“An eighty thousand dollar contract should not have gone to a foreign company. But buying Canadian is not always the cheapest option. I want my colleague to explain how the rules should balance that, and what the targets for buying Canadian actually mean.”

“Madam Speaker, it seems obvious to me that, for $80,000, the contract should not have been awarded to a foreign company. That said, I would like to ask my colleague some questions about the flexibility needed to justify keeping a contract in Canada, even when doing so is not the most competitive option from a strictly economic standpoint. Has my colleague given any thought to that aspect of the issue? As members know, there is a buy Canadian policy, but even that is rather vague in terms of what it actually entails. For example, when we talk about 70% of contracts, are we talking about the number of contracts or the value of those contracts? I would appreciate some clarification from my colleague on that point.”

“We should keep Canadian tax dollars from going to the United States. The Conservatives say they want this, but they also want public money to fund oil and gas pipelines. Most oil and gas companies are foreign-owned, and 60% are American-owned. I want them to admit this is a contradiction.”

“Madam Speaker, today’s debate is primarily about Canada’s sovereignty and the need to ensure that Canadian taxpayers’ money is not sent to the United States. s there not a contradiction in the Conservatives’ position, given that one of their priorities is to support the oil and gas industry, including by building pipelines using public funds, in other words taxpayers’ money, when not only are 80% of the companies in the oil and gas sector foreign-owned, but 60% of them are American-owned?”

“The Commissionaires organization is about to lose its special right to bid first on federal security guard jobs. This hurts veterans who need work after leaving the military. I want to know if the government thinks it makes sense to let this right expire on March 31.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech. I have the privilege of serving alongside her on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Let us be honest. Everyone in this House knows that the right of first refusal currently held by the Commissionaires organization—formerly known as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which has existed since 1945 and just celebrated its 80th anniversary—will expire on March 31. Consequently, as of April 1, that right will no longer be on any government tender documents for security guard services anywhere in the government. It seems to me that this runs counter to the discussions we have had at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where we have been exploring ways to help veterans transition successfully into the labour market following their military careers. My question is quite simple: Does the parliamentary secretary believe it makes sense to allow the right of first refusal to expire on March 31?”

“I want the government to keep giving federal security contracts to the Commissionaires, or require companies to hire veterans. For 80 years, this gave veterans jobs after their military service. Now the government is ending that rule, and thousands of veterans could lose their jobs or take pay cuts. The government has the power to order agencies to protect veteran jobs, and it should.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the lovely member for Laurentides—Labelle. What a pleasure it is for me to rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic for veterans affairs on this opposition day, when we are questioning certain government decisions regarding support provided to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. First, let us remember that Remembrance Day is just a week away, and MPs from Quebec and Canada will be invited to participate in remembrance ceremonies by their local Royal Canadian Legion branches. In my riding, the ceremony hosted by the Valleyfield branch in Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield will take place on Saturday, as will the ceremony in Beauharnois. The ceremonies in Huntingdon and Ormstown will take place on Friday. It is important for us, as MPs, to attend, but it is just as important to encourage our constituents to take part in these remembrance ceremonies. This is an opportunity to recognize the sacrifices of those who went to war, sometimes at the cost of their lives, their health or their family life. I encourage everyone to attend the ceremonies in their community and meet with veterans. I will be very pleased to attend, and I will take the time to listen to the veterans, because they have a lot to share with us. The motion before us today is rather long and deals with several subjects, so I chose to focus my remarks on certain issues and on the Liberal government’s choice to turn its back on veterans. I was listening to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who argued that veterans are younger, that there is no question of sidelining them, that we need to modernize, that we have to accept this, that many jobs will be available, and that this justifies the right of refusal. I want her to know that these things are not mutually exclusive. Currently, nearly 3,000 veterans work as security guards for the Commissionaires. They are worried right now. These veterans are used to holding a position that could disappear as of April 1. This could in fact be the case if the government’s public tender and specifications do not specify that the Commissionaires have the first right of refusal. This refers to an arrangement where preference is given to companies that commit to hiring veterans for the positions. This agreement has been in place for 80 years. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has been around since 1925. It was created specifically to support veterans, help them transition to civilian life and, above all, find employment. As we know, at the end of one’s military career, continuing to be useful and contributing to the development of one’s community is important for self-esteem and for what comes next. Now the Commissionaires are being deliberately abandoned. Frankly, I think I am choosing my words carefully, but I cannot put it any other way. The Commissionaires are being told that it is over. Now the government is awarding security contracts, at the lowest possible cost, to whichever company meets the criteria set out by Procurement Canada, and removing the right of refusal. It is important to remember that this arrangement has been in place for 80 years, as I said, and has never really been a problem. I do not know why the government wants to get rid of it, because there is really no gain for veterans. Alternatively, if we keep it, there is really no loss for the government either. The government keeps saying that veterans are important. A massive recruitment campaign is under way at the Department of National Defence to meet military targets. That means that a growing number of veterans will be reaching the end of their military careers and arriving at Veterans Affairs Canada. I fail to understand the logic of that, apart from saving on a few costs here and there. It is almost as if some public servant crunching numbers somewhere was told to modernize all that, because it mattered more. Veterans, especially the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, have taken that as a clear and unequivocal sign that veterans are no longer part of the current government’s plans. A lot of people are no longer part of the current government’s plans. The environment might not be either, or Quebec SMEs. Now, it is our veterans’ turn to be told that they are no longer part of the plans. As we know, however, the oil companies are part of the government’s plans. There are data centres all over Alberta. They are part of the government’s plans too, but continuing to support the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is not. I have a great deal of respect for the parliamentary secretary, but I hear her saying that this is not a particularly serious problem and that the government actually wants bigger things for veterans. It wants them to be more than security guards. It wants them to get more important jobs, value-added jobs. I would simply reply that these things are not mutually exclusive. When I hear the Minister of Finance and National Revenue talk about the loss of the Commissionaires’ contract over a difference of $80,000, as stated in the motion, I am offended. What offended me during this debate in the House was hearing people say that only about 60 employees will be impacted, about half of whom are veterans, and that those who wish to be rehired by the new company that was awarded the contract will have to accept a 14% pay cut. This is serious. The minister argued that this is an agency, that he cannot become involved in its decision-making and that he cannot intervene. He says it is an independent agency that made its own choices. It was the agency that decided not to include the Commissionaires’ right of first refusal in its call for tenders. The Liberal government had no qualms about ordering the CRTC to reconsider its decision to tax the digital giants. It intervened politically because the CRTC had reached a different conclusion than the one the government wanted. Now the Canada Revenue Agency has awarded a contract to a privately owned U.S. company, which does have Canadian subsidiaries, but which has made no commitment to keeping veterans on under the same employment conditions. That response is not only hard to understand; it is totally unacceptable. If the government were truly committed to our veterans, it would have instructed the Canada Revenue Agency and all government agencies to include a requirement to hire a certain percentage of veterans in their calls for tenders. That is what we call political direction. No such direction was given. That is not surprising, given that the government has chosen to eliminate the right of first refusal altogether. This is a serious concern, and it is one of the issues we are highlighting today, seeing as most Quebeckers and Canadians are unaware of it. Another thing that concerns me is that the government is just pumping out new agencies: agencies to handle cybersecurity, one to handle crime and money laundering, and yet another to deal with military procurement. What it all boils down to is that these agencies are all independent and the government is washing its hands of responsibility. When things go wrong, it will be the agencies’ fault. There is no political accountability. That is what is worrisome today. We are seeing this with our veterans. The CRA’s decision to drop the Commissionaires has led to a loss of jobs for our veterans.”

“The tax agency took away the Commissionaires' right of first refusal for security jobs. This will cost veterans 12 full-time jobs, and the ones who stay will make two to four dollars an hour less. Soon the whole government plans to do the same thing. I want the government to change its mind and protect this right for veterans.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague’s question gives me an opportunity to clarify some things. I know that we are talking about the equivalent of 12 full-time positions for veterans. It is true that, when we talk about this, it seems that it is not a big number. However, that is not what is at issue. It is the principle that is at issue. Indeed, the CRA moved up the April 1 deadline by publishing specifications and exempting itself from the Commissionaires’ right of refusal. That is what we are questioning here. The fact that veterans representing 12 full-time equivalent positions are losing their jobs may seem insignificant to the parliamentary secretary. However, I think it is too many, because they already had a job. Moreover, those who stay will be paid $2 to $4 an hour less to do the same work. Evidently, I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who says that it is a small amount. No, it is not, because a right has just been taken away. Moreover, this is the first agency to decide to take this right away. Soon, on April 1, if the government does not change its mind, it would be the entire government, through Public Services and Procurement Canada, that will remove the Commissionaires’ right of refusal.”

“The committee on veterans affairs is working to help veterans find civilian jobs. Access to jobs is the main problem. The government is taking a step back by ignoring veterans who want to keep working with the Commissionaires.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I enjoy serving with him on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He is absolutely right. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is looking for ways to improve veterans’ employability and the transferability and recognition of their skills as they transition to the civilian workforce. The main issue is access to employment opportunities. Right now, it seems as though the government is taking a step back. It is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to veterans who are telling us that they need this historic partnership with the Commissionaires to continue. We do not understand that inconsistency.”

“Veterans need support when they return to civilian life. I want to know why the government is ending a decades-long tradition that helped them.”

