Analysis · beta

Pierre Paul-Hus

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-11-02

Replying to Christine Normandin (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, it seems obvious to me that, for $80,000, the contract should not have been awarded to a foreign company. That said, I would like to ask my colleague some questions about the flexibility needed to justify keeping a contract in Canada, even when doing so is not the most competitive option from a strictly economic standpoint. Has my colleague given any thought to that aspect of the issue? As members know, there is a buy Canadian policy, but even that is rather vague in terms of what it actually entails. For example, when we talk about 70% of contracts, are we talking about the number of contracts or the value of those contracts? I would appreciate some clarification from my colleague on that point.”

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for her excellent question. This sort of ties in with industrial benefits. In defence procurement, for example, there is often a requirement that a certain percentage of the work be carried out by Canadian industry. We can all agree that $80,000 is roughly the average salary of a federal employee. It is not a large amount of money, but the decision itself is important. What does not sit right, what simply does not make sense, is awarding a $12-million contract to an American company instead of to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Generally speaking, when the Prime Minister says we must prioritize buying Canadian, the government’s procurement policies should reflect that commitment. Of course, abuses must be prevented. That is why clear rules and rigorous oversight are essential. So far, we have seen nothing but lip service.