Adjournment Proceedings

In a late-night adjournment debate, Gord Johns of the NDP raised the government’s plan to stop giving the Corps of Commissionaires first choice for federal security contracts, a policy he said has employed veterans for 80 years, and he asked the government to cancel it and questioned whether ministers had met with private security firms like GardaWorld. Parliamentary secretary Wade Grant replied that the Corps has fallen well short of the requirement that veterans fill at least 60% of work hours, and that the government now supports veterans through training and employment programs across many fields. Johns objected that the minister responsible did not attend and argued the change hurts veterans and costs taxpayers more; Grant said the decision reflects the changed labour market and that the government will keep working with partners to support veterans.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“The government plans to stop giving the Commissionaires first choice for federal security jobs. This group employs thousands of veterans, and this policy has helped them find work for 80 years. Taking it away hurts veterans, and no one benefits from it. I want the government to cancel this plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know people at home are wondering, as it is 12:32 a.m., why we are here. A lot of people do not understand what a late show or an adjournment proceeding is. It is the opportunity for an MP in the opposition to ask for a 10-minute late night debate with the government on very important issues at the end of the sitting day. Of course, our sitting day finished at midnight today, so here I am. I will note the reason this is so important and why I am here at this hour. I am sure the government did not expect me to show up. The Government of Canada formally recognizes its obligation to care for military veterans and RCMP veterans. It has a solemn obligation. I rise today because the government is about to dismantle an employment policy that has supported Canadian veterans for more than 80 years. Since the end of the Second World War, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has had the right of first refusal on federal security guard contracts. This was never simply a procurement arrangement. It was created for a clear social purpose: to provide meaningful employment for veterans transitioning from military service to civilian life. However, effective April 2027, the Liberal government plans to end that policy and move approximately $330 million annually in federal security contracts into competitive procurement. The Commissionaires is Canada’s largest private sector employer of veterans, employing about 3,500 veterans across this country. This matters enormously, including in my riding. I recently met with Mark Breslauer, the CEO of Commissionaires Victoria, and Katelyn Anderson, the north island client services manager. In the Comox Valley alone, the Commissionaires employs over 100 people. They talked about the impact this is having on their employees’ mental health and families. This is a community that is home to 19 Wing Comox and thousands of serving members, veterans and military families. These are not just numbers on a procurement spreadsheet. They are our neighbours. They are veterans. They are people who have served our country and found another meaningful way to continue to contribute. I am calling on the government to not abolish the program. If it needs improvement, the government should work with the Commissionaires. The Commissionaires is Canada’s only national not-for-profit security company. Its pure purpose is fundamentally different from that of a private security company, whose primary responsibility is generating profit for its owners and shareholders. If the federal government is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security services anyway, why would we not use that purchasing power to support Canada’s veterans? After all, federal procurement should serve the public interest. Every person who joins Canada’s armed forces or police services makes a promise to give up their life if necessary to keep Canadians safe. The right of first refusal with commissionaires is one small way for Canada to thank them, ensuring veterans have a job that allows them to continue to serve if they need that job. The government is now breaking that commitment. It offers nothing to replace it. The government’s own policy, public briefing materials and standing offer say that Veterans Affairs should work with the Commissionaires to study and modernize the right of first refusal. Instead, this 80-year promise has been broken without consultation, without a transition plan and without a replacement measure. Canada’s defence, intelligence, law enforcement, border, and corrections sites should be guarded by the best people. Why is the public interest being sacrificed? Canada does not benefit from cancelling the right of first refusal. Veterans do not benefit from it. Taxpayers do not benefit. Who does? It is time for the government to tell us who is benefiting from this and reverse this decision.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“The government did not send the right minister here to answer my questions. They are taking security contracts away from the Commissionaires, which hurts veterans and costs taxpayers more. The government will not meet with the Commissionaires, but they will meet with private security companies. I want to know if the minister has met with GardaWorld since the spring.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a ton of respect for the parliamentary secretary for environment and climate change, but the bottom line is that this is exactly what we are talking about. They did not send the minister in here for the debate. They did not send the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Commissionnaires have not had any meetings scheduled with the minister or representatives of Veterans Affairs Canada since the spring. I can assure members that the minister or representatives of Veterans Affairs Canada have met with GardaWorld. The government has known about veteran numbers declining for over a decade. The government did not care. They renewed the Commissionaires repeatedly because Commissionaires do a good job guarding our critical public infrastructure. They could have worked with them. Cancelling the right of first refusal does not help veterans. It hurts them. It increases costs to Canadian taxpayers. Who benefits? Have they met with GardaWorld since the spring?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 147

  1. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Housing 3 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Taxation 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Taxation 10 statements
  9. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Justice 9 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Correctional Service of Canada 3 statements
  13. Oral Questions Mental Health and Addictions 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Housing 7 statements
  18. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Correctional Service of Canada 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  22. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 32 statements
  23. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 186 statements
  25. Private Members' Business Ukrainian Heritage Month Act 8 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements