Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Federal Procurement

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, Commissionaires is still the largest employer of Canada's veterans, and it is a not-for-profit. The government has been meeting with GardaWorld as recently as July, but Commissionaires cannot even get a meeting with the minister, who has not met with Commissionaires since the spring.

I am hoping my colleague can share a bit of insight on why the government is refusing to meet with the Commissionaires. If there is an issue about needing to increase the amount of veterans who are working for Commissionaires, that should be a conversation the minister is having. Taking that away and giving it to a private company instead is privatization that has crossed the line. It is over the top.

When the member talks about veteran employment, I will tell him what it is like in my riding. In Courtenay, where the Commissionaires is, 60% of those who work for Commissionaires are veterans.

I am hoping my colleague can explain why the minister refuses to meet with Commissionaires.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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 Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North said something with which I completely agree, and I would like him to underscore the point. I wonder why he did not make the same point to my question of personal privilege, where he disagreed. He said just now, and he is absolutely right, that if there was a misleading statement but no intention to mislead, that was different. It was misinformation, but misinformation with an intent to mislead would violate the rules of this place.

The Speaker is still considering my question of personal privilege, so I ask my hon. friend from Winnipeg North to pitch in here and confirm what he just said, which was correct. “Disinformation” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, and any other dictionary, as “deliberately false information” for the purpose of deceit and deception.

Would the hon. member agree that, when an hon. member here accuses other members of deliberate deception by using the word “disinformation”, as he just said, that violates the rules of this place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the government is creating so many new agencies and why, every time we ask about the reasons for a decision, we are told that it was not a government decision. The procurement ombud has said that this has got to stop.

Is the government, which keeps creating new agencies, prepared to give the procurement ombud the authority to oversee their procurement activities in the same way that he oversees other government contracts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane.

“Sensitivity” is a word that I would like members to remember because I am going to come back to it in my speech.

I want to talk about the word “sensitivity” because, in a few days, Canadians will gather for Remembrance Day ceremonies. They will wear a poppy, just as we are all doing right now here in the House. In each of our regions, we will honour our veterans and soldiers who have been deployed to various missions abroad. We will also thank their families for the sacrifices they have made throughout Canada's history in times of war by entrusting a member of their family to the service of our country in order to protect Canada and the freedoms that we now enjoy.

The people who devoted years to serving our country are the reason for these ceremonies. Some of them have been deployed far from their loved ones. Others are still living with injuries sustained while on duty. When they leave the armed forces, these people need to continue to earn a living and take care of their families. That is something that the public is not often aware of. A soldier is not always a soldier. A person does not remain a soldier their whole life, except maybe in their heart. They have to make a living and get back into the swing of everyday life. That is exactly what many members of the Canadian Armed Forces have to do.

The respect we owe them extends beyond the poppy we wear at a certain time of year or the speeches made by dignitaries on that day. One of these groups that deserve a lot of respect is the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which provides veterans who, like I said, always stay soldiers at heart, with the opportunity to keep working.

For people who may not know, we sometimes see commissionaires when we stop by federal offices. We sometimes see the word “commissionaire”. People may wonder why they are called by this name. Does it mean they take commissions? No, they are the people in charge of security on the premises. In French, the name can be especially confusing. Many commissionaires are veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces, working to earn a living after their military service ends. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is the largest non-governmental employer of veterans in the country and has been in operation since 1925.

In June, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a security contract worth nearly $12 million to a company controlled by American interests and owned by Allied Universal. The problem is that this contract had previously been held by the Commissionaires, who had been providing those services for many years with the support of veterans. The Commissionaires also submitted a bid for the nearly $12-million contract, but their proposal was $80,000 higher, representing less than 1% of the contract's value. Over that small difference, the tired old Liberal government chose to set aside a Canadian non-profit organization that provides employment for veterans and instead award the contract to an American company, which I will return to later.

Just days before Remembrance Day, this is where the notion of sensitivity comes into play. When we learned that the government had awarded the contract to an American company, we could not help but wonder what message it was trying to send: Thanks for your service to Canada, but the contract is going to the Americans.

