“The government says it wants to buy Canadian goods and services. But six of its ten biggest contracts went to American companies, totaling $7.8 billion. I want the member to explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has adopted a buy Canadian policy. The Prime Minister has told Canadians that he wants to make Canada its own best customer. Despite this, the government’s actions tell a very different story. Since the Prime Minister took office, six of the 10 largest contracts have been awarded to federal suppliers headquartered in the United States. The Toronto Star reported that the Liberal government has awarded billions of dollars’ worth of contracts to American companies. The total now stands at $7.8 billion, according to their data, and the share of contracts going to U.S.-based firms continues to increase. How does my colleague explain that?”

“The government creates too many new agencies and avoids blame by saying their decisions are not government decisions. The procurement watchdog said this must stop. Will the government let the watchdog oversee these new agencies' contracts, just like other government contracts?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the government is creating so many new agencies and why, every time we ask about the reasons for a decision, we are told that it was not a government decision. The procurement ombud has said that this has got to stop. Is the government, which keeps creating new agencies, prepared to give the procurement ombud the authority to oversee their procurement activities in the same way that he oversees other government contracts?”

“The procurement ombudsman told our committee he needs more power to check government agencies. He also said we need a full review of contracts given to Canadian companies to see what went wrong and what needs fixing. I want to know if my colleague agrees with him, and if this motion is just the tip of the iceberg.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we asked the procurement ombud what he needed to properly perform his role of holding the government to account. He told us that he would need the authority to do his work within government agencies. He also made another point, and I would like to know whether my colleague agrees. He told us that, after more than a year of contracts being awarded to Canadian companies, it is time to conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine what went right, what went wrong and what needs to be fixed. Is this motion not just the tip of the iceberg? What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“My colleague truly cares about veterans. The government has had nine veterans affairs ministers since 2015, which shows a lack of action. The government acts like veterans are easy to replace, and that hurts them. I want to know if my colleague agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work my colleague did during the year that we served together, as well as the work he did alongside my Bloc Québécois predecessor. My colleague genuinely cares about the treatment of veterans and is deeply committed to recognizing their service. Indeed, my first thought when I joined this committee was to wonder why no action was being taken, even though people wanted what was good for veterans. Since 2015, there have been nine veterans affairs ministers. That says something. Does my colleague agree with me that an announcement like that is deeply hurtful to veterans? The government cannot claim to be supporting veterans when its actions send the message that they are no longer needed and can be readily replaced. Does my colleague agree with me?”

“The government gave a $12-million contract to an American company instead of a Canadian group that hires veterans. They talk tough about the United States, but they still give them contracts and let Alberta oil go there without tariffs. Meanwhile, a plant in Quebec lost business because of this. I want to know when this unfair treatment will stop.”

“Mr. Speaker, on October 20, we found out that the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a $12-million contract to the U.S. company Allied Universal, choosing it over the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, a non-profit organization that employs many veterans. In fact, veterans make up 15% of its workforce, according to Radio-Canada. I am a bit sick of this Liberal hypocrisy. They say we need to fight back against the United States, yet contracts continue to be awarded to American companies. The clearest example concerns oil exports. After all, 90% of Alberta’s oil and gas exports go to the United States and are not even subject to tariffs. Meanwhile, Quebec is left bearing the cost of this trade war The RYAM plant back home in Témiscamingue is a case in point. Because cardboard is not subject to tariffs when exported to the United States, the company lost a contract in western Canada. Those tariffs should have applied. This is a clear double standard, and it is extremely frustrating. When will this end?”

“The government gave a security contract to Allied Universal instead of the Commissionaires. The Commissionaires is a Canadian non-profit that employs thousands of veterans to guard federal buildings. The government blames the tax agency for this choice instead of taking responsibility. I want the member to explain how this fits with buying Canadian.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat disheartening to see the Liberals justify hiring Allied Universal instead of the Commissionaires, formerly known as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Why is that? The government is shirking its responsibilities by saying that the decision was made by the CRA rather than by the Liberals themselves. Given the proliferation of agencies we are seeing these days, that is worrisome. The Commissionaires, a non-profit organization that already provides security for federal buildings, has 22,000 employees, including 3,500 military and RCMP veterans. What does buy Canadian mean to my colleague, exactly?”

“I want to ask my colleague a simple question.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The government keeps creating more agencies, but no one is left to hold it accountable. Even the procurement watchdog says he can no longer do his job of pointing out problems. We must use days like today to show this government's failures and lack of openness.”

“Mr. Speaker, thank you for maintaining order in the House. There are so few of us here and yet it can still be quite chaotic, but you are doing a great job. My question is very simple. If the government can increase the number of agencies by saying that it is a lot simpler and more effective, then it is entirely appropriate for us, as parliamentary legislators, to call for accountability. Right now, there is no one left to hold the government to account. Even the procurement ombudsman told us that he can no longer do his job of pointing out what is going wrong. Are members aware of that? I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me. Are we going to have to use opposition days like this one to shed light on the current government’s failures and lack of transparency?”

“We agree with the part of this motion about buying Canadian. But we do not support the part that promotes religion through chaplains. The motion also mentions steel, aluminum, and lumber, but does nothing about them. What is the real point of this motion?”

“Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois agree with the part of the motion that deals with the buy Canadian policy. However, there is another part that runs counter to secularism or that supports the use of religious language by chaplains. There is also a part that mentions steel, aluminum and lumber in the preamble, but the motion does not address them further. What exactly is the overall message of this motion?”

“The government ended a deal that helped veterans return to civilian life for over one hundred years. They claim this choice was made for efficiency and affects only a few people. How does the member think veterans will feel about that?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech. He is well aware that the government has a long-standing relationship with this organization, whose social mission is to help our veterans transition to civilian life is. The response we are hearing is that this decision was a matter of efficiency, taken in response to the current context, and that few thousand people is minor. The government upended an arrangement that had existed for over a hundred years. How does my colleague think a veteran would react to hearing that?”

“The interpretation into French has stopped. I need it fixed so I can understand the speech.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to interrupt my colleague, but the interpretation has stopped. It is important for me to be able to understand what he is saying.”

“Billions of dollars in government contracts are going to American companies instead of Canadian ones. How does the government decide who gets these contracts, and how should we make sure it actually buys Canadian?”

“Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister took office, six of the top 10 federal suppliers are headquartered in the United States. It has been reported that billions of dollars in contracts are still going to American companies, contracts worth a total of $7.8 billion, according to the Toronto Star. It has been reported that the percentage of contracts awarded to American companies is increasing. IBM was cited as an example of buying Canadian earlier because that company has a subsidiary in the member’s riding. How are these contracts divvied up? In my colleague’s opinion, what criteria should be used to ensure the government actually does buy Canadian?”

“It is hard to tell the difference between buying Canadian and buying from American-owned branch companies. I want the member to explain how we should decide if a business is truly Canadian.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a rather blurred line between buying Canadian and buying from American subsidiaries. Earlier, a member gave IBM as an example of buying Canadian because IBM has had a subsidiary in her riding for a long time. What criteria does my colleague think should be used to determine whether a business is Canadian, as opposed to an American business with subsidiaries in Canada?”

“The government is creating too many outside agencies, Crown corporations, and private contracts. This takes power away from Parliament and lets ministers avoid responsibility. I want to know if my colleague is just as concerned about this trend.”

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but share his dismay as we watch the government create more and more agencies and Crown corporations. We can certainly add the Allied Universal contract to that list. This removes accountability from the minister. It reduces transparency. It takes democratic power away from this House. I would like to hear my colleague’s views on this trend. Is he as concerned about this as I am?”