Government Operations Committee on Oct. 6th, 2026

[Mark Quinlan]

Thank you for the question.

My role at Public Services and Procurement Canada is that of senior assistant deputy minister responsible for real property services. The questions being asked relate to procurement, but my responsibility is specifically real property.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Do you talk to the others? Were you aware? Was there any awareness? Do you check in? Does your department check into these kinds of allegations?

[Mark Quinlan]

As I mentioned, my responsibility with regard to the matter before the committee is to act as an optional service provider for several federal departments in the disposal of public lands once they are deemed surplus.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Before awarding contracts to Melanite Group, was anyone at National Defence aware of the national security concerns about the company?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I fail to see the relevance to surplus lands for veterans in this line of questioning. As the witnesses have indicated, that's what they're here to speak about, not these random questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I appreciate that. I think it goes back to the original motion, though, regarding investments in the armed forces.

Can you continue, Mr. Mazier? You have one minute.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, it's quite obvious that we can't get any answers to this kind of questioning, especially on procurement, so I'd like to move the following motion:

Given that:

(a) recent reports based on government records indicate that Mohammad Reza Ghafouri Fard, also known as Sal Ghafouri, was investigated by Canadian national security authorities over alleged involvement in Iranian military technology and procurement activities benefiting Iran's military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(b) a January 2023 CSIS security screening report alleged that Mr. Ghafouri Fard had participated in procurement activities that benefited the Iranian military, including the IRGC, and CSIS provided its security screening report to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada;

(c) despite these national security concerns, companies controlled by Mr. Ghafouri Fard received federal contracts, including contracts from the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada;

(d) in May 2026, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada informed Mr. Ghafouri Fard that proceedings had been initiated to refuse his application for Canadian citizenship on national security grounds;

pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the committee hold one meeting to examine the federal procurement, security screening and information-sharing processes related to contracts and funding awarded to companies owned or controlled by Mohammad Reza Ghafouri Fard, also known as Sal Ghafouri, and the committee invite officials from Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to appear.

According to Global News, a CSIS security screening report from January 2023 alleged that a businessman took part in procurement activities that benefited the Iranian military and the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps. CSIS shared that report with immigration officials. Besides this, his companies kept receiving federal money, including from National Defence and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, after already winning work from the RCMP.

If one part of the government is building a national security case against a supplier while another part keeps signing contracts with him, how was this allowed to happen? I didn't hear an answer. I didn't hear a straight answer. I didn't even hear any concern. That is why we owe it to Canadians to get some answers on this and that is why I'm moving this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm starting a speaking order. You can continue to address your motion, or we'll just go to the next in line on the speaking list.

Mr. Danko.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As you know, this committee has a mandate to complete the current study by October 22. That's the reporting deadline. That's an extremely tight deadline, which means that we need to complete the meetings that have been scheduled for this. The final one I believe is scheduled for October 8, this Thursday, which leaves exactly 10 business days for the analysts to complete their report. The report has to then be approved by this committee, including the recommendations, and submitted to the House. That's an extremely tight timeline to finish the work we've been tasked with on this particular study.

Also, as you'll recall, even before the summer break, we were into the buy Canadian study, which right now is particularly relevant to Canadians and particularly relevant to my community in Hamilton. My colleague opposite, MP Gaudreau, also had a study that she proposed on the National Capital Commission procurement regarding the Official Languages Act, which we're also interested in bringing back and was far in advance of this.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, that leaves us in no position other than to move to adjourn debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay. We're going right to a vote.

We'll have a recorded vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

That was Mr. Mazier's motion, the debate on which is adjourned.

We're going back to our original study, and we have Mr. Gasparro up for five minutes.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of you for your service.

I'm going to keep this quite brief.

Mr. Ménard, at the beginning of your opening remarks, you touched on something that I think was really important: that even one former CAF member who is experiencing homelessness is one too many. I think all of us, regardless of political party, fully agree with you.

I was hoping that you or some of your colleagues could provide some line of sight in terms of Canada's government's renewed effort to finance and/or build a variety of housing—supportive housing, affordable housing and social housing. How do you think that will improve the likelihood that CAF members and former CAF members will no longer experience homelessness, and how do you think that will alleviate some of the pressures in that regard?

[BGen Serge Ménard]

From our point of view in the transition group, as we assess the housing criteria as part of the seven domains of well-being, we support members who are working with Veterans Affairs Canada and other partners to make sure that members are well supported post-release, but we know that homelessness can emerge several years after release. From our point of view, the issue of homeless veterans is the responsibility of Veterans Affairs Canada. It would be better for them to answer that specific question.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

For sure, and I think we've spent some time speaking with them.

This also might be better for Veterans Affairs. Is there a line of sight in terms of the type of housing CAF members who are experiencing homelessness would need to see? Supportive housing, obviously affordable housing and social housing are definitely a need from an economic perspective, but is supportive housing potentially in greater need with members of the armed forces?

[BGen Serge Ménard]

This is not a specific question that we study, unfortunately.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I totally understand. Again, thank you all for your service.

That's it for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Gasparro.

We'll go back to Mr. Bragdon for five minutes.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, I'm yielding my time to Ms. Cobena.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to follow up on that question.

I am left concerned. As I understand it, the issues have been laid out by the five members who resigned. Their work was not producing any meaningful changes. You work in the transition group. Is it fair to say that you're not aware of any of their recommendations being implemented and that there are no tangible results from their recommendations, concerns and eventual resignations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead.

[BGen Serge Ménard]

My answer remains the same. I've not been part of any discussion related to that, so I cannot speak to that specific topic.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

What I want to know is if you—apart from being part of a discussion—see changes being made. I'm not asking about a discussion on the resignations. I am asking about the changes being implemented based on their work, based on their concerns being raised after their work was not producing any results and based on their resignations.

[BGen Serge Ménard]

What I can say is that we work very closely with Veterans Affairs Canada to make sure that we provide the best support possible to our members. This is day-to-day work in collaboration between the two departments. There are touchpoints throughout the organization: at the working level, at my level, with my counterpart in VAC and at the assistant deputy minister level as well. We use—

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I can appreciate that. My question is very specific to the work that the women's council was doing. Is it fair to say, then, that you haven't seen any changes made since? Just give a very clear answer.

[BGen Serge Ménard]

We always try to improve the services that we provide to our transitioning members, but I cannot speak specifically about the recommendations or the work.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I am going to assume that there are no meaningful changes, and you can't point to anything concrete that has been changed.

I'd love to get your thoughts on another piece of information that we have received. This is the $3 million in funding that was reallocated—that was removed from supporting homeless veterans. The housing minister deemed that those funds were not necessary because he could not find ex-military members in need. Could you speak to that?