“I want the House to vote against this Conservative motion. It is not really about helping veterans. It uses false claims to attack the government. We care about veterans and are investing money to help them get services and find jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset of my comments, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about important issues, like our veterans and the way in which governments or arm’s-length organizations such as CRA procure and do contracts on a wide spectrum of different things. These are all important issues, and there is no doubt about that. I have a number of things that I would like to say. First, I would like to make a correction. I might have said that the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was founded in 2025. It should have been 1925. It was 100 years ago. It actually started in the community of Montreal. The “thirties” I was talking about was obviously the 1930s. I want to recognize that at the time, there would have been a great deal of discussion about veterans coming home from abroad, whether it was from World War I or World War II. The incredible service provided by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was absolutely outstanding, second to likely no other organization. I am not familiar with all the organizations from back then, but I suspect that there would have been a number of non-profits, like the Legion and so forth. There was infrastructure put in place and it was very welcoming. There were many wartime houses being built in our nation in order to accommodate veterans and ensure there was housing for them. I made reference to the fact that all members of the House, I believe, have an interest in our veterans. This is a very important week. We are all wearing poppies. We wear poppies for a very good reason. It is to recognize past, current and ultimately future serving members and, in dealing with the past, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in regard to their life, among the many other forms of casualties. It is a time at which all Canadians should reflect on the valuable role that members of the Canadian Forces have played for generations. Having said that, I want to spend some time talking about the issue we have before us. The Conservatives are raising it to try to make it look as if the government is not being sensitive to our veterans. I do not believe that to be the case one iota. In fact, if we look at some of the things we have done since the last election under the leadership of our current Prime Minister and current minister responsible for veterans, I think we see a caring attitude, plus resources. I can talk about the commitment that was made back in the 2025 budget to enhance veterans’ services by improving IT infrastructure. That was an investment of well over $150 million. The purpose of that investment was to ensure that veterans with disabilities who require services are being served in a quicker fashion. The idea was to speed up the process. This was brought forward shortly after the last election. We had that particular announcement. An announcement also took place last week. The minister labelled it as “veteran-ready”. It is a veteran employer recognition initiative. I believe that type of initiative is going to make a difference and support our veterans in a very real and tangible way. We need to recognize not only the skill sets that are acquired while serving in the military, but also the education that many members of our forces bring to the military. There are ways we can enhance, amplify, do some fine-tuning or go beyond fine-tuning in order to support our veterans and at the same time recognize our businesses in the community. Not all veterans have PTSD. At the end of the day, there are opportunities for employers to hire outstanding Canadians who have put their lives on the line and have served our country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with promoting that. In terms of the Commissionaires, I made reference to the late 1920s going into the late 1930s as a time in which life in Canada was very different. We had many veterans, people retiring from the war, from the forces, looking for opportunities. It was a very difficult situation. One can only imagine the horrors of war, whether it was World War I, World War II, the Korean War or what took place in Afghanistan. These are individuals who sacrificed a great deal. That is why I posed a question in regard to the numbers. The Commissionaires is not quite what it was 30, 40 or 50 years ago. That is not to take anything away from the Commissionaires, but there are not as many veterans for a number of reasons. Veterans do not make up the majority of commissionaires. In fact, I believe it might even be around 20% or just a little higher. Again, that is not to take anything away from the Commissionaires, and I would hope that members would not try to suggest that. There are many other ways in which we can look at how to support our veterans. I would like to see investments in entrepreneurs, businesses and so forth. There are many companies hiring veterans today, some of them dealing with security. CRA is the arm’s-length, independent corporation responsible for Canadian revenue taxation. At the end of the day, this decision was made based on a number of different factors. However, when we look at the Universal Protection Service, the company that ultimately prevailed on that particular procurement, my understanding is that with the contract, we are talking about 60 individuals across the country. The contract is for 60 positions, if I can put it that way. Out of those, 33 have been rehired. Out of those 33, a dozen are veterans. I do not want to do a comparison between one company and the other, but I will acknowledge the efforts of the Commissionaires and the role it has played with CRA. I suspect it will be in a good position going into the future to continue to do the fine work it does with veterans. When I look at the motion we have before us and listen to some of the questions that have been put forward, I question the motivation. Let me give an example from the member who represents the community of Moose Jaw, a beautiful city that I lived in for a couple of years. That is where I had my first job. In many ways, it is a fantastic community. I would like to quote him because I did write it down and was careful to ensure that I got the actual words he said. The member said, “the Liberal government is going to be unemploying 3,000 veterans”. At the very least, it is misleading. I would like to think that it was not done intentionally, because that would be against the rules of the House. Every member knows and understands that the CRA contract has nothing to do with 3,000 veterans becoming unemployed. If we look at statements of that nature and then look at the content of the motion before us today, I would pose the question of why the Conservatives have tied in a trip that was made by the Prime Minister and dozens of others to promote Canada and build our economy beyond the Canada-U.S. border. Why did they choose to make reference to that trip and some of the costs? For the Conservatives who were in government in the past, surely to goodness they would recognize that these are not negotiated prices. These prices are set. We are following the same pattern as previous governments. There were a number of people who accompanied. It was a number of different days. There is a certain requirement for security today, for example. Why did they incorporate that aspect into the motion? In my opinion, it is because they are trying to do two things with it. One is that they are trying to give a false impression that the government does not care about veterans and veterans getting employment after they have been released from the Canadian Forces, which is just not true. The other deals with the issue of something we saw in question period, and that is to try to use character assassination, as opposed to dealing with issues of substance. I had the chance to ask a couple of questions at the very beginning of the member who introduced the motion and the leader of the Conservative Party. When I asked a question of the member who introduced the motion, I made reference to the latter point that it is very political what the Conservatives are doing. That is the reason they put the flight information down. I used the example of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in cabinet when Stephen Harper paid $1 million to fly a car from Canada to India. There are cars in India. An hon. member: It was for the RCMP, Kevin. You know that. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way says it was for the RCMP. In one sense, he is starting to make the point. At the end of the day, as I just said, they are trying to assert blame or assert irresponsible spending, and the member opposite just recognized that it would not be fair to say that. The Conservatives have done that and have incorporated it into the motion itself. That is why, from my perspective, it is a politically motivated motion to take shots at the government. This motion has nothing with regard to our vets, because if it had something to do with vets, where they could get support in a tangible way from the House or challenge the government, there are many ways they could do that. They could challenge the government in what the government, not the CRA, is doing to support our veterans. I would be able to talk about, in detail, the veterans ready initiative, which was just launched last week—”