The problem is that we have a Prime Minister who spends a great deal of time making speeches. He says one thing and does the opposite, often at the same time. It all depends on the day and on his audience. One day, he tells us that Canada must stand up to the United States, only to lift retaliatory tariffs shortly thereafter. One day, he says that his government will not negotiate with the United States for years because Canada can afford to wait; then, on the very day the by-elections are called, he announces that he has spoken with the U.S. president.

He also promises to buy Canadian. We thought it was easy for a Prime Minister to make such a promise, since he and his cabinet have the power to follow through on a commitment to buy Canadian, particularly in a challenging situation like the one we are currently facing with the United States. Despite that promise, his government still awarded the contract to a company under American control.

The rhetoric changes often, the promises are piling up and Canadians want consistency. No one knows where the government is heading. In the end, with a particularly important opportunity up for grabs, the government decided to push aside the Commissionaires to make way for an American company. All that to save $80,000, which is less than 1% of the contract's value.

The Liberals announce a measure, change course and reverse their decision. Then they wonder why people are finding it increasingly difficult to believe them. Businesses are having a hard time keeping up with the government, and workers are having to adapt.

We know that the government does not control the decisions made in Washington, but there is one thing it can control, if it is a real government, and that is the contracts it awards here in Canada. The Prime Minister promised to prioritize Canadian suppliers. He needs to keep that promise. That is entirely in his control.

When the Prime Minister was in Halifax in March, he explained that some of our former strengths, based on our close ties with the United States, had become vulnerabilities. Three months later, he chose an American-controlled company over the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Is anyone having a hard time following my logic? In any case, Canadians are having a hard time following the government's logic. It makes promises it does not keep.

We keep hearing about the need to build Canada strong and sign agreements. The government promised an agreement with the United States. We see grand summits, lofty speeches and headline-grabbing announcements. However, when it actually comes to signing agreements, where is the Prime Minister? He is nowhere to be seen; he is not there. He is not signing anything that lives up to the promises he has made.

Last October, when talking about Canadian steel, the Prime Minister kept saying it was time to become our own best customer. Despite that, steel remains one of the sectors hardest hit by countertariffs. On top of that, Canada is now being flooded with dumped imports from countries that have also been shut out of the U.S. market.

Why does this tired old Liberal government not keep its word to our veterans? It says it respects veterans. I can believe that, but, once again, these are just words. Respect can be expressed through action, for example by signing the contracts that would allow the largest non-profit organization, and the one that employs the most veterans, to secure the contracts it needs to continue providing the services it delivered until very recently.

The Prime Minister is not alone in this. There are ministers too. What are they doing? What is the Minister of Public Services and Procurement doing? Why did he not change the rules so that when there is less than 1% difference between bids, as is the case here, the contract would be awarded to a Canadian company?

Allied Universal, the company that was awarded the contract instead of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, has significant business ties with the U.S. administration. It holds more than $80 million in contracts with the United States, including with Immigration and Customs Enforcement—or ICE, as it is called, even on the news—the agency responsible for carrying out deportations on behalf of the Trump administration. This is the company that was entrusted with providing security services for the Canada Revenue Agency. In 2026 alone, it also secured $290 million U.S. in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security.

When we are told to stick our elbows up for Canada, it is not so that American companies can be given preference over the Commissionaires. Sometimes standing up for Canada means preventing exactly that from happening. Above all, when a promise is made, it should be kept.

Conservatives want to put Canada first, put the Commissionaires first, secure contracts for Canadians, support jobs, build more housing and help families save money. It is time that buy Canadian finally move from rhetoric to procurement decisions, and that the Liberals back up their words with signatures. We owe it to veterans and to Canadian companies that do business in Canada and that believed the Prime Minister when he said he was going to implement a buy Canadian policy.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking earlier about sensitivity, and this question is a perfect example of why.

I am talking about veterans. I am talking about veterans of our Canadian Armed Forces. I am talking about an American company at a time when the Prime Minister himself has described the situation as a trade war with the United States.

