Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Federal Procurement

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has already answered the question that he asked. There was a promise made by our government and a promise kept when it comes to veterans and making sure that we take good care of veterans. Every member of the House, irrespective of the side of the House they are on, respects the sacrifices they made, and we will continue to work hard for those veterans and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

There is an increasingly familiar pattern emerging from the Liberals. The Prime Minister of this 11-year-old government makes grand new announcements about Canadian sovereignty, and Canadians are assured that a bold new era of government is about to arrive. Unfortunately for the government, somebody always pulls back the curtain to see what is behind it, and that is where the troubles start.

This truly is a government of loud announcements and empty promises. For example, the Liberals backslapped each other over reaching our nation's 2% NATO commitment. Only later did we discover that it includes an unarmed, unionized civilian Coast Guard. Projects like the F-35 are stalling amid political games. The PBO cannot provide a clear picture of what the future holds, and, increasingly, it looks like the Liberals cannot either.

There is a difference between grandstanding and governing. Grandstanding is convincing Canadians that they believe in something. Governing involves showing them when decisions actually have to be made. The Prime Minister seems more interested in Brussels and Middle Eastern controversies than Canadian veterans.

We are talking about the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, an institution that has served veterans for a century. I served as a captain in the Canadian Army Reserve, and that experience gave me an appreciation for the military that goes well beyond government documents. One thing people learn in university is the ethics of duty. They also learn that the military does not disappear from our lives the minute we take off the uniform.

My father passed away many years ago, but I want to revive an argument we had when he was alive. I think, looking back, he would be okay with that. My dad was a young air force officer who later scoffed at veterans attending military functions in uniform after retiring. He said that they were living in the past. He called them old soldiers who kept reliving their glory days. I heard my dad then. I disagree with him now.

I think veterans carry what they have learned in the military forward in life, regardless of whether they retire after one tour or after most of their working lives. Here is what my father learned, and I do not think he would mind me sharing it. He was a farm boy who joined the air force to become a pilot, because pilots were cool. That is pretty much the only reason. Here is what happened. He failed. He became a bombardier instead. He completed one tour of duty, and then he largely avoided military events afterward.

However, he learned something in the military. He learned that he did not like failure. In fact, he apparently made the grandiose promise to my mother that he would never fail again. Now, I do not know what my dad's win-loss column was in life, and I do not think it matters that much, but he learned a lesson, admitted it and moved on. He went on to earn a Ph.D., become an internationally famous biologist and later in life received the university gold medal as the most accomplished graduate of his undergraduate class. I suspect that hard work brought him more success than failure.

Other veterans take different paths, and many of them stay in longer and need help making the transition to civilian life. That is why we need organizations like the Commissionaires. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was created in 1925 to help returning soldiers with employment. Today it employs about 22,000 Canadians, including thousands of veterans. It is a Canadian not-for-profit organization, and it is our country's largest employer of veterans. It recognizes military experience, and it offers veterans a way to keep contributing.

One would think that an organization like that would pretty well fit into the Prime Minister's buy Canadian economic sovereignty plan. Of course there is this enthusiasm for telling the rest of us to buy Canadian. In response to President Trump's trade war, he first promised a deal. When that failed, he promised federal spending would default to Canadian suppliers. When his buy Canada policy took effect in December 2025, he declared that Canada would become its own best customer.

Unfortunately, when it came to an actual procurement decision, the Canadian content of his political record turned out to be greater than his appreciation of Canadian ownership. Let us look at the CRA contract. In June, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a contract worth nearly $12 million, not to the Commissionaires, a Canadian non-profit dedicated to helping veterans. Nope. It was awarded to UPSSC, a Canadian subsidiary of an American multinational, Allied Universal.

The difference between the bids was about $80,000, which is less than the cost of the Prime Minister's banquet bill. It is a 1% difference between a Canadian veteran organization and an American multinational. So much for buy Canadian. So much for Liberal promises.

Obviously, governments have to get value for taxpayers' money, and I am not arguing that the Commissionaires should automatically win every contract by virtue of just being Canadian, but the government should be able to tell us why it did not value Canadian ownership and veteran employment more than the cost of a prime ministerial banquet. If the assessment was fair, it should release the criteria and explain the decision to Canadians.

The $80,000 gets interesting when we examine government spending priorities. According to a government response to an Order Paper question, catering aboard an aircraft carrying the Prime Minister and his entourage during one trip to China, Qatar and Davos cost well over $100,000. I am not suggesting the Prime Minister should go hungry abroad, but apparently there is considerable flexibility when it comes to expenditures at 35,000 feet.

Apparently, veterans ask too much of the government. The government explanation is that Allied Universal operates through a Canadian subsidiary. I have no criticism of its Canadian workers, but that is not really the point. If an American-owned multinational with a Canadian address is the same thing as a Canadian not-for-profit dedicated to veterans, what exactly does buy Canadian mean?

There is nothing wrong with hiring American companies, but this is a Prime Minister who has made anger at Donald Trump central to his government, and his government awarded a federal contract to an American-owned company with substantial business ties to the Trump administration. Apparently, his elbows are up for the camera but down when the contracts are signed.

