“I want the government to support our motion and reverse this contract. It should put Canadian workers first and respect our veterans, like the Corps of Commissionaires who provide important jobs in Saskatchewan.”

“Mr. Speaker, with today’s opposition motion, we simply want to put Canada first in procurement. We want to honour our veterans. The Corps of Commissionaires in my province of Saskatchewan has been around for decades. I want to salute Lorne Gelowitz, the CEO of northern Saskatchewan, and Dean Rae, the CEO of south Saskatchewan. These are important employment opportunities for Canadians. In 10 days, Saskatoon will once again host the largest indoor Remembrance Day service in the country. We will have between 7,000 and 10,000 people at 11 o’clock at SaskTel Centre. The Corps of Commissionaires is a vital reason for this. I just want to say this to the member for Winnipeg North: Let us respect our veterans and reverse this contract.”

“The government gave a $12 million security contract to an American company instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which employs our veterans. The Canadian bid was only $80,000 higher, which is less than 1% of the contract. The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian, but he broke that promise. The government should change the rules and give these contracts to Canadian workers and veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane. “Sensitivity” is a word that I would like members to remember because I am going to come back to it in my speech. I want to talk about the word “sensitivity” because, in a few days, Canadians will gather for Remembrance Day ceremonies. They will wear a poppy, just as we are all doing right now here in the House. In each of our regions, we will honour our veterans and soldiers who have been deployed to various missions abroad. We will also thank their families for the sacrifices they have made throughout Canada’s history in times of war by entrusting a member of their family to the service of our country in order to protect Canada and the freedoms that we now enjoy. The people who devoted years to serving our country are the reason for these ceremonies. Some of them have been deployed far from their loved ones. Others are still living with injuries sustained while on duty. When they leave the armed forces, these people need to continue to earn a living and take care of their families. That is something that the public is not often aware of. A soldier is not always a soldier. A person does not remain a soldier their whole life, except maybe in their heart. They have to make a living and get back into the swing of everyday life. That is exactly what many members of the Canadian Armed Forces have to do. The respect we owe them extends beyond the poppy we wear at a certain time of year or the speeches made by dignitaries on that day. One of these groups that deserve a lot of respect is the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which provides veterans who, like I said, always stay soldiers at heart, with the opportunity to keep working. For people who may not know, we sometimes see commissionaires when we stop by federal offices. We sometimes see the word “commissionaire”. People may wonder why they are called by this name. Does it mean they take commissions? No, they are the people in charge of security on the premises. In French, the name can be especially confusing. Many commissionaires are veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces, working to earn a living after their military service ends. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is the largest non-governmental employer of veterans in the country and has been in operation since 1925. In June, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a security contract worth nearly $12 million to a company controlled by American interests and owned by Allied Universal. The problem is that this contract had previously been held by the Commissionaires, who had been providing those services for many years with the support of veterans. The Commissionaires also submitted a bid for the nearly $12-million contract, but their proposal was $80,000 higher, representing less than 1% of the contract’s value. Over that small difference, the tired old Liberal government chose to set aside a Canadian non-profit organization that provides employment for veterans and instead award the contract to an American company, which I will return to later. Just days before Remembrance Day, this is where the notion of sensitivity comes into play. When we learned that the government had awarded the contract to an American company, we could not help but wonder what message it was trying to send: Thanks for your service to Canada, but the contract is going to the Americans. The problem is that we have a Prime Minister who spends a great deal of time making speeches. He says one thing and does the opposite, often at the same time. It all depends on the day and on his audience. One day, he tells us that Canada must stand up to the United States, only to lift retaliatory tariffs shortly thereafter. One day, he says that his government will not negotiate with the United States for years because Canada can afford to wait; then, on the very day the by-elections are called, he announces that he has spoken with the U.S. president. He also promises to buy Canadian. We thought it was easy for a Prime Minister to make such a promise, since he and his cabinet have the power to follow through on a commitment to buy Canadian, particularly in a challenging situation like the one we are currently facing with the United States. Despite that promise, his government still awarded the contract to a company under American control. The rhetoric changes often, the promises are piling up and Canadians want consistency. No one knows where the government is heading. In the end, with a particularly important opportunity up for grabs, the government decided to push aside the Commissionaires to make way for an American company. All that to save $80,000, which is less than 1% of the contract’s value. The Liberals announce a measure, change course and reverse their decision. Then they wonder why people are finding it increasingly difficult to believe them. Businesses are having a hard time keeping up with the government, and workers are having to adapt. We know that the government does not control the decisions made in Washington, but there is one thing it can control, if it is a real government, and that is the contracts it awards here in Canada. The Prime Minister promised to prioritize Canadian suppliers. He needs to keep that promise. That is entirely in his control. When the Prime Minister was in Halifax in March, he explained that some of our former strengths, based on our close ties with the United States, had become vulnerabilities. Three months later, he chose an American-controlled company over the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Is anyone having a hard time following my logic? In any case, Canadians are having a hard time following the government’s logic. It makes promises it does not keep. We keep hearing about the need to build Canada strong and sign agreements. The government promised an agreement with the United States. We see grand summits, lofty speeches and headline-grabbing announcements. However, when it actually comes to signing agreements, where is the Prime Minister? He is nowhere to be seen; he is not there. He is not signing anything that lives up to the promises he has made. Last October, when talking about Canadian steel, the Prime Minister kept saying it was time to become our own best customer. Despite that, steel remains one of the sectors hardest hit by countertariffs. On top of that, Canada is now being flooded with dumped imports from countries that have also been shut out of the U.S. market. Why does this tired old Liberal government not keep its word to our veterans? It says it respects veterans. I can believe that, but, once again, these are just words. Respect can be expressed through action, for example by signing the contracts that would allow the largest non-profit organization, and the one that employs the most veterans, to secure the contracts it needs to continue providing the services it delivered until very recently. The Prime Minister is not alone in this. There are ministers too. What are they doing? What is the Minister of Public Services and Procurement doing? Why did he not change the rules so that when there is less than 1% difference between bids, as is the case here, the contract would be awarded to a Canadian company? Allied Universal, the company that was awarded the contract instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, has significant business ties with the U.S. administration. It holds more than $80 million in contracts with the United States, including with Immigration and Customs Enforcement—or ICE, as it is called, even on the news—the agency responsible for carrying out deportations on behalf of the Trump administration. This is the company that was entrusted with providing security services for the Canada Revenue Agency. In 2026 alone, it also secured $290 million U.S. in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security. When we are told to stick our elbows up for Canada, it is not so that American companies can be given preference over the Commissionaires. Sometimes standing up for Canada means preventing exactly that from happening. Above all, when a promise is made, it should be kept. Conservatives want to put Canada first, put the Commissionaires first, secure contracts for Canadians, support jobs, build more housing and help families save money. It is time that buy Canadian finally move from rhetoric to procurement decisions, and that the Liberals back up their words with signatures. We owe it to veterans and to Canadian companies that do business in Canada and that believed the Prime Minister when he said he was going to implement a buy Canadian policy.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That is less than 1% of the contract's value.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since November 2.

