organizer and fundraiser, often bridging the worlds of art and sport.
In 1988, he organized both the Calgary Climbers Festival and the Canadian Mountain Arts Festival as well as supporting and fundraising for the Everest Express Expedition. A well-regarded writer himself, Chic has authored somewhere around 150 articles and 14 books, including the multiple award-winning Pushing the Limits: The Story of Canadian Mountaineering.
Chic’s life’s work has been bringing people from all walks of life to the mountains as well as bringing the mountains to the people. As a writer and presenter, he has made the mountains come alive, preserving the rich history of our mountain regions and the people who traverse them, while conveying the thrill of climbing to audiences around the world.
As a seasoned and diligent guide, he has helped climbers of all skill levels — including youth and seniors — experience this thrill for themselves.
Chic has had a profound impact on the Town of Banff, uniting people from every corner of our community in cherishing and celebrating our incredible mountains.
I hope you will all join me in congratulating Chic for this well-deserved honour.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a youth delegation from GLOCAL on the Hill. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Prosper.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
GLOCAL Foundation of Canada
Hon. Paul (PJ) Prosper: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by recognizing Senator Anderson, who worked hard to support the GLOCAL Foundation of Canada and had originally meant to sponsor them today. She, unfortunately, was called away to the Northwest Territories. I am delighted and honoured that she asked me to host them in her place.
The GLOCAL Foundation of Canada is a national not-for-profit that looks to advance civic participation among Canadian youth by providing opportunities like these to connect directly with decision makers. They leverage technology to help sift through the bombardment of information out there to help youth develop informed positions on issues that affect them.
Thank you, GLOCAL, for all the important work you do.
I have always believed strongly in the importance of our youth. To look into the gallery today and see so many young Indigenous faces makes me proud and hopeful.
To the youth in this room and to those who may be listening from across the country, your voice matters. Your insight, perspective and experience are all important.
As parliamentarians, we don’t know what we don’t know. We need your voices to help look at things differently. You should always feel comfortable challenging your politicians because you should always have a say in the rules you are asked to live by.
I want you to remember that respectful debate creates space for policies and legislation to grow and evolve. Every Indigenous person plays a role in reinforcing our rights. Some will do it in quiet ways, by simply keeping language and cultural practices alive, while others will be more public in their defence. Each way is important and valued.
At times, each way may be hard to do, and others may try to discourage you. Don’t give up. Keep pushing forward. Never let anyone take your voice away from you.
Wela’lioq and thank you to all of you for joining us here today. It makes me so hopeful about our shared future.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Wyndolyn Brown. She is accompanied by her mother, Eva Brown, and her son, Kadell. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Bernard.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Ashley Vandermorris, Liam McKay-Argyriou and other pediatricians and child health experts from across Canada, as well as Tonie Chaltas, President and Chief Executive Officer of Achev. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Hay.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
National Framework on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Bill
Fourteenth Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee Presented
Hon. Rosemary Moodie, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the following report:
Tuesday, November 3, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its
FOURTEENTH REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-234, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, has, in obedience to the order of reference of November 25, 2025, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:
1.Clause 2, pages 2 and 3:
(a) On page 2,
(i)replace lines 22 and 23 with the following:
“marketing;
(e) as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action number 33, include measures to develop, in collaboration with Indigenous peoples, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder preventive programs that are culturally appropriate for those peoples;
(f) include measures to reform the criminal justice system in order to better address the needs of offenders with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and to address the recommendations outlined in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action number 34; and
(g) identify any other measures that the Minister con-”, and
(ii) replace line 28 with the following:
“ilies and their caregivers; and
(h) include measures to ensure that the framework can be implemented in a manner that
(i) is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and
(ii) varies depending on the unique circumstances and needs of different Indigenous groups, communities or people.”; and
(b) on page 3, replace lines 7 and 8 with the following:
“(d) First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and Indigenous governing bodies and organizations that serve or represent First Nations, Inuit and Métis; and”.
Respectfully submitted,
ROSEMARY MOODIE
Chair
(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1294.)
(1420)
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
(On motion of Senator Moodie, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
Eighth Report of National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee Presented
Hon. Marty Deacon, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, presented the following report:
Tuesday, November 3, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs has the honour to present its
EIGHTH REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of June 11, 2026, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTY DEACON
Chair
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?
(On motion of Senator McCallum, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)
[Translation]
Combatting Financial Crimes and Drug Trafficking Bill
First Reading
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate) introduced Bill S-8, An Act respecting certain measures relating to proceeds of crime, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and the detection of non-mailable matter transmitted by post.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator Moreau, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
[English]
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Extend Date of Final Report on Study of Matters Related to the Impact of Artificial Intelligence
Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, October 2, 2025, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in relation to its study on matters related to the impact of artificial intelligence in Canada be extended from December 31, 2026, to May 31, 2027.
Human Rights
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Canada’s Black Justice Strategy and Deposit Reports on Study with Clerk During Adjournment of the Senate
Hon. Paulette Senior: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report on Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, including outcomes that have emerged to date and what will be delivered during the remainder of the 10-year plan;
That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate; and
That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2027, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.
[Translation]
Official Languages
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Deposit Report on Study of Issues Relating to Official Languages Generally with Clerk During Adjournment of the Senate
Hon. Allister Surette: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate an interim report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.
QUESTION PERIOD
Global Affairs
Support for Workers in Softwood Lumber Industry
Hon. Richard Martel: Government leader, the forestry industry is struggling in several regions of Quebec, particularly in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The U.S. tariffs are still putting significant pressure on our sawmills and lumber producers.
As you know, behind these companies are workers, families and entire communities that depend on this industry. The end of the year is approaching, and the concern is very real.
On Sunday, Prime Minister Carney reported progress in the trade talks with President Trump. Is the softwood lumber issue part of those talks?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Martel.
Yes, the Prime Minister said that talks were in progress with our American partners. However, the particulars of these talks can’t be disclosed. Unfortunately, I can’t give you details about what is being negotiated at the moment, but the outcome of those negotiations will be made public.
I can reassure the softwood lumber industry that the government is aware of the problems the industry has been facing for a number of years. This isn’t the first time that we have had issues like this with our American partners. The government fully supports Canadian businesses, including businesses in the lumber sector.
Evidently, we won’t accept any deal that leads to losses on the Canadian side. The goal is to reach a win-win agreement.
(1430)
Senator Martel: As the talks continue in Washington, our sawmills are paying high costs and our businesses need cash to keep operating. The government has already announced support measures for the forestry sector, but how many companies have actually received this assistance so far, and how long will it take for the others to get some assistance too?
Senator Moreau: Thank you, Senator Martel, for pointing out that the government has already taken steps to support these businesses. It is the government’s duty to do so, and that is what we are doing. I do not have a precise figure on the number of businesses that have received assistance. However, every business that applies and qualifies under the program will receive the support promised by the government. As for the exact figures, I will get back to you as soon as I receive that information.
[English]
Public Services and Procurement
Buy Canadian
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, for months, your government has urged federal departments to buy Canadian, yet the Canada Revenue Agency has awarded a nearly $12-million security contract to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation, an American-owned company with close ties to the current administration. What makes this decision really troubling is that the bid from Commissionaires, a respected Canadian non-profit with a long history of providing meaningful employment to veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and former Royal Canadian Mounted Police members, was only $80,000 higher.
Senator Moreau, how can Canadians take your government’s “Buy Canadian” message seriously when it chooses an American company in business with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, over a Canadian organization that supports those who have served our country?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Martin. Your colleague Senator Hébert asked the same question about a week ago, if I remember correctly.
The fact is that the process to give this contract resulted in the selection of a qualified Canadian supplier headquartered in Mississauga that employs nearly 8,000 Canadians across the country. Building upon that, the Canada Revenue Agency launched a policy direction on prioritizing Canadian suppliers and content in its strategic procurement. It’s a Canadian company.
As far as veterans are concerned, I have been told that the agency has produced other opportunities for veterans to work for the agency.
Senator Martin: It is the timing of what is happening. As Remembrance Day approaches, your government still has an opportunity to correct this decision. In just a few minutes, the other place will vote on a Conservative motion to cancel the contract with Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and award it to a Canadian company instead.
Will your government support this motion? Yes or no?
Senator Moreau: We’ll see what the result of the vote on the motion is in the other place. I’m concerned by what is happening here in this very chamber at the moment, so I don’t know what the result of the vote will be.
That being said, again, this contract has been given to a company that employs 8,000 people across Canada.
[Translation]
Canadian Heritage
Commissioner of Official Languages
Hon. Allister Surette: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Moreau. In her 2025-26 annual report, published on October 8, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Kelly Burke, makes two recommendations. First, she recommends mandatory training for all federal public service managers on the government’s linguistic obligations toward its employees. This recommendation is intended to address the significant number of complaints her office receives each year concerning employees’ right to work in the official language of their choice.
What measures will the government take to implement this recommendation in order to protect the right of federal public servants to work in the official language of their choice?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much, Senator Surette. I know you are very interested in this issue, especially given your role on the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the important report you recently mentioned in this chamber. The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages was tabled less than a month ago.
The report acknowledges the progress that has been made, but also recognizes the right of public servants to work in the official language of their choice, a right that must be fully respected. The government is currently reviewing the recommendations on mandatory training for managers, with a view to strengthening compliance with language obligations across the public service.
The government’s objective is clear. It is to ensure that language rights are not only recognized in the law, but respected in practice, for the benefit of all members of the public service.
Senator Surette: The other recommendation from the Commissioner of Official Languages is for the Treasury Board to incorporate official languages into its artificial intelligence strategy and guide on the use of AI in the public service.
Can you tell us how the government plans to ensure that official languages are given greater consideration as AI is adopted by the public service?
Senator Moreau: Senator Surette, questions about AI are front and centre right now. The government recognizes the importance of ensuring that language considerations are fully incorporated into the development of new technologies, including AI, of course.
As I was saying, the government is currently reviewing the commissioner’s recommendations and intends to implement them.
[English]
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Business of the Committee
Hon. Mary Coyle: My question is for the Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and it is a follow-up to Senator C. Deacon’s and my previous questions.
In 2022, the Senate unanimously adopted the Senate of Canada Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement that committed the Senate to reducing its own carbon footprint to net zero by 2030. The Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee mandated that the Senate Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability oversee a process to secure expertise to develop a measurement approach for the total carbon footprint of Senate activities and to provide recommendations to achieve targets. A contract was let in March 2023, and the phase 1 report was released in September of that year. However, we have not seen the phase 3 report.
Senator Loffreda, will you commit to releasing this important report so that all senators can have access to it?
Hon. Tony Loffreda: Thank you, senator, for the question.
As you know, it is important to distinguish between the role of the chair and the authority of the committee. As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, I cannot unilaterally decide to release a confidential report. The report was provided to the committee before I became chair, and any decision to release a confidential report must be taken collectively by the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, and that is regardless of who is or was chair.
Indeed, the same principle would apply to the Senate itself. Confidential documents can only be made public through an appropriate decision of the body that holds them. The confidentiality of in camera proceedings is an important parliamentary principle. It allows committees to receive advice, examine options and deliberate candidly.
As chair, it is my responsibility to respect those rules, regardless of the subject matter under discussion. That said, I want to be clear that the Senate remains committed to the objective it adopted in 2022 of reducing its emissions —
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
Senator Coyle: Senator Loffreda, we are not asking for records of any confidential in camera committee discussions. We are simply asking to see the consultant’s latest report and recommendations.
What will it take for senators to gain access to the report? Why the big secret?
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, senator. As I indicated previously, this is not a matter that the Chair of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee can decide alone. If senators believe the report should be released, I would encourage them to raise the matter with members of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee and build support for that proposal. Should it be the will of the committee to consider releasing the report, I would be entirely open to that discussion and would respect whatever decision the committee ultimately reaches.
Additionally, the Senate remains committed to reducing emissions —
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Loffreda, thank you.
Public Safety
Combatting Hate
Hon. Kristopher Wells: Honourable Senator Moreau, senior national security personnel have raised growing concerns over the unprecedented security threats facing Jewish communities across Canada. Over a week ago, I met with Holocaust survivors, here in this very building, who expressed grave concerns about the rise of anti-Semitism and hatred in our country.
Their message was sobering: “Never again” must be more than a promise to remember the Holocaust; it must be a commitment to confront hatred wherever it emerges. They warned that Jewish Canadians are increasingly living with fear and uncertainty, raising deeply troubling questions about whether we are honouring that commitment here in Canada.
(1440)
In light of these growing threats, what immediate and concrete measures will the government take to address these rising threats and to protect synagogues, Jewish students and community institutions and ensure that Jewish Canadians can practise their faith and participate in public life without fear for their safety?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Wells. I too met with Holocaust survivors. I would like to thank Senator Housakos, who introduced me to that very important group.
To answer your question, the Prime Minister announced the launch of Canada’s new ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion. It will be their mission to combat hate and guide the government as they build a fairer, more inclusive Canada.
This builds on $75 million committed to the Canada Community Security Program, or CCSP, which will allow more eligible organizations to implement security enhancements and help foster safer communities. This is in addition to the $10 million to be provided to organizations through the CCSP in order to respond directly to the security needs of Jewish communities. Anti-Semitism has no place anywhere here in Canada.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you, Senator Moreau.
With the passage of Bill C-9 last June, what steps is the government taking to support its effective implementation, including training police and Crown prosecutors to better recognize, investigate and prosecute hate-motivated offences? How will the government also support public education to encourage the reporting of hate crimes and strengthen trust between law enforcement and vulnerable communities targeted by hate?
Senator Moreau: Thank you again.
I’ve been told that police and governments are taking more direct steps to protect Jewish communities and others at elevated risk of hate-motivated incidents across Canada. Governments, educational institutions, police services, prosecutors and community organizations are investing in training and public education, expanding education and awareness initiatives and focusing on contemporary anti-Semitism. I can advise that thousands of police officers in Ontario, for instance, have —
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau.
Finance
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Hon. Percy E. Downe: Government leader, I was pleased to be the government sponsor in the Senate for Canada’s beneficial ownership registry bill when it passed in 2023. However, for FINTRAC reporting entities to fulfill their obligations under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the registry needs to collect correct information regarding the beneficial owners of federal corporations.
Since there are discrepancy reporting measures in the registry itself, will the government introduce an audit regime combining risk-based reviews and random sampling to independently verify the correctness and completeness of reported ownership and control information, supported by documentary evidence?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator.
I don’t know if the bill that I tabled today, Bill S-8, will answer all of those questions. We will have the opportunity to study the bill later during this session. I will take into consideration all the aspects of your question, as well as whether Bill S-8 addresses those questions. If not, I will bring to the attention of the minister the suggestion supported by your question.
Senator Downe: Thank you. The bill that you introduced today sounds very promising. I look forward to reading it in more detail.
The beneficial ownership registry is currently searchable by the name of the corporation itself. However, you cannot search by the name of what they call the ISC, the individual with significant control — in other words, the real owner — and get a list of entities associated with the ISC. Will the government commit to improving search by name?
Senator Moreau: I will have to look into Bill S-8 myself to see if it answers that very technical question. I’m sure this is the kind of question that might be asked during the study of Bill S-8, and if there are any amendments brought to the bill, I will see whether or not it is appropriate to do so. I will take into consideration the very important question that you raise today.
Transport
High-Speed Rail
Hon. Jim Quinn: Government leader, last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that the Alto high-speed rail project could cost between $75 billion and $113 billion, compared with the government’s estimate of $60 billion to $90 billion. Prior to that, The Globe and Mail suggested it could be as high as $150 billion.
The growing estimates, high contention over the planned expropriations and demands from different constituents to have their own stop have highlighted tremendous difficulties and discordance in public opinion. In your long experience in the Quebec government and as a minister, do you think this project over a 10-year period is likely to exceed even this broad range of estimates?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I will not rely on my previous experience to attach a price tag to such an important project, but your question allows me to underline that building the first high-speed rail network in Canada is a very important project for all Canadians. It would stimulate our economy, create 51,000 good-paying jobs and contribute approximately $800 million in tourism annually.
