“The Conservatives are criticizing our flight expenses, but Stephen Harper spent over $1 million just to fly a car to India. The member should think about that comparison. I also support the Commissionaires.”

“Madam Speaker, I listened to the member’s statements and one of the things I find interesting is how they are trying to draw a comparison between flight expenses. The first thing I get a flashback to is when I was sitting in opposition and Stephen Harper actually paid over $1 million to fly a car to India so that he would be able to drive that particular car. I am wondering if the member could reflect on a comparison where there were dozens of people that had flown over. I am very much aware of and supportive of the Commissionaires, and I will continue to be so.”

“We are working to get the best trade deal we can with the United States. Getting a good deal takes time. While we negotiate, Canada must also build trade ties with other countries.”

“Madam Speaker, putting Canada first has meant, coming out of the last federal election, as the Prime Minister made very clear, looking for opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S. border while we continue to negotiate the best deal. I realize that the best deal might not necessarily be on the same timetable as the leader of the Conservative Party, who thinks he can just tap his heels together and, voila, a deal is achieved. That is dreamland. At the end of the day, would the leader not agree that as we wait for the best deal we can get for Canadians, it is critical that Canada and the Prime Minister continue to look at other nations as a way to increase our trading opportunities?”

“The tax agency ran a fair, open contest for its security contract. It picked the company that gave the best overall value, not just the lowest price. The winning company is based in Canada and hired many veterans and former commissionaires for these jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to be here today on the week of the federal budget, which is coming this Thursday. It is an exciting week for all of us. I will be sharing my time with the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi. I want to start by acknowledging the buy Canadian policy of our government. It is a very important feature of the government’s strategy right now to build Canada strong. I am pleased to address the questions raised by the official opposition regarding the Canada Revenue Agency’s recent security services contract. Each of us understands the importance of supporting Canadian workers, veterans and industries. I would like to provide clarity on points raised about this procurement decision. First and foremost, let me outline the key facts regarding this procurement. On June 16, 2026, the CRA awarded the security services contract to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation, operating as Allied Universal security services. The contract came into effect on August 25, 2026. The contract was awarded to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation because its proposal best met the established requirements and offered the highest overall value to Canadians. By using the best value approach, the CRA is confident that contracts are awarded to suppliers that meet the highest standards while minimizing risks to the agency. Some publicly reported information about the evaluation process and its results does not fully and accurately reflect the procurement approach that was used for this contract. The process balanced multiple factors to ensure the best value for the CRA. The outcome was not driven by political considerations, which we often get lots of in the House, but rather by a fair, transparent and open process. The CRA awarded this contract through a competitive, fair and transparent procurement process that was conducted in line with applicable procurement policies and regulations. The Canada Revenue Agency Act, adopted by Parliament, provides the CRA with full authority to contract and develop its own contracting policy framework, while considering, of course, Treasury Board policies and regulations. The agency has always awarded contracts for security services competitively, as it did this time around. All the suppliers that met the requirements of the request for proposal were eligible to compete for this contract. We all acknowledge that competition is good. This decision was made independently and in accordance with all applicable policies. Both Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires qualified as Canadian suppliers under the terms of the procurement. Supplier eligibility is determined by established operations and business presence in Canada, consistent with procurement policies and trade obligations. I feel it is important to note that Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation employs approximately 10,000 people across Canada at 19 locations nationwide, and its Canadian headquarters is in Mississauga, Ontario. This contract was for 60 security guards, and 33 of them, which is over half, were former commissionaires, with 12 of them having served in uniform previously. The CRA conducted this procurement process by incorporating a wide range of criteria, as is the case with many procurements. In this case, these included quality, capability, cost and risk. Proposals were evaluated based on both technical and financial merit to determine which company offered the best overall value. The final decision was based on the CRA’s procurement process, which again is guided by the best value approach. This means that the contract was not awarded solely based on the lowest price, but to the bidder with the highest combined score in all of the areas. I would like to emphasize that the CRA values the long-standing relationship it has with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Commissionaires has made significant contributions to providing security services to the agency and has demonstrated a strong commitment to support veterans from the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Like all Canadians, we greatly appreciate its efforts. The outcome of this procurement was strictly the result of a competitive evaluation process conducted in accordance with established procurement guidelines and principles. While veterans remain an important part of the Canadian workforce, it is worth noting that employment opportunities for veterans have expanded significantly in recent years through initiatives such as the national veterans employment strategy. This strategy has created a more diverse set of employment opportunities for veterans by fostering collaboration between government employers and other partners and, as such, veterans have increasingly been connected with more varied job opportunities as a result. As previously noted, the Canada Revenue Agency Act provides the CRA with the authority to enter into contracts and manage all matters relating to general administrative policy, including procurement. The CRA has full authority to contract and develop its own contracting policy framework while considering Treasury Board policies and regulations. The CRA remains committed, of course, to upholding its procurement obligations in accordance with its policies and codes of conduct, as well as the Government of Canada’s obligations. The CRA’s decision reflects a commitment to fairness, value and transparency in all procurement activities. The government, of course, remains committed to supporting Canadian workers, including veterans, and to upholding the principles of our trade agreements and procurement policies. It is imperative that Canadians have confidence in the CRA’s processes and understand that decisions are made in their best interests, with a focus on delivering high-quality services while minimizing risks.”

“I want to correct the facts. Of the 60 guards hired, 33 were former commissionaires and 12 had served in uniform. Competition helps us get the best value for contracts. Under our rules, a business counts as Canadian if it employs people here, and this company has 10,000 workers in Canada. The tax agency looked at quality, risk, and jobs, and it stands by this decision.”

“Madam Speaker, just to correct the record, I said that, of the 60 security guards hired through that particular contract, 33 of them were former commissionaires while 12 of those served in uniform previously. Not all commissionaires served in uniform, apparently, from what I have been told. That is just to clarify for the member opposite what I said, to be factually correct. As to the member’s question about the procurement process, I think we would probably all agree that competition within procurement is a positive thing. A best value approach is probably the best way to evaluate procurement contracts. I will note that, within the buy Canadian policy, we have defined Canadian companies as not being determined by ownership criteria, but rather by the number of employment opportunities in Canada. This particular organization has 10,000 employees in Canada, so it did qualify under those criteria. Members need to understand that the best value of this contract was weighed between a number of different factors, and this is the decision the CRA made. It stands by that decision. Even though I know it is hard for us and members opposite to accept that decision, it was the one determined to be in the best value, which is a balance of all the different criteria, as I mentioned, of quality, risk, employment and other factors within that procurement process.”

“Our buy-Canadian policy is working. Under our rules, a business counts as Canadian if it has large operations and creates jobs here, even if it is not owned by Canadians. The contract being criticized supports 10,000 jobs in Canada. Most of our new contracts go to Canadian suppliers.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite’s question and comments. Just to be clear, the buy Canadian policy defines a company that qualifies as one not determined by who owns the company but rather by its significant operations within Canada, including employment opportunities. As I said, the contract in question here includes 10,000 employees in Canada. That is a significant base that supports the Canadian economy. In terms of overall numbers, PSPC awarded a total of 1,644 new contracts for $23 billion. Some 1,342 of those contracts, worth roughly $17.7 billion, were awarded to Canadian suppliers. Again, the buy Canadian policy is real, and it is working. I know the members opposite keep pointing out instances, with some contracts, where perhaps there may be no Canadian supplier or a supplier does not have the same operations in Canada, and I think that it is weighing heavily upon the procurement decisions that are made by PSPC and the Treasury Board directives right across the government.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Public Services and Procurement Canada awarded a total of 1,644 contracts worth roughly $23 billion.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since November 2.

  Every time it was said →

“The opposition motion focuses only on security jobs for veterans. Veterans have many more skills than that, like engineering, trades, and cybersecurity. Canada needs skilled workers, and veterans leave the military young and ready to work. I want businesses to hire veterans and sign up for our new program that recognizes employers who support them.”

“Madam Speaker, with Remembrance Day now only nine days away, today we have a very important opportunity to remind Canadians that remembrance, commemoration and respect for the veterans in our communities have a place not only on November 11, but throughout the year, and for all Canadians. We owe that recognition to the women and men who have served and those who continue to serve our great country and protect our sovereignty. It is in this spirit that I rise today to address the opposition motion. Respect for veterans and support for Canadian business deserve a serious debate. By treating a single contract as a measure of our government’s respect for veterans, however, the opposition overlooks the breadth and the scale of the contribution they can make. At committee, representatives of several veterans groups and organizations told us that we need to change the narrative about our veterans. We need to talk about their skills, training, experience and all they bring all of that to the civil workforce. Many leave the military at the age of 34. This is the average age of a veteran today, with years of working life ahead of them. What do they bring with them? They bring technical expertise in fields like airspace, cybersecurity and other dual-use technologies, including drones. They are a tremendous asset in our country, particularly in those sectors where there is an acute labour shortage, yet the opposition motion focuses on their role in security services. Of course, our veterans are qualified for that work, but their opportunities extend way beyond that. They can help advance our industrial strategy, strengthen our defence industry and continue serving Canada in many different ways. That requires a lot more than a procurement decision. It requires the recognition of the skills and qualifications they acquired during their service. They need to put their expertise to work in industries that need them. That is precisely what our Minister of Veterans Affairs is working to deliver. This motion gives me the opportunity to tell Canada’s veterans about an important next step our government is taking to address today’s realities and tomorrow’s opportunities. All across Canada, companies in many sectors are seeking qualified personnel to fill key strategic positions, expand their operations, and seize new business opportunities. Over the next 10 years, 593,000 new jobs in Red Seal trades will need to be filled. Trade schools will not be able to provide enough workers. In the aerospace sector alone, it is estimated that between 42,000 and 65,000 positions will need to be filled over the next 10 years. According to one study, trade schools will only be able to meet about 25% of that demand. At the same time, nearly 8,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces leave military service each year, at an average age of 34. Today, I would like to talk about how our government can bridge the gap between these two realities. In my view, veterans represent one of the largest untapped talent pools in the country. Their hands-on experience in logistics, operations, engineering, and information technology is a valuable asset for Canada as it seeks to diversify and expand its economic relationships around the world. When they want to embark on a new career, we must give them every opportunity to put that expertise to good use. We are doing this for veterans because they have served Canada and protected our sovereignty, but we are also doing it so that they can continue to contribute to Canada. We need them. One point deserves to be highlighted. As I mentioned, today’s veterans are, on average, quite young. They are seasoned professionals whose skills are in high demand, particularly in the dual-use technology sector, referring to technology that can be used both for military purposes and in our strategic industries. In addition to their technical expertise, Canada’s veterans bring some even more highly valued assets to the table: strong leadership skills, problem-solving abilities, project management experience and a proven ability to perform under challenging and demanding conditions. Their expertise in logistics, cybersecurity, advanced technologies, human resources, finance and Red Seal trades deserves full recognition. The challenge is that these fields are not the ones that immediately come to mind when we talk about military service. My colleagues are putting a lot of focus on security services. However, by limiting veterans to jobs in this field, we are missing an extraordinary opportunity to recognize their talent and expertise in leading trades. When a person did not serve in the military themselves and is unfamiliar with the military environment, it can be difficult for them to grasp the diverse range of skills that military personnel have. We are talking about acquired skills that are essential to modern military operations. More importantly, they are completely transferable to a civilian work environment. In many cases, they are exactly the skills that employers are looking for. Canada, with our Minister of Veterans Affairs, is now taking deliberate steps to strengthen our defence industrial capacity, to invest in major projects and national development initiatives across the country, and to recognize the role that veterans can play in meeting that objective. We are living at a time when the demand for skilled workers will only continue to go grow. Last week, in Victoria, British Columbia, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced a key initiative to encourage our veterans to contribute to our strategic defence industry following their military career. I am talking about the veteran employer recognition initiative and the new “Veteran Ready” designation, which recognizes organizations that value veterans’ skills and that will commit to helping them transition to a successful civilian career in the field of their choice. This strategy sends a clear message to veterans, staff, clients and communities: This organization recognizes the value of military service, experience and leadership. I therefore call on businesses and the general public across the country to show leadership in their local communities, raise awareness of this designation in their ridings, encourage businesses to take part in the initiative, help employers recognize the value of military experience, and help veterans find employment opportunities that match their skills.”

“Military personnel are well qualified for security jobs, and that work will continue. But our main focus is helping veterans find good careers that use their technical skills and experience after they leave the military.”

“Madam Speaker, security service are an important part of employment, and they will continue because our military personnel are good at them. They have the training, the experience, the knowledge and the security clearance to carry on in this job. My point, and the focus of this government, is the much broader challenge that faces our veteran community. It is to find a rewarding career that really reflects the wealth of their experience and contributions and the fact that they are really technically savvy. They work with amazing dual-use technology. We need to have as a priority the recognition of their skills so they can have a rewarding career. They have many years to fulfill that.”

“Veterans have strong technical skills in areas like drones, cybersecurity, and aerospace. They should not just be pushed into security guard jobs. Quebec's aerospace industry needs tens of thousands of workers over the next ten years, and thousands of new veterans leave the military each year ready to do that work. I want the House to support officially recognizing their skills so they can fill these jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her work on the committee. I want to acknowledge the excellent work she does. Security guard services are important, but I think this represents a very limiting view of the careers and experience of today’s veterans. The average veteran is now just 34 or 35 years old. Our government’s priority is not to find security guard positions for these veterans, because they possess extraordinary skills and can contribute to Canada’s defence industrial strategy. When they transition to civilian life, they bring expertise in areas such as drones, cybersecurity and aerospace. Moreover, this is not about the right of first refusal, because there are labour shortages in the aerospace sector, one of Quebec’s flagship industries. Over the next 10 years, an average of between 42,000 and 65,000 positions will need to be filled, and there will be more than 8,000 new veterans each year who possess many of the technical skills required for those jobs. The priority is skills recognition, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.”

“The government and I deeply value our veterans. But the tax agency is independent and follows set rules when hiring security. Not everyone who works for the Commissionaires is a veteran, and I want the member to answer if she knows how many of them actually are.”