  Every time it was said →

“I care about our veterans. The Prime Minister called this a trade war with the United States, and he promised to give contracts to Canadian companies first. Instead, an American company got the work. Liberals do not listen to the Prime Minister because they know he breaks his promises.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was talking earlier about sensitivity, and this question is a perfect example of why. I am talking about veterans. I am talking about veterans of our Canadian Armed Forces. I am talking about an American company at a time when the Prime Minister himself has described the situation as a trade war with the United States. The Prime Minister promised that he would award contracts to Canadian companies first. It is not my fault if the member did not listen to her Prime Minister’s promises. I think that even the Liberals stopped listening to their Prime Minister’s promises because they know he does not keep them.”

“The Liberal government is hiding information from Canadians. They even block the procurement ombud from getting facts he needs to do his job. They break their promises and do not tell Canadians the whole truth.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the best way to describe this tired old Liberal government’s approach is a lack of transparency. When it has gotten to the point where the Liberals are even preventing someone like the procurement ombud from getting access to the information he needs to give his opinion on what is happening, that is worse than simply refusing to answer the Conservatives’ questions or trying to sidetrack or distract us. There is no doubt that this government lacks transparency and does not live up to its word when it comes time to keep the promises that it made to all Canadians. The government is great at making fancy speeches around the world, but it is terrible when it comes to telling Canadians the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

“Does my colleague agree that it is sad the Commissionaires lost this contract just to save less than 1%?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Would he agree that it is particularly sad that the Commissionaires lost this contract to save less than 1%?”

