Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Federal Procurement

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, speaking of Canadian veterans, we should take a moment to thank the hon. member for his distinguished service to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Yes, I do share his frustration. There is a reason many, if not all, of the government departments have had a right of first refusal arrangement with the Commissionaires, and that was so they could focus on protecting our buildings and public servants rather than on fighting back lobbyists for large multinational corporations that are trying to steal the work. We wanted the commissionaires to have job security, and that was the reason for the right of first refusal. The fact that the government has not honoured that in this particular case is really a disgrace. If there is one case where putting Canada first was most necessary, it is for the single largest employer of Canadian veterans.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here today on the week of the federal budget, which is coming this Thursday. It is an exciting week for all of us.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi.

I want to start by acknowledging the buy Canadian policy of our government. It is a very important feature of the government's strategy right now to build Canada strong. I am pleased to address the questions raised by the official opposition regarding the Canada Revenue Agency's recent security services contract. Each of us understands the importance of supporting Canadian workers, veterans and industries. I would like to provide clarity on points raised about this procurement decision.

First and foremost, let me outline the key facts regarding this procurement. On June 16, 2026, the CRA awarded the security services contract to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation, operating as Allied Universal security services. The contract came into effect on August 25, 2026. The contract was awarded to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation because its proposal best met the established requirements and offered the highest overall value to Canadians. By using the best value approach, the CRA is confident that contracts are awarded to suppliers that meet the highest standards while minimizing risks to the agency.

Some publicly reported information about the evaluation process and its results does not fully and accurately reflect the procurement approach that was used for this contract. The process balanced multiple factors to ensure the best value for the CRA. The outcome was not driven by political considerations, which we often get lots of in the House, but rather by a fair, transparent and open process. The CRA awarded this contract through a competitive, fair and transparent procurement process that was conducted in line with applicable procurement policies and regulations.

The Canada Revenue Agency Act, adopted by Parliament, provides the CRA with full authority to contract and develop its own contracting policy framework, while considering, of course, Treasury Board policies and regulations. The agency has always awarded contracts for security services competitively, as it did this time around. All the suppliers that met the requirements of the request for proposal were eligible to compete for this contract. We all acknowledge that competition is good. This decision was made independently and in accordance with all applicable policies.

Both Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires qualified as Canadian suppliers under the terms of the procurement. Supplier eligibility is determined by established operations and business presence in Canada, consistent with procurement policies and trade obligations. I feel it is important to note that Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation employs approximately 10,000 people across Canada at 19 locations nationwide, and its Canadian headquarters is in Mississauga, Ontario.

This contract was for 60 security guards, and 33 of them, which is over half, were former commissionaires, with 12 of them having served in uniform previously.

The CRA conducted this procurement process by incorporating a wide range of criteria, as is the case with many procurements. In this case, these included quality, capability, cost and risk. Proposals were evaluated based on both technical and financial merit to determine which company offered the best overall value. The final decision was based on the CRA's procurement process, which again is guided by the best value approach. This means that the contract was not awarded solely based on the lowest price, but to the bidder with the highest combined score in all of the areas.

I would like to emphasize that the CRA values the long-standing relationship it has with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Commissionaires has made significant contributions to providing security services to the agency and has demonstrated a strong commitment to support veterans from the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Like all Canadians, we greatly appreciate its efforts. The outcome of this procurement was strictly the result of a competitive evaluation process conducted in accordance with established procurement guidelines and principles.

While veterans remain an important part of the Canadian workforce, it is worth noting that employment opportunities for veterans have expanded significantly in recent years through initiatives such as the national veterans employment strategy. This strategy has created a more diverse set of employment opportunities for veterans by fostering collaboration between government employers and other partners and, as such, veterans have increasingly been connected with more varied job opportunities as a result.

As previously noted, the Canada Revenue Agency Act provides the CRA with the authority to enter into contracts and manage all matters relating to general administrative policy, including procurement. The CRA has full authority to contract and develop its own contracting policy framework while considering Treasury Board policies and regulations. The CRA remains committed, of course, to upholding its procurement obligations in accordance with its policies and codes of conduct, as well as the Government of Canada's obligations.

