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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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