“The Commissionaires has helped Canadian veterans find work and support each other since 1925. The government should have helped this Canadian non-profit keep the security contract. Its bid was only 1% higher than the American company that won.”

“Mr. Speaker, the key word in relation to what we are discussing today is “sensitivity”. Yes, it is sad for the veterans. It is especially sad for the Commissionaires, who have been carrying out this kind of work since 1925 and who have been there for veterans leaving either the armed forces or a conflict zone, often without knowing what comes next. Canada had an organization that allowed them to continue to live with dignity and find work. They felt like they were still part of a group. Folks in the military know how important that sense of camaraderie is. Yes, it is sad that the government attaches so little importance to the Commissionaires. Above all, I do not understand why, despite all the time it had, the government could not put measures in place to allow a Canadian non-profit company to secure this contract, when its bid was only 1% higher than that of its American competitor.”

“The government says it respects veterans, but its actions show the opposite. It restricted prayer at military ceremonies. It gave a 12-million-dollar security contract to an American company instead of Canadian veterans. It also makes veterans wait far too long for their benefits. I want the government to protect veterans' traditions, support their jobs, and give them the help they earned.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Day, Canadians across the country will gather, of course, to honour the men and women who have served this country in our armed forces and who are willing to give of their lives for the freedoms that we all enjoy. In my own communities of Airdrie and Cochrane, I will have the privilege of spending time with veterans, their families and the volunteers who work so hard to make sure their sacrifices are never forgotten. I can tell my colleagues that these are some of the finest people we will ever meet. They are proud of their service and their country. They are not looking for special treatment, but they do expect to be treated with respect and to have a government that gives them what they are owed. Thanking our veterans should not be something we do only once a year. We should not just pin a poppy on our jacket and then forget about them for the other 11 months of the year. These are men and women who stood up for Canada when their country needed them. The very least their government can do for them is to stand up for them when they need it. That is what makes the issues we are discussing here today so frustrating. When we look at the way the Liberal government is treating our veterans, we see a real disconnect between what it says and what it does. Before I get to the very important issue at hand today, I would like to get into a couple of examples that highlight some of the concerns about those differences between the words and the actions of the Liberal government when it comes to showing respect and appreciation for our veterans and what they have done for our country. I think of the issue of military chaplains, for example. For generations, prayer has been a part of military life here in Canada. It has offered comfort to soldiers facing unimaginable circumstances, to families who are grieving their loved ones and to our veterans who are remembering those who never came home. Nobody is suggesting that every Canadian must share the same religious beliefs. Of course not, but surely we can at least respect those who do find strength in their faith, just as we respect those who do not. Instead, the Canadian Armed Forces issued a directive restricting faith-specific prayer at official military functions. In fact, any reflection that might in any way be faith-based or spiritual is banned, and often the messages that a chaplain has to craft almost become meaningless. That is not what anyone would want to see. When I look at that, I have to ask why that is necessary. Our soldiers have faced enemy fire, they have lost their friends and colleagues, they have made sacrifices that most of us will never even be able to comprehend, and now we are telling military chaplains that they cannot even offer a traditional prayer at certain official ceremonies. These are people who have stood beside our troops in their darkest moments. We should be supporting them, not telling them how to practise their faith and not taking away that opportunity for our men and women who serve. Now I will get to the issue of this contract we are discussing today. I find this particularly difficult to understand. Not that long ago, fairly recently, in fact, the government ended the right of first refusal that has existed for the Corps of Commissionaires for decades. I would argue it is important that any Canadian organization or business that employs veterans at an adequate level should have an opportunity for that contract, but at the time the government came out with this, it was a surprise to everyone, including the commissionaires themselves. I remember warning at the time that we could see Canadian veterans lose opportunities and jobs as a result. Here we are, just a few short months later, and we can look at what has happened. It is exactly what we warned would happen by taking away that right of first refusal without replacing it with anything that would guarantee veterans have chances to get those jobs. Here we go. We have a Canadian not-for-profit organization with a long and proud history of providing employment opportunities to veterans. It has helped thousands of former military members transition into civilian life. It has helped them continue to serve their communities and continue to earn a living after leaving the armed forces. However, what the government did was award a nearly $12-million CRA security contract to an American multinational corporation. The difference between the two bids was reportedly less than 1%. Let us think about that for a moment. The government has spent months telling Canadians that we need to buy Canadian, that we need to support Canadian workers and that we need to become our own best customer. Well, here is an opportunity to do exactly that and to be able to support our veterans at the same time. That sounds like it should be a no-brainer, does it not? Apparently, that was not the case for the Liberal government. Our veterans, who have already paid a price for our country, a price most Canadians will never be asked to pay, should not have to keep paying for the failures of the Liberal government. They should not be struggling to afford groceries, worrying about housing or fighting through government bureaucracy just to receive the support they have already earned. They have done their part; it is time the government did its part. We have seen time and again how this works. We have seen significant delays and problematic denials in terms of veterans’ ability to get the services and supports they are entitled to. Veterans often talk about a triple-D policy: denial, delay and death. Essentially, this is because the government has set up a situation where the delays are so long and arduous and the bureaucratic process is so difficult to fight their way through that it ultimately becomes a denial just by delay. Even if it is not that, then it becomes an actual denial. They have to fight through a bunch of other bureaucratic processes, if they can find a way to do that, to hopefully end up getting a positive result in the end. At the end of the day, what the government really seems to hope is that they will just go away and stop fighting for those benefits. They earned them. They deserve them because of what they were willing to do for our country and what they did do for our country. What troubles me about all this is it should not be particularly controversial. Supporting veterans in finding meaningful employment should not be controversial. Respecting the role of faith and tradition in our military should not be controversial. Making sure veterans can afford to live with dignity should not be controversial, yet here we are. Time and time again, the government finds a way to make simple things complicated with more bureaucracy, more excuses and more broken promises. When it comes time to deliver, our veterans are left waiting. Respect for our veterans is not measured by how many wreaths a government lays or how many speeches its ministers give on Remembrance Day; it is measured by what that government does when the cameras are gone, whether it protects their traditions, supports their employment and makes sure they get the help they have earned. This is the standard our veterans deserve and should expect, and it is the standard the Liberal government needs to start being held to. I will continue to stand up for the men and women who have served our country and those who continue to serve our country today. They have earned our gratitude. They have earned our respect. Above all, they have earned a government that is prepared to back up its words with actions, but that is not what they are getting right now. As a Conservative, I will continue to fight for them, and that is what we are doing here today.”