“I am a veteran, and this government respects and supports all veterans. We honour the sacrifices they made in many wars, including those who died and those who returned with physical and mental health issues. We should all show our support by attending remembrance events and wearing a poppy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do respect veterans. I myself am a veteran. The Prime Minister respects veterans. Every member of the government supports and respects our veterans. We will attend a multitude of different events that will recognize the many sacrifices made by our veterans in a multitude of different wars, recognizing our veterans, whether they made the ultimate sacrifice or came back with all sorts of health-related issues, in physical health or mental health. I think it is absolutely critical that we all respect our veterans. I like to think we all do. I myself will go to Brookside, where thousands who lost their lives are laid to rest. I think there are different ways. One of the things is to wear a poppy and support our vets.”

“I do not know the details of this contract yet. But we should look at this company's Canadian presence. It is owned by an American company, but it employs thousands of people in Canada, including in Winnipeg.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily know the details. The member just brought it forward to the House, at least as far as I have heard. At the end of the day, I believe that we need to look at the company that received this. It is a subsidiary of an American company. There are many subsidiaries here in Canada with headquarters in the United States, and vice versa. We have headquarters here in Canada where they have subsidiaries in the United States. What is important is the footprint that the subsidiaries have. My understanding is that we are talking about thousands of employees, some of them in Winnipeg.”