“Madam Speaker, having served as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for a year, I cannot help but wonder: If veterans are so important, particularly when they return to civilian life, why ditch a decades-long tradition that supported our veterans?”

“I want the government to change its mind and keep the Commissionaires program. It costs the government nothing, it helps veterans, and ending it hurts them.”

“Madam Speaker, it is hard to understand. It costs nothing for the government to keep the program, yet it has a significant impact on veterans. As we speak, veterans are shocked and dismayed by the decision. We hope that the government will change its mind and that, as of April 1, the Commissionaires will retain their right of first refusal.”

“I do not want the government to create a new Crown corporation for defence purchases. Giving these decisions to independent boards stops Parliament from watching how tax dollars are spent, just like when the government gave a security contract to an American company instead of Canadian veterans. The government is dodging its duty to answer to the public.”

“Madam Speaker, some are attentive, while others are less so. My colleagues would do well to listen and learn from what I have to say today. Last week in the House I spoke to Bill C-40, which seeks to create a Crown corporation for defence procurement. I was saying that creating the Crown corporation would be the end of transparency, accountability and the disclosure of choices and interests. I was also saying that I was concerned that the government would shirk responsibility for a decision that, in my opinion, was inconsistent and ill-advised. As far as today’s proceedings are concerned, I commend the Conservative Party’s initiative on this issue, because this decision highlights exactly what I was talking about last week. Earlier, I mentioned that I had served as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but I am also vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. My job as the Bloc Québécois critic for procurement is to shed light on government contracts. The committee has a mandate to examine the technical aspects and the governance of choices and decisions. I met with some commissionaires this summer. I met with Marc Parent. I was shocked to learn that the government was planning on ending the long-standing tradition of hiring commissionaires for security services. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has a long history, just recently celebrating their 100th anniversary. I was proud to be the critic for veterans affairs for a year, and I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs is passionate and dedicated to helping veterans transition into civilian life. A study on entrepreneurship is currently under way, and prior learning is being recognized. How can we help veterans make the transition easier? Now veterans, the ones who are commissionaires, are being told that they do not matter, that they are not important enough to the government and that the government no longer believes in the core mission. They are being told that this contract is ending and that the government has decided instead to award it to an American company that has branches in Canada. We need to be careful. How far does the buy Canadian policy go when it comes to doing business with Canadians? The Liberals are telling us that this was an independent decision by the CRA and so no one is accountable. No one is responsible for this. This just goes to show that the government wants to create corporations and agencies so that it can wash its hands of responsibility for decisions. That way, if people are unhappy, then it is not the government’s responsibility. That is what is happening here. This decision has serious consequences in terms of the message that it sends not only to our veterans but also to all legislators. That is a big part of our role. I often talk about my role as a legislator because I do not think that people really understand it. Parliament is made up of elected officials from the government party and from the opposition parties. Our role, as the opposition, is to hold the government to account on behalf of the people we represent. We must ensure that the use of tax dollars and the government’s decisions and policies are in keeping with the best interests of citizens. The government is taking away parliamentarians’ ability to do their job for the sake of efficiency, but efficiency should not come at the cost of a loss of democratic oversight. That oversight is at the very heart of who we are. It is the same thing with Canada Post. Canada Post is a Crown corporation. When we ask questions, the government tells us that the board of directors is responsible for decisions. That is an easy and convenient answer. However, Canada Post is in an untenable financial situation and has been for many years. We all know that. Meanwhile, bonuses continued to flow freely even as the government was being called upon to cover the deficits. The lack of transparency at Canada Post prevented parliamentarians, Quebeckers, Canadians and employees from obtaining a true, clear and accurate picture of the situation facing the Crown corporation. It was under my leadership that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates launched a study of Canada Post. Despite our responsibility for overseeing public funds, we have been learning about changes at Canada Post through press releases and push notifications. That is not normal. It shows a blatant lack of respect for Parliament and for our democratic institutions. The same can be said of the Crown corporation responsible for defence procurement. The government will tell us that decisions to purchase a particular aircraft, vessel or tank will be made by its board of directors. Billions of dollars will be invested in strengthening Canada’s defence capabilities as the federal government seeks to meet NATO’s target. Such procurement decisions must be subject to rigorous oversight. Let me be clear: taxpayers’ money is not private money. When I spend money in my own businesses, I am free to do so and I bear the consequences. When it is my money, it is my business. That is not the case here. Public funds come from taxes and are entrusted to government through a social contract between citizens and the state to support the core functions of government. When a government shirks certain democratic responsibilities in the name of efficiency, it is our duty to sound the alarm, ask questions and spark the necessary debates. The government is constantly running ads across all platforms, and that worries me greatly. Constituents regularly raise the issue when I am back in my riding. Slogans such as “build Canada strong” are everywhere. We are told that Canada must become its own best customer. The trouble is that it increasingly appears to be little more than a slogan, an ad campaign. Canadians are constantly being encouraged to believe they are the best, yet the government continues to award contracts to the lowest bidder. In committee last week, the procurement ombud told members that it is imperative to ensure that government measures do not undermine Parliament’s ability to do its job. He is concerned, and said so a number of times. Any such measures must respect the responsibilities entrusted to members of Parliament. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Prime Minister is running Canada like a business. A government is not a business. A government has obligations, including the obligation to be accountable to its citizens and carry out its moral duties. I am seriously concerned about these abuses. Our role as parliamentarians is to bring things to light and hold the government to account. Our role is also to ask hard questions and demand answers. That is why I am calling on members not to look away, but to pay attention to what is happening and to what the government is doing.”