“The government measures success by how much money it spends, not by real results. Our soldiers still do not have the equipment they need, and veterans still wait months or years for their benefits. The government must end these bureaucratic delays and deliver real results.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I find incredibly frustrating is that the only way the Liberal government ever measures anything is how by much money it can can spend. We should instead measure the results and, frankly, the results have not been there. Our men and women in uniform will tell us, to this day, that they continue to struggle with not having the equipment they need to be able to do their jobs. We hear lots of talk about procurement and we hear lots of talk about spending money, but we do not see the results on the ground. When it comes to talking about veterans, whom we are here to talk about today, what they will tell us is they wait months, if not years, for the benefits that they earned because of their service for this country. That is because of the bureaucratic processes put up by that government, and it is time that is put to a stop and we start seeing some results.”

“The government is failing our veterans. They delay and deny veterans' benefits. They have not built the monument for the Canadians who died in Afghanistan. They tried to remove wreaths and took away prayer from Remembrance Day services. We must judge them by their actions, not their words.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would agree. We see so many of these kinds of things. We see it in what we are talking about today with this contract, when the Liberals were warned that this would be the result. We see it in the lack of action towards building a monument to the mission in Afghanistan and the 158 Canadians who gave their lives there. We see it in the denials and delays when it comes to the benefits that veterans are entitled to. We see it throughout so many things. We remember that the Liberals tried to take away the Remembrance Day wreaths. They have taken away the ability for prayer at Remembrance Day services. The list goes on and on. I always say we judge someone not by their words but by their actions. If we judge the current government by its actions, it is clearly failing our veterans.”

“The government gave a contract to an American company instead of a Canadian veterans group that has been here since 1945. The American company only got it on a technicality by using a Canadian address. I want the member to talk about this technicality and what buying Canadian really means.”

