“The government values American companies more than Canadian veterans. It is shameful to treat people who defended our country this way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the global message from the Liberal government is that it values veterans less than it values American companies, which is absolutely shameful and disgusting. I cannot imagine being a veteran here, going to defend our country and then coming back to a slap in the face. It is absolutely deplorable.”

“An American company got a contract that usually goes to Canadian veterans. The non-profit that normally gets it uses the money to support veterans, but the American company will not do that. I want the member to comment on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are two issues we are talking about. One is an American company’s getting a contract that is normally reserved for the veterans of Canada, those who served in our armed forces. However, more importantly, the non-profit Commissionaires uses the revenue to help veterans from the armed forces who otherwise would not have it. The company in question, Allied Universal, a United States-based company, is not going to provide that same service to our veterans. Can the member please comment on that?”

“A government that cares about our country and our veterans would not make this decision. A Conservative government would never do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member asked a very good question. What kind of government that is supposed to be looking after our country and our veterans would consider that to be a good, very sound decision and as standing up for Canada? I can tell the House that a Conservative government would never make that kind of decision.”

“The government is misleading Canadians about this policy and getting upset when we question them. It has to stop.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member said “false impression”. My gosh, it is smoke and mirrors. The Liberals are masters at this. They are absolutely outraged. How dare we question one thing about this policy? I went on for 10 minutes explaining to the Canadian public and to all those attending here today how much the government is misleading Canadians. It has to stop. The bigger question is, what kind of government would do this to the Canadian people?”

“Many small businesses do not know how to apply for government contracts, and the rules are too hard to follow. Canadian companies have not won more contracts since the government's announcements. I want to know what the government will fix so small businesses can actually get this work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Winnipeg for outlining, in general terms, the buy Canada policy. In reality, many small businesses across our country do not know where to start or where to go to apply for a government contract. In addition to that, the red tape to enter into an agreement is still very challenging for many of the small businesses that are facing the uncertainty referenced in his speech. In good faith, what areas can the government improve in procurement to actually see small businesses take up the government contracts? Since the announcements from the secretary of state for small business have come into force, we have not seen the increase in those contracts going to Canadian firms.”

“I support buying from Canadian companies, but too much subcontracted work is still being sent to other countries. I want to know if the government will change the rules so this work stays in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member outlined, in reference to some of the criticisms of the program, namely, the change of threshold from $25 million down to $5 million, but there are still certain policies related to the buy Canada policy at large that need to be addressed, largely related to subcontracting. Some have labelled it a superficial economic illusion that dilutes the intended benefits of this policy we all support. Is the government open to changing some of the subcontracting policies to allow for that work to stay in Canada and not be sent offshore to non-Canadian entities when the policy in and of itself is to support Canadian small businesses and Canadian companies?”

“The government says it wants to buy Canadian, but it gave a $12-million contract to an American company instead of a Canadian group that hires veterans. The American bid was only about $80,000 cheaper. I want the government to explain why it made this choice and show how it judged the bids. If our buying rules do not support Canadian veterans, we must change the rules.”

“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.”

“We should buy the F-35 fighter jet. It would create thousands of Canadian jobs and protect our Arctic. The company is American-owned, but the government says that is not a problem for other deals. I want to know why we are still delaying this purchase.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Liberal logic that goes into this. Let me talk about the F-35 for a minute. It is from an American-owned company. It would create between 2,500 and 5,000 Canadian jobs and thousands of indirect jobs, and it just happens to be the only airplane that could provide deterrence in the Arctic. By that logic, we should pick the F-35, yet we cannot do that. We will not do that. For some reason, we are just going to wait for a while. If Canadian jobs and American ownership are not an issue, why do we not have the F-35?”

“It is not my job to define what makes a business Canadian. But when the choice is between an American company and a Canadian non-profit, it is obvious which one we should pick.”

“Mr. Speaker, my job is not to determine the exact makeup, but I will say that when we have something as glaring as an American-owned company and a Canadian-owned non-profit, we do not need to take it to a large jury to find out which one we should be picking.”

“The Commissionaires is a non-profit group that puts its money back into helping veterans. I want to know why the government would not keep its contract with them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague’s service and his father’s service. It was very nicely woven into his speech today. He was just speaking about the not-for-profit organization, where money is reinvested into veterans. I would like to hear his thoughts on that as an excuse. Why would the Liberals not want to keep a contract with the Commissionaires, which does such great work and supports veterans?”

“The government made a mistake by taking this contract away from the Commissionaires. They should admit it, fix it, and buy Canadian. Their reasoning constantly shifts depending on the issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious that we should be, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals refuse to admit the mistake. It is a simple mistake. They should just change it. Let us buy Canadian again if we are going to buy Canadian. Unfortunately, with the Liberals, the logic seems to shift a lot. It shifts one way for the F-35, but if we are talking about something else, it will shift another way. We have competing logics that run around, and whatever applies at any given time is the logic they are using.”

