Information & Ethics Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I was talking about the accusation of filibustering and giving examples of my colleagues across the way who filibustered and do it quite regularly.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Against corruption....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

It's difficult to have a conversation, Chair. I'm just going to say that I think we need to be respectful.

To Mr. Barrett's point about our not liking to be interrupted, the issues that I have are when clips are taken, especially when they're taken out of context, and put on Twitter, which I'm quite certain has driven horrific traffic to Ms. Khalid.

I'm supportive of what has been put forward by Ms. Khalid and will be supporting it.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Housefather, go ahead on the subamendment, sir.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, it is on the subamendment.

Mr. Chair, I think that there are just a couple of things I wanted to say.

First of all, the Ethics Commissioner told us that he felt there was nothing further to investigate on issues other than, now, the new question of who Randy is in these text messages. I agree that the one question the committee needs to actually understand is who the Randy is in the text messages. I think everyone here, on all sides, is unaware of the answer to that. We all have our own presumptions, our own ideas, but what's happening is that people are now speculating idly and the real question is this: How do you find out?

To me, Mr. Barrett's original proposal calls for the company to release the names of all the different employees. Who is to say that this Randy is an employee of the company? Randy could be a consultant. Randy could be somebody else, so Mr. Barrett's proposal doesn't resolve the question of who Randy is by simply producing a list of employees. You could argue that it's overbroad to produce all the employees. To me, the answer is to ask the company who Randy is. Ask Mr. Anderson who Randy is. Ask Mr. Anderson these questions. To me, the list of employees was irrelevant. The question to ask the company is this: Who is Randy?

At least Ms. Khalid's subamendment requires Mr. Anderson to produce his text messages for that day, and we will see what number this comes from. Presumably, at least from the text messages Mr. Anderson put out on September 8, we will have all of these answers.

I prefer Ms. Khalid's subamendment to the original amendment because the original amendment doesn't actually necessarily tell us who Randy is. It provides a list of employees from his company, and nobody can say that Randy was an employee. He could have been a consultant, or she could have been a consultant. We don't even know if it's a guy.

In any case, I will vote for Ms. Khalid's subamendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, I have you next, followed by Mr. Barrett.

Go ahead, sir, on the subamendment.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate Mr. Housefather's intervention. He makes a very compelling case to call Mr. Anderson as a witness. That was the intention, yet we end up down these other rabbit holes, so I am for that.

Mr. Chair, I have lost track between the subamendments and amendments. Where are we with that? Have we now, based on the last votes, removed our ability to call any witnesses, and we're now just relying on this, or does that still exist, based on the original motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The main motion was amended, and it still calls for two witnesses to be called: Mr. Anderson and Ms. Poon. The amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett calls for the employee list—correct me if I'm wrong, Madam clerk—with Randy, to be submitted within seven days of the passing of the motion. We are now on the subamendment of Ms. Khalid, which calls for the phone records of Mr. Anderson.

That's where we're at. Nothing has stopped or precluded us from having those two witnesses appear because it's still part of the main motion.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I apologize. The twists and turns are sometimes hard to follow.

Given that, and given that it's a subamendment, I'm to understand that, procedurally, there can't be a subamendment to a subamendment. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's correct. We would have to deal with this matter and then would come back on the amendment. Only then can a subamendment be moved, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your handling of this meeting. I know it's probably not easy in person there. It's kind of torture to experience online, but here I am.

At the appropriate time, I will be moving an amendment to Mr. Barrett's original motion, which would extend his motion to include the language of “employees and consultants” because I think Mr. Housefather raises a good point. Hopefully, the question of who alibi Randy is may emerge that way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We're still on the subamendment.

I have Mr. Barrett next on the subamendment.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I wanted to just refer to Krista Hessey from Global News, who published an article on June 4, 2024. Ms. Hessey has in the article here questions asked of Mr. Anderson:

When asked if he worked with another Randy, Anderson stated that he did, but would not disclose the employee’s full name. He said the other Randy was “head of logistics.”

I do want to note that.

We have a challenge when we're looking for records from this company, I think. It's not because of the size of the company; it has a handful of employees. However, of course, there is the matter of the fire that may cause a challenge for us in getting records from the company. On September 25, 2022, GHI's Edmonton unit was set ablaze, and detectives working alongside Edmonton Fire Rescue Services determined that the fire had been deliberately set following a break and enter to the premises, destroying inventory and records.

This, of course, preceded the lawsuits that followed with GHI, and, of course, the Ghaoui Group made a $7.3-million claim for loss and damages. There is the claim on the missing money—the outstanding money—that the intention of GHI was that they would pay Ghaoui back with insurance money. We're unsure if the deposit was used to procure product or what had taken place there, but questions abound after that fire, including whether they have a list of their employees.

The public reporting is that Randy—other Randy or alibi Randy—is an employee, but I think, to just capture it all, yes, let's ask for contractors, subcontractors, consultants and employees who are named Randy. Simply getting phone records and not other Randy is a problem because we don't know the application that other Randy and Mr. Anderson were using for communication. There are too many messaging apps that are in common use to itemize, but we don't know. That simply because someone ought not use their phone for something means it is therefore excluded from the interest of the committee in getting an answer is not sufficient.

We would need to see messages from all messaging apps, and we would need to see call logs from all calling apps for both Mr. Anderson and the minister—Randy—as part of our inquiry into who the other Randy is, but that's not a conclusion.

Certainly, in having Mr. Anderson come before the committee to answer questions, he would be forewarned that question one will be the first and last name of the other Randy or Randip or alibi Randy—we need to know. That's going to be question one, so of course Mr. Anderson must come to the committee. We need answers to our questions. An exhaustive review of communications logs from all telecommunication devices owned by Mr. Anderson is the only way to give credibility to this question here. Barring that expansion, we can't support this.

We've gone from having Ghaoui Group, Anderson, Poon and other Randy come to committee—the subject of the messages, the third party—to eliminating other Randy, which is the question in front of us.

Now there's the suggestion that we'll get these messages. We're going to amend the motion to get messages from one device and potentially eliminate the call for the other two witnesses. Come on, that dog won't hunt. We're going to need to see all messages, all call logs and all devices owned by Mr. Anderson, and the same goes for the minister.

If we're going to follow this thread on devices, it needs to be complete. That's what Mr. Brock asked for. The clerk might not have sent a note to the minister, but he was here. He heard the request. He also had a gaggle of staff with him who, I'm certain, minuted the request. I'm sure they watched the game tape after and saw that the request was there.

The one phone just isn't sufficient. It just isn't sufficient that what went through his wireless provider is it. I can say with a great deal of certainty that almost everyone in this room—members and others, members and strangers—uses applications for messaging other than the native messaging app on their phone. There's Wickr and WhatsApp. Here we go. Let's name some. I know people use Facebook Messenger often. I find that surprising, but to each their own. People DM on Instagram and Snapchat. I don't think people use it to instant message, but there's an app called BeReal that people really like. There are lots. People will make calls on Skype, Teams and Zoom as well. People will instant message on those. There are a variety of encrypted and unencrypted messaging apps. They're quite common in government, in politics and in military and civilian applications.

It's really half-hearted in its current form. We'd need more meat on those bones, because this thing has been pared down so much that we've gotten away from the penultimate question. Who is other Randy?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I have Mr. Brock next.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Barrett, my colleague, stole a bit of my thunder. I was going to bring to the attention of this entire group that simply getting all communications, potentially, between the minister and Mr. Anderson only scratches the surface. As Mr. Barrett indicated, there are so many applications out there. I know personally the frustration I have with my teenage daughters, who use Snapchat for the sole purpose that it does not allow anyone to retain the actual message. It's a moment in time. It literally disappears within, I think, 10 or 15 seconds. I believe it would be foolhardy for anyone on this committee to believe the minister, as experienced as he is, would be that naive to actually use his own cellphone or, to Ms. Damoff's point, his government cellphone and implicate himself in a serious violation under the Conflict of Interest Act: benefiting himself while being a minister of the Crown. It would be foolish, and I don't think, for one minute, he did that.