“Mr. Speaker, we do owe our veterans a debt of gratitude that probably we can never repay. However, we can recognize it in terms of what the federal government has done through the contract that has been issued through a technicality to an American company. The people of Canada have to realize that the only reason this contract was given was that an American company gave a Canadian address but was not located in Canada like the Veterans Association that has been here since 1945. Can the member talk about that technicality, and what it means to buy Canadian?”

“The Liberals say they want to buy Canadian, but their actions do not match their words. They failed our veterans and Canadian workers by giving this contract to an American company instead of a Canadian one.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because the reality of this situation is that not only are the Liberals failing our veterans with this, but they are also failing to live up to their own words. They talk about wanting to see buy Canadian. They want to make sure that Canadians are getting the opportunities. This goes absolutely contrary to all of their words. Again, their actions are not lining up with their words. This was an opportunity not only to do right by our veterans and ensure veterans have the opportunity of employment, but also to ensure that Canadian companies have the opportunity to prioritize Canadian employment over American. In this case, the Liberals failed at all of the above, just like they always do.”

“The government's policy says ceremonies must be religiously neutral. This means Indigenous people cannot share their spiritual beliefs or even mention the Creator. The government is holding back Indigenous spirituality instead of working toward reconciliation.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the issue of chaplaincy and the ability to pray at ceremonies, I note that under the government’s policy, it has a specific section regarding indigenous cultural practices. This policy says that an indigenous person is not allowed to share their spiritual practices. In fact, that has to be religiously neutral. There could be a situation where an indigenous person mentions the word “Creator”, and under the Liberal government’s policy, they would not be permitted to share their indigenous spirituality. How is it reconciliation when the government is actively suppressing indigenous spirituality?”

“Switching this security contract from the Commissionaires to a for-profit company hurts charities. The Commissionaires is a non-profit that uses its extra money to help veterans and their families. I want the member to answer for how this choice harms those causes.”

“Mr. Speaker, this issue about the contract with the Commissionaires and Allied Universal is not just about veterans’ jobs. The Corps of Commissionaires is a non-profit corporation, and the excess revenues that it produces beyond wages are primarily sent toward benevolent funds and charitable causes. These include its national bursary program as well as sponsorship for veterans’ organizations like the No Stone Left Alone Memorial Foundation, military family resource centres and the Royal Canadian Legion. When this government saves a buck by going with a for-profit company, it is actually undermining many charitable causes in this country. I am hoping the member can address that concern.”

