Mario Beaulieu

“Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset of my comments, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about important issues, like our veterans and the way in which governments or arm’s-length organizations such as CRA procure and do contracts on a wide spectrum of different things. These are all important issues, and there is no doubt about that. I have a number of things that I would like to say. First, I would like to make a correction. I might have said that the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was founded in 2025. It should have been 1925. It was 100 years ago. It actually started in the community of Montreal. The “thirties” I was talking about was obviously the 1930s. I want to recognize that at the time, there would have been a great deal of discussion about veterans coming home from abroad, whether it was from World War I or World War II. The incredible service provided by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was absolutely outstanding, second to likely no other organization. I am not familiar with all the organizations from back then, but I suspect that there would have been a number of non-profits, like the Legion and so forth. There was infrastructure put in place and it was very welcoming. There were many wartime houses being built in our nation in order to accommodate veterans and ensure there was housing for them. I made reference to the fact that all members of the House, I believe, have an interest in our veterans. This is a very important week. We are all wearing poppies. We wear poppies for a very good reason. It is to recognize past, current and ultimately future serving members and, in dealing with the past, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in regard to their life, among the many other forms of casualties. It is a time at which all Canadians should reflect on the valuable role that members of the Canadian Forces have played for generations. Having said that, I want to spend some time talking about the issue we have before us. The Conservatives are raising it to try to make it look as if the government is not being sensitive to our veterans. I do not believe that to be the case one iota. In fact, if we look at some of the things we have done since the last election under the leadership of our current Prime Minister and current minister responsible for veterans, I think we see a caring attitude, plus resources. I can talk about the commitment that was made back in the 2025 budget to enhance veterans’ services by improving IT infrastructure. That was an investment of well over $150 million. The purpose of that investment was to ensure that veterans with disabilities who require services are being served in a quicker fashion. The idea was to speed up the process. This was brought forward shortly after the last election. We had that particular announcement. An announcement also took place last week. The minister labelled it as “veteran-ready”. It is a veteran employer recognition initiative. I believe that type of initiative is going to make a difference and support our veterans in a very real and tangible way. We need to recognize not only the skill sets that are acquired while serving in the military, but also the education that many members of our forces bring to the military. There are ways we can enhance, amplify, do some fine-tuning or go beyond fine-tuning in order to support our veterans and at the same time recognize our businesses in the community. Not all veterans have PTSD. At the end of the day, there are opportunities for employers to hire outstanding Canadians who have put their lives on the line and have served our country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with promoting that. In terms of the Commissionaires, I made reference to the late 1920s going into the late 1930s as a time in which life in Canada was very different. We had many veterans, people retiring from the war, from the forces, looking for opportunities. It was a very difficult situation. One can only imagine the horrors of war, whether it was World War I, World War II, the Korean War or what took place in Afghanistan. These are individuals who sacrificed a great deal. That is why I posed a question in regard to the numbers. The Commissionaires is not quite what it was 30, 40 or 50 years ago. That is not to take anything away from the Commissionaires, but there are not as many veterans for a number of reasons. Veterans do not make up the majority of commissionaires. In fact, I believe it might even be around 20% or just a little higher. Again, that is not to take anything away from the Commissionaires, and I would hope that members would not try to suggest that. There are many other ways in which we can look at how to support our veterans. I would like to see investments in entrepreneurs, businesses and so forth. There are many companies hiring veterans today, some of them dealing with security. CRA is the arm’s-length, independent corporation responsible for Canadian revenue taxation. At the end of the day, this decision was made based on a number of different factors. However, when we look at the Universal Protection Service, the company that ultimately prevailed on that particular procurement, my understanding is that with the contract, we are talking about 60 individuals across the country. The contract is for 60 positions, if I can put it that way. Out of those, 33 have been rehired. Out of those 33, a dozen are veterans. I do not want to do a comparison between one company and the other, but I will acknowledge the efforts of the Commissionaires and the role it has played with CRA. I suspect it will be in a good position going into the future to continue to do the fine work it does with veterans. When I look at the motion we have before us and listen to some of the questions that have been put forward, I question the motivation. Let me give an example from the member who represents the community of Moose Jaw, a beautiful city that I lived in for a couple of years. That is where I had my first job. In many ways, it is a fantastic community. I would like to quote him because I did write it down and was careful to ensure that I got the actual words he said. The member said, “the Liberal government is going to be unemploying 3,000 veterans”. At the very least, it is misleading. I would like to think that it was not done intentionally, because that would be against the rules of the House. Every member knows and understands that the CRA contract has nothing to do with 3,000 veterans becoming unemployed. If we look at statements of that nature and then look at the content of the motion before us today, I would pose the question of why the Conservatives have tied in a trip that was made by the Prime Minister and dozens of others to promote Canada and build our economy beyond the Canada-U.S. border. Why did they choose to make reference to that trip and some of the costs? For the Conservatives who were in government in the past, surely to goodness they would recognize that these are not negotiated prices. These prices are set. We are following the same pattern as previous governments. There were a number of people who accompanied. It was a number of different days. There is a certain requirement for security today, for example. Why did they incorporate that aspect into the motion? In my opinion, it is because they are trying to do two things with it. One is that they are trying to give a false impression that the government does not care about veterans and veterans getting employment after they have been released from the Canadian Forces, which is just not true. The other deals with the issue of something we saw in question period, and that is to try to use character assassination, as opposed to dealing with issues of substance. I had the chance to ask a couple of questions at the very beginning of the member who introduced the motion and the leader of the Conservative Party. When I asked a question of the member who introduced the motion, I made reference to the latter point that it is very political what the Conservatives are doing. That is the reason they put the flight information down. I used the example of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in cabinet when Stephen Harper paid $1 million to fly a car from Canada to India. There are cars in India. An hon. member: It was for the RCMP, Kevin. You know that. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way says it was for the RCMP. In one sense, he is starting to make the point. At the end of the day, as I just said, they are trying to assert blame or assert irresponsible spending, and the member opposite just recognized that it would not be fair to say that. The Conservatives have done that and have incorporated it into the motion itself. That is why, from my perspective, it is a politically motivated motion to take shots at the government. This motion has nothing with regard to our vets, because if it had something to do with vets, where they could get support in a tangible way from the House or challenge the government, there are many ways they could do that. They could challenge the government in what the government, not the CRA, is doing to support our veterans. I would be able to talk about, in detail, the veterans ready initiative, which was just launched last week—”