That being said, as I mentioned earlier in answer to many questions that have been raised concerning Alto high-speed rail, it is very early in the debate to be able to put a price tag on the project. The cost is estimated by the government to be $60 billion to $90 billion, with operating costs to be determined as planning advances. At this time, it’s too early to say.
Senator Quinn: At this point, the government is looking at options for routing. Doesn’t it make some sense to consider using the existing corridor by simply twinning the existing rail line for existing passenger rail and abandoning the high-speed element of it? The major problem is speed not because the trains aren’t fast but because of all the stops they have to make to allow cargo transit to pass. Wouldn’t this be more beneficial to a greater number of Canadians?
Senator Moreau: I wouldn’t give you professional advice on whether it is possible for a high-speed train to use the actual corridor. I think it’s a technical question, and I will leave that to the engineers responsible for the project.
We will see what the routes are in the end, and it’s my understanding that we will know that in the coming months. We will see at that time whether or not it is possible.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Francophone Immigration
Hon. Tony Loffreda: Senator Moreau, this week is National Francophone Immigration Week, and the theme is “Finding Your Place Within the Francophonie Community.” Francophone immigrants play a key role in the vitality of our communities and in our economy. They help meet labour needs, support our businesses and strengthen the economic vitality of our regions.
The government set a target of admitting 9% of French-speaking permanent residents outside Quebec by the end of 2026. That deadline is approaching, so where are we on that target? What concrete measures has the government taken to speed up the recruitment and settlement of francophone immigrants in order to meet this commitment?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much for the question, Senator Loffreda. First, let me emphasize the importance of National Francophone Immigration Week and the essential contribution that newcomers make to the vitality of francophone communities across Canada.
The government is proud to have met and even exceeded its francophone immigration targets over the past four years. I’m told that Canada is getting close to its 2026 target of having 9% of permanent resident admissions outside Quebec be French-speaking. To achieve this, the government is working with the provinces, the territories and community organizations to boost recruitment, welcome francophone newcomers and, most importantly, integrate them, given that the success of immigration is often linked to integration issues in host communities.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. As you know, Senator Moreau, beyond the admission targets, we must also ensure that these newcomers can integrate, as you said, and contribute fully to their communities and our economy.
Does the government intend to increase the resources allocated to welcoming and integrating francophone immigrants, particularly in minority communities, to ensure they stay for a long time?
Senator Moreau: I will continue along the same lines as in my first response. The government is investing in settlement services that support economic, social and cultural integration. Last year, the government provided funding to more than 500 organizations offering settlement services across the country. Will that funding be increased? Only the government can answer that, as I can’t speculate on the government’s financial commitments. However, the government is committed to supporting the settlement of francophone immigrants.
(1450)
Global Affairs
Medical Aid for Ebola Outbreak
Hon. Amina Gerba: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.
Senator Moreau, the Ebola outbreak continues to be a cause for serious concern. As of last week, the number of confirmed cases exceeded 10,000, and the death toll has surpassed 5,000.
Dr. Jean Kaseya, Director-General of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, has appealed for a stronger international response to limit the risk of the virus spreading to other regions.
Canada had announced a contribution of $8 million.
Given that the situation is getting worse, will the government increase its financial support?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Gerba.
Canada is supporting efforts to combat the terrible Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is working in close cooperation with its regional partners to limit the spread of the virus.
This year, the government announced $47 million to fight this deadly disease, including announcing $36 million in new assistance in September for the DRC and neighbouring countries, because it is important to stop the disease from spreading.
The government’s assistance helps deliver life-saving care and advance the development of new tools for preventing and treating the Ebola virus. A swift, coordinated response is essential to saving lives and stopping the outbreak from spreading further, and Canada is part of this fight.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. I am delighted to hear that assistance is coming.
Senator Moreau, Canadian and Congolese researchers have already made an important contribution to outbreak surveillance by sequencing over 1,000 genomes of the virus. However, they say that they need additional resources to continue their efforts.
Is the government willing to increase its support for these scientific efforts?
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
As you mentioned in your main question, in May, Canada committed to providing $8 million to help combat the Ebola virus. Of that amount, $2 million is earmarked for the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to accelerate surveillance and to support biosecurity measures.
In late July of this year, Health Canada also authorized Moderna to launch a clinical trial of its Bundibugyo virus vaccine. The federal government has also implemented —
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau.
[English]
Finance
Beneficial Ownership Registry
Hon. Percy E. Downe: The British government published a performance report of its beneficial ownership registry a few years after it was implemented. As Canada is nearing its third year of implementation, what do we actually know about the use of the registry, trends among businesses, cost of compliance to business, penalties for non-compliance, satisfaction rates by law enforcement and FINTRAC reporting entities? Can the government commit to publishing a report about registry usage trends?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I don’t have the answer to the specific question you’re asking, Senator Downe, but I imagine you will provide me with your written question. I’ll get back to you with the information needed to answer it.
Senator Downe: Thank you, government leader. I look forward to the response to these very detailed questions, but people who follow this issue carefully are very interested in answers as well. I will distribute those answers to them.
My last question is this: What is the government’s plan to deal with ownership transparency regarding foreign companies carrying on business in Canadian provinces?
Senator Moreau: I will offer you the same answer. All the information that I might receive will be provided to you. You’ll then be able to transmit it to those who are interested in the questions you’re asking.
Indigenous Services
Support for Indigenous Communities
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Moreau, this is from the Southern Chiefs. The recent Auditor General’s report tabled in October 2025, Follow-Up on Programs for First Nations, shows that ISC failed to establish emergency service agreements with First Nations in line with previous recommendations from the Office of the Auditor General to do so.
Following the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of $2.5 billion in funding over five years and nearly $450 million in ongoing funding to close critical gaps in emergency preparedness following the First Nations-First Ministers’ Meeting, would the Government Representative provide a written response to show the progress that ISC is making with respect to entering food safety service agreements?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I will bring your question to the minister. My understanding is that you want a written answer, and I’ll see when it will be possible to provide you with one.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Cutting Red Tape for All Canadians Bill
Second Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Petten, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moreau, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to modernize certain regulatory and administrative processes.
Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise on Bill S-7, the cutting red tape for all Canadians act. As Senator Petten outlined last week, the bill amends 255 clauses across 31 statutes in 11 departments to update processes and eliminate redundant rules.
I support clearing out regulatory irritants. However, this is not the first iteration of this recurring bill, as its sponsor suggested. In 2018, the previous government committed to introducing an annual regulatory modernization act. The first iteration, Bill S-6, was tabled in the Senate in March 2022 and was subsequently studied and passed in under three months. Bill S-6 then sat for a year before it received even the slightest mention — there hadn’t been a syllable — in the House of Commons.
Two more years passed before it reached committee, where it went straight to the bottom of the priority list. In January 2025, it died a sad and lonely death upon prorogation. So the annual bill, meant to reduce red tape, took four years to appear and three more to slowly die of neglect. The cause of death was likely parliamentary — rather than bureaucratic — red tape, though we can’t know for certain because the autopsy report is still winding its way toward approval.
On the plus side, the government estimates that Bill S-7 will save businesses and the government about $264 million over the next decade — roughly $26 million a year. To put that number in context, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated that red tape cost businesses $17.9 billion in 2024. When passed, Bill S-7 will trim that red tape bill by a virtually microscopic 1/700.
Picture that estimated red tape burden as the fuel needed to drive from the beautiful Point Pleasant Park in Halifax to the gorgeous Stanley Park in Vancouver. Bill S-7 wouldn’t even get us off the Halifax Peninsula. Colleagues, we have a long way to go.
So far, this annual regulatory modernization process is akin to bailing a lobster boat with a teaspoon: The intention is laudable, but the process is anything but, as the fate of this bill’s predecessor made clear. Still, I’m glad that the Treasury Board’s Red Tape Reduction Office is prioritizing this government’s determination to tackle the mountain of outdated laws and regulations that have accumulated over decades. However, the combination of political will and the best intentions of public servants is still not enough to meet the moment. We need new methods.
(1500)
That’s where my attention is focused. I absolutely support Bill S-7’s top-down fixes, but we must also implement a bottom-up approach that supports and accelerates regulatory modernization.
To this end, I have four points.
First, Canada’s regulatory burden is suffocating. A 2025 Statistics Canada study called Regulatory Accumulation, Business Dynamism and Economic Growth in Canada found that federal regulatory requirements grew by about 37% over the 15 years between 2006 and 2021, roughly 2.1% a year. Put another way, if Canada’s rule book were a garden, we spent 15 years planting but never pulled a single weed. It sounds like my house. Over that period, the accumulated regulatory burden was associated with slowing GDP growth by 1.7%, lower employment growth, lower business investment and fewer business start-ups. To be fair, Statistics Canada cautioned that the study measured costs, not benefits, and it counted rules rather than weighing them, but even the count is sobering.
Internationally, in terms of product market regulation, Canada sits around 26 of 38 OECD countries, behind most of our G7 peers. We score poorly on licensing and administrative burden and on interprovincial barriers. We have trade agreements with Europe and Asia, often making it easier to sell across an ocean than a provincial border.
And the problem isn’t just quantity. Too many regulations are outdated. Our competitiveness is undermined when laws still require paper filings and fax machines belong in a museum, not an office. Too many regulations are “command and control” by design. They dictate a specific process rather than the desired outcome, leaving no room to innovate because innovating would mean breaking the rules. Best practices define the risk to be managed or the required safe outcome and let innovators find better ways to get there. Meanwhile, risks are accelerating, especially in our digital world. In this environment, stagnant regulations actually introduce risks because they leave Canadians unprotected, undermining our competitiveness, productivity and sovereignty.
Second, our modernization process is too slow. Yes, Bill S-7 repeals more than 160 outdated orders under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. This saves public servants the equivalent of six months of work. And amendments to the Canada Border Services Agency Act allow temporary exemptions so that the Canada Border Services Agency can test new technologies with industry partners.
The Treasury Board’s Red Tape Review identified hundreds of inefficiencies and has already removed more than 120 regulatory irritants. These are welcome. But they are patches. An omnibus cleanup bill every few years — or every decade at the pace of the last Parliament — does not and cannot keep pace with a world that changes every few months. We keep fixing leaks one at a time while the pipes continue to rust. We need a new approach that meets the scale of the problem, not a continual cycle of patchwork fixes.
Third, deregulation is a product of regulatory stagnation. Well-designed rules support growth and investment. They protect property rights and safety, and they build market trust. Nobody wants to board a plane that was built and maintained in a deregulated system. Inefficient regulation slows growth by raising the cost and risk of doing business. Burdensome compliance eats time and money. Complex or uncertain approvals delay or deter new projects.
This reality undermines an innovative company’s ability to survive, while a thick moat of complex regulations shields incumbent monopolies from the very competition that compels them to innovate, introduce new products or services and improve prices. The cumulative effect of excessive, outdated, poorly designed and stagnant regulations is the fuel that powers calls for deregulation. It’s likely why the government introduced bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-39.
Put simply, Canada’s complex and outdated regulatory regimes are seemingly forcing this government to deregulate in order to get the economy moving. Until we fix how we regulate, we will keep swinging between too much and too little — a pendulum that creates uncertainty and erodes trust across our economy and society.
Fourth, “standards by default” is a crucial modernization tool. In the spring of 2022, during my third reading speech on Bill S-6, I proposed a new approach called “standards by default.” It prioritizes the use of consensus-based standards by default, with unique regulations used only by exception — for example, when no standard exists to manage a specific risk.
I first raised this approach with the Standards Council of Canada in the fall of 2019, and over the years, I received a somewhat lukewarm response. By contrast, the Secretary-General of the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, confirmed that several jurisdictions rely on it, including the EU and South Korea.
Since Bill S-6, I’ve benefited from expert advice from groups including the Centre for International Governance Innovation, or CIGI, and the Digital Governance Council. Senator Woo, who was the sponsor of Bill S-6 in the last Parliament, and I met with regulators, where the then-President of the Treasury Board Anita Anand voiced her support for this approach.
Consensus-based standards keep our cars on the road, our planes in the sky and our homes safe. They underpin profitable international trade. Standards exist in every sector and are developed transparently and inclusively, and they are regularly revisited as risks and opportunities evolve. Anyone can sit at the table, regulators included. The difference is that regulators contribute to the agenda; they don’t control it.
Compare how we develop standards with how we develop regulations. Consultation is typically exclusive and features one-on-one meetings controlled by officials in an Ottawa-centric process. Varying perspectives disappear into a black box where trade-offs are made and the regulation is drafted by bureaucrats and ministerial advisers. More recently, “What We Heard” reports are sometimes provided, which is a positive step but insufficient.
Most importantly and most expensively, the publication of a new regulation in the Canada Gazette effectively fires the starting gun on a marathon of lobbying. The traditional process is less of a consultation and more like a surprise party nobody wants or enjoys.
It has three major flaws:
First, one-on-one consultations do not allow competing voices to openly debate contested perspectives, live and on the record.
Second, the regulator, not regulated entities, must make the trade-offs between competing perspectives. Doing so requires sophisticated domain expertise that is harder to acquire and maintain in our increasingly complex world.
Third, lobbying favours organizations with the most experience and resources, disadvantaging smaller, newer and often more innovative stakeholders.
The “standards by default” approach works because it cites a standard that manages the same risk as an existing regulation. The standard is identified as being equivalent to the legacy regulation. As the default shifts toward agile standards and away from unique and too often stagnant regulations, our public servants are freed to step outside the Ottawa bubble and engage more openly with innovators and regulated entities.
Two weeks ago, a host of positive improvements were introduced in an updated version of the Cabinet Directive on Regulation. These included a reference to the use of standards in section 3.4. The focus was limited to using standards to better support interjurisdictional alignment. I remain optimistic that this step will be the first of many that will prioritize a much more streamlined approach to how we regulate across the Government of Canada.
Colleagues, I’d like to conclude by emphasizing that Bill S-7 is a small piece of a massive puzzle. To fully meet this challenge, we must introduce agility into our regulatory modernization and red tape reduction processes. As such, at committee, I ask that we don’t just study the individual amendments in Bill S-7, as worthwhile as they are. Let’s also ask witnesses how Canada can do a much better job of maintaining up-to-date regulations across the whole of government.
In its Spring Economic Update, this government framed red tape reduction mostly around major projects, transport and housing. The challenges go far beyond those priorities and into every corner of government. Stagnant and burdensome regulations not only fail our most innovative and competitive businesses, but we also now see that they lead to sweeping deregulation, which can undermine trust.
(1510)
Colleagues, if we’re going to meaningfully address Canada’s oversized and outdated regulatory burden, we have a long journey ahead.
On that hypothetical drive from Halifax to Vancouver, let’s not just aim to get off the Halifax Peninsula; let’s make sure we reshape our processes so that we can efficiently access the tools, expertise and capacity to reach our destination. For me, that is a country with a reliably modern and agile regulatory system that supports us all.
Colleagues, I urge you to quickly send the cutting red tape for all Canadians act to committee, prioritize it there, identify ways to modernize regulations faster and urge our colleagues in the House of Commons to actually start — and finish — the job this time. Let’s reduce both bureaucratic and parliamentary red tape.
Thank you, colleagues.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Woo: Senator Deacon, will you take a question?
Senator C. Deacon: Certainly.
Senator Woo: Thank you for your compelling speech and your continued advocacy for standards. I am not sure I wanted to hear the recounting of my sad saga around Bill S-6 and its stillborn character, but you are quite right that we’ve tried this before and didn’t finish the process.
I want to ask you about the use of standards, which, as you know, I support very strongly. Do you see competition between something you advocate for as well, which is the development of standards sovereignty, on the one hand, and the use of international standards, on the other hand? Is there a tension between the two?
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Woo, for the question. It is a very important one because it touches on a key strategic point that I haven’t heard discussed in this city, which is that patents are a form of intellectual property, or IP. We value and understand that patents, brands and trademarks are all forms of intellectual property that we, as a country, need to worry about protecting. But if we do not build businesses that can comply with international standards, our ability to trade will be severely limited.
Our aim should not be to merely comply with “made in Canada” standards, which would certainly be far better than our regulatory development process, but in certain areas, we need to choose to become the best in the world and compete using those international standards. We need to be at the table, be in the room and make sure that those international standards are inclusive of Canadian industry in key sectors. That’s because, if we don’t, we’re going to find ourselves locked out of key markets.