The CRA's decision reflects a commitment to fairness, value and transparency in all procurement activities. The government, of course, remains committed to supporting Canadian workers, including veterans, and to upholding the principles of our trade agreements and procurement policies. It is imperative that Canadians have confidence in the CRA's processes and understand that decisions are made in their best interests, with a focus on delivering high-quality services while minimizing risks.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question to the member, and he seems to be fairly informed, has two parts. First, the only reason CRA was able to issue this contract to a company other than Commissionaires was that Veterans Affairs removed the right of first refusal to Commissionaires, a policy that has been in place since 1945. The government refused to answer a question about that when I asked during question period. Maybe the member now knows why.

Second, I just want to clarify that, during his statement, the member said, I believe, that Allied Universal has maybe 12 Canadian veterans currently employed by the company. I point out that Commissionaires has over 4,000 Canadian veterans. Which one does he think would actually provide more employment opportunity, especially for older Canadian veterans?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to correct the record, I said that, of the 60 security guards hired through that particular contract, 33 of them were former commissionaires while 12 of those served in uniform previously. Not all commissionaires served in uniform, apparently, from what I have been told. That is just to clarify for the member opposite what I said, to be factually correct.

As to the member's question about the procurement process, I think we would probably all agree that competition within procurement is a positive thing. A best value approach is probably the best way to evaluate procurement contracts. I will note that, within the buy Canadian policy, we have defined Canadian companies as not being determined by ownership criteria, but rather by the number of employment opportunities in Canada. This particular organization has 10,000 employees in Canada, so it did qualify under those criteria.

Members need to understand that the best value of this contract was weighed between a number of different factors, and this is the decision the CRA made. It stands by that decision. Even though I know it is hard for us and members opposite to accept that decision, it was the one determined to be in the best value, which is a balance of all the different criteria, as I mentioned, of quality, risk, employment and other factors within that procurement process.

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

Madam Speaker, on this, I find myself unequivocally agreeing with the member of Parliament for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and finding the argumentation from my friend, the parliamentary secretary, lacking because the fundamental piece around the best efficiencies, the best competitive bid, omits the commitment to buy Canadian.

The maple-washing point made by the leader of the official opposition would also apply to the $2 billion to General Dynamics for buying military equipment while claiming it is a Canadian company, although General Dynamics is a 100% U.S. company with a branch plant in London, Ontario. Canadians want to see investment in Canadian companies, first and foremost. So-called LNG Canada has not a single Canadian corporation involved. There are also PetroChina and Shell. I could go on.

Canadians really are calling for the government to put Canada first in procurement. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give us a sense of where that ranks when there are competing bids.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's question and comments. Just to be clear, the buy Canadian policy defines a company that qualifies as one not determined by who owns the company but rather by its significant operations within Canada, including employment opportunities. As I said, the contract in question here includes 10,000 employees in Canada. That is a significant base that supports the Canadian economy.

In terms of overall numbers, PSPC awarded a total of 1,644 new contracts for $23 billion. Some 1,342 of those contracts, worth roughly $17.7 billion, were awarded to Canadian suppliers. Again, the buy Canadian policy is real, and it is working. I know the members opposite keep pointing out instances, with some contracts, where perhaps there may be no Canadian supplier or a supplier does not have the same operations in Canada, and I think that it is weighing heavily upon the procurement decisions that are made by PSPC and the Treasury Board directives right across the government.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, with Remembrance Day now only nine days away, today we have a very important opportunity to remind Canadians that remembrance, commemoration and respect for the veterans in our communities have a place not only on November 11, but throughout the year, and for all Canadians. We owe that recognition to the women and men who have served and those who continue to serve our great country and protect our sovereignty.

It is in this spirit that I rise today to address the opposition motion. Respect for veterans and support for Canadian business deserve a serious debate. By treating a single contract as a measure of our government's respect for veterans, however, the opposition overlooks the breadth and the scale of the contribution they can make.

At committee, representatives of several veterans groups and organizations told us that we need to change the narrative about our veterans. We need to talk about their skills, training, experience and all they bring all of that to the civil workforce. Many leave the military at the age of 34. This is the average age of a veteran today, with years of working life ahead of them. What do they bring with them? They bring technical expertise in fields like airspace, cybersecurity and other dual-use technologies, including drones.

