“The government made a mistake by taking this contract away from the Commissionaires. They should admit it, fix it, and buy Canadian. Their reasoning constantly shifts depending on the issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious that we should be, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals refuse to admit the mistake. It is a simple mistake. They should just change it. Let us buy Canadian again if we are going to buy Canadian. Unfortunately, with the Liberals, the logic seems to shift a lot. It shifts one way for the F-35, but if we are talking about something else, it will shift another way. We have competing logics that run around, and whatever applies at any given time is the logic they are using.”

“Canada does not have the 88 fighter jets. They are only scheduled, and the order has not been approved.”

“Mr. Speaker, 88 have been scheduled, but we do not have 88, nor do we have a go-ahead on those 88.”

“I support this motion. The government took a tax agency security contract away from the Commissionaires, who hire Canadian veterans, and gave it to an American-owned company. The government should give that contract back to the Commissionaires, make sure they get first choice on federal security jobs again, let military chaplains pray at public ceremonies, and stop fighting veterans in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our motion on federal procurement. I rise to speak about our flag and the Canadians who fought under it. I rise for the veterans of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island. I rise for the commissionaires who stand watch at our federal buildings. I rise for all the families who have been handed a folded flag. I served under that flag for 28 years. I have conducted many burials at sea, and I have handed that flag to grieving families, including a father and his two sons. I know the cost those who serve under that flag pay. The motion before us may be about one contract, but veterans will tell us it is about much more than just one contract. It is about a pattern of betrayal. We can consider that just this year, with respect to Bill C-11, the government waited until the last minute to reverse amendments agreed upon in committee and ignored the survivors of military sexual trauma. They told me it felt like the government had spat in their faces. We can consider new restrictions on military clergy of every faith, even on Remembrance Day; or veterans poisoned by mefloquine in Somalia, fighting their own government in court for over 25 years; or veterans who asked for help and were instead offered euthanasia by Veterans Affairs Canada. Now let us consider the Commissionaires. I will remind the Liberal members opposite, who seem to have forgotten, who the commissionaires are. In 1915, in the middle of the First World War, the governor-general proposed a corps to give returning soldiers meaningful work. In 1925, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was founded with one commitment. Those who served Canada would come home and not be forgotten. For more than 100 years, that commitment had been kept. For generations, Ottawa stood behind it with a right of first refusal. Before a federal government department’s security contract was opened to bidding, it was first offered to the Commissionaires, yet in February, with a single stroke of a pen, the Minister of Veterans Affairs ended that right. Though veterans affairs officials said the department wanted to reassess the right of first refusal, it simply cancelled it. Then came this contract. The CRA posted it as open only to Canadian suppliers. Here is what most Canadians do not know. Under the current government’s new buy Canadian rules, a supplier needs only a place of business in Canada. No one asks who owns the company or where its headquarters are. That is how the Canadian subsidiary of Allied Universal, an American company, qualified. By the company’s own numbers, just 1.3% of its 700,000-strong workforce is in Canada. It won the CRA contract by undercutting the Commissionaires by less than 1% of the contract value, or only $80,000. Now let us hold the government to its own words. Again and again, the Prime Minister has promised that Canada would become our own best customer. He said, “we will select Canadian suppliers by default.” In January, he told Canadians yet again, “We’ll buy Canadian. We’ll build Canadian.” Well, the CRA had a Canadian supplier, a not-for-profit built for veterans, and when the moment came to be our own best customer, the government went shopping in America. The Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency says politicians are never involved in the CRA’s decisions, and that is true of the contract scoring but not true of the rules. The CRA runs the competition, but the government writes the rules for the CRA to follow, and the government chose a buy Canadian policy with no test of ownership. Those were not the CRA’s choices. They were the government’s choices. Last November, the Prime Minister declared that Canadians must honour our veterans’ patriotism with our own, and for once, I agree with his words, but his actions ring hollow. Patriotism is not a line in a statement. In this case, it is a choice in that contract. The government also defends this decision by claiming the Commissionaires could no longer meet its veteran hiring target. Here is what the government will not tell us. The Commissionaires knew the target was a problem. The organization raised it itself. It asked veterans affairs to reassess the target and to update it. Instead, the door was closed. The Commissionaires, which is a not-for-profit, reportedly could not get a meeting with the minister. Meanwhile, senior officials found time to quietly meet with for-profit competitors. Lobbying records prove this. Allied Universal has had a registered lobbyist working the Canadian government since at least 2023, pursuing federal security contracts exactly like this one, yet only three years ago, the department’s own briefing said that the right of first refusal was still aligned with the Government of Canada’s priorities. What changed? It is not the veterans but the government. The government called it a competitive procurement process, but this is not competition. This is a retreat. Here is the kicker. Allied Universal’s Canadian subsidiary is suing the Government of Canada for $420 million. It lost a federal airport screening contract and took the government to court. Let us consider what the Liberals have done. In a courtroom, Allied is fighting the government. Meanwhile, in an office, the government is handing an American company a contract taken from our commissionaires, who should be protected by the right of refusal that is not set to expire until next year. Let us look at Allied Universal’s work with the Trump administration. According to public reporting, it has received more than $290 million U.S. from the Department of Homeland Security this year alone, and its subsidiary received $83 million U.S. from ICE, the agency running the Trump deportation program. This summer, Newsweek named Allied Universal one of America’s most patriotic companies, and I do not doubt that it is. It is an American company, and it should be proud of that honour. However, I would ask the members opposite this: Since when is it the Canadian government’s job to reward America’s most patriotic companies? Canada already has its own patriotic organization, and has had for more than 100 years, called the Commissionaires. Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to trust him to stand up to Washington, and many Canadians gave him their trust and their vote for the first time in their life. They believed he was the only one who could handle the president and get a deal. They did not vote to send the veterans contract to a company tied to an American deportation program. Every Canadian who trusted the Liberal slogans should know this: They did not misplace their patriotism. The government misplaced their trust. At election time, the Liberals wrapped themselves in the flag, but at contract time, they pay Americans. At election time, they stand at the cenotaph, but at contract time, they leave the commissionaires standing at the door. At election time, the government promises to put Canada first, but at contract time, it puts Canada second. I can assure the members opposite that veterans from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland are watching the government closely. It is not enough to expose the illusion, so let me set out plainly how a government that keeps its word to veterans would restore that promise. First, it would give the CRA contract back to the commissionaires. Second, it would have Veterans Affairs restore the right of first refusal and update the promise made generations ago to reflect the veterans of today. According to court filings in 2025, the department’s own deputy minister suggested renewing that policy with new measures strengthening our commissionaires, not cutting them down. Third, it would lift the restrictions on clergy, the priests, imams, rabbis and other faith leaders, who serve in uniform, so they may pray in their own faith at public ceremonies, Remembrance Day included. Fourth, it would stop fighting veterans in court, sit down with them, hear them and come to an agreement. Let us end where we began, with the flag I handed to the father and his sons. Veterans define what it means to be Canadian. They come from every province and territory and every faith background and walk of life. From Vimy to Juno Beach to Kandahar, our veterans raised their hand and swore to our flag. They never asked what the flag would give them. They asked what it needed. I am proud to have served. I am proud to be Canadian. I say to the government and to every member opposite plainly, be Canadian. Be Canadian when the cameras are gone and the contract is signed. Be Canadian in the courtroom, at the cenotaph and at the chapel. Be Canadian for veterans who put Canada first. Keep your promises, honour your own words, and if you cannot be Canadian, then for the love of this country, step aside for those who will. Our flag is not a costume for election time. It is a sacred promise. Our soldiers fought and died for it, and our veterans kept that promise. It is time the government did the same.”