“I support our motion to help veterans get jobs. The government gave a security contract to an American company instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which is a non-profit and Canada's biggest employer of veterans. It did this to save just $80,000, which hurts veterans and local community programs. I also want the government to drop its new rule forcing military chaplains to give only neutral prayers. It takes away their religious freedom, hurts Indigenous spiritual traditions, and was created without talking to chaplains first.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak. I will be splitting my time with the member for Riding Mountain. Today I am proud to support our Conservative motion on the issue of veterans hiring. In this country, people who serve in our military oftentimes will leave that service with challenges. One of those challenges is finding meaningful employment. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is one such organization. It has existed since 1925. It is a not-for-profit whose mandate is to provide job opportunities for Canadian veterans. In fact, the Corps of Commissionaires is the largest employer of Canadian veterans in Canada. It is disturbing to see that over the past number of years, the Liberal government has been moving to erode the very privileged position that the not-for-profit Corps of Commissionaires had. It has removed its right of first refusal, which means that it will not get as many opportunities to provide that employment for veterans. Most recently, a contract was awarded by the Canada Revenue Agency to an American-based for-profit company, Allied Universal, over the Corps of Commissionaires. What I find hypocritical about this recent decision by the government is that we have a Prime Minister who was elected on a “support Canada, elbows up, buy Canadian” platform, and yet when it came time to award the contracts, the government chose a for-profit company over Canada’s largest employer of veterans, a not-for-profit, all for a measly $80,000 contract difference. If $80,000 is all it takes for the Liberal government and the Prime Minister to favour an American company over a Canadian non-profit, then we are in a very bad situation in this country. Throughout this debate, I have seen Liberals talk about this and say that they respect veterans, and I believe they do, and that they respect the work of the Corps of Commissionaires. However, it is also not just about the jobs that the Corps of Commissionaires provides to veterans. The Corps of Commissionaires is a not-for-profit, so the excess revenues that it raises outside of wages and benefits and the operations it conducts are primarily redirected back into our communities. I gave some examples, but I will share them again. Members can go to a Legion event anywhere in this country and they will see sponsorship from the Corps of Commissionaires. There is No Stone Left Alone, a veterans’ organization educating young Canadians about the sacrifices of Canada’s veterans. There is a national bursary program, which provides educational bursaries for the children of veterans, and a crisis and benevolent fund that supports veterans and their families who have fallen on hard times or had illnesses or injuries. These are just some of the wonderful programs that the Corps of Commissionaires is able to provide because of its privileged connections to government funding programs. I do not think the government could point to Allied Universal and say that that company is providing the same level of community benefits to our country that the Corps of Commissionaires has. It is hypocritical, but it is also undermining the social fabric of our country. This organization, for over 100 years, has supported our communities and supported veterans, and the government is undercutting the financial viability of this organization. It is undercutting job opportunities for veterans, and it is undercutting community supports. Now, in the second half, I want to raise the issue of chaplaincy and prayers. Over the summer, a new policy was released that dictated to military chaplains about what kind of prayers or spiritual reflections they were allowed to give at military-sanctioned events. One of those very important military-sanctioned events is Remembrance Day. This policy has sought, as the government has tried to do on a number of occasions, to introduce a so-called religious neutrality rule for chaplains. Chaplains are people who come from a wide variety of faiths. We have chaplains from Islam, Judaism and Christianity. We have chaplains who are humanists. I support pluralism because members of our military come from all faith backgrounds, including no-faith backgrounds, and it is critically important that they have access to chaplaincy services. What the government has tried to institute is a policy that says that at Remembrance Day ceremonies and other ceremonies that military members are asked to attend, chaplains cannot say anything, a prayer or a spiritual reflection, that reflects their faith. I raised this earlier, because it was asked of me by one of the chaplains, “What about the faith of indigenous Canadians?” In this country, we have sought to reconcile with first nations and the terrible past of suppressing indigenous spirituality and indigenous culture, which we saw through residential schools, yet we have a policy by the government that seems to run against the grain of its reconciliation rhetoric by telling indigenous people that their spirituality will not be welcome at these events. The policy of so-called religious neutrality will apply fully to indigenous people who are asked to provide spiritual reflections. I have gone to many indigenous events, and it is quite common for elders to talk about the Creator. In many cases, I have elders who talk about their deep Christian faith. To have a government policy come forward to say that those reflections are not welcome undermines reconciliation in this country. I also want to raise that I have been approached by chaplains who are very concerned about this issue. They tell me that there was no consultation, that this policy was rammed down their throats and that there was no opportunity for them to work with the government to meaningfully shape this legislation in a way that could respect religious freedom and people of all faiths. In fact, the chaplain organization in the Canadian Armed Forces has not even had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of National Defence since the Harper government. That is over 10 years ago. The chaplains were supposed to have access to the Minister of National Defence, but they have not had an opportunity to meet with the minister during the entire time the Liberal government has been in power, which is over 10 years. The government does not consider the very important work that chaplains do. It does not consider their opinions. It does not consider their feedback. If the Liberals were to sit down with these chaplains, they could have worked out a very agreeable solution to all parties. However, what is happening now, and what these chaplains are telling me, is that they feel a religious view is being imposed upon them, because by being forced to give a very humanistic, very religiously so-called neutral spiritual reflection or prayer, they are having their religious freedom imposed upon. They would rather not participate in such an event, but they know how important it is that they be involved. It is very interesting, because this policy seems to apply only to the Canadian Armed Forces, but there are chaplains in the RCMP. I was approached by a constituent of mine who has been a long-standing chaplain with the RCMP, and he is deeply concerned that the Liberals will seek to expand the policy. I do not see why they would not. It would be consistent. What is very special about this man, and very tragic, is that he is a chaplain and his son was one of the four Mounties murdered in Mayerthorpe, in my riding. He came to my office and asked me, “If I am up to pray out of remembrance for my son, will I be told by my government that I am not allowed to pray to my God? Will I not be able to give a spiritual reflection that reflects the journey, challenge and crisis that my family went through when we lost our son?” I would only ask that the government go back to the table, talk to chaplains and work out a policy that can work for everyone, because there are a lot of people who feel very deeply about this, and this controversy is not necessary. In fact, the House of Commons voted unanimously that we not proceed with this policy, yet it is being put forward.”