They are a tremendous asset in our country, particularly in those sectors where there is an acute labour shortage, yet the opposition motion focuses on their role in security services. Of course, our veterans are qualified for that work, but their opportunities extend way beyond that. They can help advance our industrial strategy, strengthen our defence industry and continue serving Canada in many different ways. That requires a lot more than a procurement decision. It requires the recognition of the skills and qualifications they acquired during their service. They need to put their expertise to work in industries that need them. That is precisely what our Minister of Veterans Affairs is working to deliver.

This motion gives me the opportunity to tell Canada's veterans about an important next step our government is taking to address today's realities and tomorrow's opportunities.

All across Canada, companies in many sectors are seeking qualified personnel to fill key strategic positions, expand their operations, and seize new business opportunities. Over the next 10 years, 593,000 new jobs in Red Seal trades will need to be filled. Trade schools will not be able to provide enough workers. In the aerospace sector alone, it is estimated that between 42,000 and 65,000 positions will need to be filled over the next 10 years. According to one study, trade schools will only be able to meet about 25% of that demand. At the same time, nearly 8,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces leave military service each year, at an average age of 34.

Today, I would like to talk about how our government can bridge the gap between these two realities. In my view, veterans represent one of the largest untapped talent pools in the country. Their hands-on experience in logistics, operations, engineering, and information technology is a valuable asset for Canada as it seeks to diversify and expand its economic relationships around the world. When they want to embark on a new career, we must give them every opportunity to put that expertise to good use. We are doing this for veterans because they have served Canada and protected our sovereignty, but we are also doing it so that they can continue to contribute to Canada. We need them.

One point deserves to be highlighted. As I mentioned, today's veterans are, on average, quite young. They are seasoned professionals whose skills are in high demand, particularly in the dual-use technology sector, referring to technology that can be used both for military purposes and in our strategic industries. In addition to their technical expertise, Canada's veterans bring some even more highly valued assets to the table: strong leadership skills, problem-solving abilities, project management experience and a proven ability to perform under challenging and demanding conditions. Their expertise in logistics, cybersecurity, advanced technologies, human resources, finance and Red Seal trades deserves full recognition.

The challenge is that these fields are not the ones that immediately come to mind when we talk about military service. My colleagues are putting a lot of focus on security services. However, by limiting veterans to jobs in this field, we are missing an extraordinary opportunity to recognize their talent and expertise in leading trades. When a person did not serve in the military themselves and is unfamiliar with the military environment, it can be difficult for them to grasp the diverse range of skills that military personnel have. We are talking about acquired skills that are essential to modern military operations. More importantly, they are completely transferable to a civilian work environment. In many cases, they are exactly the skills that employers are looking for.

Canada, with our Minister of Veterans Affairs, is now taking deliberate steps to strengthen our defence industrial capacity, to invest in major projects and national development initiatives across the country, and to recognize the role that veterans can play in meeting that objective. We are living at a time when the demand for skilled workers will only continue to go grow. Last week, in Victoria, British Columbia, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced a key initiative to encourage our veterans to contribute to our strategic defence industry following their military career. I am talking about the veteran employer recognition initiative and the new “Veteran Ready” designation, which recognizes organizations that value veterans' skills and that will commit to helping them transition to a successful civilian career in the field of their choice. This strategy sends a clear message to veterans, staff, clients and communities: This organization recognizes the value of military service, experience and leadership.

I therefore call on businesses and the general public across the country to show leadership in their local communities, raise awareness of this designation in their ridings, encourage businesses to take part in the initiative, help employers recognize the value of military experience, and help veterans find employment opportunities that match their skills.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I agree with 95% of the member's speech. I fully endorse that our younger veterans, whose average age is 35, are capable of filling any job that Canadian industry and the Canadian job market have to offer. From social workers to public affairs officers to electrical technicians, they can do it all.

However, the question I asked the member last week was why Veterans Affairs removed the right of first refusal from the Commissionaires, a policy that has been in place since 1945. The older veteran commissionaires, on average, are in their late forties to early fifties. These are people who are just looking for work. They are already working for the Commissionaires, over 4,000 of them.