“I agree that the government is not held accountable for its actions. It spends money irresponsibly on programs that do not actually help Canadians. After 11 years under this government, Canadians are struggling.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, a common trend is not just betraying veterans, as I outlined in my speech, but a lack of accountability. We see that with the Defence Investment Agency. Absolutely, I am outraged at some of the accountability issues, the irresponsible spending and the claims that their programs are helping people. They are not helping. Canadians are drowning under 11 years of the government, and occasionally it lifts Canadians’ heads above the water for a breath of fresh air and expects them to be happy because the program it is spending too much money on is working. That is the problem.”

“The Commissionaires confirmed they were never invited to meet with the government. They are a non-profit group that helps veterans, gets no complaints, and has high approval. I want to hear the member's thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s service. I was just sitting in the veterans affairs committee, which is meeting with the Commissionaires. In his speech, the member highlighted that the Commissionaires were never invited to the table, and that can be confirmed from our meeting. I would like to hear his thoughts about what I asked earlier. The Commissionaires is a non-profit organization that invests in veterans and has confirmed that it has never received any complaints. In fact, it has an 86% approval rating from clientele. I would like to hear what the member’s thoughts are with regard to that information.”

“The government is hiring American companies instead of Canadian groups to do security work for veterans. It makes no sense to give these jobs to foreign businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent work he does supporting veterans on the veterans affairs committee. It was confirmed not only at committee but in court papers that the Commissionaires attempted to contact Veterans Affairs to resolve this issue, but clearly that has not happened. The Liberals are contracting out security services for veterans to American companies. What are the Liberals going to present to Canada next, that they are going to contract out to American companies to provide our military services? This is ridiculous.”

“The Liberals claim to support veterans, but their actions betray them. They are hurting veterans with this contract, and they are stopping military clergy from praying or speaking about religion in public.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am sure that all members of this House will say they support veterans, but the members opposite show it in a pretty funny way. If we look at this contract and how they are betraying veterans, or at the other examples that I laid out in my speech, they certainly have a very different way of supporting veterans. The member mentioned praying. Right now, there are restrictions on the prayers that clergy from all faiths in the military can say. They are not allowed to give religious speeches while in public, which is another way the Liberals are backstabbing veterans.”