The Prime Minister promised that he would award contracts to Canadian companies first. It is not my fault if the member did not listen to her Prime Minister's promises. I think that even the Liberals stopped listening to their Prime Minister's promises because they know he does not keep them.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question.

Last week, at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we asked the procurement ombud what he needed to properly perform his role of holding the government to account. He told us that he would need the authority to do his work within government agencies.

He also made another point, and I would like to know whether my colleague agrees. He told us that, after more than a year of contracts being awarded to Canadian companies, it is time to conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine what went right, what went wrong and what needs to be fixed. Is this motion not just the tip of the iceberg? What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the best way to describe this tired old Liberal government's approach is a lack of transparency. When it has gotten to the point where the Liberals are even preventing someone like the procurement ombud from getting access to the information he needs to give his opinion on what is happening, that is worse than simply refusing to answer the Conservatives' questions or trying to sidetrack or distract us.

There is no doubt that this government lacks transparency and does not live up to its word when it comes time to keep the promises that it made to all Canadians. The government is great at making fancy speeches around the world, but it is terrible when it comes to telling Canadians the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, The Eastern Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Would he agree that it is particularly sad that the Commissionaires lost this contract to save less than 1%?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the key word in relation to what we are discussing today is “sensitivity”. Yes, it is sad for the veterans. It is especially sad for the Commissionaires, who have been carrying out this kind of work since 1925 and who have been there for veterans leaving either the armed forces or a conflict zone, often without knowing what comes next. Canada had an organization that allowed them to continue to live with dignity and find work. They felt like they were still part of a group. Folks in the military know how important that sense of camaraderie is.

Yes, it is sad that the government attaches so little importance to the Commissionaires. Above all, I do not understand why, despite all the time it had, the government could not put measures in place to allow a Canadian non-profit company to secure this contract, when its bid was only 1% higher than that of its American competitor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Day, Canadians across the country will gather, of course, to honour the men and women who have served this country in our armed forces and who are willing to give of their lives for the freedoms that we all enjoy. In my own communities of Airdrie and Cochrane, I will have the privilege of spending time with veterans, their families and the volunteers who work so hard to make sure their sacrifices are never forgotten. I can tell my colleagues that these are some of the finest people we will ever meet. They are proud of their service and their country. They are not looking for special treatment, but they do expect to be treated with respect and to have a government that gives them what they are owed.

Thanking our veterans should not be something we do only once a year. We should not just pin a poppy on our jacket and then forget about them for the other 11 months of the year. These are men and women who stood up for Canada when their country needed them. The very least their government can do for them is to stand up for them when they need it. That is what makes the issues we are discussing here today so frustrating.

When we look at the way the Liberal government is treating our veterans, we see a real disconnect between what it says and what it does. Before I get to the very important issue at hand today, I would like to get into a couple of examples that highlight some of the concerns about those differences between the words and the actions of the Liberal government when it comes to showing respect and appreciation for our veterans and what they have done for our country.

I think of the issue of military chaplains, for example. For generations, prayer has been a part of military life here in Canada. It has offered comfort to soldiers facing unimaginable circumstances, to families who are grieving their loved ones and to our veterans who are remembering those who never came home. Nobody is suggesting that every Canadian must share the same religious beliefs. Of course not, but surely we can at least respect those who do find strength in their faith, just as we respect those who do not. Instead, the Canadian Armed Forces issued a directive restricting faith-specific prayer at official military functions. In fact, any reflection that might in any way be faith-based or spiritual is banned, and often the messages that a chaplain has to craft almost become meaningless. That is not what anyone would want to see. When I look at that, I have to ask why that is necessary.

Our soldiers have faced enemy fire, they have lost their friends and colleagues, they have made sacrifices that most of us will never even be able to comprehend, and now we are telling military chaplains that they cannot even offer a traditional prayer at certain official ceremonies. These are people who have stood beside our troops in their darkest moments. We should be supporting them, not telling them how to practise their faith and not taking away that opportunity for our men and women who serve.