“Only about 4% of government contracts go to American companies, while many go to Canadian businesses. Projects like the Davie shipyard and building icebreakers create jobs here at home. I want my colleague to share their view on these kinds of projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want draw on what my colleague on the other side of the House said. Approximately 4% of government contracts are awarded to U.S. companies. By contrast, a great many contracts are now awarded to Canadian companies. I would like my colleague to tell me a little about what we are doing with the Davie shipyard, because this will have a significant impact here at home. There is the Davie Shipyard, but there is also the contract for the icebreakers. I think these are two particularly interesting projects. What is the government’s position on these sorts of projects, which are creating jobs here at home?”

“The Davie shipyard project is good for Quebec and all of Canada. It uses Canadian workers and Canadian materials like steel, wood, and aluminum. Canadians are also choosing to support our own country by buying Canadian products and traveling less to the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. The Davie project is a major project. The province of Quebec and other areas of Canada will benefit from that, much like they will from many other major projects where we see Canadian labour; Canadian steel, lumber, aluminum; and things here in Canada being used to advance those projects. Canadians themselves are responding. Take a look, for example, at the number of visitors going down to the United States. Take a look at the number of Canadians today who, when they do their shopping, are looking at where that product was manufactured.”

“I respect the work the Commissionaires do. I believe they will keep growing as a non-profit and offering jobs to veterans. They are making a real effort to hire even more veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have, and I have said this in my comments, an immense amount of respect. I acknowledge the incredible work Commissionaires has done through the years. I believe Commissionaires will continue to be able to provide employment opportunities for veterans. I look to it, as a non-profit organization, to continue to grow. I also recognize there is a genuine attempt by the Commissionaires to employ even a higher percentage of veterans. When I think of those war veterans from World War II who I marched with, side by side in parades, there are many things they talked about regarding freedoms and the type of—”

“The rules about what words we can use in the House depend on the context. Saying a statement is misleading is often allowed, but accusing a specific member of it causes problems. The issue is not as simple as the member says.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is in Beauchesne’s sixth edition where it talks about the Speaker’s ability to use discretion as there is not any given word that is parliamentary or unparliamentary. Often, it is the context in which someone says something. For example, I can say, “It is absolutely misleading when members stand up in this chamber to say something that is just not true.” I would be very careful in terms of using the word “lie,” but I could say that. However, if I were to attribute it to an individual specifically, there is a chance the member might stand up on a point of order and ask me to apologize. I think it is not quite as simple as the member opposite says. I am sympathetic to what she is saying, but I do not believe that—”

“I am not sure I understand the question. It is good that the government uses independent agencies. Provinces use them too. They follow clear rules for buying things, which keeps them accountable. The Canada Revenue Agency is independent and makes its own choices based on those rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not 100% sure that I understand the question. I do believe it is important that the government has set up corporations and agencies, and there is great value to that. We have seen provinces use them as arm’s-length organizations. There are procurement processes and procedures often recommended by governments, no matter what level they might be, and there is a sense of accountability to that. I would like to think that the CRA, which is independent and arm’s-length from government, is making the decision based on the criteria it established and set out when it put it out for tender.”

“The company we are discussing is American-owned, but it employs Canadian workers and veterans. Nearby, another company is owned by a Portuguese corporation, but it also employs local workers. I want to know when a foreign-owned company that creates jobs in Canada should be allowed to get government contracts.”

“Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière was very interesting. I am particularly interested in the fact that the company we are discussing, while admittedly American-owned, employs Canadian workers, including veterans. In my colleague’s neighbouring riding, Tafisa, a company that awards contracts and employs local workers, is owned by a Portuguese corporation. At what point should a company that employs Canadians and creates jobs in Canada be considered eligible for government contracts? Could a company such as Tafisa be regarded as a suitable recipient of a Government of Canada contract?”

“Our government is making record investments in our military and veterans. We are spending billions on equipment, housing, recruitment, pay raises, and benefits. I want the member opposite to agree that this is historic support.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we head into Remembrance Day, I think it is important to put on the record the actual investments this government has made into Canada’s military and veterans, including increases to defence investment and modernization, which was $9 billion just this year, reaching NATO’s 2% of GDP target; historic pay increases for military personnel, including a 20% increase for regular forces privates; a $2.6-billion investment into recruitment and retention, reaching record levels of recruitment in the armed forces; $3.7 billion towards military housing and infrastructure; and an over $200-million investment committed to services and benefits. These are historic investments in Canadians’ military and historic investments to support veterans. Would the member opposite agree?”

