“I support our motion to help veterans get jobs. The government gave a security contract to an American company instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which is a non-profit and Canada's biggest employer of veterans. It did this to save just $80,000, which hurts veterans and local community programs. I also want the government to drop its new rule forcing military chaplains to give only neutral prayers. It takes away their religious freedom, hurts Indigenous spiritual traditions, and was created without talking to chaplains first.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak. I will be splitting my time with the member for Riding Mountain. Today I am proud to support our Conservative motion on the issue of veterans hiring. In this country, people who serve in our military oftentimes will leave that service with challenges. One of those challenges is finding meaningful employment. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is one such organization. It has existed since 1925. It is a not-for-profit whose mandate is to provide job opportunities for Canadian veterans. In fact, the Corps of Commissionaires is the largest employer of Canadian veterans in Canada. It is disturbing to see that over the past number of years, the Liberal government has been moving to erode the very privileged position that the not-for-profit Corps of Commissionaires had. It has removed its right of first refusal, which means that it will not get as many opportunities to provide that employment for veterans. Most recently, a contract was awarded by the Canada Revenue Agency to an American-based for-profit company, Allied Universal, over the Corps of Commissionaires. What I find hypocritical about this recent decision by the government is that we have a Prime Minister who was elected on a “support Canada, elbows up, buy Canadian” platform, and yet when it came time to award the contracts, the government chose a for-profit company over Canada’s largest employer of veterans, a not-for-profit, all for a measly $80,000 contract difference. If $80,000 is all it takes for the Liberal government and the Prime Minister to favour an American company over a Canadian non-profit, then we are in a very bad situation in this country. Throughout this debate, I have seen Liberals talk about this and say that they respect veterans, and I believe they do, and that they respect the work of the Corps of Commissionaires. However, it is also not just about the jobs that the Corps of Commissionaires provides to veterans. The Corps of Commissionaires is a not-for-profit, so the excess revenues that it raises outside of wages and benefits and the operations it conducts are primarily redirected back into our communities. I gave some examples, but I will share them again. Members can go to a Legion event anywhere in this country and they will see sponsorship from the Corps of Commissionaires. There is No Stone Left Alone, a veterans’ organization educating young Canadians about the sacrifices of Canada’s veterans. There is a national bursary program, which provides educational bursaries for the children of veterans, and a crisis and benevolent fund that supports veterans and their families who have fallen on hard times or had illnesses or injuries. These are just some of the wonderful programs that the Corps of Commissionaires is able to provide because of its privileged connections to government funding programs. I do not think the government could point to Allied Universal and say that that company is providing the same level of community benefits to our country that the Corps of Commissionaires has. It is hypocritical, but it is also undermining the social fabric of our country. This organization, for over 100 years, has supported our communities and supported veterans, and the government is undercutting the financial viability of this organization. It is undercutting job opportunities for veterans, and it is undercutting community supports. Now, in the second half, I want to raise the issue of chaplaincy and prayers. Over the summer, a new policy was released that dictated to military chaplains about what kind of prayers or spiritual reflections they were allowed to give at military-sanctioned events. One of those very important military-sanctioned events is Remembrance Day. This policy has sought, as the government has tried to do on a number of occasions, to introduce a so-called religious neutrality rule for chaplains. Chaplains are people who come from a wide variety of faiths. We have chaplains from Islam, Judaism and Christianity. We have chaplains who are humanists. I support pluralism because members of our military come from all faith backgrounds, including no-faith backgrounds, and it is critically important that they have access to chaplaincy services. What the government has tried to institute is a policy that says that at Remembrance Day ceremonies and other ceremonies that military members are asked to attend, chaplains cannot say anything, a prayer or a spiritual reflection, that reflects their faith. I raised this earlier, because it was asked of me by one of the chaplains, “What about the faith of indigenous Canadians?” In this country, we have sought to reconcile with first nations and the terrible past of suppressing indigenous spirituality and indigenous culture, which we saw through residential schools, yet we have a policy by the government that seems to run against the grain of its reconciliation rhetoric by telling indigenous people that their spirituality will not be welcome at these events. The policy of so-called religious neutrality will apply fully to indigenous people who are asked to provide spiritual reflections. I have gone to many indigenous events, and it is quite common for elders to talk about the Creator. In many cases, I have elders who talk about their deep Christian faith. To have a government policy come forward to say that those reflections are not welcome undermines reconciliation in this country. I also want to raise that I have been approached by chaplains who are very concerned about this issue. They tell me that there was no consultation, that this policy was rammed down their throats and that there was no opportunity for them to work with the government to meaningfully shape this legislation in a way that could respect religious freedom and people of all faiths. In fact, the chaplain organization in the Canadian Armed Forces has not even had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of National Defence since the Harper government. That is over 10 years ago. The chaplains were supposed to have access to the Minister of National Defence, but they have not had an opportunity to meet with the minister during the entire time the Liberal government has been in power, which is over 10 years. The government does not consider the very important work that chaplains do. It does not consider their opinions. It does not consider their feedback. If the Liberals were to sit down with these chaplains, they could have worked out a very agreeable solution to all parties. However, what is happening now, and what these chaplains are telling me, is that they feel a religious view is being imposed upon them, because by being forced to give a very humanistic, very religiously so-called neutral spiritual reflection or prayer, they are having their religious freedom imposed upon. They would rather not participate in such an event, but they know how important it is that they be involved. It is very interesting, because this policy seems to apply only to the Canadian Armed Forces, but there are chaplains in the RCMP. I was approached by a constituent of mine who has been a long-standing chaplain with the RCMP, and he is deeply concerned that the Liberals will seek to expand the policy. I do not see why they would not. It would be consistent. What is very special about this man, and very tragic, is that he is a chaplain and his son was one of the four Mounties murdered in Mayerthorpe, in my riding. He came to my office and asked me, “If I am up to pray out of remembrance for my son, will I be told by my government that I am not allowed to pray to my God? Will I not be able to give a spiritual reflection that reflects the journey, challenge and crisis that my family went through when we lost our son?” I would only ask that the government go back to the table, talk to chaplains and work out a policy that can work for everyone, because there are a lot of people who feel very deeply about this, and this controversy is not necessary. In fact, the House of Commons voted unanimously that we not proceed with this policy, yet it is being put forward.”

“The defence minister is supposed to meet every year with military chaplains, but the Liberals have not met with them once since 2015. The member has not heard their concerns because his government refuses to talk to them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would tell the member to reach out to the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy. This organization has a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Canada that it is to have annual meetings with the Minister of National Defence. It has not had a single meeting since the Liberal government took power in 2015. The member says that he has not heard from any chaplains, but it is because the Liberals are refusing to meet with chaplains. It is ridiculous.”

“Parliament must hold the government accountable. Government policies are making the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires lose contracts year after year. The government needs to change these policies now.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is what Parliament and the House of Commons are here for. They are here to hold the government accountable. I take pleasure in doing that. I hope that we can get better results for Canadians. This is just one such case. I think if we had not shed light on this issue, it would have gone by unnoticed. Day after day, year after year, as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires loses contracts with the government because of its policies, we really see a diminishment in our society. We do not want to see that, so let us reverse course right now.”

“The government should give contracts to Canadian groups first. The tax agency gave a contract to an American company instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires over just $80,000. This non-profit hires veterans, and losing the contract hurts them badly. I want the member from Edmonton to share his thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians would agree that, since the government won back in April, 18 months ago now, we should be putting Canada first. That was the intent of the motion: to put Canada first in procurement. In this case, a small amount of money, $80,000, was the difference between choosing an American company, Allied Universal, and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, a non-profit that, quite frankly, has done a wonderful job with veterans in every community in this country. I would like the hon. member from Edmonton’s thoughts on the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, as it has been stymied. The contract by the CRA has pretty well decimated the company once and for all.”

“The government says it had to choose another company because its bid was $80,000 lower. That is not a good excuse. The government must look at more than just price when it awards contracts. It should support the Corps of Commissionaires, which employs the most veterans and helps our communities.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to note that the government claims its hands were tied and that another company had a competitive bid. It came in at $80,000 less. I know for a fact that the government does not just consider the financial value of an award. It has to consider a broad spectrum of factors in making a decision. For the government to hide behind an $80,000 contract decision to not support a company that has been the largest employer of veterans and has supplied countless charitable benefits to our communities does not hold water with me.”

“The government's plan to buy from Canadian businesses is fake. A foreign company only needs a local address to count as Canadian, even if it has no Canadian owners or workers. Because of this loophole, the government gave a twelve-million-dollar security contract to an American company instead of the Commissionaires, a Canadian group that hires veterans. I want the government to fix its rules and actually buy from real Canadian companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, in 1541, Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence River on his third voyage to Canada and made camp at Cap-Rouge, just upstream from where Quebec City stands today. His men looked down at the riverbank and could not believe their eyes. The rocks were glittering. They thought they had found more gold than they could carry. They filled their barrels with it. Cartier was so eager to get back home that he left in the middle of the night and sailed for France. The treasure was tested in France. The diamonds were quartz and the gold was iron pyrite. It was fool’s gold. Canada has a long history of fool’s gold, dating back to the earliest European explorers. Today, the fool’s gold glitters from the Prime Minister’s promise to buy Canadian. Last year, the Prime Minister promised, “we will select Canadian suppliers by default”. He promised Canada would become “our own best customer”. Canadians believed it because they wanted to, but there is a simple way to tell real gold from fool’s gold: rubbing the stone across a piece of white porcelain. Real gold leaves a yellow streak, and fool’s gold leaves a black one. Let us put the Liberals’ buy Canadian policy to the streak test. Last year, the government posted a tender for security guards at the Canada Revenue Agency. For years, that work had been done by the Commissionaires, a Canadian not-for-profit founded in 1925 to employ veterans. Written on the government’s tender was the statement, “This solicitation is open only to Canadian suppliers.” However, in June, the Liberals awarded the contract, worth nearly $12 million, to the Universal Protection Service. The Universal Protection Service is a subsidiary of Allied Universal, which is an American company with headquarters in Pennsylvania and California. The difference in price between the two bids was about $80,000. On a $12-million contract, that is less than 1% of the contract’s value. For less than a penny on the dollar, the Liberals chose an American multinational over Canada’s largest private employer of veterans. As I said earlier, the Liberals’ buy Canadian policy was nothing more than fool’s gold. The policy is so fake that under the government’s own definitions, the Chinese-owned company Huawei would count as a Canadian supplier. The Prime Minister promised that when Ottawa spends money, it will choose Canadian suppliers by default, so the first question is a simple one: What does the Liberal government think makes a company Canadian? If someone wants to put a “product of Canada” label on a jar of strawberry jam, the government says that around 98% of the main ingredients and virtually all the processing and labour have to be Canadian. However, if someone wants to be a Canadian supplier, under the Liberal government’s buy Canadian policy, they simply need to register a business in Canada, meaning they essentially only need an address. There is no requirement to have a Canadian headquarters, Canadian ownership or even a minimum number of Canadian workers. That means that the strawberry jam on our toast is held to a higher standard of being Canadian than the American firm that was just awarded a $12-million contract over Canada’s largest private employer of veterans. Let us take the Liberals’ definition of a so-called Canadian supplier one step further and apply it to the suppliers the government itself calls a threat. Huawei, a Chinese-owned firm, has a Canadian office in Markham, Ontario. The government banned Huawei from our 5G networks on national security grounds. However, under the Liberals’ buy Canadian policy, Huawei would be considered a Canadian supplier because it registered a subsidiary with the CRA. In the eyes of the Liberals, foreign-owned companies like Huawei are just as Canadian as a local hardware store on main street. We have seen this failure before. Indigenous business leaders called it “renting a feather”, when a non-indigenous company was putting an indigenous person’s name on the ownership papers to win federal contracts set aside for indigenous businesses. Earlier this year, the procurement ombudsman warned that non-indigenous businesses may use indigenous businesses as shell companies. If the government could not stop businesses from pretending they were indigenous-owned, why would anyone believe it would stop them from pretending they are Canadian? I was just in Sarnia, where a local business owner told me he was surprised to learn that several corporations were registered on his local residential street with no sign of an office or any operations. The Prime Minister cannot pretend he did not see this loophole coming. After years at Brookfield, a company with dozens of subsidiaries registered in offshore tax havens, he knows exactly how corporations exploit loopholes to game the system. He knew that his policy was fool’s gold, but he sold it to Canadians anyway. Next week, Canadians will remember the people who served our country in uniform, so it is fair to ask why the government chose to end an 80-year promise to Canada’s veterans. Many Canadians walk past a commissionaire without knowing the story behind their uniform. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was founded in 1925 to provide employment to soldiers coming home from the First World War. In 1945, as hundreds of thousands more soldiers came home from the Second World War, Ottawa made them a promise: When the federal government needed guards for its buildings, the Commissionaires would get the first right of refusal. That promise was kept by every government and every party for 80 years, but in February of this year, the Liberal Minister of Veterans Affairs wrote to tell them that the promise was over. Her letter said that the government was confident the corps was positioned for “continued success in this new procurement environment”. Less than four months later, the Commissionaires found out what that new environment looks like under the Liberals. The government awarded the security contract the Commissionaires had held to a subsidiary of an American company, Allied Universal. Allied Universal reportedly took more than $290 million U.S. in contracts from the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security this year alone. That is who the Liberals chose over Canada’s veterans, while they told Canadians to put their elbows up. When Cartier got his barrels of treasure back to France, it did not take long for the truth to come out. With a simple test, everyone could see that it was fool’s gold. The Liberals’ buy Canadian policy has been tested now, too. It has failed the test. What frustrates me the most is that the real gold in the story was right in front of them the whole time. For 100 years, the Commissionaires have been standing guard at the doors of our federal buildings as Canadian veterans. That is the real gold in this, but the government shamefully traded it for fool’s gold.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “We have seen this movie before.”

