Kevin Lamoureux

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. There is an increasingly familiar pattern emerging from the Liberals. The Prime Minister of this 11-year-old government makes grand new announcements about Canadian sovereignty, and Canadians are assured that a bold new era of government is about to arrive. Unfortunately for the government, somebody always pulls back the curtain to see what is behind it, and that is where the troubles start. This truly is a government of loud announcements and empty promises. For example, the Liberals backslapped each other over reaching our nation’s 2% NATO commitment. Only later did we discover that it includes an unarmed, unionized civilian Coast Guard. Projects like the F-35 are stalling amid political games. The PBO cannot provide a clear picture of what the future holds, and, increasingly, it looks like the Liberals cannot either. There is a difference between grandstanding and governing. Grandstanding is convincing Canadians that they believe in something. Governing involves showing them when decisions actually have to be made. The Prime Minister seems more interested in Brussels and Middle Eastern controversies than Canadian veterans. We are talking about the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, an institution that has served veterans for a century. I served as a captain in the Canadian Army Reserve, and that experience gave me an appreciation for the military that goes well beyond government documents. One thing people learn in university is the ethics of duty. They also learn that the military does not disappear from our lives the minute we take off the uniform. My father passed away many years ago, but I want to revive an argument we had when he was alive. I think, looking back, he would be okay with that. My dad was a young air force officer who later scoffed at veterans attending military functions in uniform after retiring. He said that they were living in the past. He called them old soldiers who kept reliving their glory days. I heard my dad then. I disagree with him now. I think veterans carry what they have learned in the military forward in life, regardless of whether they retire after one tour or after most of their working lives. Here is what my father learned, and I do not think he would mind me sharing it. He was a farm boy who joined the air force to become a pilot, because pilots were cool. That is pretty much the only reason. Here is what happened. He failed. He became a bombardier instead. He completed one tour of duty, and then he largely avoided military events afterward. However, he learned something in the military. He learned that he did not like failure. In fact, he apparently made the grandiose promise to my mother that he would never fail again. Now, I do not know what my dad’s win-loss column was in life, and I do not think it matters that much, but he learned a lesson, admitted it and moved on. He went on to earn a Ph.D., become an internationally famous biologist and later in life received the university gold medal as the most accomplished graduate of his undergraduate class. I suspect that hard work brought him more success than failure. Other veterans take different paths, and many of them stay in longer and need help making the transition to civilian life. That is why we need organizations like the Commissionaires. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was created in 1925 to help returning soldiers with employment. Today it employs about 22,000 Canadians, including thousands of veterans. It is a Canadian not-for-profit organization, and it is our country’s largest employer of veterans. It recognizes military experience, and it offers veterans a way to keep contributing. One would think that an organization like that would pretty well fit into the Prime Minister’s buy Canadian economic sovereignty plan. Of course there is this enthusiasm for telling the rest of us to buy Canadian. In response to President Trump’s trade war, he first promised a deal. When that failed, he promised federal spending would default to Canadian suppliers. When his buy Canada policy took effect in December 2025, he declared that Canada would become its own best customer. Unfortunately, when it came to an actual procurement decision, the Canadian content of his political record turned out to be greater than his appreciation of Canadian ownership. Let us look at the CRA contract. In June, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a contract worth nearly $12 million, not to the Commissionaires, a Canadian non-profit dedicated to helping veterans. Nope. It was awarded to UPSSC, a Canadian subsidiary of an American multinational, Allied Universal. The difference between the bids was about $80,000, which is less than the cost of the Prime Minister’s banquet bill. It is a 1% difference between a Canadian veteran organization and an American multinational. So much for buy Canadian. So much for Liberal promises. Obviously, governments have to get value for taxpayers’ money, and I am not arguing that the Commissionaires should automatically win every contract by virtue of just being Canadian, but the government should be able to tell us why it did not value Canadian ownership and veteran employment more than the cost of a prime ministerial banquet. If the assessment was fair, it should release the criteria and explain the decision to Canadians. The $80,000 gets interesting when we examine government spending priorities. According to a government response to an Order Paper question, catering aboard an aircraft carrying the Prime Minister and his entourage during one trip to China, Qatar and Davos cost well over $100,000. I am not suggesting the Prime Minister should go hungry abroad, but apparently there is considerable flexibility when it comes to expenditures at 35,000 feet. Apparently, veterans ask too much of the government. The government explanation is that Allied Universal operates through a Canadian subsidiary. I have no criticism of its Canadian workers, but that is not really the point. If an American-owned multinational with a Canadian address is the same thing as a Canadian not-for-profit dedicated to veterans, what exactly does buy Canadian mean? There is nothing wrong with hiring American companies, but this is a Prime Minister who has made anger at Donald Trump central to his government, and his government awarded a federal contract to an American-owned company with substantial business ties to the Trump administration. Apparently, his elbows are up for the camera but down when the contracts are signed. What is buy Canadian supposed to mean? If we treat Canadian not-for-profits no differently from foreign-owned companies, ministers should say so. They should also explain to Canadians why they say one thing and do another. Maybe the procurement process did follow the rules, but if those rules do not recognize the value of Canadian veteran employment in a period the Prime Minister himself calls Canada first, then it is the rules that need changing. We should demand a remedy, not another excuse. Quite honestly, what is the message that Canadians are supposed to get from this fiasco? The Prime Minister wants to sell Canadians on buy European. His ministers want to sell us on buy Canadian, and the groaning bureaucracy of procurement buys American. I will finish with what my father taught me. He wanted to be a pilot and failed, but he did not spend his life redefining success or explaining away that disappointment. He accepted it, learned from it and went on to accomplish extraordinary things. I still disagreed with him about those “old soldiers”, but he was absolutely right about failure. As Remembrance Day approaches, ministers will again solemnly tell Canadians how much they respect our veterans, but respect is demonstrated through deeds, not speeches. The government should begin by admitting that passing over a centuries-old veterans institution while campaigning on buy Canadian is at least a decision worth revisiting. My father understood that failure was not something to disguise with an excuse. It was something to learn from. What matters is what we do afterward. He learned from failure and went on to an extraordinary life. The Prime Minister still has that opportunity with the government, but first, he will have to do something that seems remarkably difficult for the government: He will have to admit that he made a mistake.”