What is buy Canadian supposed to mean? If we treat Canadian not-for-profits no differently from foreign-owned companies, ministers should say so. They should also explain to Canadians why they say one thing and do another. Maybe the procurement process did follow the rules, but if those rules do not recognize the value of Canadian veteran employment in a period the Prime Minister himself calls Canada first, then it is the rules that need changing.

We should demand a remedy, not another excuse. Quite honestly, what is the message that Canadians are supposed to get from this fiasco? The Prime Minister wants to sell Canadians on buy European. His ministers want to sell us on buy Canadian, and the groaning bureaucracy of procurement buys American.

I will finish with what my father taught me. He wanted to be a pilot and failed, but he did not spend his life redefining success or explaining away that disappointment. He accepted it, learned from it and went on to accomplish extraordinary things. I still disagreed with him about those “old soldiers”, but he was absolutely right about failure.

As Remembrance Day approaches, ministers will again solemnly tell Canadians how much they respect our veterans, but respect is demonstrated through deeds, not speeches. The government should begin by admitting that passing over a centuries-old veterans institution while campaigning on buy Canadian is at least a decision worth revisiting.

My father understood that failure was not something to disguise with an excuse. It was something to learn from. What matters is what we do afterward. He learned from failure and went on to an extraordinary life. The Prime Minister still has that opportunity with the government, but first, he will have to do something that seems remarkably difficult for the government: He will have to admit that he made a mistake.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, the member has heard different types of arguments that provide the answers to many of the questions he posed, but of course, the Conservatives do not want to listen to the answers. Rather, they have their spin and speaking lines to try to give a gross exaggeration of the reality of this.

For example, the company that won the award has thousands of employees, some of them in my own province of Manitoba. It has a very significant footprint. CRA is independent of the government in putting out tenders. The Commissionaires, which is a fantastic organization that I have been saying nothing but positive things about, has evolved.

Does the member know what percentage of the Commissionaires is made up of veterans?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Liberal logic that goes into this.

Let me talk about the F-35 for a minute. It is from an American-owned company. It would create between 2,500 and 5,000 Canadian jobs and thousands of indirect jobs, and it just happens to be the only airplane that could provide deterrence in the Arctic. By that logic, we should pick the F-35, yet we cannot do that. We will not do that. For some reason, we are just going to wait for a while.

If Canadian jobs and American ownership are not an issue, why do we not have the F-35?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a rather blurred line between buying Canadian and buying from American subsidiaries. Earlier, a member gave IBM as an example of buying Canadian because IBM has had a subsidiary in her riding for a long time.

What criteria does my colleague think should be used to determine whether a business is Canadian, as opposed to an American business with subsidiaries in Canada?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my job is not to determine the exact makeup, but I will say that when we have something as glaring as an American-owned company and a Canadian-owned non-profit, we do not need to take it to a large jury to find out which one we should be picking.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague's service and his father's service. It was very nicely woven into his speech today.

He was just speaking about the not-for-profit organization, where money is reinvested into veterans. I would like to hear his thoughts on that as an excuse. Why would the Liberals not want to keep a contract with the Commissionaires, which does such great work and supports veterans?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news. We do have the F-35s. We have Canadian pilots being trained on the F-35s. Would the member acknowledge and express his appreciation for the fact that we have them?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

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

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Liberal government has not only taken jobs away from veterans but has decided to give them to a company that is involved with ICE in the United States is absolutely appalling.

There are a lot of veterans living in Winnipeg Centre who are houseless and do not have a livable income. I have talked to many veterans organizations in Winnipeg that support my idea of a guaranteed livable basic income. Veterans make a sacrifice for whatever reasons they find in their spirit, but when they come back, we do not look after them. It is not only through employment but also if they are unable to work for whatever reason.

I am wondering if the member supports my idea of putting in place a guaranteed livable basic income for veterans.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the homelessness of veterans is a horrible crisis this country faces. In fact, I was just at a home for veterans in Ottawa serving Thanksgiving dinner to them not too long ago. If the government was running the economy the way it pretends it does and was giving and protecting veterans' jobs, that would not be necessary. Our veterans would have jobs, would be working for the Commissionaires and would not be homeless.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but share his dismay as we watch the government create more and more agencies and Crown corporations. We can certainly add the Allied Universal contract to that list.

This removes accountability from the minister. It reduces transparency. It takes democratic power away from this House.

I would like to hear my colleague's views on this trend. Is he as concerned about this as I am?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we wind up the debate, I want to recognize not only the valuable role but the very existence of our veterans and what they have done in the past. November 11 at 11 o'clock is a very special moment in time when we should all take time to pray and give thanks to our veterans, both past and present. I suggest that all members recognize the true value of that. I would ask them to recognize and appreciate that there are many different things the government does for vets and that all members support veterans in Canada.

We continue to look forward to the fine work that the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires does every day in serving in different capacities, many of whom, 20% plus, are veterans.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is as follows.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m., to begin the late show.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?