However, it's a step, and it was a step I that thought was necessary because—and I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Mr. Kurek—the display we all witnessed from Mr. Boissonnault was one for the ages. I have been privileged to attend numerous committees since my election in 2021, but nowhere had I ever seen the complete lack of respect for the process and the hyperpartisanship of the minister. Literally, right out of the gate he had an agenda and wanted to distract this committee. We're not going to allow that to happen.

Sometimes I think that my Liberal colleagues simply don't want an opposition. They want an audience.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

That's right.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Whenever we ask the tough questions, we're maligned and criticized by them. Quite frankly, this is the role of the opposition. For those members I'm staring at right now, who may have the privilege of being re-elected in the next election—although I think the odds are slim to nil—they're going to have the ability to be an opposition MP. They're going to, obviously, change their mindset because they're going to want transparency and accountability from their government.

To go back to reflect on the original motion, amendment and subamendment, we're losing track of the evidence we have before you. I think it's important I talk about evidence because Ms. Khalid talked about evidence over politics or evidence versus politics. The questions we put to this committee in the filibuster—and this is exactly what it is. Ms. Damoff may be offended by that, but that's exactly what she has been doing, as well as her colleagues. We heard some evidence from the minister himself. We received evidence by way of media reports. That's not political. They may not like the message and the content, but that doesn't—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Chair, Ms. Khalid and Ms. Damoff had some issues about my talking over them when they had the floor, and again they display the absolute lack of respect for me and this process. I am calling them both out for talking over my time at the mic.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Brock. You have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I guess we need a refresher on the evidence.

I'm going to reflect on what the minister had to say. The minister made it abundantly clear that he has complied with all the rules and that he has retained a 50% interest in his business with Mr. Anderson. The rules allow that. Many members have businesses on the side. However, as a minister, he can't have a controlling interest in that company. He's essentially a silent partner.

He confirmed in evidence, when he attended, that he considers himself a partner in this small, two-person company. His other partner is Mr. Stephen Anderson. That's the first piece of evidence.

I'm taking a look at the actual text exchanges between Mr. Anderson and, potentially, the minister. It's dated September 8, 2022.

Stephen Anderson states, “What is going on? I just received this from Randy!” Now, this is a text message that he is sending to someone at Ghaoui. The person—the other Randy or the minister, Randy Boissonnault, doesn't call Stephen by his first name. It's simply Anderson.

It reads, “It's 13:14 MST and 15:14 EST it literally takes 10 seconds to complete a transfer, I am telling you, we are NOT ALLOCATING like this, please reach out and see what the reason is now, you assured me this morning”.

I'll stop right there. He wrote, “you assured me this morning”. Was that a telephone call? Was that another text exchange between the minister and Mr. Anderson? I don't know. It appears, just by reading between the lines, that the failure of Ghaoui to make this deposit had been an ongoing concern.

I know that I originally asked for records of September 8, 2022. It may find favour with all committee members if perhaps we go back 30 or 60 days for all communications between the minister and Mr. Anderson because it tells me that this is an ongoing issue and concern.

It continues, “you assured me this morning this was done first thing; and allowed you to hold this stock today”. This is the stock that was supposed to be delivered to Ghaoui, which mysteriously burned up in a deliberately set fire. It continues, “it's midday and nothing is completed”—this is the other Randy or it's the minister—“I am calling Felix to discuss.”

Now, who is Felix? We've heard that name before. According to Mr. Anderson, Felix's surname is Papineau and he is Stephen Anderson's “right-hand man in Quebec”.

It goes on: “I am calling Felix to discuss. Be available in 15 for a”—wait for it—“partner call”. It's not a consultant call. It's not an intern call. It's not an employee-to-partner call. It's partner to partner. Minister Boissonnault is a partner. His own words confirm he's a partner with Mr. Anderson.

That's evidence. That's not conjecture. That's not a witch hunt. This is real evidence shared to Canadians by Global News.

The reporter for Global News obviously asked a number of questions. When asked by the reporter if he worked with another Randy, “Anderson stated that he did, but would not disclose the employee's full name.” Of course, his partner wants to protect Minister Boissonnault.