“I support our policy to buy Canadian goods and services, and I defend the recent contract awarded by the tax agency. That contract was fair and open. The business operates here, pays taxes here, and hires Canadian workers. A Canadian supplier is about who does the work and creates jobs in Canada, not just who owns the company shares.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Compton—Stanstead. It is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today to reaffirm the Government of Canada’s commitment to the buy Canadian policy. I am incredibly proud of how this initiative is transforming government procurement, giving Canadian businesses, workers, manufacturers and suppliers greater access to opportunities, and delivering real results for Canadians. As the member of Parliament for Kanata, and Canada’s largest technology park with over 800 companies, this policy has a meaningful impact. Our government will always stand with Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and that is how we will build the strongest economy in the G7. We remain as committed as ever to prioritizing Canadian suppliers and Canadian-made goods and services in federal procurement. This is a pledge that we have made to Canadians, and it is unwavering. Since it came into force in December of last year, the buy Canadian policy has been reshaping how the federal government spends by prioritizing Canadian content, materials, suppliers and workers at every opportunity. From steel and aluminum to wood products, the government’s purchasing of goods and services is being used as a powerful tool to back key industries and strengthen domestic supply chains. The rollout of the buy Canadian policy marked a major step towards building a more resilient Canadian economy. It is designed to ensure clear advantages are available to suppliers who invest, innovate and produce here at home. By prioritizing Canadian suppliers, Canadian materials and Canadian content in federal procurement, we are becoming our own best customer. By reducing reliance on any single trading partner and building resilience through strong domestic demand, we are bolstering Canada’s economy. The policy on prioritizing Canadian suppliers and Canadian content in strategic federal procurements initially applied to procurements valued at $25 million and above. However, in June, we lowered that threshold to $5 million, significantly broadening its reach. We are also putting Canadian materials at the centre of major federal construction and defence projects. For procurements of $25 million or more, the policy requires Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood. We are also making it easier for Canadian small businesses to compete for federal opportunities through the small business procurement program, which will simplify procurement processes and introduce new digital tools. Ultimately, the test of this policy is whether federal spending creates economic activity here at home. In the spirit of the buy Canadian policy, the government continues to identify opportunities for Canadian suppliers to benefit from federal procurement policies, and ultimately support Canadian workers, businesses and communities. This includes attracting investments that deliver tangible and lasting benefits to Canadian communities and supply chains. This is all about driving growth, creating opportunities and enhancing prosperity for Canadians. In a more dangerous and volatile world, this has never been more important, particularly when it comes to protecting Canada’s sovereignty. We know that the world has changed and Canada must change with it. That is why Canada is also making generational investments to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces. These investments are guided by Canada’s first-ever defence industrial strategy, a whole-of-government approach to transform Canada’s defence industry. This strategy will prioritize Canadian suppliers and materials, invest in Canadian innovation and commercialization, and streamline defence procurement. It is supported by the new Defence Investment Agency. This is yet another tool with which we are delivering greater strategic autonomy and economic benefits for Canada. These efforts are already making a difference. Between December 2025 and October 1, 2026, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the government’s central purchaser, awarded a total of 1,644 new contracts worth about $23 billion. Of those contracts, 1,372, representing about $17.7 billion, were awarded to suppliers operating in Canada. That is the kind of progress we want to build on. With regard to today’s motion, the Canada Revenue Agency, following a fair and open procurement process, decided to award this contract to a company that operates extensively in Canada and employs Canadian security guards, supervisors and managers. This brings me to an important point about what we mean when we talk about Canadian suppliers. Being a Canadian supplier is not simply a question of who owns the shares of a company. We also need to look at where the economic activity takes place. Under the buy Canadian policy, the definition of a Canadian supplier is based on substantive economic activity in Canada. That includes having a place of business here, being registered and filing taxes here, and conducting ongoing activities and employing people in Canada to deliver goods and services. That distinction matters. A company can be part of a global enterprise and still employ thousands of Canadians. It can pay taxes here. It can operate facilities here. It can conduct research and development here. It can purchase from Canadian suppliers and invest in Canadian communities. Those jobs are Canadian jobs. Those investments are investments in Canada. That economic activity matters to Canada. That is why our approach looks not only at the name or nationality of a parent company, but also at the economic value being created right here in Canada. In fact, Canadian content under the policy can include salaries and services delivered in Canada; research, design and testing carried out here; Canadian software development and systems integration; and Canadian installation, maintenance and training. That approach also sends a powerful message to international companies. If they want to do business with the Government of Canada, they need to invest in Canada, build in Canada and create value in Canada. That is an important part of what buy Canadian is intended to achieve. Buy Canadian is not simply about where a company’s headquarters are located. It is about where the jobs are, where the investment is, where the innovation happens, where the supply chain is built and ultimately where the economic benefits land. We continue to work closely with businesses, suppliers and stakeholders to develop and refine procurement measures that support Canadian industry, strengthen supply chains and drive our country’s economic growth. Our government will always stand with Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. We will build the strongest economy in the G7. We will always support our veterans with job opportunities. I want to assure this House that we are fully committed to our buy Canadian policy, the substantial opportunities it is providing for Canadians and the powerful benefits it is providing to our country. We have shifted from an approach of “best effort” to a clear obligation to support Canadian industries, and we are transforming our economy while we do it. Through buy Canadian, we are supporting our industries today while keeping a clear focus on a sustainable future. That is our promise to Canadians, one that we are delivering on.”