“We have enough data to see if the buy Canadian policy works. We need to check what should count as Canadian and help local businesses get more work. A committee will study the ombud's papers on this and report back to the House.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because I did not have time to say everything. The procurement ombud told us last week that enough data is available to evaluate the buy Canadian policy and determine where things stand. We need to look at the criteria to determine what is working well and what would be worthy of the buy Canadian stamp. For the time being, however, the focus is on maximizing participation and access for Canadian businesses, which need opportunities to work in light of the current geopolitical environment. We will get the documents from the procurement ombud, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will study them before coming back to the House on this issue.”

“It is not enough to just speak out. The government must fix this problem. Veterans are being left behind. The Prime Minister needs to listen to his minister and take real action to help them.”

“Madam Speaker, the point is not only to speak out, but also to correct course. If we truly want to support veterans, the Prime Minister must start by listening to his minister, who is trying to do the right thing, and take action. Right now, veterans are being left behind, and that saddens me greatly.”

“The tax agency ended its contract with the Commissionaires. The government says this only affects 12 veterans, but it really affects about 50. Most of them chose to retire or transfer instead of taking a pay cut from the new private company. I want to know if the member thinks this is acceptable.”

“Madam Speaker, I hope that the member for Winnipeg North is listening to my question, because I am going to give him the figures he asked me for earlier. I have them in front of me. The Canada Revenue Agency chose not to maintain the Commissionaires’ right of first refusal. What has been the result? The government keeps talking about 12 veterans, but that figure actually represents a volume of work equivalent to 12 full-time positions. In reality, the decision affects about 50 veterans. Most of those who were selected chose either to retire or to transfer to other Commissionaires contracts rather than accept the pay cut imposed by the new private-sector provider. Does the member believe that is acceptable?”

“We should focus on how good this program is, not just on how many people use it. We had a good system to help veterans return to normal life. What is happening now is unacceptable. I support the Conservative motion.”

“Madam Speaker, people are focusing on critical mass, but I think we need to step back and look at the quality of the program and what we are actually trying to achieve. Yes, there is a number involved. To take the example of Cúram, one could argue that only 33,000 seniors were affected among millions, but that is not the point. The point is that we had a legitimate model that supported veterans in their transition to civilian life. What is happening now is unacceptable, which is why I welcome the Conservatives’ opposition day motion.”

“The government gave a contract to an American company instead of a Canadian one. This breaks our promise to buy local, and it insults our veterans during Remembrance Week. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.”

“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague on his speech. I find today’s motion particularly compelling for a number of reasons. First, the national poppy campaign is in full swing. Nearly every member of the House is proudly wearing a poppy in remembrance of those who fought, and those who gave their lives, for our freedom and our values. Against that backdrop, we are confronted with a situation that, in my view, is nothing short of an insult to our veterans, whom we have pledged to honour and whom we are sincerely honouring, I would hope, during this special week. Can my colleague tell us a bit more about the fact that, during the last election campaign, the parties generally agreed to implement a buy Canadian, buy local policy and to implement measures that promote buying from local companies and groups? What message does it send to veterans that they were passed over in favour of an American company with ties to ICE and a questionable track record? I would like to hear my colleague’s comments about the sensitivity that should have been shown to this group of individuals whom we are honouring during this special week.”

“I agree with the member about respecting veterans and our military. The government broke its promise to buy local, and I do not understand why. I want to know if any studies show that it is safe to hand over these big defence duties to an American private company.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague on his speech. On the issue of respect for our veterans and our armed forces, we are on the same page. I think it is important to acknowledge that today. On the issue of buying local, I cannot get over it. The government’s decision not to make good on the commitments made by the Prime Minister himself is quite troubling. I do not understand it. I still cannot make sense of it. That said, I have a serious question that is kind of underlying all of this. In his opinion, have any studies been conducted on safety issues? Has any study been conducted to determine whether or not it is safe to transfer such significant responsibilities, which affect all Canadians and Quebeckers, to a private agency under U.S. jurisdiction? I must admit that I am quite concerned about this.”