We can’t, necessarily, have a strong presence at every table. Instead, we have to choose our sectors very strategically and be at those tables where we think we have a global competitive advantage. Let’s not spread ourselves too thinly across every international committee.
We see that China and the United States are stepping up in a major way to control — effectively — these international standards bodies. There’s a huge risk to Canada in that regard because we could find ourselves playing the role of standards takers rather than standards makers, and that means that those standards may not actually provide our businesses what they need to thrive and excel globally.
Your point is a good one. We need to be very strategic across the whole system and take advantage of all of the Canadians who volunteer their time to be a part of standards bodies globally. Instead, as a country, we have cut back our support for them.
Senator Woo: Would it be fair to say, then, that the quest for standards sovereignty is not just about developing standards ourselves domestically but about being at the table at international standard-setting organizations to make sure that our standards are incorporated into international norms?
Senator C. Deacon: I wouldn’t always be asking for extra time if I could speak that concisely. Yes. One hundred per cent.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
[Translation]
Hellenic Heritage Month Bill
Third Reading
Hon. Tony Loffreda moved third reading of Bill S-220, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month.
He said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading stage of Bill S-220, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month.
I will be brief, but I want to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, as well as its chair, Senator Moodie, and its deputy chair, Senator Burey, for their careful consideration of this bill. I am thrilled that the committee referred it back to the Senate without amendment last week.
I also want to thank Senator Housakos for his support and for having backed this initiative ever since we began working on it in late 2022.
[English]
My thanks also go to everyone who contributed to this effort, including the 150 individuals and organizations I consulted during the drafting process, the three witnesses who appeared before the committee and the community members who submitted letters of support.
As I said during committee proceedings, this bill may only be a few lines of legislation, but its significance extends far beyond those lines. Not every meaningful parliamentary contribution can be measured in dollars saved or programs created.
Sometimes Parliament’s role is to recognize people, preserve history and affirm the values that bring Canadians together. Bill S-220 gives us an opportunity to do exactly that.
I would like to share two excerpts from the testimony we heard last week that capture why this recognition matters. Mr. Basile Angelopoulos, President of the Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal, reminded us that Canadians can be proud of their ancestral roots, proud of being from Quebec and equally proud of being Canadian. These identities are not mutually exclusive; they enrich one another.
He explained that Hellenism represents far more than cultural heritage. From ancient Athens and its development of democratic thought to its philosophical teachings, the Hellenic world helped shape Western civilization. Its enduring ideals — freedom, democracy, the rule of law, human dignity and civic responsibility — continue to resonate in Canada today.
(1520)
Hellenic heritage month, he told us, recognizes how generations of Greek Canadians have carried these shared ideals forward and contributed to the country we proudly call home today.
The committee also heard from Professor Scott Gallimore of Wilfrid Laurier University, former president of The Canadian Institute in Greece. He reminded us that heritage preservation is not simply about understanding the past; it is about safeguarding history for future generations. Yet, heritage around the world faces growing threats from environmental pressures, armed conflicts, political challenges and social divisions.
As Professor Gallimore noted, Canada can serve as an example of what it means to recognize multicultural communities, celebrate their contributions and embrace the rich mosaic of cultures that make up our national identity. He emphasized that designating March as Hellenic heritage month would recognize one of those cultures while reaffirming Canada’s commitment to multicultural heritage.
Honourable senators, I couldn’t have said it better myself. As a second-generation Italian Canadian, I understand the importance of preserving the heritage our parents and grandparents brought with them. We do not have to choose between celebrating our roots and being proudly Canadian. The two reinforce one another.
That is precisely what Bill S-220 seeks to recognize. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this bill and allow us to finally bring this important legislative initiative across the finish line. Let us pass Bill S-220 today. Thank you. Meegwetch.
Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise with great enthusiasm and pride in support, as a friendly critic, of Bill S-220, the recognition of March as Hellenic heritage month. I want to, first and foremost, thank Senator Loffreda for taking on this matter with such joy as well. I’ve said often enough that Senator Loffreda is a wannabe Greek, but the truth of the matter is he is a true friend of the Hellenic community across the country. We claim him as one of our own.
Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for this important bill.
Many of you know my views when it comes to these ethnic heritage months. They are a symbolic recognition, but they are a recognition that means so much to so many people. When it’s all said and done, every single Canadian who lands at Pier 21 or at any airport across the country comes here with a dream. They want to fulfill the promise of being a great Canadian and to participate in building this great nation, a nation that has historically, from the French to the English and everyone in between, embraced everybody from all corners of the world.
Everyone who has come here from any corner of the world comes here because they are fleeing some kind of persecution or economic difficulties. The Irish left Ireland because of the potato famine. In World War II, we saw a flood of immigrants from Europe coming into this country.
Today, this bill is a culmination for my parents, who came here in the 1950s. They were immigrants who came to this country and embraced this country. Today, my mom is up there somewhere, I am sure, looking down. My dad is 92 years old. That whole generation came here with the same objectives — to succeed, to work hard, to contribute and to feel part and parcel of that Canadian identity. This bill is just one small measure of recognition that they’ve achieved that.
I recall my mother was once at a get-together down south. We were on vacation. There were a bunch of individuals there — Americans, of course, who sometimes lack an understanding of the nuances of our Canadian identity. They got into a discussion, and one of them asked my mom, “Well, where are you from?” My mom says, “I’m from Canada. I’m Canadian.” The woman said, “But what kind of Canadian are you?” My mom responded, “I’m a real, true Canadian.” For her, that was very important. For her whole life, she was so proud of her Canadian identity.
That generation who came here was proud of their ethnic background and of the Hellenic values they brought with them, the values that Senator Loffreda talked about of hard work, civil responsibility and philanthropy, but they also wanted to integrate. They wanted to make sure that, at the end of the exercise, their children, whom they wanted to give a better opportunity, would be recognized as true Canadians.
It started with Juan de Fuca, the first Greek who landed in Canada, in 1592. Many might not recognize that the Juan de Fuca Strait was found by Ioannis Phokas, a Greek explorer from the Greek island of Cephalonia. He landed here and found the Juan de Fuca Strait in 1592. That is how far back Hellenic roots are traced in this great country of ours.
Of course, we saw a plethora of Greeks arriving here in the 19th century. Many, as I said, came after World War II, in the 1950s and 1960s. They worked hard. They did tough jobs in the railways, in the food industry, in agriculture and construction. They often did the jobs that others did not want to do. That is the story that can apply to so many immigrants from so many groups and at various times of this history.
Again, where my mother is and where thousands of other Canadians of Hellenic descent are today, I don’t think they celebrate just the fact that the Greeks gave birth to democracy. We gave birth to Parliament, and we gave birth to the concept of the Senate and democracy, where “power to the people” meant more than anything else — these were all wonderful principles — mathematics, science and on and on. But they sit up there, and they look down, and they say that their efforts were worthwhile because they see Canada now.
They see a Canada where, on the Supreme Court of Canada, you have Justice Andromache Karakatsanis. You have judges like Justice Peter Pamel and Justice David Stratas in the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice Ria Tzimas. We have parliamentarians, former ministers like Tony Clement, MPs like Costas Menegakis and Peter Fragiskatos. Now we have Leo Housakos. The name Housakos in the Senate is not that big a deal because I am actually the fourth senator of Greek descent. Many have come before me. There is more than one Hellene in the Senate today. Senator Boudreau, many of you may not know, is of one-eighth Hellenic origin. Of course, for us Hellenes, when you are one-eighth Greek, that is significant; it overpowers all the other parts.
There are great professors in this country, like André Gerolymatos at Simon Fraser University, or SFU. He is no longer with us, but he founded the second-largest Hellenic studies department in the world, at SFU in British Columbia.
Alex Anthopoulos is a great general manager who has managed many Major League Baseball teams. Nick Kypreos played in the NHL. Alexandre Despatie is a great Olympian. The list goes on and on of Hellenes who have been involved in all walks of life.
Vassy Kapelos is a great broadcaster every night. I hear she shits too much on the Conservative Party, but that’s a whole other story. I still love Vassy.
Of course, Nik Nanos, a great pollster in this country, also traces his lineage back to the Hellenic community. The list goes on.
There are great entrepreneurs as well. Mike Lazaridis invented the smartphone; that’s who we have to blame for the fact that we are always connected.
We have great cabinet ministers, like Christos Sirros, at the provincial level, and right across this country.
I can go on and on and speak of all the great contributions that Hellenes have made to this country. The truth of the matter is that this bill is a recognition of not first- and second- and third-generation Canadians of Hellenic descent, like myself, because we are the most privileged. From the day you are born and are being raised in this country as a Canadian — I don’t care where you came from — it is the ultimate of ultimate privileges. My mother felt like that. My father, who is 92 years old today, still feels like that. But this recognition pays homage to all those who were not born here but who chose to come here or came here because of circumstance. They made a great contribution, and I thank them for their contribution. Canada thanks them for that contribution.
I will share with you a final thought that has basically defined who I am and everything I do. In Greek, there is a word called philotimo. It is enshrined in you from the day you are born because you don’t want your mother or father to call you aphilotimo, which is the opposite of philotimo. It basically means honour: Honour your community. Honour your family. Honour your past, your present and your future, but honour your whole society that you live in.
There is no real translation for the word philotimo. But the Greeks who came here had it; they practised it; they left a trace and a mark in this country.
(1530)
This bill is a small recognition of that. Thank you, colleagues.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Simons, would you like to ask a question?
Hon. Paula Simons: I would like to ask a question. It was a beautiful speech, Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Would your mother and father want you to say that about Vassy? Would you like to maybe temper those remarks?
Senator Housakos: No, this is a place of Parliament. We’re allowed to speak freely. At the end of the day, Vassy Kapelos is a friend of mine. Maybe the words could be used differently. I’m a little disappointed that she is hard from time to time on my political party, but that is, again, her right as a journalist. I think she is a very good journalist, but I was just expressing in jest that I thought she’s a little bit too hard on my party.
I think Vassy won’t be that hard on me in return.
Senator Simons: My delicate ears — perhaps I misheard the word in which you used a term for defecation, which I don’t think is parliamentary. It was a lovely speech, but I just wondered if perhaps you wanted to rethink the wisdom of that language in this chamber.
Senator Housakos: Senator Simons, you’ve been here long enough to know that there is no list of parliamentary language that is not parliamentary here in the Senate. It’s at the discretion of the Speaker. Everybody who heard the speech recognizes there was no mal-intent in terms of the words I used toward Vassy or anybody else. We’ll allow the Speaker to determine what is parliamentary or not. Last I checked, you haven’t been summoned to be the Speaker of the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)
Competition Act
Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Marty Klyne moved third reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Competition Act, as amended.
He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill S-239, the Canadian prosperity act, which I am proud to sponsor. As you recall, this bill aims to help drive lower prices for Canadians by supporting internal trade and more competitive regulations in our country.
Thank you to our Banking Committee for their unanimous support of this legislation, including three friendly amendments to clarify aspects of the bill.
A brief refresher may be helpful. Through modest changes to the Competition Act, Bill S-239 will empower the Competition Bureau to make recommendations to reduce barriers to internal trade in Canada, with accountability from regulators and transparency for the public. This change aims to support efforts to build one Canadian economy. The bureau’s recommendations can also help foster more competitive regulations aimed at lowering prices and improving the quality and selection of goods and services for Canadian consumers.
Examples of regulated sectors in various jurisdictions in Canada include professional services, alcohol sales, government procurement, telecommunications and aviation.
Specifically, the bill makes three proposals: First, there will be an enhanced policy mandate for the independent and expert Competition Bureau to make recommendations to improve internal trade as well as competition within regulated sectors. The bureau already makes recommendations to federal, provincial and other regulators to improve competition for the benefit of consumers.
However, this change would invite the bureau to be bold, particularly around interprovincial barriers, and it would give their work a greater profile. It would also make the work toward internal trade more independent of political actors and circumstances.
Second, the bill would require federal regulators to publicly respond to the bureau’s recommendations within 120 days. For example, this would have required a timely response from the federal government around the Competition Bureau’s 2025 report on improving passenger aviation, which recommended reducing limits on foreign ownership.
Third, the bill would encourage provincial, territorial and municipal governments to respond to the bureau’s recommendations within 120 days. The Commissioner of Competition would publish the response, if received, and if not, they would publish a notice to that effect. For example, this could enhance government accountability around removing interprovincial barriers to the retail sale of alcohol, such as B.C. wine.
These last two proposals would answer a 2023 request of the Competition Bureau that, wherever possible, regulators be required to respond to their recommendations within a reasonable time.
In these three ways, the bill aims to support first ministers’ efforts to reduce barriers to interprovincial trade — a shared priority across our federation for the last two years. Of importance, the bill would support these efforts in a way that respects cooperative federalism without forcing any changes on any jurisdiction.
In the big picture, Bill S-239 is pro-consumer, pro-business legislation that will help boost innovation. Amidst the affordability crisis that we are challenged with, the bill aims to benefit Canadians by helping to drive lower prices, better-quality goods and services, more choices for consumers and greater productivity across many sectors.
To quote Senator Harder, the best argument for this bill bears repeating: lower prices, lower prices, lower prices.
In addition, a 2022 Macdonald-Laurier Institute paper by Trevor Tombe and Ryan Manucha found that the long-term gain to GDP from removing interprovincial barriers could be up to 7.9%, meaning up to $200 billion per year. As well, as former competition commissioner Matthew Boswell has noted, Australia achieved 2.5% GDP growth over a decade by applying a competition lens to regulated sectors across the economy.
Colleagues, this bill can help build prosperity for Canadians all without any additional cost to taxpayers.
I am inspired that this bill has received support from the Competition Bureau; three former Commissioners of Competition: Matthew Boswell, Sheridan Scott and Lawson Hunter; Ryan Manucha of the C.D. Howe Institute; Vass Bednar of the Canadian Shield Institute; Keldon Bester of the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project; and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents over 100,000 small- and medium-sized enterprises.
I note as well that this bill was inspired by the work of Senator Harder’s Senate Prosperity Action Group, which included 12 current and former senators. Two key recommendations of our 2021 report were removing barriers to internal trade and improving competition in regulated sectors.
I trust this chamber will view this bill as a chance for the Senate to contribute to Canada’s economic mission at this critical time. Together, we can make a positive difference for the prosperity of our fellow Canadians and our great country. I ask you to please support Bill S-239. Thank you. Hiy kitatamihin.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
Living Donor Recognition Medal Bill
Third Reading
Hon. David M. Wells moved third reading of Bill C-234, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal.
Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-234, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal.
(1540)
At the outset, I want to be clear: I understand and support wanting to honour those who make the selfless act of donating live tissues such as an organ, blood products or bone marrow to help save lives. It is noble and perhaps heroic to make this choice. I know it’s not easy. I have been a blood donor and on the bone marrow transplant donor list since my early twenties.
I want to thank the sponsor in the other place for bringing forward this proposal. In approaching this bill, I see it as our role as senators to provide sober second thought through context and to provide voices for under-represented communities of Canadians.
When I think of an under-represented community of Canadians, I think of those who serve and those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. They are effectively my constituency and my community.
Therefore, my remarks today will focus on what this bill means to my community. I am lending my voice to ensure that they are heard. In doing so, I hope to help my fellow senators understand the context around not just the concept of live tissue donation, but also what honours and awards at the national level mean in Canada, especially for a group that traditionally received the lion’s share of these federal honours and awards.
Colleagues, you may know me as an admiral, but I’m also a certified health executive. I’m a registered nurse. I am also the former commander of the military health care system and was involved in operational planning for deployments overseas. I was responsible for providing health care to members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada and around the world.
Through my military career, through deployments and through that same operational medical planning for conflict zones such as Afghanistan, I can tell you that human tissue donation of any type, but particularly blood and blood products, is inherently political and occasionally weaponized by nations unlike our own.
Many of us will remember the tainted blood scandal that resulted in the Krever Inquiry during the mid-1990s. One of the resulting recommendations that was actioned was the creation of the Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec to manage a safer, centralized blood supply. This is because ensuring that Canada has a secure blood supply is in the national interest to protect all Canadians from blood-borne illnesses.