• Echo ×16

  A repeated line

  “We are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.”

  Said 16 times by 7 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“I honor our veterans for their service and sacrifice. On Remembrance Day, my community ceremony will include prayer that welcomes everyone, and I expect the same across the country.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, as I answer the member’s question, to acknowledge the service of veterans and the sacrifice they have made on our behalf and for our country. Their contributions are lasting and recognized. I look forward, on November 11, to attending the local ceremony in my community, where we include prayer that is inclusive. I expect it will be the same as colleagues across this chamber visit and participate in ceremonies in their communities as well.”

“The tax agency followed a fair process when it gave out this contract. A Canadian supplier is not just about who owns the company. It is about whether the company is registered here, creates Canadian jobs, pays taxes, and helps our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Canada Revenue Agency followed a fair and open procurement process when awarding this contract, but it is an important point, as we drill down on the buy Canadian policy, to talk about what we mean when we say “Canadian supplier”. A supplier is not simply a question of who owns the shares of a company. We need to look at where the economic activity is taking place. That means having a business registered in Canada, creating jobs in this country, paying taxes and generating economic output. That is what we expect from Canadian suppliers, and that is what we will continue to uphold.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Being a Canadian supplier is not simply a question of who owns the shares of a company.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since November 2.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the member to share her thoughts on why it is important to remember the sacrifices of our soldiers on Remembrance Day.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s comments regarding the different ceremonies that take place across Canada. Sergeant Tommy Prince was a war hero. He was of indigenous background and was looked upon in a very wonderful way. Many of our veterans are buried in the Brookside Cemetery. We could go to the Legion or the Tommy Prince park. I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on how important it is, come November 11 at 11 a.m., that everyone take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made by our men and women in the forces.”

“We should all take time on November 11 to thank veterans and their families for their service and sacrifice. I will be at the Remembrance Day ceremony in Kanata to thank them.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important that each and every one of us takes the time on November 11 at 11 a.m., as the member stated, to ensure that we pause to celebrate and thank veterans, who have served our country with such distinct honour, and their families, who have made such big sacrifices in them doing so. I will be at the ceremony the Legion puts on in Kanata on that day, and I look forward to thanking the veterans who will be there for their service.”

“Our government is using its purchasing power to support Canadian businesses and hire veterans. Our buy Canadian policy prioritizes local suppliers, and we have awarded nearly $18 billion in contracts to Canadian businesses since last December. The recent CRA security contract was awarded fairly through a competitive contest, and the winning company still employs Canadian workers and veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today raises two very important questions. First, how does the government use its purchasing power to support Canadian businesses? Second, how do we recognize the contribution of veterans, including by providing them with employment opportunities after their military service? I agree that both of these questions deserve careful consideration. I will begin with something I think we can all agree on: When the Government of Canada spends taxpayers’ money, those investments should, to the greatest extent possible, help support Canadian businesses, workers and supply chains. The Government of Canada is a major purchaser. Its procurement decisions can make a real difference for Canadian companies that may wish to increase production, invest in new equipment, hire employees, expand their operations and contribute to our economic vitality. That is precisely the objective of our buy Canadian policy. In an unstable global economy, our businesses need certainty, and they need contracts such as those awarded by the Government of Canada. Our goal is for Canada to become its own best customer. The buy Canadian policy came into effect just before the holiday season last year, on December 16, and it marks a significant shift in the way we use public procurement to support our economy. In practical terms, what the buy Canadian policy does is prioritize Canadian suppliers and Canadian content in eligible federal government contracts. It includes requirements to promote the use of Canadian materials, including metal, steel, aluminum and wood, sectors that are currently on the front lines of a trade war with our neighbours. These materials will be used in major construction and defence projects, among others. These are priority areas for the Government of Canada and will see significant investments over the coming years and even decades. We also want to make these contracts much more accessible to small businesses. In June, we lowered the threshold for the buy Canadian policy from $25 million to $5 million, which opens the door to much smaller businesses, such as those found throughout regions like mine. Our policy does not just apply to very large companies. It also applies to small businesses that can bid on contracts worth $5 million. To help these businesses gain access to Canadian contracts, we launched the small business procurement program, which streamlines the process, tailors requirements and helps small and medium-sized enterprises navigate a federal system that, I admit, is not always the simplest. These changes are tangible. Between December of last year and October 1 of this year, Public Services and Procurement Canada awarded nearly $18 billion in contracts to Canadian suppliers. These contracts support jobs here at home, support investment, and support business production across Canada. A policy is not worth much if businesses do not know it exists or do not know how to take advantage of it. I would now like to talk about what we are doing in my riding of Compton—Stanstead to ensure that local businesses can access these contracts. As soon as we started discussing the buy Canadian policy, I invited the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement to my region. He delivered a presentation to business people. Roughly 75 stakeholders attended the presentation, during which his staff also explained the Canadian procurement process and how businesses, like the ones in my riding, can access it. Many organizations, economic development stakeholders and businesses have come to understand the policy changes, the opportunities these may present to their businesses, as well as how they, in turn, can become suppliers to the Government of Canada. In my view, this is essential. It is not enough simply to announce policies in Ottawa. They need to be promoted on the ground. That is how businesses can take advantage of them. My team and I support businesses that wish to better understand federal procurement opportunities, identify relevant opportunities and learn how to participate in the bidding process. We serve as a bridge between the government’s needs and the expertise that exists in my riding, which the government is not always aware of. We have manufacturing companies, we have many agri-food producers, technology firms, construction contractors and environmental specialists. They may not all provide the same products and services, but they all have something to contribute. When we talk about buying Canadian, we are talking about recognizing the expertise of local businesses. I am thinking in particular of the La Station de Compton cheese factory, which recently won four awards at the 2026 Sélection Caseus competition, including two of the highest honours: Caseus gold for its Alfred le Fermier Grand Cru, which was named the best cheese in Quebec, and the Caseus bronze for its Raclette de Compton au poivre. I must say I have a soft spot for the second one. It holds a special place in my heart. I will go out of my way to eat grilled cheese sandwiches at Compton’s cheese factory. That being said, when the Prime Minister came to town, I presented him with some Alfred le Fermier Grand Cru cheese. I will have to ask him what he thought about it. As I said, two of the best cheeses in Quebec are made in my riding. That, too, is what buying Canadian is about. It is about showcasing outstanding products and the expertise of the local artisans who put us on the map. The motion also raises the matter of the service contract awarded by the Canada Revenue Agency and where veterans fit in when it comes to employment opportunities. Let me be very clear: We recognize veterans’ contributions and the importance of offering them meaningful career prospects after their service ends. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires plays a very important role in helping us do that. It deserves recognition for its history and its contribution to employing veterans. We also need to consider how the contract was awarded. The CRA ran a competitive bidding process. Businesses were evaluated based on predetermined criteria. Technical merit counted for 60% of the score, price counted for 40%, and the contract was ultimately awarded to the bidder with the highest overall score. The successful supplier has significant operations in Canada and employs thousands of people across the country. According to information provided by the CRA, of the 60 employees covered by this contract, 33 are former security guards who have been rehired and 12 are veterans. This in no way diminishes the importance of supporting the Commissionaires and the veterans they employ, but it does serve as a reminder that we must also take into account the Canadian workers who continue to provide services. Since this motion relates to veterans, and with Remembrance Day approaching, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the contribution that service men and women from my region have made to the defence of our country. The Eastern Townships have a rich military history. In East Clifton stands what is considered to be the oldest cenotaph in Quebec, and possibly in all of Canada. It was erected in 1920 in honour of the soldiers of the First World War. During the Second World War, the municipality of Bury had one of the highest enlistment rates per capita in Canada. Even today, our four reserve units in Sherbrooke, namely the Sherbrooke Hussars, the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke, the 35 Signal Regiment and the 52 Field Ambulance, are recognized for their significant contributions to Canadian Armed Forces missions. I would therefore like to encourage people in our region to take part in the upcoming Remembrance Day ceremonies. There will be nearly 20 of them in my riding of Compton—Stanstead alone, in addition to many others throughout the Eastern Townships. It is important to pay tribute to those who fought in defence of our country. Ultimately, the issues raised by this motion remind us of the same responsibility: to recognize the contributions of the people who build our country and defend it.”

“The Commissionaires and the Royal Canadian Legion do important work for veterans and our communities. Many legion branches are turning 100 this year. I encourage everyone to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies in the coming weeks.”

“Mr. Speaker, we continue to recognize the contribution that an organization like the Commissionaires makes to veterans’ employment opportunities. We also recognize everything they do for the Royal Canadian Legion. On that note, I would point out that many legion branches are celebrating their 100th anniversary this year, making this a truly special occasion. I would like to highlight the various ceremonies that will be held across Canada, including the one at the Sherbrooke War Memorial, the angel on King Street hill that everyone knows. The legion is marking its centennial this year and continues to organize countless activities to honour the contribution of our military personnel. Legion branches play an exceptionally important role in our communities. That is yet another reason to take part in Remembrance Day ceremonies over the coming days and weeks.”

“Our government supports giving contracts to companies like IBM. They provide good, high-tech jobs that help communities near my riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is giving me the opportunity to talk about a number of contracts that are having an impact in my riding. I would like to talk about IBM, an American company that has been operating in Canada for nearly 110 years, including next door to my riding, in the riding of my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. It is one of the companies that receives many of the contracts awarded in the United States, but that have a major impact in Canada. Many people in Bromont work for that company. These are excellent jobs, and this is the type of business that the government wants to support because high-quality, high-tech jobs in our communities are extremely valuable.”

“The member should not give the false impression that our government does not support veterans. We spent about $150 million on computer systems to speed up disability benefits for them. I want the member to talk about how the government keeps supporting veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, much like myself, the member is a very strong advocate in recognizing the importance that the Corp of Commissionaires has played over the years. It is a very important role. However, it is not appropriate to attempt to mislead or give a false impression that the government does not support veterans. We do many different projects. One that I am very grateful for is that we are expediting disability benefits. Shortly after the last federal election, our new Prime Minister put into place about $150 million to speed that up through IT development. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on why the government, all of us, continues to recognize the importance of our veterans—”

“I urge companies to hire people who have served in the military. These people have skills and knowledge that can help businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, since I only have a few seconds left to answer that very comprehensive question from my colleague, who did a great job of explaining our objectives, I will say that people leaving the military have talents, knowledge and skills that are extremely important to employers. Many employers can benefit from the talent of employees who served in the military and who can continue to contribute to our society in a second career. I urge companies to hire people who have served in the military. They have skills that can really help all of our businesses.”