Public Services and Procurement

In question period, the Conservatives asked about a $12-million Canada Revenue Agency security contract, saying it went to an American firm that does business with Donald Trump’s administration rather than a Canadian group that hires veterans, and that the price difference was less than 1%. The Liberals replied that the CRA procurement process is run independently by experts without political involvement, and that the selected supplier is a Canadian company headquartered in Mississauga that employs nearly 8,000 people, adding that the agency is working to give Canadian companies priority and supports employment opportunities for veterans.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“The government gave a $12-million security contract to an American company instead of a Canadian group that hires veterans. The price difference was less than 1%. I want the government to explain why it did not hire Canadian veterans.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has hurled insults at Canada’s military and has made unjustified threats against our country, but we have learned this week that the Liberal government has awarded a $12-million security contract for the CRA to an American firm that does business with Donald Trump’s ICE instead of to Canada’s largest employer of veterans, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, a not-for-profit. The difference in price was less than 1%. I think we can all agree that employing Canadian veterans and hiring Canadian companies are important. The question for the Liberals is, why did they not do that in this case?

Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“The government gave a $12-million contract to an American company tied to Donald Trump instead of a Canadian group that hires veterans. The minister promised to put Canadian workers first. I want the government to explain why it chose an American company over Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when reached for comment, the minister said that “putting Canadian workers and industries first” was the heart of their buy Canadian policy. This does not look like either of those things. Instead, a $12-million contract went to a firm that does business with Donald Trump’s ICE instead of to a not-for-profit Canadian company, the largest employer of Canadian veterans. The question for the Liberals is this. Instead of creating employment opportunities for Canadian veterans and buying Canadian, why did they choose to put an American firm that has close ties to Donald Trump ahead of Canadians?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 151

  1. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 79 statements
  2. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 5 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Canadian Culture and Identity 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 11 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions International Trade 7 statements
  12. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  13. Oral Questions Small Business 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 44 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Canada Revenue Agency Act 6 statements
  20. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 164 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements