“I want the government to cancel a $12-million security contract given to an American-owned company and give it to a Canadian supplier instead. The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian first, but his government passed over the Commissionaires, a Canadian group that hires veterans, to save just $80,000.”

“moved: That, given that, (i) in response to the trade war launched against Canada by the Trump administration, the Prime Minister promised that “whenever the federal government spends, we will select Canadian suppliers by default,” and pledged to “ensure the federal government buys from Canadian suppliers”, (ii) when the Buy Canadian Policy took effect on December 16, 2025, the Prime Minister said Canada would become its own “best customer,” and the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement declared that the government was “putting Canadian workers and industries first”, (iii) in April 2026, the Prime Minister promised to build Canada strong with “Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber, Canadian workers”, (iv) in June 2026, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a security services contract worth nearly $12 million to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation, a subsidiary of the American multinational Allied Universal, (v) Allied Universal’s subsidiary G4S reportedly holds contracts worth US $83 million with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency carrying out the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda, and Allied Universal has reportedly received contracts worth more than US $290 million in 2026 alone from the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent department, (vi) the contract was awarded over a Canadian bidder that is a not-for-profit and the largest employer of veterans, whose offer differed by roughly $80,000, less than one per cent of the contract’s value which represents less than half of the $175,248.48 that, according to the government’s own response to an Order Paper question, was spent on in-flight catering for the Prime Minister and his delegation during a 10-day international trip to China, Qatar and Davos, Switzerland in January 2026, the House call on the government to respect veterans, follow its own Buy Canadian Policy, cancel the Canada Revenue Agency’s security contract with Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and award it to a Canadian supplier. He said: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Since the beginning of the trade war with the United States, the Prime Minister has made repeated statements encouraging Canadians to buy Canadian and support Canadian businesses. That is wonderful. We obviously have no objection to that. He even promised that the federal government would give preference to Canadian suppliers for its own contracts. However, in June, the Canada Revenue Agency, a federal entity, awarded a security services contract worth nearly $12 million to a subsidiary of an American multinational, at the expense of the Commissionaires, a not-for-profit Canadian organization, formerly known as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which is the largest employer of veterans in the country. I think it is a good time to talk about this because, as we know, it is Veterans’ Week. Members know that this is an important annual occasion, but it also ties directly into the matter before us today. We are talking about a $12-million contract, but the difference between the two bids was only about $80,000, or less than 1% of the contract’s value. That is a striking example of the contradiction between the Liberal government’s promises and its decisions. I will take a moment to explain what the Commissionaires are, for the benefit of Canadians who are following our proceedings and who might not know what I am talking about. This organization was founded over 100 years ago to provide employment opportunities for military members as they transition out of service. Even today, it helps veterans put their experience and skills to work for the benefit of Canadian society. I myself served in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 20 years and I am aware of the reality of the transition to civilian life. After a career in the military, military members often have to start over again, find a new job and get the skills they acquired within the Canadian Forces recognized. I can say that it is a challenge for military members because, often, civilians do not understand what these people did in their occupations, in their work with the Canadian Forces. Commissionaires play an important role in this transition. That is why I think it is particularly regrettable that an organization like that loses a federal contract under the present circumstances. I want to come back to the Prime Minister’s commitments. We have an expression in Quebec: se péter les bretelles. I do not know if my English-speaking colleagues use that phrase. Se péter les bretelles is when the Government of Canada says it is going to buy Canadian. The Prime Minister has even said that Canada will be its own best customer, while the Minister of Public Works and Procurement goes so far as to state that the government will give priority to Canadian industries and workers. As recently as last April, the Prime Minister promised to build Canada strong using Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers. Then, just a few weeks later, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a contract to Universal Protection Service, a subsidiary of the multinational company Allied Universal. Why do we even have a buy Canadian policy if the government is not going to support a Canadian organization that employs veterans? It always comes down to the same thing. It is not enough to simply make grand announcements. The public hates that aspect of politics. The government says it is going to be strong here at home, that Canada is going to be strong, that it is going to buy Canadian and hire Canadians, but then it turns around and gives contracts to Americans. Did someone not get the message? The government really needs to keep its promises when these kinds of announcements are made. There is another fundamental issue in the debate that concerns us today, namely the decision to choose a company to replace the Commissionaires. It is important to note that Allied Universal also owns a company called G4S, which, according to reports, has $83 million U.S. in contracts with the U.S. agency ICE, the notorious immigration agency responsible for carrying out the mass deportations ordered by the Trump administration. Allied Universal was awarded a contract worth more than $290 million U.S. from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2026 alone. Where is the consistency? We are not saying that an American-owned company cannot do business in Canada. What we are asking, however, is that the government abide by its own policy of employing Canadians first and foremost. That is where buy Canadian begins. We also need to put these numbers into perspective. Some may argue that it was cheaper, that it cost $80,000 less. Yes, but that amounts to less than 1% of the contract’s value. To make a comparison, according to information we obtained in response to an Order Paper question, catering services aboard the Prime Minister’s plane and for his delegation during a 10-day trip to China, Qatar and Davos last January cost $175,248.48. That was just for catering, for meals on the plane. That amount is twice the difference between the bid that favoured the American company and the bid submitted by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Granted, it is not the same kind of difference, but it is a matter of principle. The principle stands. Approximately $175,000 was spent on a 10-day trip. That is double the $80,000 difference. This was a contract that supported veterans, people who had left the Canadian Forces and who, thanks to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, were given a valuable opportunity to work in civilian life and put to use the knowledge and skills they had acquired in the field of security. The decision is incomprehensible. Remembrance Day will be observed in a few days’ time. People across the country will honour the men and women who have worn our nation’s uniform. Our respect for them is not limited to November 11. It calls for concrete actions. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires offers veterans exactly that: an opportunity to keep contributing to society. The federal government should keep that mission in mind when it makes its decisions. The motion therefore calls on the government to uphold its commitments to veterans, follow the buy Canadian policy, cancel the contract awarded to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and award it to a Canadian supplier. The Prime Minister promised that Canada would become its own best customer. These are not my words; they are his. Today, we are asking the government to move from words to action. The contract must be cancelled and the decision reversed.”

• 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 →

“The Liberals are bringing up past spending to distract from the real issue. The Prime Minister said we should buy Canadian first. Instead, the government is giving a contract to an American company when a Canadian non-profit could do the work. The government needs to answer for this.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals are once again trying to deflect by bringing up a matter concerning the security expenditures incurred by the then prime minister, Mr. Harper. The fundamental issue is what the Prime Minister himself said: buy Canadian first and foremost. In this case, however, a contract is being awarded to an American company, even though a not-for-profit corporation, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, can do the work. That is what they should be answering for, instead of trying to distract from the issue.”

“The Prime Minister says we should buy Canadian, but the government just gave a $12-million contract to an American company instead of a Canadian one. We need clear rules and strict oversight so government buying actually supports Canadian workers.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for her excellent question. This sort of ties in with industrial benefits. In defence procurement, for example, there is often a requirement that a certain percentage of the work be carried out by Canadian industry. We can all agree that $80,000 is roughly the average salary of a federal employee. It is not a large amount of money, but the decision itself is important. What does not sit right, what simply does not make sense, is awarding a $12-million contract to an American company instead of to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Generally speaking, when the Prime Minister says we must prioritize buying Canadian, the government’s procurement policies should reflect that commitment. Of course, abuses must be prevented. That is why clear rules and rigorous oversight are essential. So far, we have seen nothing but lip service.”

“The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian, but he broke that promise. Just before Remembrance Day, his government gave a contract to an American company instead of a Canadian non-profit run by veterans. I want to know why ministers cannot keep their own promises.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to answer a very simple question. What are the ministers good for? We have a Prime Minister who made a big promise. He said we were going to buy Canadian. That was the big promise. He said we were going to be our own best customer, yet now we see that, on such an important issue, at a time as important as the month of November, just a few days before Remembrance Day, the Prime Minister is not keeping his word and is awarding a contract to an American company rather than to a non-profit organization made up of veterans. What kind of message are the ministers sending to Canadians when they cannot even keep and uphold the Prime Minister’s promises?”

“The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian goods and stand up to the Americans. Instead, the government is doing the opposite. Ministers have done nothing to change the purchasing rules to match that promise.”

“Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Indeed, what message does that send? It sends a highly negative message when a Prime Minister solemnly declares that we are going to fight the Americans, fight Donald Trump and buy Canadian, only for the government to do the exact opposite of what he said. My colleague is right to wonder what the ministers are doing. What has the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement done to change the rules and bring them in line with the Prime Minister’s direction? In fact, absolutely nothing has been done. Again, all we get are words, words and more words. In fact, the reality is completely at odds with what the Prime Minister has called for.”

“I want the House to vote for this motion. The government took a 12-million-dollar security contract away from Canadian veterans and gave it to an American company to save less than one percent. The Prime Minister promises to buy Canadian and stand up to the United States, but he does the opposite and has failed to end American tariffs on our goods. We must use our energy, minerals, and military to get a fair trade deal and put Canada first.”

“Madam Speaker, we are here today to put Canada first, as a remarkable group of Canadians did in 1925, almost 100 years ago exactly, when they came together to form the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, an organization that hired First World War veterans to do what they have always done best: protect their fellow Canadians. A century later, the Commissionaires is still the largest non-governmental employer of veterans anywhere in Canada. It protects our public servants, and for years, it protected the offices of the Canada Revenue Agency. By every account, the agency was happy and satisfied with its exceptional work. Then on June 16 of this year, under the Prime Minister, the CRA handed the nearly $12-million contract to Universal Protection Service, a subsidiary of Allied Universal, an American security giant with ties to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation program, otherwise known as ICE. How much did Canadians save by elbowing out of this contract our veterans and giving it to the American parent company? It was a measly $80,000, less than 1% of the contract value. Obviously, when we take into account the taxes the commissionaires would have paid on their salaries back to the Canadian government, that amount is probably eliminated altogether. This is not a one-year deal. It runs for two years and can be extended five more after that, for a total of seven. That is seven years that our veterans could be shut out of this important work. The head of the Commissionaires for the Great Lakes said that he had never seen a contract this size change hands on such a slender difference when the client was happy with the work of the Commissionaires. Here is the part that should make every member of the House stop and think. The government’s own tender said, “This solicitation is open only to Canadian suppliers.” If it was only open to Canadian suppliers, how is it that an American-owned subsidiary got the deal? The answer is that the government’s so-called buy Canadian rules allow any foreign company to simply open a Canadian address in order to compete for Canadian-based work. As long as someone has a post office box, they can be from anywhere in the world and get a job paid for by Canadian tax dollars. The commissionaires themselves were shocked. One said, “Any foreign company can set up an office in Canada” and, in the words of this commissionaire, “poof”, the entire contracting rule goes up in smoke. To use another metaphor, it is maple-washing when an American giant with a Canadian mailing address counts the same as a 100-year-old charity, the largest employer in the country of Canadian veterans. Do members remember when the Prime Minister said only a few months ago that Canada is “at war” with the United States? Now he is hiring them to protect our tax office. That is not exactly the thing to do. This is not an accident. The contradictions are a pattern. On the U.S.-Canada file, the Prime Minister says one thing and does exactly the opposite. It is all an illusion for his political benefit. He is all talk and no results. He is out of touch while Canadians, in particular Canadian veterans, are out of money. Let us go through the list of these contradictions. He promised a buy Canadian policy, and then he increased the amount spent on American firms by 55%, to a total of $7.8 billion, of which the betrayal of the Commissionaires is just one example. In January, he told the world that we are in a “rupture, not a transition” with the U.S. Then he went on to say that our ties with the Americans had become our biggest weakness. Days later, he said that Canada and the U.S. would be “stronger together”. He warned against a world of fortresses in his Davos speech. Then he gave another speech where he said that he was in favour of something called “Fortress North America”. He said that “integration” had become “subordination”. Then he wanted more integration to, in his words, “make America great again”. In the election, he promised that if the Americans put tariffs on us, he would respond with dollar-for-dollar tariffs. He said that Canadians were in no mood for any concessions. Two months later, he admitted that his government had already moved off of dollar-for-dollar tariffs, and then quietly, he dropped reciprocal tariffs altogether. His energy minister said that energy was the best leverage we had in our negotiations for a deal. A week later, the Prime Minister said that resources were not leverage at all. At the summer 2025 G7 conference, he promised a deal within the coming 30 days. He missed that deadline, and almost a year and a half later, there is still no deal and there are still no wins. On the Gordie Howe bridge, the Prime Minister said he had secured a deal to ensure that no tariff revenues would go to the United States until all of Canada’s debt to build the bridge was repaid. After all, we had built the entire thing with our money. Then it came out that in fact the Americans were getting half of the net tolls from day one, not waiting until we paid off the enormous debts we incurred to build the bridge. Last week, the Prime Minister said that he was willing to wait until there was a new president before we get a deal. To be clear, that means two and a half more years of American tariffs killing Canadian jobs. How out of touch was that? However, worry not, because less than 72 hours later, he put out a tweet saying that he had called the president and restarted formal talks for a mutually beneficial trade deal in the coming weeks. We hope he is serious this time. We hope this is for real, but forgive us if we hesitate to pop the champagne until we see the actual results. It is an incredible reversal to say in the span of three days that he is willing to wait two and a half years without a deal and then say that he is kicking off negotiations to complete talks in the next several weeks. The Prime Minister has a phrase for this. He calls it “the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.” He was right about this phrase. He just did not realize that he was describing himself, because after all the speeches, all the slogans and all the deadlines, where are the results he promised? His single biggest promise in the last election was that he would deliver a great deal with the U.S, he would handle Donald Trump and he would negotiate a win. There is still no deal, still no tariff relief and still no results. Our economy has flatlined, 110,000 jobs have been lost in two months, there is a 9% increase in food bank demand, homebuilding is down rather than doubled, as the Prime Minister promised, and Canadian veterans have been pushed aside so an American company could guard our tax office. The Prime Minister will do anything to keep us distracted from his costly failures here at home. That is not leadership. It is political theatre. We do not need more grandstanding over the next month and a half from the Prime Minister. We need him to actually get the deal he promised. We as Conservatives have laid out a clear plan on how to get that deal. It starts with using the leverage we have. We have the things that Americans need. We have 10 of the 12 NATO-defined defence minerals right beneath our feet. Let us unlock their production and put them in strategic storage facilities, along with a new above-ground oil reserve that we can provide tariff-free to allies on a right-of-first-refusal basis to incentivize them to remove their tariffs. Let us align with our key trading partner to combat China’s abuse of our country. Let us use our massive military buildup and our willingness to take on more responsibility protecting our share of the continent as further leverage to get the tariff-free deal that we want. None of this should stop us from solving the problems we have here at home. Our youth need jobs and homes. Our families need affordable food. Our economy needs homegrown growth. Criminals need to go to jail. Drugs need to come off our street. Government spending must fall, and we must ultimately deliver for the people. All of these things are in our hands. The Prime Minister likes to say that we want to be masters of our own destiny. We could not agree more, but we cannot be a master of our own destiny if we are constantly making excuses about what we cannot achieve. There is no tweet from the U.S. president that can stop us from fixing our problems here at home. Let us save Canadians money, save their jobs, keep them safe, fix broken immigration and, most of all, put Canada first. Putting Canada first means putting our veterans first and voting for this motion.”

“The Prime Minister got no results at his European summit. No European countries approved our trade deal, none agreed to buy our beef and pork, and none promised to drop their planned carbon tax on Canadian goods. Conservatives support trade and NATO, but we will not pay taxes to Europe, follow their laws, or take their migration rules. We will put Canada first.”

“Madam Speaker, we could not agree more, and that is why we are so disappointed that the Prime Minister got absolutely zero results at his grand summit last week. Zero European countries signed on to ratify the free trade agreement we already have with the EU. Zero of them opened trade to Canadian beef and pork, and there was not one commitment to cancel the planned carbon tariff that that continent is threatening to impose on the already besieged Canadian industry. Instead, we have a Prime Minister negotiating that in secret, potentially putting our sovereignty at risk. Our message on that is clear. Yes, we want to trade with Europe, and yes, we want to honour our NATO commitment, but we will never support Canadians paying taxes to the EU, following EU laws or accepting EU-style migration. We have our problems to fix here at home, and Conservatives will put Canada first to fix them.”

“We do not want subsidies or bailouts for oil companies or any other industry. The oil industry already makes a lot of money on its own. The government should just cut taxes, get rid of bad rules, and let businesses build and invest.”

“Madam Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to say this. We are not proposing subsidies for oil companies. That has never been our position, because the oil industry is extremely profitable on its own. The government just needs to cut red tape and federal taxes so that private investors, private sector workers and private companies can build projects and develop our resources. I am going to say exactly the same thing in English that I said in French, because I want to make it clear that we do not say one thing in one language and the opposite in the other. We do not think there need to be bailouts, handouts and carve-outs for any industry, including the oil and gas industry. Instead, we believe in getting the government out of the way and off the backs of all industries. Oil and gas is wildly profitable on its own. The government just needs to get out of the way, repeal the antidevelopment laws and taxes, and let builders build, investors invest and workers work.”

“The government gave a $12-million security contract to an American company instead of the Commissionaires, who employ Canadian veterans. The Liberals took away the veterans' first-choice right for these contracts and will not say why. I want to know if the Leader of the Opposition is as upset about this as I am.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to remind all Canadians that the reason the CRA was able to issue this $12-million contract to a U.S. company is that the Liberal government removed the right of first refusal to the Commissionaires for security contracts, which had been in place since 1945. When I asked the Liberals, in this chamber, why they did it, they refused to answer the question. Considering the Commissionaires is the largest not-for-profit employer of Canadian veterans in Canada, is the Leader of the Opposition as frustrated as I am with this affront to our Canadian veterans?”

“The government should give security contracts to the Commissionaires first. That group is the largest employer of Canadian veterans. It is wrong that the government gave this work to a big foreign company instead.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, speaking of Canadian veterans, we should take a moment to thank the hon. member for his distinguished service to the Canadian Armed Forces. Yes, I do share his frustration. There is a reason many, if not all, of the government departments have had a right of first refusal arrangement with the Commissionaires, and that was so they could focus on protecting our buildings and public servants rather than on fighting back lobbyists for large multinational corporations that are trying to steal the work. We wanted the commissionaires to have job security, and that was the reason for the right of first refusal. The fact that the government has not honoured that in this particular case is really a disgrace. If there is one case where putting Canada first was most necessary, it is for the single largest employer of Canadian veterans.”

“The government gave a security contract to a company instead of the Commissionaires. That only happened because the government ended an old rule that gave the Commissionaires first choice. The government will not explain why. The other company employs about 12 veterans, while the Commissionaires employs over 4,000. I want the member to explain why the rule changed and which company helps veterans more.”

“Madam Speaker, my question to the member, and he seems to be fairly informed, has two parts. First, the only reason CRA was able to issue this contract to a company other than Commissionaires was that Veterans Affairs removed the right of first refusal to Commissionaires, a policy that has been in place since 1945. The government refused to answer a question about that when I asked during question period. Maybe the member now knows why. Second, I just want to clarify that, during his statement, the member said, I believe, that Allied Universal has maybe 12 Canadian veterans currently employed by the company. I point out that Commissionaires has over 4,000 Canadian veterans. Which one does he think would actually provide more employment opportunity, especially for older Canadian veterans?”

“I agree that younger veterans can do any job in Canada. But I want to know why the government took away the Commissionaires' first choice on guarding contracts. That rule has protected jobs for over 4,000 older veterans since 1945. We can help veterans find jobs in other fields while still protecting this one.”

“Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I agree with 95% of the member’s speech. I fully endorse that our younger veterans, whose average age is 35, are capable of filling any job that Canadian industry and the Canadian job market have to offer. From social workers to public affairs officers to electrical technicians, they can do it all. However, the question I asked the member last week was why Veterans Affairs removed the right of first refusal from the Commissionaires, a policy that has been in place since 1945. The older veteran commissionaires, on average, are in their late forties to early fifties. These are people who are just looking for work. They are already working for the Commissionaires, over 4,000 of them. Why did the government remove the right of first refusal from the Commissionaires? They are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. We can be encouraging our veterans to work everywhere and helping to set up the right conditions, but at the same time, we should be supporting the Commissionaires, the largest non-profit employer of Canadian veterans.”

“Our committee is studying jobs for veterans, but the government is cutting 3,000 veteran jobs. A witness pointed out that we have already done this study before. What does the member think about that?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her hard work on the veterans affairs committee, which we both sit on. She was very flexible and was able to sub in as the chair recently due to an emergency and some challenging times. The subject the committee is studying right now is veterans and employment. Does the member not find it absolutely ludicrous that at the time the committee is doing this study, which the Liberals brought forward, the Liberal government is going to be unemploying 3,000 veterans? Also, there was a witness who said out of frustration that this is not the first time we have studied this, and we are doing it again. What are her thoughts on that?”

“We brought this motion forward because we believe in putting veterans first. They gave their lives so we could have our freedoms. I want to hear what the member thinks about that principle.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, someone I spent some time with at the veterans affairs committee. She is surely missed, but she has been well replaced. My colleague from across the aisle asked a question about principle. It was a very good question to ask. The principle of this is why we brought this motion forward as an opposition day motion. It is the principle of putting veterans first, those who have sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we have and for us to be able to speak freely in this House. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the principle of this opposition motion.”

“I want the House to pass this motion. The government should hire Canadian companies and help veterans find jobs. The tax agency gave a 12 million dollar security contract to an American company instead of a Canadian group that hires thousands of veterans, even though the bids were almost the same. The government should reverse that decision and buy Canadian.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this important motion. I note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, who is a veteran. Like other veterans in the House, I want to thank him for his service. I want to take this opportunity to remind and encourage Canadians to wear a poppy. It is a very small but really important gesture that we can take as we lead up to Remembrance Day. October 24 is now designated as the date we are going to start wearing our poppies every year. The Royal Canadian Legion has set it, so it should be easier for us to remember than the time change. It is so important that we engage in the act of remembrance. In fact, it is an obligation we have, one that I know all members of the House take very seriously. When we find areas of common agreement, we should really lean into those and take them as an instruction on how we should carry things all the way forward. That leads to the subject of the motion we are considering today. It has two broader contexts that I want to address. I have spoken to the importance of remembrance, the duty we have to the men and women who have done their duty for us, for Canadians. They have afforded us the privilege of living in a democracy and a free and fair country, and in a place where when we have elections, power is changed without a shot being fired. This is done on the backs of the men and women who have put on the uniform to defend our basic freedoms. This is the first thing. Once they are done with their service to us and once they have taken the uniform off for the last time, what do we owe to them? I would say the dignity that comes from employment is one area where we can fulfill our obligation to our veterans. Another is that we deliver on making sure we help them get well from any injuries or illnesses that arise from their service. This is not something we do a great job of in this country. It is something we need to do better on, and I am committed to that work, along with my colleagues. Employment is something we can work on. As legislators, it is something we can do in this place. How can we create opportunities for veteran employment? The second thing I want to talk about is the current time we are in. We are in the midst of a trade war with our neighbours to the south, and it has come as a result of President Trump, frankly, starting a trade war with us while we had a trade deal with the U.S. In the face of that, the Liberal government has said that we need to buy Canadian. I agree. I agree that we need to prioritize buying Canadian now more than ever. We should be making sure that Canadian firms are fulfilling federal contracts. Should we do both things at the same time? Should we be making sure that we create employment opportunities for our veterans at the same time that we are buying Canadian? I would say yes. I think that is a pretty natural fit. We have the case of the security contract of $12 million for the CRA. The contract was awarded to a subsidiary of an American company that is affiliated with and linked to Trump, to the U.S. president. The company is carrying out work for the Trump administration and for ICE. ICE is in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. We do not necessarily need to get deeply into that issue. We generally get it, and I do not think we want it. I do not think we want to import that here. The CRA had the opportunity to award this contract to the firm in question, the Trump-linked company, or to a Canadian not-for-profit, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. It is the largest non-governmental employer of veterans in Canada. It employs more than 4,000 veterans. How do I know that it is the largest employer of veterans? I checked and the Canadian War Museum provides that figure for us. The difference in the bids for these two companies, the American firm and the Canadian not-for-profit firm, was less than 1%. I am talking about $80,000. What are our obligations here? Are we buying Canadian? Are we creating employment opportunities for veterans? When we first pointed this out to the government, I expected its response would have been muted, but it would have done the right thing. I was frankly quite surprised that it doubled down on it. What we want to do with this motion is give the government the opportunity to get it right. I think the timing is really important. We want to signal to veterans and to their families that we are going to prioritize employment opportunities for Canadian veterans. We need to look at the timing of this in the face of this ongoing trade dispute with the U.S. We should be sending a message to Canadian businesses that we are going to prioritize government contracts to Canadian firms. The government has the opportunity to do what I would say is the right thing. I think we would agree that it is the right thing to do. That is what we are asking for today. We are asking for the government to reverse the decision to award this contract to a firm that has questionable ties and instead award it to a Canadian company. Does that need to be the Commissionaires? I have spoken to its bona fides as an employer of Canadian veterans, but I think the first principle we should be applying here is buying Canadian, and then we need to be giving consideration to the employment opportunities that we are creating for veterans. Let us commit ourselves to that. Let us recommit ourselves to the opportunities that we are creating for Canadian veterans. I am not asking what is the most we can do, but as a country and as legislators, when we are setting the direction and the priorities for the federal government, I do think that this is probably the least we can do. The least we can do is buy Canadian in the face of this trade dispute. I think that creating these employment opportunities for veterans is the least we can do for the men and women who have served our country with unlimited liability. With that, I want to take one more opportunity to encourage Canadians to engage in an act of remembrance, to attend a cenotaph service in their community or to thank a veteran. They do not need to want to be thanked for someone to thank them. I encourage Canadians to wear a poppy, and to keep in their thoughts the families and the brothers and sisters in arms of those who were killed and injured in the tragic events in Wainwright of late. If someone is a person of faith, I encourage them to say a prayer for them. I encourage Canadians to reflect on the fact that we do live in the greatest country in the world, and we owe so much of that to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans.”

“Past governments and this current government have all failed our veterans. The government has some good news for veterans, but wait times are still too long, and it fails to meet its own service standards. I want all of us to commit to doing better for veterans today.”

“Madam Speaker, as a legislator today, who has committed himself to serving veterans and to serving all Canadians, I can tell members that what I am hearing from veterans is that they are not interested in focusing exclusively on the rearview mirror. If we want to compare outrages on where the government has fallen down over the last 11 years, I think it is a damning indictment of the government and our service to veterans. If we want to compare the government before that, I think it is a damning indictment of how this place has served our veterans, and the government before that as well. I think that we can commit ourselves today to doing better for veterans. That is what I am asking for. Is there some good news for veterans that the government has announced? Sure, there is. Is there more to do? Do we need to get wait times down? Do we need the government to meet even just its own service delivery standards, which are far too long? Absolutely, we do. Let us commit collectively to doing better today.”

“I want the government to change its mind and give this contract to a Canadian company. The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian and support our troops. He should keep his word.”

“Madam Speaker, we can see quite plainly that this decision does not align with what are plainly Canadian values. It is not aligned with what Canadians expressed in the last election. Most importantly, I think the motion and the discussion today measure the Prime Minister’s words against his actions. We want him to make good on what Canadians expect him to do. They expect him to do it because he said he was going to. We want the government to buy Canadian. We want it to honour our veterans. I think that this choice, frankly, is diametrically opposed to what Canadians want. It is antithetical to what the government says it believes and what it will do. We want to create opportunity for Canadian firms, but we also need to send a message. What are Canadian values? What do we believe? Who are we going to stand up for? If we are not standing up for Canadian businesses and if we are not standing up for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, what are we doing here? There is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing. The Liberals can reverse the decision and award this contract to a Canadian firm because it is the right thing to do and it is what they said they were going to do.”

“I support this motion. For 80 years, Canada gave guard jobs at federal buildings to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which employs thousands of veterans. The government ended that policy without talking to them, and it gave a tax agency security contract to an American company instead of Canadian veterans just to save $80,000. I want the government to support Canadian veterans, follow its own policy to buy Canadian, and reverse that security contract decision.”