  Said 7 times by 7 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“The government's plan to buy Canadian would let it buy from Huawei. Huawei is a threat to our national security, and the government should not be buying its products.”

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member actually just stated that. He is telling me that the government actually supports dealing the buy Canadian policy to companies such as Huawei. It simply has corporate affairs in here. It has been registered and identified as a national threat to our country, and it is okay for our government to be buying products from Huawei. Is that what the member is telling me?”

“The government values American companies more than Canadian veterans. It is shameful to treat people who defended our country this way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the global message from the Liberal government is that it values veterans less than it values American companies, which is absolutely shameful and disgusting. I cannot imagine being a veteran here, going to defend our country and then coming back to a slap in the face. It is absolutely deplorable.”

“An American company got a contract that usually goes to Canadian veterans. The non-profit that normally gets it uses the money to support veterans, but the American company will not do that. I want the member to comment on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are two issues we are talking about. One is an American company’s getting a contract that is normally reserved for the veterans of Canada, those who served in our armed forces. However, more importantly, the non-profit Commissionaires uses the revenue to help veterans from the armed forces who otherwise would not have it. The company in question, Allied Universal, a United States-based company, is not going to provide that same service to our veterans. Can the member please comment on that?”

“A government that cares about our country and our veterans would not make this decision. A Conservative government would never do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member asked a very good question. What kind of government that is supposed to be looking after our country and our veterans would consider that to be a good, very sound decision and as standing up for Canada? I can tell the House that a Conservative government would never make that kind of decision.”

“The government is misleading Canadians about this policy and getting upset when we question them. It has to stop.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member said “false impression”. My gosh, it is smoke and mirrors. The Liberals are masters at this. They are absolutely outraged. How dare we question one thing about this policy? I went on for 10 minutes explaining to the Canadian public and to all those attending here today how much the government is misleading Canadians. It has to stop. The bigger question is, what kind of government would do this to the Canadian people?”

“Many small businesses do not know how to apply for government contracts, and the rules are too hard to follow. Canadian companies have not won more contracts since the government's announcements. I want to know what the government will fix so small businesses can actually get this work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Winnipeg for outlining, in general terms, the buy Canada policy. In reality, many small businesses across our country do not know where to start or where to go to apply for a government contract. In addition to that, the red tape to enter into an agreement is still very challenging for many of the small businesses that are facing the uncertainty referenced in his speech. In good faith, what areas can the government improve in procurement to actually see small businesses take up the government contracts? Since the announcements from the secretary of state for small business have come into force, we have not seen the increase in those contracts going to Canadian firms.”