“Canada does not have the 88 fighter jets. They are only scheduled, and the order has not been approved.”

“Mr. Speaker, 88 have been scheduled, but we do not have 88, nor do we have a go-ahead on those 88.”

“I support this motion. The government took a tax agency security contract away from the Commissionaires, who hire Canadian veterans, and gave it to an American-owned company. The government should give that contract back to the Commissionaires, make sure they get first choice on federal security jobs again, let military chaplains pray at public ceremonies, and stop fighting veterans in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our motion on federal procurement. I rise to speak about our flag and the Canadians who fought under it. I rise for the veterans of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island. I rise for the commissionaires who stand watch at our federal buildings. I rise for all the families who have been handed a folded flag. I served under that flag for 28 years. I have conducted many burials at sea, and I have handed that flag to grieving families, including a father and his two sons. I know the cost those who serve under that flag pay. The motion before us may be about one contract, but veterans will tell us it is about much more than just one contract. It is about a pattern of betrayal. We can consider that just this year, with respect to Bill C-11, the government waited until the last minute to reverse amendments agreed upon in committee and ignored the survivors of military sexual trauma. They told me it felt like the government had spat in their faces. We can consider new restrictions on military clergy of every faith, even on Remembrance Day; or veterans poisoned by mefloquine in Somalia, fighting their own government in court for over 25 years; or veterans who asked for help and were instead offered euthanasia by Veterans Affairs Canada. Now let us consider the Commissionaires. I will remind the Liberal members opposite, who seem to have forgotten, who the commissionaires are. In 1915, in the middle of the First World War, the governor-general proposed a corps to give returning soldiers meaningful work. In 1925, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was founded with one commitment. Those who served Canada would come home and not be forgotten. For more than 100 years, that commitment had been kept. For generations, Ottawa stood behind it with a right of first refusal. Before a federal government department’s security contract was opened to bidding, it was first offered to the Commissionaires, yet in February, with a single stroke of a pen, the Minister of Veterans Affairs ended that right. Though veterans affairs officials said the department wanted to reassess the right of first refusal, it simply cancelled it. Then came this contract. The CRA posted it as open only to Canadian suppliers. Here is what most Canadians do not know. Under the current government’s new buy Canadian rules, a supplier needs only a place of business in Canada. No one asks who owns the company or where its headquarters are. That is how the Canadian subsidiary of Allied Universal, an American company, qualified. By the company’s own numbers, just 1.3% of its 700,000-strong workforce is in Canada. It won the CRA contract by undercutting the Commissionaires by less than 1% of the contract value, or only $80,000. Now let us hold the government to its own words. Again and again, the Prime Minister has promised that Canada would become our own best customer. He said, “we will select Canadian suppliers by default.” In January, he told Canadians yet again, “We’ll buy Canadian. We’ll build Canadian.” Well, the CRA had a Canadian supplier, a not-for-profit built for veterans, and when the moment came to be our own best customer, the government went shopping in America. The Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency says politicians are never involved in the CRA’s decisions, and that is true of the contract scoring but not true of the rules. The CRA runs the competition, but the government writes the rules for the CRA to follow, and the government chose a buy Canadian policy with no test of ownership. Those were not the CRA’s choices. They were the government’s choices. Last November, the Prime Minister declared that Canadians must honour our veterans’ patriotism with our own, and for once, I agree with his words, but his actions ring hollow. Patriotism is not a line in a statement. In this case, it is a choice in that contract. The government also defends this decision by claiming the Commissionaires could no longer meet its veteran hiring target. Here is what the government will not tell us. The Commissionaires knew the target was a problem. The organization raised it itself. It asked veterans affairs to reassess the target and to update it. Instead, the door was closed. The Commissionaires, which is a not-for-profit, reportedly could not get a meeting with the minister. Meanwhile, senior officials found time to quietly meet with for-profit competitors. Lobbying records prove this. Allied Universal has had a registered lobbyist working the Canadian government since at least 2023, pursuing federal security contracts exactly like this one, yet only three years ago, the department’s own briefing said that the right of first refusal was still aligned with the Government of Canada’s priorities. What changed? It is not the veterans but the government. The government called it a competitive procurement process, but this is not competition. This is a retreat. Here is the kicker. Allied Universal’s Canadian subsidiary is suing the Government of Canada for $420 million. It lost a federal airport screening contract and took the government to court. Let us consider what the Liberals have done. In a courtroom, Allied is fighting the government. Meanwhile, in an office, the government is handing an American company a contract taken from our commissionaires, who should be protected by the right of refusal that is not set to expire until next year. Let us look at Allied Universal’s work with the Trump administration. According to public reporting, it has received more than $290 million U.S. from the Department of Homeland Security this year alone, and its subsidiary received $83 million U.S. from ICE, the agency running the Trump deportation program. This summer, Newsweek named Allied Universal one of America’s most patriotic companies, and I do not doubt that it is. It is an American company, and it should be proud of that honour. However, I would ask the members opposite this: Since when is it the Canadian government’s job to reward America’s most patriotic companies? Canada already has its own patriotic organization, and has had for more than 100 years, called the Commissionaires. Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to trust him to stand up to Washington, and many Canadians gave him their trust and their vote for the first time in their life. They believed he was the only one who could handle the president and get a deal. They did not vote to send the veterans contract to a company tied to an American deportation program. Every Canadian who trusted the Liberal slogans should know this: They did not misplace their patriotism. The government misplaced their trust. At election time, the Liberals wrapped themselves in the flag, but at contract time, they pay Americans. At election time, they stand at the cenotaph, but at contract time, they leave the commissionaires standing at the door. At election time, the government promises to put Canada first, but at contract time, it puts Canada second. I can assure the members opposite that veterans from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland are watching the government closely. It is not enough to expose the illusion, so let me set out plainly how a government that keeps its word to veterans would restore that promise. First, it would give the CRA contract back to the commissionaires. Second, it would have Veterans Affairs restore the right of first refusal and update the promise made generations ago to reflect the veterans of today. According to court filings in 2025, the department’s own deputy minister suggested renewing that policy with new measures strengthening our commissionaires, not cutting them down. Third, it would lift the restrictions on clergy, the priests, imams, rabbis and other faith leaders, who serve in uniform, so they may pray in their own faith at public ceremonies, Remembrance Day included. Fourth, it would stop fighting veterans in court, sit down with them, hear them and come to an agreement. Let us end where we began, with the flag I handed to the father and his sons. Veterans define what it means to be Canadian. They come from every province and territory and every faith background and walk of life. From Vimy to Juno Beach to Kandahar, our veterans raised their hand and swore to our flag. They never asked what the flag would give them. They asked what it needed. I am proud to have served. I am proud to be Canadian. I say to the government and to every member opposite plainly, be Canadian. Be Canadian when the cameras are gone and the contract is signed. Be Canadian in the courtroom, at the cenotaph and at the chapel. Be Canadian for veterans who put Canada first. Keep your promises, honour your own words, and if you cannot be Canadian, then for the love of this country, step aside for those who will. Our flag is not a costume for election time. It is a sacred promise. Our soldiers fought and died for it, and our veterans kept that promise. It is time the government did the same.”