“The defence minister is supposed to meet every year with military chaplains, but the Liberals have not met with them once since 2015. The member has not heard their concerns because his government refuses to talk to them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would tell the member to reach out to the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy. This organization has a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Canada that it is to have annual meetings with the Minister of National Defence. It has not had a single meeting since the Liberal government took power in 2015. The member says that he has not heard from any chaplains, but it is because the Liberals are refusing to meet with chaplains. It is ridiculous.”

“Parliament must hold the government accountable. Government policies are making the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires lose contracts year after year. The government needs to change these policies now.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is what Parliament and the House of Commons are here for. They are here to hold the government accountable. I take pleasure in doing that. I hope that we can get better results for Canadians. This is just one such case. I think if we had not shed light on this issue, it would have gone by unnoticed. Day after day, year after year, as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires loses contracts with the government because of its policies, we really see a diminishment in our society. We do not want to see that, so let us reverse course right now.”

“The government should give contracts to Canadian groups first. The tax agency gave a contract to an American company instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires over just $80,000. This non-profit hires veterans, and losing the contract hurts them badly. I want the member from Edmonton to share his thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians would agree that, since the government won back in April, 18 months ago now, we should be putting Canada first. That was the intent of the motion: to put Canada first in procurement. In this case, a small amount of money, $80,000, was the difference between choosing an American company, Allied Universal, and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, a non-profit that, quite frankly, has done a wonderful job with veterans in every community in this country. I would like the hon. member from Edmonton’s thoughts on the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, as it has been stymied. The contract by the CRA has pretty well decimated the company once and for all.”

“The government says it had to choose another company because its bid was $80,000 lower. That is not a good excuse. The government must look at more than just price when it awards contracts. It should support the Corps of Commissionaires, which employs the most veterans and helps our communities.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to note that the government claims its hands were tied and that another company had a competitive bid. It came in at $80,000 less. I know for a fact that the government does not just consider the financial value of an award. It has to consider a broad spectrum of factors in making a decision. For the government to hide behind an $80,000 contract decision to not support a company that has been the largest employer of veterans and has supplied countless charitable benefits to our communities does not hold water with me.”