Now I will get to the issue of this contract we are discussing today. I find this particularly difficult to understand. Not that long ago, fairly recently, in fact, the government ended the right of first refusal that has existed for the Corps of Commissionaires for decades. I would argue it is important that any Canadian organization or business that employs veterans at an adequate level should have an opportunity for that contract, but at the time the government came out with this, it was a surprise to everyone, including the commissionaires themselves.

I remember warning at the time that we could see Canadian veterans lose opportunities and jobs as a result. Here we are, just a few short months later, and we can look at what has happened. It is exactly what we warned would happen by taking away that right of first refusal without replacing it with anything that would guarantee veterans have chances to get those jobs.

Here we go. We have a Canadian not-for-profit organization with a long and proud history of providing employment opportunities to veterans. It has helped thousands of former military members transition into civilian life. It has helped them continue to serve their communities and continue to earn a living after leaving the armed forces.

However, what the government did was award a nearly $12-million CRA security contract to an American multinational corporation. The difference between the two bids was reportedly less than 1%. Let us think about that for a moment. The government has spent months telling Canadians that we need to buy Canadian, that we need to support Canadian workers and that we need to become our own best customer. Well, here is an opportunity to do exactly that and to be able to support our veterans at the same time. That sounds like it should be a no-brainer, does it not? Apparently, that was not the case for the Liberal government.

Our veterans, who have already paid a price for our country, a price most Canadians will never be asked to pay, should not have to keep paying for the failures of the Liberal government. They should not be struggling to afford groceries, worrying about housing or fighting through government bureaucracy just to receive the support they have already earned. They have done their part; it is time the government did its part. We have seen time and again how this works. We have seen significant delays and problematic denials in terms of veterans' ability to get the services and supports they are entitled to.

Veterans often talk about a triple-D policy: denial, delay and death. Essentially, this is because the government has set up a situation where the delays are so long and arduous and the bureaucratic process is so difficult to fight their way through that it ultimately becomes a denial just by delay. Even if it is not that, then it becomes an actual denial. They have to fight through a bunch of other bureaucratic processes, if they can find a way to do that, to hopefully end up getting a positive result in the end. At the end of the day, what the government really seems to hope is that they will just go away and stop fighting for those benefits. They earned them. They deserve them because of what they were willing to do for our country and what they did do for our country.

What troubles me about all this is it should not be particularly controversial. Supporting veterans in finding meaningful employment should not be controversial. Respecting the role of faith and tradition in our military should not be controversial. Making sure veterans can afford to live with dignity should not be controversial, yet here we are. Time and time again, the government finds a way to make simple things complicated with more bureaucracy, more excuses and more broken promises. When it comes time to deliver, our veterans are left waiting.

Respect for our veterans is not measured by how many wreaths a government lays or how many speeches its ministers give on Remembrance Day; it is measured by what that government does when the cameras are gone, whether it protects their traditions, supports their employment and makes sure they get the help they have earned. This is the standard our veterans deserve and should expect, and it is the standard the Liberal government needs to start being held to.

I will continue to stand up for the men and women who have served our country and those who continue to serve our country today. They have earned our gratitude. They have earned our respect. Above all, they have earned a government that is prepared to back up its words with actions, but that is not what they are getting right now. As a Conservative, I will continue to fight for them, and that is what we are doing here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we head into Remembrance Day, I think it is important to put on the record the actual investments this government has made into Canada's military and veterans, including increases to defence investment and modernization, which was $9 billion just this year, reaching NATO's 2% of GDP target; historic pay increases for military personnel, including a 20% increase for regular forces privates; a $2.6-billion investment into recruitment and retention, reaching record levels of recruitment in the armed forces; $3.7 billion towards military housing and infrastructure; and an over $200-million investment committed to services and benefits.

These are historic investments in Canadians' military and historic investments to support veterans. Would the member opposite agree?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I find incredibly frustrating is that the only way the Liberal government ever measures anything is how by much money it can can spend. We should instead measure the results and, frankly, the results have not been there.