Why did the government remove the right of first refusal from the Commissionaires? They are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. We can be encouraging our veterans to work everywhere and helping to set up the right conditions, but at the same time, we should be supporting the Commissionaires, the largest non-profit employer of Canadian veterans.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, security service are an important part of employment, and they will continue because our military personnel are good at them. They have the training, the experience, the knowledge and the security clearance to carry on in this job.

My point, and the focus of this government, is the much broader challenge that faces our veteran community. It is to find a rewarding career that really reflects the wealth of their experience and contributions and the fact that they are really technically savvy. They work with amazing dual-use technology. We need to have as a priority the recognition of their skills so they can have a rewarding career. They have many years to fulfill that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech. I have the privilege of serving alongside her on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Let us be honest. Everyone in this House knows that the right of first refusal currently held by the Commissionaires organization—formerly known as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which has existed since 1945 and just celebrated its 80th anniversary—will expire on March 31. Consequently, as of April 1, that right will no longer be on any government tender documents for security guard services anywhere in the government.

It seems to me that this runs counter to the discussions we have had at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where we have been exploring ways to help veterans transition successfully into the labour market following their military careers.

My question is quite simple: Does the parliamentary secretary believe it makes sense to allow the right of first refusal to expire on March 31?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her work on the committee. I want to acknowledge the excellent work she does.

Security guard services are important, but I think this represents a very limiting view of the careers and experience of today's veterans. The average veteran is now just 34 or 35 years old. Our government's priority is not to find security guard positions for these veterans, because they possess extraordinary skills and can contribute to Canada's defence industrial strategy. When they transition to civilian life, they bring expertise in areas such as drones, cybersecurity and aerospace.

Moreover, this is not about the right of first refusal, because there are labour shortages in the aerospace sector, one of Quebec's flagship industries. Over the next 10 years, an average of between 42,000 and 65,000 positions will need to be filled, and there will be more than 8,000 new veterans each year who possess many of the technical skills required for those jobs.

The priority is skills recognition, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the lovely member for Laurentides—Labelle.

What a pleasure it is for me to rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic for veterans affairs on this opposition day, when we are questioning certain government decisions regarding support provided to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.

First, let us remember that Remembrance Day is just a week away, and MPs from Quebec and Canada will be invited to participate in remembrance ceremonies by their local Royal Canadian Legion branches. In my riding, the ceremony hosted by the Valleyfield branch in Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield will take place on Saturday, as will the ceremony in Beauharnois. The ceremonies in Huntingdon and Ormstown will take place on Friday. It is important for us, as MPs, to attend, but it is just as important to encourage our constituents to take part in these remembrance ceremonies. This is an opportunity to recognize the sacrifices of those who went to war, sometimes at the cost of their lives, their health or their family life. I encourage everyone to attend the ceremonies in their community and meet with veterans. I will be very pleased to attend, and I will take the time to listen to the veterans, because they have a lot to share with us.

The motion before us today is rather long and deals with several subjects, so I chose to focus my remarks on certain issues and on the Liberal government's choice to turn its back on veterans.

I was listening to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who argued that veterans are younger, that there is no question of sidelining them, that we need to modernize, that we have to accept this, that many jobs will be available, and that this justifies the right of refusal.

I want her to know that these things are not mutually exclusive. Currently, nearly 3,000 veterans work as security guards for the Commissionaires. They are worried right now. These veterans are used to holding a position that could disappear as of April 1. This could in fact be the case if the government's public tender and specifications do not specify that the Commissionaires have the first right of refusal. This refers to an arrangement where preference is given to companies that commit to hiring veterans for the positions.

This agreement has been in place for 80 years. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has been around since 1925. It was created specifically to support veterans, help them transition to civilian life and, above all, find employment. As we know, at the end of one's military career, continuing to be useful and contributing to the development of one's community is important for self-esteem and for what comes next. Now the Commissionaires are being deliberately abandoned. Frankly, I think I am choosing my words carefully, but I cannot put it any other way. The Commissionaires are being told that it is over. Now the government is awarding security contracts, at the lowest possible cost, to whichever company meets the criteria set out by Procurement Canada, and removing the right of refusal.

It is important to remember that this arrangement has been in place for 80 years, as I said, and has never really been a problem. I do not know why the government wants to get rid of it, because there is really no gain for veterans. Alternatively, if we keep it, there is really no loss for the government either.