This matters because when members of the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed overseas, the Canadian military must — unless there is no other choice — use our own blood supply, with the supply chain originating in Canada.
In cases of massive transfusion or trauma requirements, we even use walking donors. These are members of the Canadian Armed Forces who test beforehand and are ready to roll up their sleeves and give whole blood in cases of mass trauma or when the blood supply runs low. There are numerous reasons for this. Canadians, wherever they serve, are entitled to quality blood products in the quantities they need to support them, in particular, in forms of operations overseas, and also to have secure blood supply distribution and supply chains.
With that, in Canada, based on the “safety first” principle emanating from the Krever Inquiry, Canada’s blood system is seen and managed as a public good. It is based on voluntary, altruistic donations rather than commercial profit. This is why, apart from certain blood products and reproductive tissue, someone donating human tissue is not to be compensated for the act. This is not the case in other countries.
In some countries, there is quite a capitalist market for blood and human tissue donation. Not only does this risk the introduction of potential pathogens — as former Justice Krever noted — via donations from high-risk donors, it also exploits socially and economically vulnerable people. However, in Canada, it’s considered a selfless act, not something you should be profiting from or rewarded for.
I also recognize it is an intensely deep and personal decision to donate live tissue to benefit another person, even if it is that of a loved one after their death.
In the case of living donation, such as liver or kidney transplants, as well as bone marrow, despite the fact that there is a huge amount of medical caution executed around the suitability of potential donors, we can never forget that this selfless act of donation has an immediate risk to the donor and could potentially have lifelong consequences for them. For example, what if their remaining kidney were to fail? What then?
Honourable senators, serving in the Canadian Armed Forces is truly a selfless act; it’s about putting service before oneself. This is because, as I have spoken about before, members of the Canadian Armed Forces are subject to that legal principle of unlimited liability, meaning that — on the order of the state — they may have to kill or be killed in carrying out said service.
For these cohorts of Canadians, for my community, many of whom have experienced first-hand the criteria for the awarding of medals and post-nominals like those Bill C-234 proposes, there is a deep significance and meaning attached to honours and awards, especially for medals that recognize a singular act by an individual. It is a very rare honour and a moment of pride.
While there are various campaign medals, meaning for operations members have been on, whether it be stars or decorations for exemplary and long-term service, there is only one medal that brings me to think about the importance of the recognition being suggested by this bill and the proposed living donor recognition medal. It is one in a very unique series of medals awarded for personal merit.
I will now speak to you about the Sacrifice Medal. You may have seen it on some of the veterans who are here, with its black-and-red ribbon and featuring the image of Canada Bereft statue from the National Vimy Memorial at Vimy Ridge. It is awarded to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and others, who have been killed in action or wounded under honourable circumstances and as a direct result of hostile action. This started in October 2021.
The Sacrifice Medal recognizes those who voluntarily and selflessly support Canada’s defence, security and sovereignty. Like the living donor recognition medal that is proposed by this bill, the Sacrifice Medal recognizes the selfless act of the recipient. However, there are several notable differences.
As of December 31, 2025, 1,359 Sacrifice Medals, including 22 with bar, have been awarded. I would point out that the bar represents being wounded in action more than once. Compare that to the potentially nearly — as we heard in testimony — 6,000 living donor recognition medals that may be awarded annually based on the testimony that we have heard. This is not a judgment. It is simply to provide a comparison highlighting the uniqueness and specialness of the Sacrifice Medal — but also of the bill that we have in front of us in Bill C-234.
Additionally, the Sacrifice Medal does not grant the recipient the use of post-nominals, unlike the proposed living donor recognition medal.
Why do post-nominals matter? Like many of you around this chamber, I am honoured with post-nominals that I can use proudly with my name. They come from a lifetime in service of something greater than oneself.
When I look around the room and see the number of colleagues who are members of the Order of Canada or provincial and territorial orders — all with post-nominals based on a lifetime of giving of themselves — I sit in awe of them.
I want to draw the attention to my fellow senators to the testimony of Mr. Christopher McCreery, an expert on Canadian honours and awards. He presented at both the other place and committees here. Mr. McCreery is such an expert that he has literally written a book on the Order of Canada, which included a foreword by Her Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II.
In his testimony, both here and in committee in the other place, Mr. McCreery spoke about the importance of post-nominals and how the awarding of post-nominals fits into the broader honours and awards construct. He noted, as I did, that recipients of the Sacrifice Medal do not receive post-nominals despite answering “. . . the highest call a country can make of its citizens . . . .”
Mr. McCreery further noted post-nominals “. . . have historically been reserved for orders and decorations . . . .” and not medals that recognize a voluntary act. I share these comments to provide context for the broader debate.
I speak today so that you, colleagues, may better understand the significance of this bill, including what the proposed medal and post-nominals will mean to members of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans. Please remember that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans also donate living tissue.
(1550)
With that, and in conclusion, I do support this bill on its intent because it is the right thing to do, but I do so with reservations about its potential impact on my community. Thank you for listening, honourable senators.
[Translation]
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Patterson, would you take a question?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
[English]
Hon. Lucie Moncion: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for bringing that nuance to the medal. Is there any particular reason why you did not bring an amendment to this bill to fix that situation and bring it into balance in the work that is being done by our veterans or people who work on behalf of Canada in the army?
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much for that question.
This comes from my community and was brought to my attention. It was not something I thought about, but one of the other components is there is no opposition to a medal at all. It is a note about the post-nominals. I think what we should be asking is why we don’t grant post-nominals after the Sacrifice Medal. The intent is not to take away from this bill.
That is another discussion that needs to move forward.
[Translation]
Hon. Victor Boudreau: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today as the friendly critic of this bill.
As I mentioned at second reading in the spring, I am personally affected by this issue. Thanks to the generosity of living donors, two of my close friends are still with us today. They are among the lucky few who have received life-saving transplants.
I worked for the Government of New Brunswick for many years, and I have always been proud of the work that my province does to promote organ donation. Successive governments for our province have taken significant action to encourage people to make this essential sacrifice.
Along with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick is one of two Canadian provinces to have introduced a program for opting out of organ donation and post-mortem procedures. That means that adults are automatically considered donors after their death, unless they have actively completed a form to opt out. I mention that to highlight the broad consensus that exists across the political spectrum on issues such as this. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have succeeded in advancing these policies because politicians set aside their differences and worked for the common good.
The passage of Bill C-234 by the House of Commons in the spring further illustrates this broad consensus. As the bill’s sponsor noted in his speech, MPs from all parties were eager to rally behind this initiative.
[English]
Of course, as we know, this bill doesn’t deal with posthumous donations. This bill seeks to provide long-overdue recognition for living donors.
Last spring, I made a point of recognizing that the sponsor of this bill in the other place, MP Ziad Aboultaif, is himself a living donor. On December 8, 2003, he donated part of his liver to save the life of his son Tyler. I would encourage you all to read the MP’s speech when he introduced this bill. It is very moving.
Thanks to his efforts, Bill C-234 will recognize the remarkable individuals who make the selfless and courageous choice to become living donors. It would do so by creating a living donor recognition medal.
I would remind you all that the scope of Mr. Aboultaif’s original bill was broadened through amendments at the committee level. What began as a bill designed to honour living organ donors was expanded to include all living donors, including those who donate stem cells and those who demonstrated a particularly exceptional lifelong commitment to giving blood.
There are many reasons to support this bill, not the least of which is that it can help encourage more donations at a time when our health care system desperately needs them. There are currently approximately 4,700 people in Canada waiting for transplants. Three quarters of those people are waiting for a kidney. They could all be helped through living donors.
As others have highlighted in their support of this bill, living donations are more successful than posthumous ones. Proper matches are easier to find through living donations, and being able to schedule procedures ahead of time leads to much better health outcomes. From a medical perspective, a posthumous donation is an option of last resort.
[Translation]
Encouraging more living donation is not only a humanitarian gesture, but it is also a sensible decision. Dialysis costs around $100,000 per year. A transplant costs $70,000.
I firmly believe that this bill will raise public awareness and spark a debate about living organ donation. It will encourage more people to take an interest in organ donation and the inestimable impact it can have.
If this bill is passed, Canada will become the second country in the world to include living donors in its national honours system. By honouring living donors, Canada could lead by example, highlighting the importance of living organ donation and paying tribute to those who give the gift of life.
[English]
Going off script for a moment in reaction to Senator Patterson’s remarks, I agree with everything the senator has said in regard to post-nominal letters and as they apply to Sacrifice Medals or any other medals that our military personnel receive and that are very well deserved.
However, I do feel it’s a separate issue that can’t necessarily be addressed by this bill. That’s why I think the idea of amending this bill wasn’t necessarily the right approach. I would gladly be the friendly critic to your bill if you ever wanted to address this issue and fix it for the future.
[Translation]
I hope you will join me in supporting this highly commendable initiative, Bill C-234.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
[English]
Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-234, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal.
When I first spoke to this legislation at second reading, I described living organ donation as one of the clearest expressions of selflessness in our society. Following the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ study of this bill, and having heard directly from living donors, transplant advocates and experts in Canada’s honours system, I am more convinced than ever of the importance of recognizing these extraordinary Canadians.
Before turning to the substance of the bill, I want to express my sincere appreciation to my colleague in the other place member of Parliament Ziad Aboultaif, the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Aboultaif has been a tireless advocate for living organ donation. His commitment is not simply legislative or political. It is deeply personal. In December 2003, he donated part of his liver to his son Tyler in an effort to save his life. His son subsequently received another life-saving organ donation from an anonymous donor in Quebec.
That experience gave Mr. Aboultaif a profound understanding of what living donation means, both for the person giving and for the person receiving. He has taken that experience and turned it into a national initiative intended to recognize thousands of Canadians who have made similar sacrifices.
I thank him for his leadership, his perseverance and his willingness to work collaboratively with parliamentarians from all parties to advance this important legislation. I also thank him for inviting me to sponsor this bill in the Senate. It has been an honour to do so.
Honourable senators, this legislation has demonstrated something we do not always see in Parliament: a willingness to set aside partisan differences in pursuit of a common objective. The bill received unanimous support in the other place, and its progress through Parliament has reflected a shared recognition that living donors deserve our gratitude.
This is not a Conservative issue, a Liberal issue or an issue belonging to any particular political party. It is a Canadian issue, and it speaks to values that unite us: compassion, generosity, service and a willingness to help others, sometimes at considerable personal cost.
At its core, Bill C-234 is straightforward. It would establish a national medal to recognize eligible individuals who voluntarily donate organs, tissue, stem cells or blood while living. The legislation also provides for the administration of the medal and the use of the post-nominal letters L.D.M.
(1600)
The objective is not to create a financial incentive for organ donation. It is not to commercialize transplantation, alter medical eligibility standards or interfere with provincial health care systems. It is to recognize extraordinary acts of generosity and, through that recognition, increase public awareness of living donation.
Honourable senators, Canada has a long tradition of recognizing individuals who demonstrate courage, sacrifice and service. We honour military service, acts of bravery, contributions to public life and exceptional volunteerism. Yet there are Canadians who willingly undergo invasive medical procedures, accept personal risk and give a part of themselves so that another person may live. Until now, we have not had a dedicated national medal recognizing that particular contribution. Bill C-234 seeks to address that absence.
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights heard compelling testimony that reinforced both the importance of this legislation and the need to implement it responsibly. I want to thank the committee chair, Senator Paulette Senior, and my colleagues on the committee for their thoughtful examination of the bill. I also want to acknowledge the witnesses who shared their experiences, their expertise and, in some cases, deeply personal stories. Their testimony helped move our consideration of this legislation beyond the principle of recognition to the practical question of what this recognition can mean for Canadians.
One of the most memorable witnesses was Shelley Hunt, a living kidney donor from British Columbia. In 2014, Ms. Hunt donated a kidney through a paired exchange program. She had initially intended to donate anonymously. During the process, however, she met a young boy named Aidan, who needed a kidney and was approximately the same age as her own son.
Although she was not a direct match for Aidan, the paired exchange program allowed her donation to help another recipient, while Aidan received a kidney through the exchange. When Ms. Hunt appeared before our committee in June, she shared that Aidan had recently graduated from high school, a joyous achievement by any measure. A young boy who needed a kidney was able to grow up, continue his education and reach an important milestone in his life. His family was able to watch him do so. That opportunity was made possible through the generosity of someone willing to help. Ms. Hunt told the committee that seeing Aidan healthy and graduating was all the recognition she personally needed. However, she also made an important point: She had not known living kidney donation was possible until she received information about it. A simple piece of information changed her life and ultimately helped change someone else’s. That is precisely why awareness matters.
A Canadian cannot consider becoming a living donor if they do not know that living donation is possible. They cannot make an informed decision if they do not understand the process. They may never have that important conversation with their family unless something encourages them to begin it. Bill C-234 creates another opportunity for those conversations to take place.
Colleagues, the committee also heard from Craig Lindsay of the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Mr. Lindsay spoke from the perspective of someone who had experienced kidney failure and ultimately received a transplant from a deceased donor. He described the uncertainty of waiting for an organ and the profound difference transplantation can make in a person’s life. He also explained that one of the greatest barriers to living donation is a lack of awareness. Many Canadians simply do not know enough about living donation to consider it.
Mr. Lindsay emphasized that recognition can also help tell stories, generate awareness and encourage conversations that might otherwise never occur. We should not suggest that the creation of a medal will automatically result in more organ donations. There is no guarantee of that. But we can reasonably recognize its potential to increase awareness, encourage informed discussion and inspire Canadians to learn more.
Behind every Canadian waiting for a transplant is an individual and a family living with uncertainty: parents waiting for their children, spouses hoping for more time together, and people whose lives have been interrupted by illness, dialysis, repeated medical appointments and the uncertainty of whether a suitable organ will become available. Some will receive the transplant they need; tragically, others will not.
Living donation cannot solve every challenge within Canada’s transplant system, but it can make a profound difference. If greater awareness helps even a small number of Canadians consider donation, that is an outcome worth pursuing.
Our committee also heard from Meghan Rozema of Alberta, whose experience demonstrates the extraordinary generosity that motivates living donors. Ms. Rozema donated part of her liver in 2021 and a kidney in 2023. Both recipients were anonymous. She has never met them. Imagine making the decision, not once but twice, to undergo a significant medical procedure to help someone you do not know. Like many living donors, Ms. Rozema is not seeking attention, but she recognizes that sharing her experience may encourage someone else to consider donating. That testimony captures the spirit of this legislation. The medal is not intended to reward people for seeking recognition; it is intended to recognize those who have already demonstrated extraordinary generosity and to provide an opportunity for their experiences to inspire others.
Honourable colleagues, we also heard about the important work already being done to recognize donors. Representatives of the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association described their long-standing recognition program in Quebec. For more than two decades, that organization has honoured living donors through ceremonies involving the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. More than 400 living donors have received recognition through that program. These initiatives demonstrate that recognizing living donors is neither a new nor an untested idea.
A federal medal should complement these existing initiatives rather than duplicate administrative processes unnecessarily. However, it should also provide something distinct: recognition at the national level. Whether a donor lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia or Nunavut, the act of literally giving part of oneself to help another person deserves the same consideration.
Colleagues, our committee’s study was valuable not only because of the support expressed for the bill but also because witnesses raised legitimate questions about its implementation. Those concerns deserve to be acknowledged.
We heard from Christopher McCreery, an expert on Canada’s honours system, and Brigadier-General Marc Thériault, representing the Chancellery of Honours at the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. They raised questions about eligibility, administration, costs and the proposed use of post-nominal letters. I appreciate their expertise and the constructive manner in which these concerns were presented.
We have a responsibility to ensure that national recognition is meaningful, credible and administered appropriately. At the same time, I believe it is important to recognize the considerable work that has already gone into refining this legislation.
Bill C-234 did not arrive in the Senate without careful consideration of its provisions. During its examination in the other place, the legislation benefited from extensive discussions and consultations, including with Rideau Hall, the Chancellery of Honours and the Department of Justice.
Several government amendments were developed through that process, with the support of the bill’s sponsor, MP Ziad Aboultaif. These were constructive amendments intended to strengthen the legislation, clarify its provisions and ensure that the proposed medal could be appropriately accommodated within Canada’s honours system.
That collaborative approach is worth emphasizing. It demonstrates that the legislation before us is not simply the original proposal brought forth by a private member. It is the product of consultation, compromise and careful parliamentary consideration.
I was particularly encouraged by a letter dated October 6, just one month ago, from the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, addressed to the chair of our committee and distributed to its members.
Minister LeBlanc expressed his strong support for Bill C-234 and acknowledged the important work undertaken in the House of Commons to refine its provisions. He also made an observation about Canada’s honours system that I believe is particularly relevant to our deliberations. While the system is firmly rooted in history and tradition, it must also be capable of evolving to reflect the contributions that Canadians make to our country. That is an important principle.
Our honours system has developed over time because Canadians have recognized new and different forms of service worthy of national distinction. We heard from Senator Patterson regarding some of this for members of our military. The living donor recognition medal is consistent with that tradition. It recognizes a form of service that is extraordinary, deeply personal and, in many cases, life-saving.
The committee also heard questions about the proposed use of post-nominal letters. Those questions are understandable, particularly given the established conventions surrounding Canadian honours.
(1610)
However, I believe it is important to recognize that this issue was not overlooked during the bill’s earlier consideration. In fact, it was specifically examined in the other place.
As Minister LeBlanc confirmed in his letter, the government introduced an amendment to provide greater clarity and confirm the appropriateness of post-nominals for recipients of the living donor recognition medal. The amendment received unanimous support.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether post-nominals are consistent with every existing convention. It is whether their inclusion serves a legitimate and meaningful purpose within this particular legislation. Colleagues, I believe that it does.
A medal is generally presented on a particular occasion. It may be worn at ceremonies or other formal events, but for most recipients, it will remain a personal keepsake. Post-nominal letters offer something different. They allow recognition to remain visible in everyday life.
They may appear in a professional biography, in correspondence, at a community event or alongside a person’s name in a public setting. When someone asks what those letters mean, an opportunity arises to explain living organ donation. That conversation may be brief, but it may also be the first time someone learns that a living person can donate a kidney or part of a liver to help another person.
It may encourage someone to seek further information, speak with their family or consider becoming donors themselves. That is not merely ceremonial recognition. It is a practical means of advancing one of the central purposes of this bill: public education and awareness.
This was also the point made by Minister LeBlanc, who emphasized that post-nominals would strengthen the medal’s ability to promote understanding of living donation. It is consistent with testimony we heard from living donors themselves, who explained that opportunities to share their experiences can encourage others to consider donation.
Recognition is not a competition. Recognizing living donors does not diminish the service of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the courage of those who have risked their lives in the service of Canada or the accomplishments of recipients of other national honours.
Canada can honour different forms of service and sacrifice without diminishing any of them.
Honourable colleagues, I also believe there is value in maintaining a clear distinction between the purpose of this legislation and the delivery of health services.
Organ transplantation is, of course, a medical matter, but the recognition of exceptional service to Canadians is a matter for our national honours system.
The Chancellery of Honours has the experience, institutional knowledge and established role necessary to administer national distinctions. Health Canada and the organizations involved in organ donation and transplantation have important expertise they can contribute, particularly in relation to eligibility and verification. That expertise should inform the administration of the medal.
Colleagues, I recognize that every piece of legislation can be improved through careful examination, and I respect the responsibility of this chamber to undertake that work, though we must also recognize when significant consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and constructive amendments have already addressed the central issues before us.
In this case, the provisions relating to the administration of the medal and the use of post-nominal letters have received careful consideration. They form part of a balanced approach that seeks both to recognize living donors and to increase public awareness of their extraordinary contributions.
In my view, preserving that approach will allow us to move forward with a meaningful national recognition program, while ensuring that the focus remains where it belongs: the Canadians whose generosity and sacrifice inspired this legislation in the first place.
Our committee also heard that recognition alone is not enough to address every challenge faced by living donors. Transplant Québec raised important questions about the financial and insurance consequences that some donors may experience.
Living donors may face time away from work, travel expenses, recovery costs and other personal burdens. Some may encounter questions related to insurance. These issues deserve further attention.
The committee’s testimony provides a useful reminder that our work on supporting living donors should not end with the passage of this bill. Recognition should be part of a broader commitment to ensuring that Canadians who choose to help others are treated fairly and supported appropriately.
Throughout our committee hearings, one theme emerged repeatedly. Living donors generally do not act because they expect recognition. They act because someone needs help. Sometimes that person is a child, a parent, a spouse or a sibling. Sometimes it is a friend. And sometimes, colleagues, it is a complete stranger. But the motivation is fundamentally the same.
It is a willingness to make a personal sacrifice for the benefit of another human being. There is something profoundly Canadian about that.
Honourable senators, we often speak of service, compassion and sacrifice. Living donors put those values into action. They willingly accept personal risk and give something of themselves to change and sometimes save another person’s life.
Their extraordinary acts of generosity often take place quietly, far from public attention, yet their impact can last a lifetime. A child grows up. A parent comes home. A family is given more time together.
No medal can measure the value of such a gift, but it can return the gratitude of a nation, honour those who give without expecting anything in return and remind Canadians of the profound difference one person can make in another’s life.
When I agreed to sponsor Bill C-234, I did so because I believed its objective was both worthwhile and achievable. After hearing the testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, I remain convinced of that.
Honourable senators, we have heard the testimony, carefully examined this legislation and considered the questions surrounding its implementation. What remains is a simple but important principle: Canadians who willingly give something of themselves to improve or save another person’s life deserve the recognition and gratitude of their country.
Living donors do not seek honours. Their actions speak for themselves. We cannot repay what they have given, but we can ensure their extraordinary generosity is recognized and never forgotten. Bill C-234 gives us that opportunity, and I encourage all honourable senators to support it at third reading.
Thank you.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)
Enacting Climate Commitments Bill
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, for the second reading of Bill S-238, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
(On motion of Senator Kingston, debate adjourned.)
Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Bill
Bill to Amend—Second Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the second reading of Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) and the Special Economic Measures Act.
Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-219 as the Senate’s friendly critic. As Senator Housakos, the sponsor of the bill, indicated in his speech last Thursday, Bill C-219 is entitled An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) and the Special Economic Measures Act, or, in short, the international anti-corruption and human rights act (Sergei Magnitsky law no. 3).
Colleagues, almost exactly 10 years ago last week, we began the debate on Senator Andreychuk’s private member’s bill, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law). We have had before this chamber various measures associated with a sanctions policy that evolved during that decade. I commend for your review a major Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee report that was the five-year legislative review of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), which was tabled in this chamber three years ago.
(1620)
Those are subjects regarding which we have had some literacy during that time. The alterations to the regime have reflected the experiences and the interests of parliamentarians and, indeed, officials in the ongoing work dealing with the sanctions policy against measures that violate human rights.
Senator Housakos eloquently described the bill in some detail, so you will know that it makes important reforms that provide a more transparent and updated form of Canada’s sanctions regime to reflect the challenges that have been experienced in the past while and increase the efficacy of these laws, I believe.
I should also note that, over the last 10 years, this has been a bipartisan effort. This bill comes to us through the work of James Bezan, the Conservative member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, but it was also a bill that was heavily studied and negotiated, as it came to committee in the other place. It comes to us today as a unanimous bill. I want to go into some of the features that allow me to say with confidence that this bill is worthy of not only our attention but our prompt attention.
First, this bill would amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to require the minister to report annually on human rights efforts, including efforts to secure and release human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience.
Second, the bill would amend the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to lower the threshold for the use of sanctions to be inclusive of emerging threats by transnational repression and cybercrime. It also provides for increased penalties, establishes clear timelines and renames Canada’s existing sanctions legislation to commemorate and memorialize Sergei Magnitsky.
The other place amended the reporting provisions to take into consideration the precarious situation that prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders are in, while still making sure the government is accountable to Parliament in publishing an annual review of its activities. The other place adopted not just a sanctions trigger for transnational repression but a broadened trigger for undermining peace, stability and democracy, which will enable the government to sanction individuals for a wide range of transnational crimes, including cybercrime, organized crime, arbitrary detention, undermining democracy and more.
It also ensures that seizures of private assets of sanctioned individuals will have clear legislated timelines. The provisions have also increased and aligned evasion penalties to be consistent with existing legislation.
This is an important piece of legislation that strengthens our sanctions regime; yet, we must understand that the sanctions regime is but one tool in the tool box and is not always the most effective or efficacious one.
While we have had a sanctions regime for some years, and the global use of sanctions has increased significantly, it has had limited effects. Yes, it has sanctioned nearly 4,000 entities and vessels in Canada — those are Canadian sanctions — since 2022, and over 5,000 individuals and entities have been designated by Canada across its autonomous sanctions regimes. Indeed, Canada remains at the forefront of working with other countries to provide sanctions coordination. However, sanctions are not enough to deal with Ukraine.
My plea is this: Let’s adopt this bill, but let’s also recognize that we have to double down on other aspects of Canada’s engagement, and, indeed, the Western alliance’s engagement with Ukraine. That is for another day.
However, please do not think we are solving the issue; we are advancing the protections of human rights and ensuring that Canada remains at the forefront of these efforts.
A sanctions policy is not without some unintended consequences, and there is a body of literature that will importantly shape our understanding of how a sanctions policy can be weaponized by some nationalities or leaders in ways that are not helpful to a sanctions regime. However, that is for another day, as well.
For today, it’s important for this chamber, in solidarity with the unanimous view of the other chamber, to act quickly so that the signal can be sent to those who need to hear it that Canada stands at the forefront of sanctions policies and that these regimes deserve the attention and serious consequences that our sanction regime poses.
Therefore, with your support, I would like to call the question so that we can advance this bill as quickly as possible.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)
Referred to Committee
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?
(On motion of Senator Housakos, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.)
The Senate
Motion to Call on Government to Investigate the Creation of a Sovereign, Domestic Verified Travellers Program—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Simons, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo:
That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to investigate the creation of a sovereign, domestic Verified Travellers Program for Canadians.
Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I seek leave to allow this item, adjourned in the name of Senator Black, to remain in the name of Senator Black for the balance of his time following my intervention.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leaved granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator C. Deacon: Honourable senators, I want to briefly speak about what I think is a really important motion on the part of Senator Simons to investigate a sovereign, domestic, verified traveller program for Canadians.
The problem it solves is one I faced this morning. Last Thursday, I thought I put my NEXUS card in a very safe place as I left security, but I found out when I boarded the airplane that I must have put it somewhere else. Therefore, I used another piece of ID to board the airplane. I searched through everything only to find that I had left it at security. I was very lucky that I was able to phone them and request them to hold it for me, and I picked it up this morning on my way through the airport.
Regardless, the thought of losing my NEXUS card, and of the lineup we often see, and are stuck in, every Thursday night, when so many people are leaving Ottawa, was absolutely terrifying. Being without those verified traveller cards is a very real problem.
(1630)
I spent 20 years travelling virtually every week to the U.S. However, after 9/11, when the queues at security were regularly an hour at any airport you happened to be at, I never thought twice about going to the Halifax airport and handing over my facial recognition information, my iris scan — and I think about you, Iris, every time I think of that — and my fingerprints to the Canada Border Services Agency. I didn’t think that information about identification and so on was going to be shared with Homeland Security or about the long-term implications of that.
I think all of us have recognized over the past 18 to 24 months how important it is for us to have sovereign control over our data. That’s something that too few of us thought about before one person started to have considerable influence over our access to American technology and abruptly shut off individuals’ access to that technology — to payment services and to other essential services we all need on a daily basis.
We have changed a lot in a very short period of time, and we have seen the justification for some people not wanting to get a NEXUS card while still wanting the ability to be a verified traveller and to move safely across Canada when they travel for business or recreational activities.
We have woken up to the reality of keeping control over our own information. We have started to think long and hard about what services we access. We regularly hear Canadian leaders speak about the importance of digital sovereignty.
The world has very much shifted, and this motion proposes something that is timely for the moment. It gives us the ability to access that verified service, to quickly pass through airport security in a timely manner and to avoid wasting so much of our day arriving an hour or more earlier to our flight than everybody else. For those times when we are running late, we could get through quickly and not have to worry about missing our flight.
One of the questions I have heard regularly when listening to why anybody would be against this has been with respect to the cost. Is it going to be an expensive service to implement? Is it really worth it? Are there enough people who would use the service?
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, looked into it earlier this year, they found that it would cost about $7 million to run this program over a five-year period in Canada with the build-up of volume over that period. I think it would be very low-maintenance after that period. I consider the peace of mind it could give to Canadians who regularly travel across our country — to have access to this service that they don’t now have access to. I consider the improved effort of our airport security services, no longer putting focus on everybody at the same level but, perhaps, on where it needs to be. They could be more attentively focused rather than just generally across the whole service.
It addresses an important issue of inequality and gives Canadians who rarely, reluctantly or don’t travel to the U.S. the ability to have the same access as the rest of us who, like me — and I guess it was almost 11 years ago — signed up for the service without thinking twice. We might think twice today. That ability is really about having sovereign control over the data — the identity and contact information — that is gathered and retained, control over the administration of the program and Canadian control over deciding who is given access to this card. It won’t just be in the hands of, basically, another country.
Domestic equity is crucial in this situation, and I encourage colleagues to support Senator Simons’ motion. I think it’s meant for the moment.
Thank you very much for listening for a moment.
(Debate adjourned.)
[Translation]
Nation-Building Value of Tourism
Inquiry—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Sorensen, calling the attention of the Senate to the nation-building value of tourism in Canada.
Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I thank my colleagues.
[English]
I’m looking forward to speaking to this inquiry on tourism and its nation-building aspect.
[Translation]
Senator Sorensen, thank you for giving us the opportunity to restore tourism to its rightful place. This sector seems to have been unfairly relegated to the background, behind other essential sectors that are monopolizing attention, yet tourism continues to struggle, often without receiving the same level of support as other sectors.
I share my hometown, Windsor, in Essex County, Ontario, with Senator Sharon Burey. She highlighted many points of interest that might be overlooked by those who see us merely as the automotive capital.
[English]
The first tourists in the early 1700s were the French. They met the people of the Three Fires Confederacy in Windsor, a settlement right at the water’s edge on the west side of the community around the Ambassador Bridge today.
Today, there are many signs of our first settlers in our region: street names like Huron, Ojibway, Shawnee and Wyandotte, as well as, of course, the Town of Tecumseh, which was named after Chief Tecumseh, a pivotal figure in saving Upper Canada from the wretched Americans in 1812.
To this day, you will find the cannons at Fort Malden in Amherstburg still pointed at Detroit. Together with General Isaac Brock, Shawnee Chief Tecumseh overtook Detroit, and General Hull surrendered. This crucial event stopped the Americans in their tracks, and Canada continued unabated.
[Translation]
We have thoroughly anglicized our French roots. Those early tourists stayed. We call the towns in Essex County “Belle River” instead of “Belle Rivière” and “Stoney Point” instead of “Pointe aux roches.” We pronounce the names of the avenues in the old town centre as “Piri” instead of “Pierre,” “Whalette” instead of “Ouellette,” and “Langloize” instead of “Langlois.” I’m so sorry that we’re butchering these lovely French names.
[English]
We’ll get better.
[Translation]
I’m sure that you’ve heard about the Underground Railroad, the network that helped Black people escape slavery, cross the river and find shelter among locals, with bounty hunters hot on their heels. Some of the old homes in Sandwich Town, in our west end, contain ingenious secret hiding places to this day.
[English]
The First Baptist Church in Sandwich Town devoted most of its outreach work to sheltering people who arrived through the Underground Railroad. In 1999, it received a national historic site designation, led by none other than Reverend Owen Burey — yes, Senator Burey’s cousin — whose functions I attended for many years in another role.
To provide a thumbnail of our region, there are hundreds of parks, including Point Pelee, a must-see for birders especially, and a must-stop for our monarch butterflies. They rest up after their trek north from Mexico, and in the late fall, they rest up and refuel for their flight south. Many gardens in our region make plans to feature milkweed plants to host the monarch butterflies and their caterpillars.
If you wonder why we have a wine industry, it’s interesting to note this about Windsor: Think of the whole of North America as a continent. If you were to put your finger right in the middle, Windsor is 673 kilometres south of the middle of the continent. That’s pretty far south.
(1640)
A wine tour in our region would show off over 20 wineries, and our microclimate — thanks to being nestled between two Great Lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario — allows our exclusive ice wine to be made there too. Essex County is almost completely surrounded by water and features the jiimaan, which is Ojibwe for “canoe.” It’s a ferry that takes visitors to Pelee Island in Lake Erie, a fantastic way to spend the day — or longer. Let’s not forget pizza: Windsor is Canada’s best pizza city.
[Translation]
Another major event unfolding at this very moment is the Windsor International Film Festival, this year featuring 232 films from 50 countries, including 62 French-language films. By comparison, TIFF, the Toronto International Film Festival, featured 293. Windsor’s festival is expected to attract 50,000 visitors again this year.
The new Gordie Howe International Bridge has gotten a lot of attention. We call it the “Gordie.” Windsor handles 25% of all trade with the United States across the border, which includes road, rail, boat and air options, and now a pedestrian crossing too.
[English]
If you visit my office in East Block, you’ll see a photo of the bridge just before its two sides were joined and a photo of the wonderful vista of the river and the two cities of Windsor and Detroit after the bridge was completed. I don’t think anyone predicted the tourism boost, especially cyclists, runners and pedestrians, who make their way onto the new bridge and go through their own customs booths on their way out.
Many head over to Sandwich Town, one of the restaurants. The walk is a spectacular multi-use path with a protective barrier made of steel hockey sticks. Considering the current political and economic tensions the Americans are employing, it’s nice to know that local folks on both sides of our river are just friendly neighbours, as they always have been. The path is free and accessible, and it has, at most, a 5% incline for three kilometres each way. My 86-year-old mom and I walked to the middle and back just to take a picture with the flags.
Our waterfront has an accessible riverfront trail extending over five kilometres, from the Ambassador Bridge to Hiram Walker, which was the centre of the rum-runner stories during Prohibition in the 1920s. The folks used to row their booze-laden boats across the narrowest portion of the river under the cover of darkness. They’ve made movies about this. No wonder the Americans loved us. They will again.
Depending on the time of day, you can smell the fermenting grain as you drive along Riverside Drive. That’s my city. At the centre of that trail is a massive Canadian flag right in the heart of Dieppe Gardens Park: a 30-by-60-foot flag at the top of a 150-foot pole.
[Translation]
Dieppe Gardens gets its name from the Dieppe Raid, a disastrous operation that the Essex Scottish Regiment took part in. That regiment was made up of 553 soldiers from our region. Only 51 returned alive, over 121 were killed, and the rest spent years in prisoner of war camps. Our downtown is home to a beautiful commemorative plaza where our Remembrance Day ceremonies are held.
Our recently renovated city hall has a huge skating rink out front and, most seasons, it also hosts outdoor screenings of major international sports events.
[English]
We are a sports-obsessed city. We are home to the Windsor Spitfires from the Ontario Hockey League, or OHL. We love professional football and baseball, and most people are Detroit Red Wings fans. We consider the Detroit teams our teams. There is the Detroit Grand Prix every spring, and the fireworks displayed during our annual Freedom Festival every June are considered the second largest in North America. That evening literally draws hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the border, with fireworks being launched from three massive barges directly in the middle of the Detroit River. It’s very cool.
I’d like to take a moment to talk about tourist infrastructure. I think more people would come to my fair city, and yours, if we step up our transportation infrastructure. Consider our country: It’s massive, with our people largely huddled along the southern border for warmth. We have a few huge cities with more than 1 million people and many smaller cities with under 500,000. Consider Windsor: It’s larger than eight capital cities; yet, our airlines dismiss the necessity for more flights by handing us a paltry number of flights daily. Post COVID, many of us here can tell a story about how our connectivity is now just worse.
How can we expect visitors to get around our great country without easy access to transportation? We’ve heard all the excuses: pilot shortages and air traffic controller shortages. Without enough for a shift, they just land fewer planes. You and I wait on the tarmac, and airlines cringe, thinking about how much they have to pay out as a result of the new Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
I don’t think we meant to bring about a perverse outcome, but the more we enforce payouts under passenger rights, the higher the risk for the airline. Consequently, we may have fewer flights — not more — to the very regions that need more tourist and business access. If it were easy to fix, it would have been fixed by now. It will take a collective to solve these issues, not one government or even one level of government or one company.
Interestingly, in the U.S., their airports are publicly funded — and I mean to the tune of billions of dollars. So much for their much-vaunted “let the free market reign” philosophy. Any fees charged to their passengers stay in their airport ecosystem to fund capital and other enhancements, so it’s consistent. Not so in Canada, where passengers pay about 30% of their tickets toward airport fees. If airport begging is successful, some of it comes back. Some were successful in having levies halted during COVID, and some received funds through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, in the Maritimes, only to have the funds slip out the back door in rent. How does that actually help?
Given the size of our country, it’s impossible to jump in the car and drive within Canada. We don’t get that much vacation time. How is it that our tax base funds roads, but our tax base doesn’t fund airports? Aren’t they a necessity these days? Why don’t we see the same types of levies on train tickets? We just don’t look at all types of infrastructure in the same way, and it’s time for a rethink.
Infrastructure that supports the tourism industry is the same type of infrastructure that supports other sectors too. Some sectors see large levels of support. I’ve been part of it: “We’ll guarantee enhanced power access. We’ll build you a rail spur.” They say that without even batting an eye. Tourism plays a critical economic role in many of our rural and northern towns; yet, we struggle with the basics of getting people there. We have to see tourist infrastructure as the loss leader to get people there, just like we do with roads.
[Translation]
In case you think I’m only talking about air travel, let’s talk a bit about car rentals and ferry services. During the COVID pandemic, car rental companies sold off most of their vehicles, since they didn’t know how long people wouldn’t be able to travel. In regions like Newfoundland and Labrador, they still haven’t rebuilt a fleet large enough to meet demand.
Getting around the island is impossible without a car. If you had a car and decided to drive east, bear in mind that Quebec has not yet —
(1650)
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Pupatello, I’m sorry to interrupt. The time for your speech has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes to conclude?
Senator Pupatello: May I have three more minutes?
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Pupatello: Bear in mind that Quebec has not yet completed the 400-kilometre stretch of highway that would connect the short ferry crossing between Blanc-Sablon and Sainte-Barbe. Imagine the tourism potential that would open up along this entire route if we could finally get it built.
[English]
I regret that we did not include terms of service-level agreements when we sold the Crown corporation Air Canada or when we wrote section 32 of the British North America Act, 1949, when Newfoundland joined Canada. At best, we said, “Canada will maintain in accordance with the traffic offering freight and passenger steamship service . . . .” Traffic offering? People are waiting a week, right now, to get on the ferry at Port aux Basque.
I would love to see a multi-level, multi-jurisdictional discussion about who is responsible for what, for offering what and for boosting our tourism. Is that what Norway did when they created an award-winning bathroom stretch along the Norwegian scenic route? Since Baby Boomers and older travellers spend the most when travelling, they need to know where they can go.
Canada is the global darling right now. Ecotourism is on the rise everywhere, and we have that in spades. Global tourists are comfortable travelling in Canada compared to another country in North America. We have urban centres, rural areas, the North, the South, food, sports, water, mountains, valleys and even dinosaurs. Many economic studies have been done to show the return of investment in tourism infrastructure. I suggest we listen to that.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention today. We would be wise to get all governments to the same table with industry and at the same time. I have so much more to say, especially to tell you about Windsor-style pizza. Thank you.
Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to contribute to the inquiry put forward by Senator Sorenson regarding the nation-building value of tourism in our country.
I have listened intently over the past several months as many of you have spoken in this chamber on the many places throughout our country that make up the tourism crown that we call Canada. As I am sure you will all understand, my remarks this afternoon will be focused on what I truly believe is the jewel in the crown of Canadian tourist destinations. That is my own beautiful and culturally rich province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would love to tell you about all the places you could visit, the events you could attend and the people that you could talk to, but I want to be home for Christmas, too.
From her pine-clad hills to her mountain glens, from the northern lights of Labrador to the oldest city in North America, from the land of the Vikings who landed on our shores over 1,000 years ago to delicious food, breathtaking scenery, world-class entertainment and the friendliest and most hospitable people on earth, a visit to Newfoundland and Labrador will create memories that will last a lifetime. But don’t take my word for it. Allow me to tell you what others have said about us.
Stacey Lastoe, a CNN senior editor from New York City, said that she enjoyed a pint in downtown St. John’s with some of the nicest people she’d ever met. She went on to say, “Newfoundlanders are a happy, welcoming bunch, and I can’t wait to go back.”
Dr. Adrian Meyer and his wife, Inge, from Zürich, Switzerland, said that Newfoundland “. . . is unique, impressive and has the most lovable inhabitants.” They continued, saying:
We were welcomed and received as if we had always been members of their community. Where else in the world does this happen?
They also said, “We have become Newfoundland and Labrador’s passionate ambassadors in Switzerland.”
Mahmaed AlTaani and his family moved to Newfoundland from Syria after surviving a crowded refugee camp in Jordan. He told a local paper a heartwarming story about how he and his family were welcomed in Newfoundland and about his children being warmly included and making new friends in the local school. They felt safe and secure.
Kathie Schairbaum Erwin and her husband from the United States were travelling throughout Newfoundland in a fifth wheel when her husband had a severe health issue and ended up in hospital for several months. She had this to say:
In the U.S.A., we have to remind ourselves to pay it forward, to be kind to others, et cetera. But here in Newfoundland, it’s a natural part of the culture. It’s as automatic as it is to breathe. The province is a special place that is hard to describe to our friends in the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. is hard to describe to my friends here in Canada sometimes.
The famous actor Robert Redford made the following comment:
Newfoundland: A landscape not commonly found, where green roofs are abundant and roads less travelled. A special place, with a feeling of new discovery. I’ve often heard it said by some, that the meaningful connection to a sense of place is lost so, “I’m heading for Newfoundland.”
Gail Murray of Toronto fell in love with Newfoundland and summed it up after her visit by saying:
What stays with me as much as the rugged beauty of Newfoundland is the fortitude and resilience of a people who have honed their artistic talents, kept alive cherished traditions of those long-ago Irish settlers and learned to balance the new with the old and finding a way to live in an untamed land.
You may all recall the Titan tragedy from 2023, when the OceanGate semi-submersible was lost as it tried to journey to the site of the Titanic. International news media outlets from around the world descended on St. John’s.
One of the world’s most famous news anchors, Anderson Cooper of CNN, was one of those who arrived on our shores at the time.
As he was concluding several days of covering the story and was preparing to leave, he had this to say:
. . . I just want to thank the people of St. John’s, who have welcomed us here and helped us in our work for the past few days and all week. I’ve travelled all over the world, but I’ve rarely ever met such kind and decent and concerned people as I have in just the last few days here in St. John’s.
In my humble opinion, Newfoundland and Labrador is a very special place, and we have been around for a long time.
About 9,000 years ago, our First Peoples inhabited southern Labrador after the glaciers retreated, and about 5,000 years ago, they probably crossed to the island portion of our province. Now, I could be off a year or two on that, so don’t press me on the exact date they crossed the gulf. I couldn’t track it down in my research.
Then, in 1497, Italian sailor John Cabot, sailing under the English flag, landed in Bonavista and claimed the land for Queen Elizabeth I.
Throughout the next 500 years or so, those of mostly English, French and Irish descent would find their way across the Atlantic and make their new homes on the shores of Newfoundland. Many would bring their customs, traditions and way of life, creating a unique but wonderful mosaic of colour and culture throughout the many towns and communities of our province.
When one visits our island in the sea, you quickly realize that many of the residents are as colourful as the places they call home, and the names of some of those communities are very colourful as well.
Just think about how interesting it would be to be able to tell people that you are from Joe Batt’s Arm, Pinsent’s Arm or Witless Bay, then to find out that a long-time family friend of yours lives in a place called Dildo, which is just a few kilometres east of the beautiful community of Come by Chance, which is just up the road from the community of Spread Eagle. How about having the fortune to call your home Heart’s Content, Heart’s Delight or Heart’s Desire and to be able to tell your mainland friends that your sister lives in Paradise and your brother lives in Angel’s Cove?
Why wouldn’t you want to come visit places with names like Battle Harbour, Bacon Cove, Tickle Harbour, Sweet Bay — Senator Wells knows that very well — Comfort Cove or allow your imagination to fly in Conception Bay, Ferryland, Exploits or Virgin Cove?
Whether it is our architecture, our crafts, the names of our towns, our language or even the way we construct our roads, at times it can seem to be a bit off kilter, but it is who we are and why we are proud to be who we are. We are happy about that, in my humble opinion.
Newfoundland and Labrador is unique in many ways and has many firsts when it comes to Canada. Today, I will tell you some facts about down home and, hopefully, pique your interest in visiting “The Rock.”
We are the first in Canada to see the sunrise, and you can do so from Cape Spear, located just outside of St. John’s, which happens to be the most easterly point in North America. When you take a stroll down Water Street in St. John’s, you are walking on the oldest street in North America.
Some people may try to tell you that we are always a half-hour later. Don’t believe them. Believe me when I tell you we have our own unique time zone, which is 30 minutes ahead of Atlantic Standard Time.
(1700)
Therefore, we will always be the first to ring in the new year in our country. While the big land called Labrador consists of a major land mass as part of our province — and to my Quebec colleagues, it is part of Newfoundland and Labrador — the fact is that 90% of our residents live on the island portion of the province.
In 1907, Great Britain granted Dominion status to Newfoundland. We enjoyed that equal status along with Australia and New Zealand until 1949, when the rest of Canada joined us as we became the tenth province of this country. There are several people down home who still believe we shagged that one up.
Two of the world’s most lovable breeds of dogs are named after both land masses of our province: the enormous, bearlike Newfoundland dog and the most popular dog breed in the world, the Labrador.
When the Titanic hit an iceberg off our coast in April 1912, we were the first to receive a distress call from the stricken ship.
At 12:01 a.m. on October 17, 2018, we were the first province to sell legalized marijuana in Canada. Many of the people in my province believe we should have put out our own distress call at that time.
As you are aware, we have our own time zone, but did you know that we also have our own dictionary? This unique collection of language and lore, aptly titled the Dictionary of Newfoundland and Labrador, is comprised of a concoction and contortion of the English vocabulary, garnished with insightful and humorous sayings — many, I may add, that were made up on the spur of the moment. The collection speaks to our colourful culture and heritage.
Our province also has its own encyclopedia, which is also aptly named: the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador. This great piece of work was commissioned by our first premier, the Honourable Joseph R. Smallwood. Joey’s objective at that time was to capture the people, places, events and history of our province. Joey’s view on the purpose of the encyclopedia was summed up in his own words when he said:
Every theme belongs in the Encyclopedia. Every person, every event, every location, every institution, every development, every industry, every intellectual activity, every religious movement in Newfoundland belongs in there.
I am sure that the people at Maclean’s magazine were not thinking about the fast-growing population of moose in Newfoundland and Labrador when they did a survey a few years ago and found that our province was home to the kindest and sexiest people in Canada. From what I understand from my research, Senator Ravalia was one of the people they surveyed at the time.
Colleagues, if you want to experience a touch of French culture, we offer that as well.
[Translation]
Open the window.
[English]
Travel down the beautiful Burin Peninsula and catch a short boat ride over to the islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. It is the only part of New France that remains under French control. The people who live here have established a wonderful relationship with Newfoundland and Labrador.
As you can see, friends, my home province has much to offer: a landscape like no other, a history and culture that you will not find anywhere else and always a welcoming smile and a genuine handshake because, on that cold rock in the North Atlantic, there are only warm friends that you haven’t met. As my Irish ancestors would say —
[Editor’s Note: Senator Manning spoke in Gaelic.]
In English, or Newfinese, that means “a hundred thousand welcomes,” and, indeed, welcome you are.
Hon. Pat Duncan: That is a challenging act to follow.
Honourable senators, I rise today to address the contribution of tourism to building our great nation — Canada — and Yukon’s place within it.