He knows what the rules are, and Mr. Boissonnault can't be involved in the day-to-day affairs as a minister of the Crown, so conveniently, he declines to provide the name of the alibi Randy, or the other Randy. He said that the other Randy was head of logistics, and I referenced this yesterday, Mr. Chair, in my discussion at committee. Head of logistics.... Well, as any good reporter would do in this case, she did not accept that at face value. She conducted further interviews. She spoke with GHI's former suppliers.

Edward Anderson, who is the father of the partner, Stephen Anderson was identified as the company's logistics lead. His email signature had the title of logistics supply chain at GHI in 2021, according to emails viewed by Global. She reached out to Mr. Anderson. He, too, declined to comment. He, too, declined to identify who the other Randy is, because, again, he's the father of one of the partners, the other partner. He wants to protect the business relationship between his son and the minister, so of course he's going to decline and give no comment.

She also reached out to Felix Papineau—I referenced that— Anderson's right-hand man in Quebec, and Shawna Parker, Anderson's sister. Again, both declined to respond to questions. I referenced this yesterday, and I'm going to highlight it today. Mr. Anderson deliberately lied to the reporter when he said that the other Randy, or the alibi Randy, is head of logistics. It was his actual father. It wasn't the other Randy; it was his father.

Now, this is why we, in our original motion, wanted a representative of Ghaoui here, because they are part of this, They have a different perspective and a different interest. They're not here to protect Minister Boissonnault. Quite frankly, they want to get paid back the money that they lost or the product that they originally contracted for. They're out of pocket.

The reporter reached out to Ghaoui, and I'm going to read out this passage in the press release, because I think it's quite telling. It says, “It was Ghaoui's understanding”—during that text message that I referenced on September 8—“that Anderson was referring to Boissonnault”—Minister Boissonnault, not an intern, not an employee, not a consultant, not GC Strategies, not McKinsey but Minister Boissonnault—“whom Anderson had told her”—in a previous conversation—“was a partner in GHI and”—wait for it—“a public official”.

This is not only confirming Minister Boissonnault's partnership status but also his political status—a public official. This was confirmed by Ghaoui. They confirmed, “We have had no direct communication with Mr. Boissonnault at any point in our dealings with Stephen”. Well, of course not. He's not that naive to physically pick up the phone and write directly to Ghaoui. He's going to do that through back channels. He's going to deal with that through his partner, Mr. Anderson.

Anderson, again, was asked further questions and would not respond regarding any of the nuances of the text.

Then the story goes on and talks about how GHI has been embroiled in lawsuits, even though Mr. Boissonnault, Randy Boissonnault, the minister, was listed as director of the company for more than a year after his re-election.

Going back to Ghaoui, it looks like, as a result of the intervention of either the minister or the other Randy, they ended up later that day sending nearly a half a million dollars as a deposit to Anderson. The company says that it never got the gloves that it was contractually promised and that all that money was stolen.

Mr. Anderson and GHI deny that claim and, coincidentally and suspiciously, 16 days after Ghaoui wires the deposit, a fire breaks out, which the police say was deliberately set after a break and enter, and all product, including records and all invoices, literally goes up in smoke.

The author of the report opines why a former politician, referencing the minister, and a hockey coach, referencing Mr. Anderson, launched a PPE business in the industry's most tumultuous times. It remains a mystery; however, court documents and interviews with suppliers and buyers who did business with GHI reveal the inner workings of a start-up fraught with problems from the start.

In lawsuits against GHI dating back to 2021, suppliers claimed that the company did not pay for products they delivered. On May 3, the minister told Global News, “When I was running the company, all of the bills were paid.”

Court documents dispute that statement. A lawsuit filed by supplier Patterson Dental against GHI about two weeks after Boissonnault's re-election claims that the company did not pay 15 invoices between November 2020 and January 2021 totalling just under $400,000.

I think, sir, that I have made my point in terms of evidence versus politics versus conjecture. This is not a witch hunt. This is a function that any opposition member, particularly at this committee, would want to carry out to determine who this other Randy is. That is the $64-million question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

I've exhausted the list on the subamendment. Do we have consensus to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are on the subamendment vote. We've exhausted the speaking list on that.

We don't have consensus, Madam Clerk, so go ahead with the vote, please.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back on the amendment to the motion.

Do we have any speakers on the amendment as amended?

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.