“Madam Speaker, from my perspective, to start off, I would like to acknowledge the generational remembrance that we have. Not too many people can see this, but in the gallery we have some young girls who are wearing poppies right now and they are sitting with their family of many generations. That is heartwarming. I will not name them because I do not know them, but I just want to thank them for wearing a poppy and for supporting our troops, and that is what we are here to talk about. I am proud to rise in support of this motion. In a few days, we will gather at cenotaphs in every town in this country. In Moose Jaw, in Lanigan, in Watrous and in Outlook, people will stand in the cold to keep two minutes of silence. Remembrance is about a promise. We promise those who serve that we will not forget them and that we will keep faith with them. In 1945, Canada made a simple commitment. When Ottawa needed its buildings guarded, it would call the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires first, because the corps hired the people who came home. That policy was created under Mackenzie King and kept by 12 prime ministers after him, Liberals and Conservatives alike. A Conservative government reaffirmed the policy in 2006 and widened it to include RCMP members. It took this Prime Minister to end it. This year, the Liberals ended the policy with a letter, but with no real explanation, no meaningful consultation and no replacement. We are talking about roughly $350 million a year and about 8,000 guards at federal sites. More than 3,000 of them are veterans. The government’s own briefing notes said it was engaging with stakeholders. The Commissionaires say they were never consulted. They have had to go to Federal Court just to be heard. The government says veterans are not working enough of the hours, but the government sets the wages on those contracts and the Commissionaires say that they have drifted toward minimum wage. The government sets the wages, then blames the court. If the target is broken, they should fix the target. The Commissionaires’ court filing says a former deputy minister proposed exactly that. Instead, the government scrapped the program and kept the excuse. This year, the government is breaking that promise. It is ending an 80-year commitment to give veterans a job when they come home, and it is handing their work to a lower bidder, even when its buy Canadian policy says otherwise. Then came the Canada Revenue Agency contract. When the Trump administration launched its trade war, the Prime Minister promised that whenever Ottawa spends, it would select Canadian suppliers by default. In April, he promised to build Canada strong with Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers. Then in June, with the CRA security contract, nearly $12 million went to the Canadian subsidiary of an American multinational over a Canadian not-for-profit that is the country’s largest employer of veterans. The difference between bids was $80,000, less than 1%. To put that in perspective, according to the government’s own answer to an Order Paper question, the Prime Minister’s delegation spent $175,000 on in-flight catering during one 10-day trip to China, Qatar and Davos this January. The gap in the cost to veterans is less than half of that. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Fraser Tolmie: I know where you’re going with that. I will deal with it later. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): I am not going anywhere. Fraser Tolmie: Madam Speaker, this is not about one company. The question is what the government asked for, and keeping veterans on was not part of it. The government says that 12 veterans kept their jobs under this contract. Twelve is a number they found after the fact. Nothing in that contract required a single veteran to be hired. Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber, Canadian workers; apparently not Canadian veterans. A slogan is not a policy. Every time we have asked about this contract, the government has given the same answer. The Secretary of State told the House, “Politicians are not involved in these decisions.” It is hands off. However, this fall, the House has been debating Bill C-40, the government’s new defence procurement agency. Under that bill, the minister would be able to direct the agency’s procurement, and it would have to comply, as an associate minister would get direction over a $1-billion fund that can lend money and buy shares. The bill would give the government 17 ways to skip open competition. When it is $1-billion defence contracts, the government wants both hands on the wheel. When it is veterans’ jobs and its own buy Canadian policy, suddenly it is hands off. That tells us where its priorities are. Bill C-40 would rewrite how Canada buys for its military, and it does not contain a single target for veteran-owned businesses nor one credit for companies that hire veterans. The United States sets goals for veteran-owned businesses in federal funding contracting. The Canadian government already knows how to set procurement targets when it wants to. Veterans do not get one. In one year, the government ended the right of first refusal, let veterans lose the CRA contract over $80,000 and wrote a defence procurement with no place for veterans. That is not an accident. It is a pattern. I have sat on the veterans affairs committee since 2021. In that time, we have come back to debate veterans’ work transition over and again. Every one of those studies lands in the same place: Meaningful work after service is one of the biggest factors in veterans’ well-being. Therefore, what I cannot square is that at this very moment, our committee is studying how to get veterans into good jobs, but the government is ending the one federal procurement policy built to do exactly that, and there is no plan to replace it. Nothing says how many veterans would be hired, or where, or how anyone would know. When I was the mayor of Moose Jaw, we had a rule: If we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it. The government is scrapping the one veterans jobs program it could actually measure and is replacing it with nothing. Conservatives believe that a promise to a veteran is a promise we keep. The motion before us asks the government to do three simple things: First, respect veterans; second, follow its own buy Canadian policy; and third, have the Prime Minister reverse the CRA security contract. None of this is complicated. It is a question of whether the government means what it says. In a few days, at the cenotaph in Moose Jaw, the last post will sound, and we will fall silent. We will remember the people who kept the promise they made to this country. The least we can do is keep ours to them: a job when they come home and a government that means what it says. We want to thank the veterans of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan who are serving at 15 Wing and at Dundurn, those across our country and those who serve alongside them, as well as their families. Veterans kept their promise to Canada. Conservatives will make sure Canada keeps its promise to them. I would like to recognize a lot of people within our community and in Parliament who are veterans. I would like to thank my colleague who is the critic for Veterans Affairs for his service, and a few other fellow members. This means a lot to us. That is why we brought the motion forward. It means a lot to Canadians. We are pleading with the Prime Minister to make the decision to change his mind on this and recognize that it is okay to humble himself and say that he was wrong.”

“The government is cancelling a contract to support a company that helps Donald Trump's detention program. That is distasteful, and Canadians expect better.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from across the aisle. I know he served in the military, and I respect his time in service. It is obviously something he is very passionate about and understands. The fact that the government is cancelling this contract to support a company that is supporting Trump’s ICE detention program is distasteful. Canadians want better and expect better from their government.”

“The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian and support Canadians. Yet the government gave a security contract to an American company instead of a Canadian one that hires veterans. I want the member to explain why they chose the American company.”

“Madam Speaker, I think most Canadians have heard the debate today and they go back to the Prime Minister’s having made promises about buying Canadian and supporting Canadians. That is why most of us find it very strange that the CRA did not give a security contract to a top patriotic organization, arguably the most patriotic organization, in Canada, the Commissionaires, but to what Newsweek called a top patriotic company in the U.S. I will ask the member whether he thinks it is appropriate to give the contract to the most patriotic Canadian company, or to the most patriotic American company.”