There’s no manual on how to take a very large land mass, 13 distinct areas and the hardest form of government federalism and build a united country. Experience has taught us over the 159 years that we have been a work in progress that we grow together — and we are better together when we understand and truly grow to know one another.
One piece of advice I received and passed on to Canadians young and old is this: See your own country first. You may have read at some point in time Robert Service, the Bard of the Yukon. He wrote, “There’s the land. (Have you seen it?)”
While you may read in a history book about the gold rush in Dawson City, Yukon, you may be aware from your own knowledge of Parks Canada that Canada’s highest mountain is located in Kluane National Park in the Yukon. And you may know from hearing about Canada’s infrastructure that Diefenbaker’s Roads to Resources connected Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories through the Yukon and to the rest of Canada.
It is one thing to read and learn about the Yukon, but to see it — again, Robert Service:
From the big, dizzy mountains that screen it.
To the deep deathlike valleys below.
To be a visitor and be truly present, like with all of our regions, is to understand and know us.
Beyond what I will share with you shortly, I highly recommend a visit to the yukon.ca tourism website. It recently opened with the statement, “Tourism businesses are vital to every community and region across Canada.”
Colleagues, I would like to digress for a moment, if I may. “Across Canada,” conjures a vision of the Port of Halifax, perhaps north to St. John’s, Montreal, Toronto, the heart of Canada in Winnipeg and just maybe a stop in Regina — Senator Batters, I’m very sorry about your Roughriders — Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, that is, across Canada. When we say “North,” a vision has developed of the North from Iqaluit to Inuvik that forgets all about the Yukon and our shared border with Alaska. My colleagues, I ask that we change the phrase to “throughout Canada.”
The most frequent question I am asked is, “I want to go to the Yukon — it’s on my bucket list — but how do I get there?” With plenty of time, you can drive from Edmonton, Alberta, to Mile 0 of the Alaska Highway in Dawson Creek, just west of the B.C.-Alberta border, northwest through British Columbia to the Signpost Forest at Watson Lake, the beginning of the Yukon communities. Or you can take Highway 97 in B.C. and what we call the Stewart-Cassiar to connect with the Alaska Highway south of Watson Lake.
Those who journey to Alaska via cruise ship have an entry point through Alaska by road to Beaver Creek in the Yukon, the most westerly community in Canada, where you can take the Taylor — or, as we call it, the Top of the World Highway — to Dawson City, the May-to-September route. Beaver Creek is the Canadian end of the Alaska Highway. The other option would be to disembark from your cruise ship in Skagway, Alaska, be met by a friendly Yukoner with a vehicle and travel via the South Klondike Highway into the Yukon.
For those with only a weekend to spare, Air North, Yukon’s airline, has flights daily from Vancouver and several times a week from Calgary and Edmonton year-round. Air North also seasonally flies directly from Ottawa and Toronto, with a stop in Yellowknife to Whitehorse. Air North further connects passengers to Whitehorse, Dawson and Old Crow in the Yukon and Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. Air Canada flies from Vancouver year-round, and WestJet flies in the summer.
Thanks to solid tourism marketing from 2000, those who would travel from Europe, from May to September, could fly Condor Air from Frankfurt to Whitehorse and Anchorage. That was, until 2023, when Condor announced they would be utilizing a new aircraft that required an expansion of the Whitehorse airport. That expansion is now complete, and Condor’s return is eagerly anticipated by the Yukon’s significant German population.
You’ve landed in the Yukon — now what? My friends, there is something for everyone, in both of Canada’s official languages. The Yukon is home to a significant francophone population. You can keep up with their activity calendar through l’Aurore boréale or visit l’Association franco yukonnaise offices.
If it’s a concert you are craving or you would like to see a play, you can see what’s on at the Arts Centre or the Guild Hall in Whitehorse. There is also the Palace Grand in Dawson City or, if you’re so inclined, Diamond Tooth Gerties Gambling Hall, the first licensed gambling establishment in Canada. Book your accommodation early for the Dawson City Music Festival, or DCMF, in July. There are many musicians throughout the Yukon, from the young Fiddleheads and Cows Go Moo to the nationally and internationally acclaimed Diyet.
Candlelight instrumental performances that have become very popular in Ottawa were also recently offered, including Yukon musicians in Whitehorse at the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre.
First Nations cultural centres are a vital part of our Yukon communities. In Haines Junction, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations partnered with Kluane National Park and Reserve and the Yukon visitor reception centre in one shared space. You might even get a glimpse of the Dakwäkäda Dancers at practice in Haines Junction. Be certain to check the date of the Adäka Festival, and, on your way to Haines Junction, visit Long Ago Peoples Place to enhance your understanding of the First Nations guardians of this land, who have extended a warm welcome to visitors for millennia.
In Dawson City, a replica of the baby woolly mammoth Nun cho ga leads the way on Front Street by the banks of the Yukon River to the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in cultural centre in Dawson City. If you travelled on the Alaska Highway from the south, a stop in Teslin at the George Johnston Museum is a must. Long before roads reached Teslin, he owned a car and captured life through his camera lens. His photographs document a changing world, offering rare glimpses into Tlingit traditions, community life and the historic construction of the Alaska Highway.
(1710)
A side trip en route on the highway to Whitehorse will take you to the Carcross. The Carcross/Tagish First Nation government offices’ entry is flanked by totem poles of significance.
As you enter Whitehorse by road or by air, the world’s largest weather vane, a DC-3 mounted on a pedestal at the Whitehorse airport, leads the way to the Yukon Transportation Museum and the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre. The MacBride Museum is truly an amazing curated history of the Yukon and its people with 40,000 objects. You need time for the museum, named Canada’s number one most underrated attraction by MSN Travel Canada.
The attraction beyond the people and their stories is access to the wilderness; the Trans Canada Trail truly travels throughout Canada and is accessible at several points, including at various points on the many kilometres of trails that are walkable and accessible by mountain bike in Whitehorse alone. The nearly 60 territorial parks, campgrounds and free day-use areas offer access to the wilderness, rivers and lakes.
The Yukon has a lot to offer, and tourism is a vital part of our economy.
It’s important to note, colleagues, that the Yukon, that triangular territory to the north, is 482,443 square kilometres in size and home to 14 First Nations, 49,095 people as of 2025 and a significant population of moose, grizzly bears and neighbourhood foxes.
In 2025, the total estimated visitors to the Yukon were 690,286; the total airport arrivals were 244,000. With border crossings at the four border points maintained through the Yukon, I cannot tell you how many of the more than 300,000 people who crossed the borders as of July this year were Canadians, or how many were Yukoners going salmon fishing in Haines, Alaska. I can tell you that southeast Alaska is very anxious, like many border communities, to have their Yukon neighbours, friends and family return.
The Yukon tourism indicators for 2026 show consumer confidence at 60.4% in September 2026, an increase of 8.1% year over year. And among other indicators, employment and restaurant sales have increased: employment by 1.9%, and restaurant sales by 3.9%. That’s $71.9 million in sales as of July 2026.
Bear in mind, colleagues, that it’s only in recent years that the entire Yukon budget has been more than $1 billion, so $71.9 million makes a big difference.
The Yukon tourism industry is staffed in part by those who wish to immigrate to Canada. Those who only came for a summer to work in Dawson City or with the outfitting wilderness guide industry find themselves many years later raising their children and grandchildren, pillars of the community. The Yukon is a mosaic of many cultures, with a significant number of Filipinos engaged throughout our community, including the Speaker of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Beyond the landscapes, access to wilderness, the arts, culture and the people of the Yukon offering you a warm welcome, tourism in the Yukon continues to build our place in the nation of Canada, and the nation of Canada is built through Yukon tourism, including those who come to work in Canada.
How are we building Canada through tourism? To borrow a former Yukon tourism marketing slogan, “the magic and the mystery,” the combination of the magic of tourism has, in part, solved the mystery of building a nation. And, in part, it’s through another tourism marketing effort, “Think Snow.” “Think Snow” was used to attract the film industry to the Yukon. The commercials you see on television for winter tires in beautiful locations or vehicles travelling through snow — guess where some of those were filmed.
Snow enabled the Yukon in 1981 to host the FIS Cross-Country World Cup ski championships. In 1999, Whitehorse hosted the TSN Curling Skins Game, and in 2007, Whitehorse was the site of the Canada Winter Games. Every one of the nearly 2,700 young Canadians who came to the Yukon for the Canada Games left knowing their way to the Yukon and with more knowledge of our country.
More recently, we hosted the games and the FIS Para Snowboard World Cup. Canada’s snowboarding and ski training Olympians train at the same facility, Mount Sima, in Whitehorse. Canadians fascinated and eager for their winter sports are turning to the Yukon through sports tourism, as we have snow earlier and longer than the South.
Our sports tourism has also been enhanced with regular mentions on the “Hockey Night in Canada” broadcasts because we appreciate the recognition of the hockey workhorse from Whitehorse, Dylan Cozens, who is the other Senator from the Yukon, and the magician Gavin McKenna, who is proudly producing many points in his first season with the Toronto Maple Leafs and walking into the locker room in his First Nations vest.
Canadians come to the Yukon to work in a vibrant tourism industry and stay. They come to play in world-class biathlon, cross-country ski, snowboard, downhill and mountain biking trails. They come to understand First Nations government and learn at Yukon University and appreciate the culture of the many peoples who are Canadians. They come to experience the wilderness, to canoe the rivers, paddle the lakes and to understand geology. The dollars they spend to arrive and to enjoy all that the Yukon has to offer are a vital part of our economy and an industry of growth with tremendous potential.
Canadians who come as visitors leave with the words of Robert Service and tell their friends, “Oh there is a land (have you seen it?)” and, “I want to go back, and I will.” They also leave with a new-found knowledge of this part of Canada that they didn’t know before. It is that knowledge of every part of Canada that builds our nation.
To Senator Sorensen, who spent time with us this summer, thank you. And to all my colleagues who have spoken, thank you and mahsi’cho for the opportunities to share our stories of our country, and with this knowledge we have shared to grow in our understanding.
Canadians, I invite you to see your own country first. Let’s learn about one another and, together, let’s build our country.
Thank you, colleagues.
(On motion of Senator White, debate adjourned.)
Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Korean War Years
Inquiry—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Martin, calling the attention of the Senate to the milestone seventy-fifth anniversary of the Korean War years, from June 25, 1950, until the signing of the armistice agreement of July 27, 1953, the critical peacekeeping years that followed and the profound legacy of Canadians who served in the “Land of the Morning Calm” that endures to this day.
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to call the attention of this chamber to a milestone that is not merely a date in a history book, but a living, breathing legacy of service and sacrifice.
On June 25, 2025, we entered the sacred window of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Korean War. This period of remembrance will carry us through to July 27, 2028, marking three quarters of a century since the guns fell silent with the signing of the armistice.
For the Korean community here in our nation and across the globe, June 25 is a date etched in sorrow. It marks the start of the war in 1950, but it also marks the beginning of a profound national trauma, the division of a people with a shared history of more than 5,000 years and the separation of families — for my father, who had to flee with most of his family, leaving behind his nine-month pregnant older sister about to give birth and his mother, who remained at her side.
My father passed away in 2008, never to see them since that heart-wrenching separation.
To this day, Korea remains a land divided. Families remain separated by a line that they did not draw and a war that technically has never ended.
(1720)
For the Korean people, the war is not a closed chapter of the past; it is a daily reality.
As we launch this inquiry in our chamber, we acknowledge that while the armistice stopped the bloodshed, the Korean War left a scar across the heart of a nation that has yet to heal.
Honourable colleagues, I stand before you today as a daughter of that divided land, and today I speak it into the permanent record of this chamber with a specific purpose.
I was born in Seoul in 1965. By the standards of history, that is not long after the guns fell silent. My parents were not just witnesses to the bloody war; they were survivors of its most harrowing chapters. They knew the sound of mortar, the smell of charcoal and the sight of cities and villages reduced to rubble.
I have often reflected on the fragile thread of fate. Had 26,791 Canadians not answered the call to protect Korea from communist tyranny, had The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry and the Royal 22e Régiment — the Van Doos — not held the line when the world seemed ready to crumble, and had the “Trainbusters” of our navy not patrolled those cold waters, my parents likely would not have survived. They would never have met, obviously, and I certainly would not exist to launch this inquiry.
Every breath I take in this free land is a gift from a Canadian veteran. I do not just represent them as the honorary grand patron in name only; I am the living fruit of their sacrifice. However, for the Korean War veteran, there was a second burden: the title of “The Forgotten War.” Today, I am asking this Senate to ensure that title is buried forever.
Since my appointment in 2009, my greatest honour has been to serve as a bridge between these veterans and the country they defended — the country of my birth and that of my parents and ancestors.
I have sat with them in Korea and across Canada. I have seen their tears fall as they remember their fallen comrades, the beautiful children of Korea for whom they were willing to die.
I am calling upon you, my fellow honourable senators, to join this inquiry during the remaining period of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Korean War years. This is a call to our collective sense of duty. Let the Hansard of the Senate of Canada be that memorial.
Let us hear from our Indigenous senators about the courageous service and sacrifices of legendary heroes like Tommy Prince, who was the inspiration of a national campaign to have his face on the $5 Canadian bill. I would love to hear from the senators of the Atlantic speaking of the eight destroyers that braved the Korean coast or about the group of friends from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, who all volunteered to go to Korea and how the fallen among them are laid to rest side by side in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea to this day.
How I want to hear from the senators of Quebec recounting how the proud Royal 22e Régiment — the Van Doos — held “Little Gibraltar” against a sea of fire. I want to hear from the senators of the West and the Prairies, telling the story of the Patricias at the historic Battle of Kapyong, which earned them a United States Presidential Unit Citation for a stand that saved Seoul and perhaps the fall of Korea to communist rule.
To those who may be wondering what to contribute to this debate, I ask you to look into your own communities.
Find the names of the 516 Canadians who never came home.
Speak of the Royal Canadian Air Force pilots of the 426 Squadron who flew the “Great Airlift” without a single casualty.
Speak of the nurses — the “Angels of the Airlift” — who provided the first touch of home to the broken and the wounded.
Speak about your own personal connection to a veteran or a Korean-Canadian friend or family in your region and tell their stories or anything you wish to add to this important inquiry.
When you speak, you are not just reciting history. You are validating a life. You are telling a 95-year-old veteran in a long-term care home in Burnaby or Charlottetown that his service and the ultimate sacrifices of his comrades changed the world. Indeed, it did change the world.
Today, the Republic of Korea is a beacon of democracy, a global leader in technology, and one of Canada’s closest trading partners and allies. That success was bought and paid for by Canadians who spent their youth in the mud of a foreign land.
Dear colleagues, if your voice cracks like mine when you tell these stories, let it crack. If you are moved to tears by the bravery of a young soldier from your hometown, let those tears fall.
There is a Korean proverb that says, “Even a sheet of paper is lighter when two people lift it.” No one person can lift this legacy alone. We need to carry the weight of this remembrance together.
I will be the one to close this inquiry when it draws to an end. By then, I hope we will have created a mosaic of remembrance that covers every region of our country.
I truly look forward to your stories and interventions over the course of this inquiry.
Honourable senators, let us ensure that when the seventy-fifth anniversary of the armistice arrives on July 27, 2028, the veterans of the Korean War can look toward this chamber and know — without a shadow of a doubt — that Canada has not forgotten, that Canada remembers and that Canada is grateful.
We will remember them. Lest we forget.
[Translation]
Hon. Danièle Henkel: Honourable colleagues, some wars are firmly etched into our collective memory through books, monuments and commemorative ceremonies. Others are remembered more quietly, not because they were any less significant, but because they occupy a more modest place in our national narrative.
The Korean War belongs in that category. It’s often referred to as “The Forgotten War.” The name is imperfect, but it aptly captures the gap between the scale of the conflict, the sacrifice of those who served and the limited place it still occupies in our collective memory. It also reflects the silence of many veterans who returned home to little fanfare and, in some cases, without their service ever being fully understood.
[English]
I wish to thank Senator Martin for this inquiry. Today, we have the opportunity to honour one of our most fundamental responsibilities as a parliamentary institution: to preserve memory, to deepen understanding and to pass that knowledge on to future generations.