Our men and women in uniform will tell us, to this day, that they continue to struggle with not having the equipment they need to be able to do their jobs. We hear lots of talk about procurement and we hear lots of talk about spending money, but we do not see the results on the ground. When it comes to talking about veterans, whom we are here to talk about today, what they will tell us is they wait months, if not years, for the benefits that they earned because of their service for this country. That is because of the bureaucratic processes put up by that government, and it is time that is put to a stop and we start seeing some results.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work my colleague did during the year that we served together, as well as the work he did alongside my Bloc Québécois predecessor. My colleague genuinely cares about the treatment of veterans and is deeply committed to recognizing their service.

Indeed, my first thought when I joined this committee was to wonder why no action was being taken, even though people wanted what was good for veterans. Since 2015, there have been nine veterans affairs ministers. That says something.

Does my colleague agree with me that an announcement like that is deeply hurtful to veterans?

The government cannot claim to be supporting veterans when its actions send the message that they are no longer needed and can be readily replaced.

Does my colleague agree with me?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. We see so many of these kinds of things. We see it in what we are talking about today with this contract, when the Liberals were warned that this would be the result. We see it in the lack of action towards building a monument to the mission in Afghanistan and the 158 Canadians who gave their lives there. We see it in the denials and delays when it comes to the benefits that veterans are entitled to. We see it throughout so many things. We remember that the Liberals tried to take away the Remembrance Day wreaths. They have taken away the ability for prayer at Remembrance Day services. The list goes on and on. I always say we judge someone not by their words but by their actions. If we judge the current government by its actions, it is clearly failing our veterans.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do owe our veterans a debt of gratitude that probably we can never repay. However, we can recognize it in terms of what the federal government has done through the contract that has been issued through a technicality to an American company. The people of Canada have to realize that the only reason this contract was given was that an American company gave a Canadian address but was not located in Canada like the Veterans Association that has been here since 1945.

Can the member talk about that technicality, and what it means to buy Canadian?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because the reality of this situation is that not only are the Liberals failing our veterans with this, but they are also failing to live up to their own words. They talk about wanting to see buy Canadian. They want to make sure that Canadians are getting the opportunities. This goes absolutely contrary to all of their words.

Again, their actions are not lining up with their words. This was an opportunity not only to do right by our veterans and ensure veterans have the opportunity of employment, but also to ensure that Canadian companies have the opportunity to prioritize Canadian employment over American. In this case, the Liberals failed at all of the above, just like they always do.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Compton—Stanstead.

It is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today to reaffirm the Government of Canada's commitment to the buy Canadian policy. I am incredibly proud of how this initiative is transforming government procurement, giving Canadian businesses, workers, manufacturers and suppliers greater access to opportunities, and delivering real results for Canadians. As the member of Parliament for Kanata, and Canada's largest technology park with over 800 companies, this policy has a meaningful impact.

Our government will always stand with Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and that is how we will build the strongest economy in the G7. We remain as committed as ever to prioritizing Canadian suppliers and Canadian-made goods and services in federal procurement. This is a pledge that we have made to Canadians, and it is unwavering.

Since it came into force in December of last year, the buy Canadian policy has been reshaping how the federal government spends by prioritizing Canadian content, materials, suppliers and workers at every opportunity. From steel and aluminum to wood products, the government's purchasing of goods and services is being used as a powerful tool to back key industries and strengthen domestic supply chains. The rollout of the buy Canadian policy marked a major step towards building a more resilient Canadian economy. It is designed to ensure clear advantages are available to suppliers who invest, innovate and produce here at home.

By prioritizing Canadian suppliers, Canadian materials and Canadian content in federal procurement, we are becoming our own best customer. By reducing reliance on any single trading partner and building resilience through strong domestic demand, we are bolstering Canada's economy. The policy on prioritizing Canadian suppliers and Canadian content in strategic federal procurements initially applied to procurements valued at $25 million and above. However, in June, we lowered that threshold to $5 million, significantly broadening its reach.

We are also putting Canadian materials at the centre of major federal construction and defence projects. For procurements of $25 million or more, the policy requires Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood. We are also making it easier for Canadian small businesses to compete for federal opportunities through the small business procurement program, which will simplify procurement processes and introduce new digital tools.