“Madam Speaker, I will start off by indicating how much I personally value our veterans and the contributions they have made to our community. The government as a whole does too, and we see that in a number of policies that I could easily expand upon. The question I have for the member is in regard to the CRA as an independent agency with an established criteria when something goes out to tender. Can she give her perspective as to the number of people in the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires who are veterans? Is the member aware of that? She gives the impression that they are all veterans. I am advising that that is not necessarily the case, even though they do outstanding work.”

“We must keep supporting our veterans. Many American companies have large branches in Canada, and Canadian companies have branches in the U.S. Should American-owned companies that do a lot of business in Canada be included in a policy to buy Canadian goods?”

“Madam Speaker, I have said a great deal about our veterans and how much we value them and will continue to work to support them. My question for the member is in regard to subsidiary companies in general, and it is more on the principle of them. Does the member recognize that there is a lot of crossover between the United States and Canada on subsidiaries and that it works both ways? There are subsidiaries owned by American companies that have a large footprint here in Canada, and vice versa. Does the member believe in principle that companies with subsidiaries that are located in Canada and have a substantial footprint should be incorporated into any form of buy Canada policy?”

“Our government supports veterans. We put money into disability benefits, help veterans find jobs, make health care easier to get, and reopened nine veterans offices. The Conservatives closed those offices when they were in power. As a former member of the military, how does the member feel about what his party did?”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his service. I am just wondering if the member is aware that, under our government, we have done so much in support of veterans, including over these last few months, such as the disability benefit, which we have invested in for over four years. Just last week, we launched a veteran employer recognition initiative, which is going to help veterans with finding a job. We are making health care more accessible. The parliamentary secretary has done a great deal of work on this file during her tenure. How does the hon. member feel about the fact that when the Conservatives were in power, they closed nine Veterans Affairs offices across the country? We reopened them under this government. I would like to know how he feels as a former member of the Armed Forces.”

“I want the member to clarify how many veterans will be affected. He misled the House earlier when he suggested 3,000 veterans would be affected or fired.”

“Madam Speaker, I do not believe it was intentional, but I wonder if the member recognizes that he somewhat misled the House earlier when he implied that 3,000 veterans would be affected or fired. Could he provide clarification on the actual number of veterans, if he actually knows?”

“Our government supports our military and our veterans. We put money into technology so veterans get disability benefits faster, and we reopened nine Veterans Affairs offices that the Conservatives closed.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and to address the issue of our Canadian Forces, and indeed of our veterans. As did a number of members of the House, I had the honour of serving in the Canadian Forces. I served for just over three years. One of the things I reflect on in a very positive way is when this time of the year came around and our regiment, members of the Canadian Forces posted in Lancaster Park, participated in parades. Among the people I had the honour of marching alongside were the World War II veterans in particular. We understood the value of and gained an appreciation for the sacrifices they had made. After the parade, we would go to other destinations, and they would talk about some of the things that had taken place during World War II. I have the deepest respect for the people who served and who gave the ultimate sacrifice of their life, and for those who have served in the Canadian Forces in whatever capacity, as well as for their supporters, whether it is DND or the families and so forth. I know I am not alone. Whether it is the Prime Minister, any member of the Liberal caucus or, I would suggest, all members of the House of Commons, we recognize the contributions of our veterans in the past, in the present and going into the future. We have seen that, to a certain degree, government actions over the last 18 months are setting a positive trend towards our Canadian Forces. We would have to look back generations to find the last time when there were as many Canadians wanting to join the Canadian Forces. When it comes to our veterans, we have put policies in place. A specific example is that in 2025, we put a significant amount of money in the budget so we could advance IT services so veterans would be able to receive their disability benefits more quickly. We do not need a lesson from the Conservatives on veterans and services. I would remind my Conservative friends across the way that there was a day when I was in opposition, and those were the days when Conservative policy was made that led to the shutting down of nine Veterans Affairs offices in the country. Fortunately, with the change in government, those offices were reopened. That was something that meant a great deal to me personally and to a vast majority of members of the House of Commons in 2015. We can think about the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. I understand that the history, in good part, of that organization is as a non-profit. We need to recognize that when it was brought in during the late 1920s or the 1930s, around the time of World War I, it was because of those veterans. If we go to the 1920s, before it was really identified as a national organization, it started off in Montreal. By the time we got into the mid- or late-1930s, that is when it became well established as a national organization, and it was because of our veterans. Let us look at World War II and the number of veterans who were engaged, involved and employed. Governments back then saw the merit of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. However, let us do the comparison. I will say that I am a very strong fan of the Commissionaires. I have met with Commissionaires in the past, both at the Manitoba legislature and in my MP constituency office, and I can say that the work they do is incredible. Today, we will find that about 20% of them are veterans, but do not quote me on that. Contrast that with the day the Commissionaires came into being. When it came into being—”