The government keeps saying that veterans are important. A massive recruitment campaign is under way at the Department of National Defence to meet military targets. That means that a growing number of veterans will be reaching the end of their military careers and arriving at Veterans Affairs Canada. I fail to understand the logic of that, apart from saving on a few costs here and there. It is almost as if some public servant crunching numbers somewhere was told to modernize all that, because it mattered more.

Veterans, especially the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, have taken that as a clear and unequivocal sign that veterans are no longer part of the current government's plans. A lot of people are no longer part of the current government's plans.

The environment might not be either, or Quebec SMEs. Now, it is our veterans' turn to be told that they are no longer part of the plans. As we know, however, the oil companies are part of the government's plans. There are data centres all over Alberta. They are part of the government's plans too, but continuing to support the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is not.

I have a great deal of respect for the parliamentary secretary, but I hear her saying that this is not a particularly serious problem and that the government actually wants bigger things for veterans. It wants them to be more than security guards. It wants them to get more important jobs, value-added jobs.

I would simply reply that these things are not mutually exclusive.

When I hear the Minister of Finance and National Revenue talk about the loss of the Commissionaires' contract over a difference of $80,000, as stated in the motion, I am offended.

What offended me during this debate in the House was hearing people say that only about 60 employees will be impacted, about half of whom are veterans, and that those who wish to be rehired by the new company that was awarded the contract will have to accept a 14% pay cut. This is serious. The minister argued that this is an agency, that he cannot become involved in its decision-making and that he cannot intervene. He says it is an independent agency that made its own choices. It was the agency that decided not to include the Commissionaires' right of first refusal in its call for tenders.

The Liberal government had no qualms about ordering the CRTC to reconsider its decision to tax the digital giants. It intervened politically because the CRTC had reached a different conclusion than the one the government wanted. Now the Canada Revenue Agency has awarded a contract to a privately owned U.S. company, which does have Canadian subsidiaries, but which has made no commitment to keeping veterans on under the same employment conditions. That response is not only hard to understand; it is totally unacceptable.

If the government were truly committed to our veterans, it would have instructed the Canada Revenue Agency and all government agencies to include a requirement to hire a certain percentage of veterans in their calls for tenders. That is what we call political direction. No such direction was given. That is not surprising, given that the government has chosen to eliminate the right of first refusal altogether. This is a serious concern, and it is one of the issues we are highlighting today, seeing as most Quebeckers and Canadians are unaware of it.

Another thing that concerns me is that the government is just pumping out new agencies: agencies to handle cybersecurity, one to handle crime and money laundering, and yet another to deal with military procurement. What it all boils down to is that these agencies are all independent and the government is washing its hands of responsibility. When things go wrong, it will be the agencies' fault. There is no political accountability. That is what is worrisome today. We are seeing this with our veterans. The CRA's decision to drop the Commissionaires has led to a loss of jobs for our veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start off by indicating how much I personally value our veterans and the contributions they have made to our community. The government as a whole does too, and we see that in a number of policies that I could easily expand upon.

The question I have for the member is in regard to the CRA as an independent agency with an established criteria when something goes out to tender. Can she give her perspective as to the number of people in the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires who are veterans? Is the member aware of that? She gives the impression that they are all veterans. I am advising that that is not necessarily the case, even though they do outstanding work.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question gives me an opportunity to clarify some things. I know that we are talking about the equivalent of 12 full-time positions for veterans. It is true that, when we talk about this, it seems that it is not a big number. However, that is not what is at issue. It is the principle that is at issue. Indeed, the CRA moved up the April 1 deadline by publishing specifications and exempting itself from the Commissionaires' right of refusal. That is what we are questioning here.

The fact that veterans representing 12 full-time equivalent positions are losing their jobs may seem insignificant to the parliamentary secretary. However, I think it is too many, because they already had a job. Moreover, those who stay will be paid $2 to $4 an hour less to do the same work.

Evidently, I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who says that it is a small amount. No, it is not, because a right has just been taken away. Moreover, this is the first agency to decide to take this right away. Soon, on April 1, if the government does not change its mind, it would be the entire government, through Public Services and Procurement Canada, that will remove the Commissionaires' right of refusal.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her hard work on the veterans affairs committee, which we both sit on. She was very flexible and was able to sub in as the chair recently due to an emergency and some challenging times.