Ultimately, the test of this policy is whether federal spending creates economic activity here at home. In the spirit of the buy Canadian policy, the government continues to identify opportunities for Canadian suppliers to benefit from federal procurement policies, and ultimately support Canadian workers, businesses and communities. This includes attracting investments that deliver tangible and lasting benefits to Canadian communities and supply chains. This is all about driving growth, creating opportunities and enhancing prosperity for Canadians. In a more dangerous and volatile world, this has never been more important, particularly when it comes to protecting Canada's sovereignty.

We know that the world has changed and Canada must change with it. That is why Canada is also making generational investments to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces. These investments are guided by Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy, a whole-of-government approach to transform Canada's defence industry. This strategy will prioritize Canadian suppliers and materials, invest in Canadian innovation and commercialization, and streamline defence procurement. It is supported by the new Defence Investment Agency. This is yet another tool with which we are delivering greater strategic autonomy and economic benefits for Canada.

These efforts are already making a difference. Between December 2025 and October 1, 2026, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the government's central purchaser, awarded a total of 1,644 new contracts worth about $23 billion. Of those contracts, 1,372, representing about $17.7 billion, were awarded to suppliers operating in Canada. That is the kind of progress we want to build on.

With regard to today's motion, the Canada Revenue Agency, following a fair and open procurement process, decided to award this contract to a company that operates extensively in Canada and employs Canadian security guards, supervisors and managers. This brings me to an important point about what we mean when we talk about Canadian suppliers. Being a Canadian supplier is not simply a question of who owns the shares of a company. We also need to look at where the economic activity takes place.

Under the buy Canadian policy, the definition of a Canadian supplier is based on substantive economic activity in Canada. That includes having a place of business here, being registered and filing taxes here, and conducting ongoing activities and employing people in Canada to deliver goods and services. That distinction matters.

A company can be part of a global enterprise and still employ thousands of Canadians. It can pay taxes here. It can operate facilities here. It can conduct research and development here. It can purchase from Canadian suppliers and invest in Canadian communities. Those jobs are Canadian jobs. Those investments are investments in Canada. That economic activity matters to Canada.

That is why our approach looks not only at the name or nationality of a parent company, but also at the economic value being created right here in Canada. In fact, Canadian content under the policy can include salaries and services delivered in Canada; research, design and testing carried out here; Canadian software development and systems integration; and Canadian installation, maintenance and training.

That approach also sends a powerful message to international companies. If they want to do business with the Government of Canada, they need to invest in Canada, build in Canada and create value in Canada. That is an important part of what buy Canadian is intended to achieve. Buy Canadian is not simply about where a company's headquarters are located. It is about where the jobs are, where the investment is, where the innovation happens, where the supply chain is built and ultimately where the economic benefits land.

We continue to work closely with businesses, suppliers and stakeholders to develop and refine procurement measures that support Canadian industry, strengthen supply chains and drive our country's economic growth. Our government will always stand with Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. We will build the strongest economy in the G7. We will always support our veterans with job opportunities.

I want to assure this House that we are fully committed to our buy Canadian policy, the substantial opportunities it is providing for Canadians and the powerful benefits it is providing to our country. We have shifted from an approach of “best effort” to a clear obligation to support Canadian industries, and we are transforming our economy while we do it. Through buy Canadian, we are supporting our industries today while keeping a clear focus on a sustainable future. That is our promise to Canadians, one that we are delivering on.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of chaplaincy and the ability to pray at ceremonies, I note that under the government's policy, it has a specific section regarding indigenous cultural practices. This policy says that an indigenous person is not allowed to share their spiritual practices. In fact, that has to be religiously neutral. There could be a situation where an indigenous person mentions the word “Creator”, and under the Liberal government's policy, they would not be permitted to share their indigenous spirituality.

How is it reconciliation when the government is actively suppressing indigenous spirituality?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, as I answer the member's question, to acknowledge the service of veterans and the sacrifice they have made on our behalf and for our country. Their contributions are lasting and recognized.

I look forward, on November 11, to attending the local ceremony in my community, where we include prayer that is inclusive. I expect it will be the same as colleagues across this chamber visit and participate in ceremonies in their communities as well.