The Korean War began on June 25, 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea. However, its roots lay in the aftermath of the Second World War, the division of the Korean Peninsula and the ideological confrontation of the Cold War. It began at a moment when the world, barely emerging from catastrophe, was discovering that even a hard-won peace could quickly come under threat.
(1730)
Canada answered the call of the United Nations. It did so in a tense international context but also in defence of a principle that was then still young and fragile: collective security. Canada understood that an act of aggression does not concern only those directly targeted; it believed that peace rests upon rules, institutions, alliances and the willingness of democracies not to look away when those rules are violated.
More than 26,000 Canadians served in the Korean War. Of those, 516 paid the ultimate sacrifice. Behind every number is a name, a face, a family and letters received too late or never sent at all. All of them were volunteers. Their decision to serve was not an easy one. It was made against the backdrop of the Cold War, anti-Communism and the still-vivid memory of the Second World War. In fact, 45% of the volunteers in 1950 were veterans of World War II.
Women also contributed to Canada’s war effort. More than 5,000 Canadian women were recruited for military service during the Korean War, including 60 military nurses who served in Korea and Japan, caring for wounded and sick soldiers.
[Translation]
Today, I want to say a few words about something that is still too little known: Quebec’s relationship to this war.
The Korean War is probably even more forgotten in Quebec than in other parts of Canada. Yet it occurred at a unique time in our history, before the Quiet Revolution, when Quebec society was still grappling with the aftermath of the debates surrounding during the First and Second World Wars and had a complicated relationship with military remembrance.
Nevertheless, Quebecers served in this war, and Quebec families were affected. Quebec women also took part in this war. I want to pay tribute to the following women.
Marie Guimond trained at the Hôpital de l’Enfant-Jésus nursing school in Quebec City. She was sent to Japan and then on to Seoul, where she cared for injured soldiers.
Jacqueline Robitaille Van Campen was born in Quebec City and was a student at Université Laval in 1953, when she joined the Canadian Red Cross. She served in Japan and Korea, where she provided moral support to soldiers during lulls in the fighting.
Unfortunately, it’s still hard to ascertain the precise extent of Quebec’s participation, but we know that, of the 10,567 men in the initial special force, 3,134, or roughly 30%, were from Quebec. According to historian Pierre Vennat, around a third of the Canadian combatants in Korea were francophone. Many of them wore the uniform of the Royal 22nd Regiment, the only entirely French-speaking regular infantry regiment in Canada, which deployed three battalions to Korea.
One of the most memorable episodes for that regiment remains Hill 355. It has become a place of remembrance, a place where you can appreciate not just the ferocity of the fighting, but also the courage of those who held their ground, risking their own lives, holding a position, patrolling, waiting in the cold, suffering from sleep deprivation, mired in mud and uncertainty.
The veterans’ accounts bring us back to this stark reality. They talk about the comrades who didn’t come back, about the nights spent in bunkers filled with water, with just a blanket to try to keep warm. That speaks volumes about this war of endurance, where courage often meant holding on for just one more day.
[English]
Yet, even amid this hardship, there were deeply human moments. There are accounts of French-Canadian soldiers distributing surplus food to hungry Korean civilians. This initiative, known as the “khaki charities,” shows that Canada’s involvement was not limited to holding the front line; it also meant interacting with children, families, devastated villages and, at times, performing a simple act of compassion.
In the summer of 1951, near Seoul, the Royal 22nd Regiment took in a six-year-old Korean orphan, Nong Joo Noh, who was soon nicknamed “Willie Royal.” He was made an honorary member of the regiment. He was given a small uniform, a bunk and little jobs to do in the quartermaster’s office. This story reminds us that, beyond maps and battles, the war was also shaped by acts of protection, human bonds and gestures of humanity toward Korean civilians who had endured so much.
It is this part of history that we must also pass on.
Honouring veterans also means recognizing that, in the great fractures of history, it is always human beings who bear the weight of the decisions made by states.
[Translation]
Behind every conflict lie human stories, worried families, troubled homecomings, lives changed forever, kitchen-table silences, visible wounds and other, unnameable wounds.
The Korean War also taught us that an armistice does not always mean peace. On July 27, 1953, the armistice agreement brought an end to active hostilities, but it did not resolve everything. It did not reunify the peninsula. It did not heal separated families. It did not instantly transform a devastated country into a stable society.
In the years that followed, Canadians contributed to South Korea’s stability, reconstruction efforts and development. Canada is part of the long tradition of rebuilding the conditions for peace when the battles are done.
Peace is never merely the absence of gunfire. It begins when children return to school, when families can go home, when society rebuilds with dignity and normal life resumes.
[English]
When we look at South Korea today, we can see how far it has come. The Republic of Korea is a vibrant democracy, a prosperous economy, an innovative society and a strategic partner of Canada. This achievement is the result of the courage, resilience, democratic struggles, hard work and creativity of the Korean people as well as an international environment that made it possible for this society to rebuild and flourish.
In a world where geopolitical tensions are mounting and where the Indo-Pacific has become a central arena for Canada’s security and prosperity, the Korean War is more than a simple memory; it is a warning. It warns us of what happens when delicate balances break down. It also reminds us that peace requires patience, perseverance and diplomatic courage.
(1740)
For this memory to live on, it must be passed down. Younger generations know little about this war. This is not an accusation but rather an invitation to share the story.
We must make a place for these stories in our collective memory — not a loud place, not a triumphalist place, but a fitting place.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the “Land of the Morning Calm” has a beautiful name, but those who lived through the war there experienced days that were anything but calm.
By remembering the Korean War, we are telling the veterans, their families and their descendants that their story is part of our history. We are also telling younger generations that peace is never a given. Peace is something that has to be built and protected, and when it is passed down with dignity, remembrance can still serve the cause of peace.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
[English]
Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Martin’s inquiry, calling the attention of the Senate to the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Kapyong and to the Korean War in general.
Senator Martin, I hope I can add more to the story.
I will provide you with a bit of history and background, and you may even see some of these things repeating themselves today.
Colleagues, when conflict on the Korean Peninsula broke out in June 1950, the ink on the Japanese surrender was barely dry. Japan had surrendered in August 1945, and the treaty of San Francisco, formally bringing an end to the Second World War in the Pacific, had yet to be signed. That would not happen until September 1951.
Yet, once again, there was conflict between great powers in the Pacific.
When North Korean forces invaded South Korea, the new postwar rules-based order was put to the test for the first time. On the same day, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 82, condemning the invasion as “a breach of the peace.”
Two days later, on June 27, 1950, the Security Council passed Resolution 83, calling on the members of the United Nations to:
. . . furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Twenty-two nations responded.
Barely five years after its establishment, the United Nations, which was created to promote dialogue and prevent armed conflict between states, was calling on member states to provide military assistance to another country.
Some may be asking: How did such resolutions pass the Security Council? This was the very early days of the Cold War, and Churchill’s famous Iron Curtain had already begun to descend across Eastern Europe. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, had been formed the previous year as a defensive check against potential Soviet aggression. Surely, the Soviet Union would veto any attempt to condemn North Korea or authorize military assistance?
But the Soviet Union was absent from the debate on both resolutions. It was boycotting the Security Council over the exclusion of the People’s Republic of China. At the time, China’s seat belonged to the Republic of China, whose government had retreated to Taiwan in 1949.
The Communist-led People’s Republic controlled mainland China but was not recognized by the United Nations as China’s official government. In the minds of some, if China could fall, the West could not allow South Korea to fall also. There was a real fear of strategic dominoes starting to fall.
Although the Soviet Union and Communist China were not part of those Security Council deliberations, both would play very important roles in the conflict, and so, too, would Canada.
You have to understand that, despite the passage of this resolution, it took some months before the first American troops arrived in Korea. I also want to acknowledge, while we talk about Canada’s role, that we cannot forget that over 180,000 Korean soldiers lost their lives. They held the line.
Among Canada’s first contributions were the Royal Canadian Navy destroyers HMCS Cayuga, HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Sioux. The navy was later joined by the Canadian Army Special Force, which was raised specifically for service in Korea.
Established in August 1950, the Special Force included Regular Force members, Second World War veterans and new recruits. Many of them were the children of World War II who had missed their first go-around. It drew on three Regular Force infantry regiments, allowing their other battalions to remain available for the defence of Canada and Europe.
Canadian troops reached the Korean front lines in February 1951. The Royal Canadian Air Force served mainly in a support role, ferrying supplies across the Pacific Ocean from Canada to Korea. However, 22 Canadian aviators serving with Allied air forces took part in combat missions and were credited with destroying 20 enemy jet fighters.
Senators, when we study war and conflict, we often think about what I would call the “pointy-enders” — the soldiers, the sailors and the aviators serving directly in the line of fire. But sustaining a combat effort like the one in Korea requires much more than soldiers, rifles and bullets. It also requires medical care, lawyers and logisticians. It requires people like those serving with the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, people like Lieutenant-Colonel Jessie Chenevert, who passed only two years ago in Ottawa.
She was one of 60 nursing sisters who deployed to Korea. Lieutenant-Colonel Chenevert, of Brockville, Ontario, served with No. 25 Canadian Field Dressing Station. That unit eventually developed into a 200-bed field hospital where wounded personnel received care from Canadian medical staff.
People like Jessie and the doctors she worked alongside helped inspire the popular television series “M*A*S*H.” Set during the Korean War, the series aired for longer than the war lasted. It was also part of what inspired me personally to join the Canadian Armed Forces — interestingly enough — as a nurse myself.
Although it was a comedy, “M*A*S*H” showed us the people behind the uniform and why their work matters to the people who were undergoing the worst moments of their lives. In one such episode, dialogue between the characters of Father Mulcahy — who was the chaplain, if you are not familiar — and Dr. “Hawkeye” Pierce, the chief surgeon, highlights this concept. Responding to the classic line, “War is hell,” Hawkeye says:
No, Father. War isn’t hell. War is war, and hell is hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
War does not care whether you are a man or a woman or an adult or a child, and it affects every single thing and person that it touches.
Colleagues, during my service at the National Defence Medical Centre in the early 1990s, I tended to Korean War veterans. I remember one Korean War sailor whose legs had been crushed during the conflict in bad weather when depth charges broke free from their racks and just rolled over him. Regardless of how he was injured, his injury was a lifetime commitment to his service in Korea.
I will also note that, at that point, the Korean War was not recognized as a war, and they were fighting for that recognition.
It was very interesting for me because, at that time, I was a young nurse who had recently returned from the Persian Gulf War, where I had served with 1 Canadian Field Hospital, the only land unit during the conflict. What is more notable is that that deployment in the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s marked the first time since Korea that Canada deployed a field hospital, and it was the same field hospital that had served in Korea. I’m very proud of that.
I have to say that, as a young nurse, I could only look at the veterans that we cared for with respect. I have to say “elderly” in air quotes now because, looking back, I realize they were in their fifties and early sixties. Hey, everything is relative.
Senators, Canada is geographically immense, but in many ways, we are a very small country. You would be hard pressed, as has been stated by my colleagues, to find a community or a family without some connection to the Korean War. Those who served at sea, on land or in the air came from every single corner of this wonderful country.
(1750)
I will give you an example. Trooper Joseph Bell of Toronto enlisted in the Canadian Army in February 1951 at the age of 18. His uncles and parents were all World War II veterans. He was posted with the 12th Manitoba Dragoons and then the Royal Canadian Dragoons, which was an armoured unit with big tanks.
After training in Petawawa, Ontario, he deployed to Korea in April 1953. He died there on June 6, 1953, aged 20, less than 60 days before the Korean War Armistice Agreement took effect on July 27. He is buried in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Busan, and his name appears on page 4 of the Book of Remembrance in West Block. He was my husband’s cousin.
This past summer, I had the immense honour of travelling to South Korea in a Korean repatriation program with my husband and was able to lay a wreath at Joseph Bell’s gravesite in Busan. My husband was the first direct family member to have ever visited his grave. It was an immense honour. The care and concern that the Korean people give to that cemetery is something I had not seen before. It was touching, and we were honoured. Korea recognizes the immense sacrifice made by Canada and the other 21 nations that served there.
Without Canadians like Trooper Bell, we might never have had the opportunity to meet and get to know colleagues like Senator Martin. Senator Martin is the first person of Korean descent to serve in the Canadian Senate. She is an immigrant whose parents survived the conflict in Korea. Hers is one of the thousands — if not millions — of lives touched by Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators who have served in conflicts around the world.
Yet, all too often, when those same sailors, soldiers and aviators return home, their struggles continue. Coming so soon after the Second World War, the Korean War became known as Canada’s “Forgotten War.” Canada did not formally declare war on North Korea, as the military action was conducted under United Nations authority. Korean War veterans did not initially receive the same recognition in public memory as veterans of the two world wars had.
Over time, that began to change. The dates of the Korean War — 1950 to 1953 — were added to the National War Memorial in Ottawa in 1982, and the contributions of Korean War veterans have continued to receive greater recognition.
However, much work remains to ensure that their service and sacrifice are remembered. Having that war listed on the National War Memorial matters more to a veteran than you can ever possibly imagine. As we approach Remembrance Day, this is an especially important lesson. Remembrance must include not only the conflicts that are most familiar to us but also those whose veterans have waited decades for their service to be fully recognized.
In many ways, particularly legally, the Korean War is not over. There is no peace treaty, only an armistice. North Korea continues to threaten South Korea as well as regional security. In fact, I would suggest that it is more than that: It threatens global security. That is why a United Nations command remains in Korea to this day.
My former colleague and the former Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre served as the first non-American deputy commander of the United Nations Command in Korea from 2018 to 2019, demonstrating that, even today, both official and personal links remain between Canada and the horrors of the Korean War.
We continue to repatriate the remains of Canadians who went missing to this very day, I wish to add.
That is why studying our history matters: It continues to shape our present and our future.
When General Eyre was commissioned into the Canadian Armed Forces, he joined the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, or PPCLI, the same battalion that fought at the Battle of Kapyong in April 1951. That battle took place from April 22 to 25, 1951, during a major Chinese offensive aimed at pushing United Nations forces southward, threatening Seoul. Approximately 700 members of the 2nd Battalion, PPCLI, defended Hill 677 against a force of roughly 5,000 Communist Chinese troops. The Canadians’ defence helped halt the advance and played an important role in the wider Commonwealth Brigade’s efforts to protect the approaches to Seoul.
One particularly brutal moment of the battle occurred on the night of April 24, 1951, when approximately 400 fighters attacked the Canadian headquarters, which was only 100 personnel strong. Had the Canadians been overwhelmed, the consequences could have extended far beyond their own position, threatening the wider defensive efforts of the Commonwealth Brigade. What did the Canadians do?
With the assistance of New Zealand artillery, the Canadians called down artillery fire on their own position. Despite the danger from enemy fire and the artillery supporting them, they held their ground until they were relieved. Ten Canadians were killed and 23 were wounded at Kapyong. One of the wounded, Private Wayne Mitchell, continued to fight, earning the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his actions.
The 2nd Battalion, PPCLI, was awarded the United States Presidential Unit Citation, making it the first Canadian unit to receive that honour.
Today, the Canadian Korean War Memorial Garden near the battlefield commemorates the Canadians who fought there. Here in Canada, a monument to the Battle of Kapyong stands on Radar Hill on Vancouver Island, within the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator, the time for your speech has expired. If you would like to conclude, you will need to request leave for more time.
Senator Patterson: I would like to request two more minutes in order to conclude my speech, Your Honour.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Your Honour.
The reserve is twinned with Hallyeohaesang National Park in Korea.
Colleagues, November is a time when Canadians pause to remember those who served and those who never returned home. As we gather for Remembrance Day, I encourage us to remember the Canadians who served in Korea, including those who fought at Kapyong, those who cared for the wounded and those who returned home carrying the lasting effects of war.
Let us also remember that the Korean War was not fought in isolation. It connected Canada to the Korean people, shaped families across generations and continues to influence the security of the Korean Peninsula today.
Please take a moment to reflect on the more than 26,000 Canadians who served in the Korean War, especially the 516 who lost their lives. Their service deserves to be remembered, not only on anniversaries, but every time we reflect on the meaning of duty, sacrifice and peace.
Lest we forget.
(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)
(At 5:59 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)