“Veterans being homeless is a crisis. If the government ran the economy properly and protected their jobs, our veterans would be working and would not be homeless.”

“Mr. Speaker, the homelessness of veterans is a horrible crisis this country faces. In fact, I was just at a home for veterans in Ottawa serving Thanksgiving dinner to them not too long ago. If the government was running the economy the way it pretends it does and was giving and protecting veterans’ jobs, that would not be necessary. Our veterans would have jobs, would be working for the Commissionaires and would not be homeless.”

“I agree that the government is not held accountable for its actions. It spends money irresponsibly on programs that do not actually help Canadians. After 11 years under this government, Canadians are struggling.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, a common trend is not just betraying veterans, as I outlined in my speech, but a lack of accountability. We see that with the Defence Investment Agency. Absolutely, I am outraged at some of the accountability issues, the irresponsible spending and the claims that their programs are helping people. They are not helping. Canadians are drowning under 11 years of the government, and occasionally it lifts Canadians’ heads above the water for a breath of fresh air and expects them to be happy because the program it is spending too much money on is working. That is the problem.”

“The Commissionaires confirmed they were never invited to meet with the government. They are a non-profit group that helps veterans, gets no complaints, and has high approval. I want to hear the member's thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s service. I was just sitting in the veterans affairs committee, which is meeting with the Commissionaires. In his speech, the member highlighted that the Commissionaires were never invited to the table, and that can be confirmed from our meeting. I would like to hear his thoughts about what I asked earlier. The Commissionaires is a non-profit organization that invests in veterans and has confirmed that it has never received any complaints. In fact, it has an 86% approval rating from clientele. I would like to hear what the member’s thoughts are with regard to that information.”

“The government is hiring American companies instead of Canadian groups to do security work for veterans. It makes no sense to give these jobs to foreign businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent work he does supporting veterans on the veterans affairs committee. It was confirmed not only at committee but in court papers that the Commissionaires attempted to contact Veterans Affairs to resolve this issue, but clearly that has not happened. The Liberals are contracting out security services for veterans to American companies. What are the Liberals going to present to Canada next, that they are going to contract out to American companies to provide our military services? This is ridiculous.”

“The Liberals claim to support veterans, but their actions betray them. They are hurting veterans with this contract, and they are stopping military clergy from praying or speaking about religion in public.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am sure that all members of this House will say they support veterans, but the members opposite show it in a pretty funny way. If we look at this contract and how they are betraying veterans, or at the other examples that I laid out in my speech, they certainly have a very different way of supporting veterans. The member mentioned praying. Right now, there are restrictions on the prayers that clergy from all faiths in the military can say. They are not allowed to give religious speeches while in public, which is another way the Liberals are backstabbing veterans.”