The subject the committee is studying right now is veterans and employment. Does the member not find it absolutely ludicrous that at the time the committee is doing this study, which the Liberals brought forward, the Liberal government is going to be unemploying 3,000 veterans? Also, there was a witness who said out of frustration that this is not the first time we have studied this, and we are doing it again. What are her thoughts on that?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I enjoy serving with him on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He is absolutely right. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is looking for ways to improve veterans' employability and the transferability and recognition of their skills as they transition to the civilian workforce. The main issue is access to employment opportunities.

Right now, it seems as though the government is taking a step back. It is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to veterans who are telling us that they need this historic partnership with the Commissionaires to continue.

We do not understand that inconsistency.

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

Madam Speaker, having served as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for a year, I cannot help but wonder: If veterans are so important, particularly when they return to civilian life, why ditch a decades-long tradition that supported our veterans?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to understand.

It costs nothing for the government to keep the program, yet it has a significant impact on veterans. As we speak, veterans are shocked and dismayed by the decision.

We hope that the government will change its mind and that, as of April 1, the Commissionaires will retain their right of first refusal.

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

Madam Speaker, some are attentive, while others are less so. My colleagues would do well to listen and learn from what I have to say today.

Last week in the House I spoke to Bill C-40, which seeks to create a Crown corporation for defence procurement. I was saying that creating the Crown corporation would be the end of transparency, accountability and the disclosure of choices and interests. I was also saying that I was concerned that the government would shirk responsibility for a decision that, in my opinion, was inconsistent and ill-advised.

As far as today's proceedings are concerned, I commend the Conservative Party's initiative on this issue, because this decision highlights exactly what I was talking about last week. Earlier, I mentioned that I had served as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but I am also vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. My job as the Bloc Québécois critic for procurement is to shed light on government contracts.

The committee has a mandate to examine the technical aspects and the governance of choices and decisions. I met with some commissionaires this summer. I met with Marc Parent. I was shocked to learn that the government was planning on ending the long-standing tradition of hiring commissionaires for security services.

The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has a long history, just recently celebrating their 100th anniversary. I was proud to be the critic for veterans affairs for a year, and I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs is passionate and dedicated to helping veterans transition into civilian life. A study on entrepreneurship is currently under way, and prior learning is being recognized. How can we help veterans make the transition easier?

Now veterans, the ones who are commissionaires, are being told that they do not matter, that they are not important enough to the government and that the government no longer believes in the core mission. They are being told that this contract is ending and that the government has decided instead to award it to an American company that has branches in Canada.

We need to be careful. How far does the buy Canadian policy go when it comes to doing business with Canadians?

The Liberals are telling us that this was an independent decision by the CRA and so no one is accountable. No one is responsible for this.

This just goes to show that the government wants to create corporations and agencies so that it can wash its hands of responsibility for decisions. That way, if people are unhappy, then it is not the government's responsibility. That is what is happening here.

This decision has serious consequences in terms of the message that it sends not only to our veterans but also to all legislators. That is a big part of our role.

I often talk about my role as a legislator because I do not think that people really understand it. Parliament is made up of elected officials from the government party and from the opposition parties. Our role, as the opposition, is to hold the government to account on behalf of the people we represent. We must ensure that the use of tax dollars and the government's decisions and policies are in keeping with the best interests of citizens. The government is taking away parliamentarians' ability to do their job for the sake of efficiency, but efficiency should not come at the cost of a loss of democratic oversight. That oversight is at the very heart of who we are.

It is the same thing with Canada Post. Canada Post is a Crown corporation. When we ask questions, the government tells us that the board of directors is responsible for decisions. That is an easy and convenient answer. However, Canada Post is in an untenable financial situation and has been for many years. We all know that.

Meanwhile, bonuses continued to flow freely even as the government was being called upon to cover the deficits.

The lack of transparency at Canada Post prevented parliamentarians, Quebeckers, Canadians and employees from obtaining a true, clear and accurate picture of the situation facing the Crown corporation.