“The government's plan to buy from Canadian businesses is fake. A foreign company only needs a local address to count as Canadian, even if it has no Canadian owners or workers. Because of this loophole, the government gave a twelve-million-dollar security contract to an American company instead of the Commissionaires, a Canadian group that hires veterans. I want the government to fix its rules and actually buy from real Canadian companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, in 1541, Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence River on his third voyage to Canada and made camp at Cap-Rouge, just upstream from where Quebec City stands today. His men looked down at the riverbank and could not believe their eyes. The rocks were glittering. They thought they had found more gold than they could carry. They filled their barrels with it. Cartier was so eager to get back home that he left in the middle of the night and sailed for France. The treasure was tested in France. The diamonds were quartz and the gold was iron pyrite. It was fool’s gold. Canada has a long history of fool’s gold, dating back to the earliest European explorers. Today, the fool’s gold glitters from the Prime Minister’s promise to buy Canadian. Last year, the Prime Minister promised, “we will select Canadian suppliers by default”. He promised Canada would become “our own best customer”. Canadians believed it because they wanted to, but there is a simple way to tell real gold from fool’s gold: rubbing the stone across a piece of white porcelain. Real gold leaves a yellow streak, and fool’s gold leaves a black one. Let us put the Liberals’ buy Canadian policy to the streak test. Last year, the government posted a tender for security guards at the Canada Revenue Agency. For years, that work had been done by the Commissionaires, a Canadian not-for-profit founded in 1925 to employ veterans. Written on the government’s tender was the statement, “This solicitation is open only to Canadian suppliers.” However, in June, the Liberals awarded the contract, worth nearly $12 million, to the Universal Protection Service. The Universal Protection Service is a subsidiary of Allied Universal, which is an American company with headquarters in Pennsylvania and California. The difference in price between the two bids was about $80,000. On a $12-million contract, that is less than 1% of the contract’s value. For less than a penny on the dollar, the Liberals chose an American multinational over Canada’s largest private employer of veterans. As I said earlier, the Liberals’ buy Canadian policy was nothing more than fool’s gold. The policy is so fake that under the government’s own definitions, the Chinese-owned company Huawei would count as a Canadian supplier. The Prime Minister promised that when Ottawa spends money, it will choose Canadian suppliers by default, so the first question is a simple one: What does the Liberal government think makes a company Canadian? If someone wants to put a “product of Canada” label on a jar of strawberry jam, the government says that around 98% of the main ingredients and virtually all the processing and labour have to be Canadian. However, if someone wants to be a Canadian supplier, under the Liberal government’s buy Canadian policy, they simply need to register a business in Canada, meaning they essentially only need an address. There is no requirement to have a Canadian headquarters, Canadian ownership or even a minimum number of Canadian workers. That means that the strawberry jam on our toast is held to a higher standard of being Canadian than the American firm that was just awarded a $12-million contract over Canada’s largest private employer of veterans. Let us take the Liberals’ definition of a so-called Canadian supplier one step further and apply it to the suppliers the government itself calls a threat. Huawei, a Chinese-owned firm, has a Canadian office in Markham, Ontario. The government banned Huawei from our 5G networks on national security grounds. However, under the Liberals’ buy Canadian policy, Huawei would be considered a Canadian supplier because it registered a subsidiary with the CRA. In the eyes of the Liberals, foreign-owned companies like Huawei are just as Canadian as a local hardware store on main street. We have seen this failure before. Indigenous business leaders called it “renting a feather”, when a non-indigenous company was putting an indigenous person’s name on the ownership papers to win federal contracts set aside for indigenous businesses. Earlier this year, the procurement ombudsman warned that non-indigenous businesses may use indigenous businesses as shell companies. If the government could not stop businesses from pretending they were indigenous-owned, why would anyone believe it would stop them from pretending they are Canadian? I was just in Sarnia, where a local business owner told me he was surprised to learn that several corporations were registered on his local residential street with no sign of an office or any operations. The Prime Minister cannot pretend he did not see this loophole coming. After years at Brookfield, a company with dozens of subsidiaries registered in offshore tax havens, he knows exactly how corporations exploit loopholes to game the system. He knew that his policy was fool’s gold, but he sold it to Canadians anyway. Next week, Canadians will remember the people who served our country in uniform, so it is fair to ask why the government chose to end an 80-year promise to Canada’s veterans. Many Canadians walk past a commissionaire without knowing the story behind their uniform. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was founded in 1925 to provide employment to soldiers coming home from the First World War. In 1945, as hundreds of thousands more soldiers came home from the Second World War, Ottawa made them a promise: When the federal government needed guards for its buildings, the Commissionaires would get the first right of refusal. That promise was kept by every government and every party for 80 years, but in February of this year, the Liberal Minister of Veterans Affairs wrote to tell them that the promise was over. Her letter said that the government was confident the corps was positioned for “continued success in this new procurement environment”. Less than four months later, the Commissionaires found out what that new environment looks like under the Liberals. The government awarded the security contract the Commissionaires had held to a subsidiary of an American company, Allied Universal. Allied Universal reportedly took more than $290 million U.S. in contracts from the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security this year alone. That is who the Liberals chose over Canada’s veterans, while they told Canadians to put their elbows up. When Cartier got his barrels of treasure back to France, it did not take long for the truth to come out. With a simple test, everyone could see that it was fool’s gold. The Liberals’ buy Canadian policy has been tested now, too. It has failed the test. What frustrates me the most is that the real gold in the story was right in front of them the whole time. For 100 years, the Commissionaires have been standing guard at the doors of our federal buildings as Canadian veterans. That is the real gold in this, but the government shamefully traded it for fool’s gold.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “We have seen this movie before.”

  Said 7 times by 7 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“The government's plan to buy Canadian would let it buy from Huawei. Huawei is a threat to our national security, and the government should not be buying its products.”

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member actually just stated that. He is telling me that the government actually supports dealing the buy Canadian policy to companies such as Huawei. It simply has corporate affairs in here. It has been registered and identified as a national threat to our country, and it is okay for our government to be buying products from Huawei. Is that what the member is telling me?”