It was under my leadership that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates launched a study of Canada Post. Despite our responsibility for overseeing public funds, we have been learning about changes at Canada Post through press releases and push notifications. That is not normal. It shows a blatant lack of respect for Parliament and for our democratic institutions.

The same can be said of the Crown corporation responsible for defence procurement. The government will tell us that decisions to purchase a particular aircraft, vessel or tank will be made by its board of directors. Billions of dollars will be invested in strengthening Canada's defence capabilities as the federal government seeks to meet NATO's target. Such procurement decisions must be subject to rigorous oversight. Let me be clear: taxpayers' money is not private money. When I spend money in my own businesses, I am free to do so and I bear the consequences. When it is my money, it is my business. That is not the case here. Public funds come from taxes and are entrusted to government through a social contract between citizens and the state to support the core functions of government.

When a government shirks certain democratic responsibilities in the name of efficiency, it is our duty to sound the alarm, ask questions and spark the necessary debates. The government is constantly running ads across all platforms, and that worries me greatly. Constituents regularly raise the issue when I am back in my riding. Slogans such as “build Canada strong” are everywhere. We are told that Canada must become its own best customer. The trouble is that it increasingly appears to be little more than a slogan, an ad campaign. Canadians are constantly being encouraged to believe they are the best, yet the government continues to award contracts to the lowest bidder.

In committee last week, the procurement ombud told members that it is imperative to ensure that government measures do not undermine Parliament's ability to do its job. He is concerned, and said so a number of times. Any such measures must respect the responsibilities entrusted to members of Parliament.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Prime Minister is running Canada like a business. A government is not a business. A government has obligations, including the obligation to be accountable to its citizens and carry out its moral duties. I am seriously concerned about these abuses. Our role as parliamentarians is to bring things to light and hold the government to account. Our role is also to ask hard questions and demand answers. That is why I am calling on members not to look away, but to pay attention to what is happening and to what the government is doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I have said a great deal about our veterans and how much we value them and will continue to work to support them.

My question for the member is in regard to subsidiary companies in general, and it is more on the principle of them. Does the member recognize that there is a lot of crossover between the United States and Canada on subsidiaries and that it works both ways? There are subsidiaries owned by American companies that have a large footprint here in Canada, and vice versa. Does the member believe in principle that companies with subsidiaries that are located in Canada and have a substantial footprint should be incorporated into any form of buy Canada policy?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because I did not have time to say everything.

The procurement ombud told us last week that enough data is available to evaluate the buy Canadian policy and determine where things stand. We need to look at the criteria to determine what is working well and what would be worthy of the buy Canadian stamp.

For the time being, however, the focus is on maximizing participation and access for Canadian businesses, which need opportunities to work in light of the current geopolitical environment. We will get the documents from the procurement ombud, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will study them before coming back to the House on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, someone I spent some time with at the veterans affairs committee. She is surely missed, but she has been well replaced.

My colleague from across the aisle asked a question about principle. It was a very good question to ask. The principle of this is why we brought this motion forward as an opposition day motion. It is the principle of putting veterans first, those who have sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we have and for us to be able to speak freely in this House.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the principle of this opposition motion.

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

Madam Speaker, the point is not only to speak out, but also to correct course. If we truly want to support veterans, the Prime Minister must start by listening to his minister, who is trying to do the right thing, and take action. Right now, veterans are being left behind, and that saddens me greatly.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that the member for Winnipeg North is listening to my question, because I am going to give him the figures he asked me for earlier. I have them in front of me. The Canada Revenue Agency chose not to maintain the Commissionaires' right of first refusal. What has been the result? The government keeps talking about 12 veterans, but that figure actually represents a volume of work equivalent to 12 full-time positions. In reality, the decision affects about 50 veterans. Most of those who were selected chose either to retire or to transfer to other Commissionaires contracts rather than accept the pay cut imposed by the new private-sector provider. Does the member believe that is acceptable?

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

Madam Speaker, people are focusing on critical mass, but I think we need to step back and look at the quality of the program and what we are actually trying to achieve. Yes, there is a number involved. To take the example of Cúram, one could argue that only 33,000 seniors were affected among millions, but that is not the point. The point is that we had a legitimate model that supported veterans in their transition to civilian life. What is happening now is unacceptable, which is why I welcome the Conservatives' opposition day motion.