Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2024

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry that we have to speak further on this matter, but I see that the plot thickens. I have seen this movie before. It's a list of random names of ordinary people—ordinary citizens—carrying out their day-to-day business, who happen to be linked in some way by a reporter, by a political operative or by somebody on Facebook or social media, and they're called before this committee or any other committee. I have seen this before. People's lives are being trashed.

I ask the members and I'm looking at the members right now. Is it your intention to intimidate ordinary Canadians? Is it to bring people in front of this committee on these absolutely egregious, absurd claims?

This is something that the Conservative Party of Canada is engaging in on a regular basis. I saw this with ordinary business people carrying out a business. It was Speakers Spotlight. They happened to be hiring and managing different people as speakers. They were dragged in front of this ethics committee.

Mr. Villemure, I think you were there at the time. What those people went through was appalling. They received death threats, and their employees were followed from office to home, all for a “gotcha”. There you have it.

I therefore hope all Canadians and Quebecers listening to us, as well as reporters, will pay attention to what’s going on here and to the strategy the Conservatives are using to intimidate ordinary Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I’m not used to talking this way. I want to study the issues and help the committee fulfill its mandate. We have questions to ask Minister Boissonnault, but a motion like this—which names people just because they had the misfortune to be mentioned in some article—is an abuse of Parliament’s power. I know I am new to this committee, but I assure you that I will use my voice to stand up for ordinary Canadians before they are targeted by MPs whose actions I question. I look forward to continuing our work on this committee, because I think we’re going to see the true face of the people who do this.

I could go on, but I’d like to hear from the other members of this committee. I think this is something that should be of concern to us. Yes, we have questions to ask, but it makes no sense to call in people who have no connection with this story, other than the fact that they made a comment. I’m thinking of the ethics professor, for example. Mr. Villemure, I imagine you’ve had to appear before the committee several times.

Normally, people are very happy to come and testify, but when it’s about something far-fetched and random, it’s not the same. People should pay attention to what’s going on here. It’s an unhealthy strategy, unworthy of this committee and its members.

I’ll stop there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

Mr. Fisher, go ahead, please.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I didn't get to hear everything that Mr. Housefather said, as I stepped out for a moment. I'm taking a look at this. I know we don't do back-and-forth here, but I don't get a sense of why all of these names are here and what their connections are. With the Edmonton police, I don't see—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hold on, Mr. Fisher.

You can go through the chair and ask the mover of the motion, if that's what you like. It's just the back-and-forth between members I don't appreciate, but it's there for you, if you like.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I understand.

I don't see any reason why the Edmonton police, which has nothing to do...that I can see, anyway.

Ian Stedman seems to, again, have nothing to do with this matter. He's not an involved party. I think he was just quoted. Some of the other individuals may have had legal conflicts with GHI. Minister Boissonnault is not named in those. We're not a court. It's not up to us to bring the courts into committee. I think someone—maybe it was Iqra—said this is an absolute fishing expedition. Curtis James I don't know....

Through you, Mr. Chair, perhaps Mr. Cooper can give us some feedback as to why he's giving us this grocery list of just about every name he may or may not have read in the newspaper.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think that's a fair question, Mr. Fisher. I'll go to Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Fisher has the floor. You're answering his questions, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to note each of the witnesses we were calling on.

We need to hear from Elections Canada because of the contract between Randy Boissonnault's company and Elections Canada. The Shepherd's Care Foundation and the Christian care and support association are suing Randy Boissonnault's company for ripping them off. It's the same with Malvina Ghaoui from the Ghaoui Group, who was a victim of the half-million dollar shakedown in which there were nine text messages referencing “Randy”. That's very relevant.

We need to hear from the Edmonton Police Service because, within weeks of the half-million dollar shakedown, there was arson at the warehouse of Randy Boissonnault's company—arson the Edmonton Police Service has determined to likely be arson.

Ian Stedman is an expert. Curtis James works as an employee at a company located next to the former warehouse before it was burnt down. He has information about the number of employees and who was working there. There is contradictory evidence between what Mr. Boissonnault said and what Mr. Anderson said. Carla Rodych, again, is another victim of Randy Boissonnault's company.

These are hardly names out of thin air. They're very relevant to getting to the bottom of the corruption that surrounds this minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Fisher, you have the floor. Hopefully that answers some of your concerns.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It does, but it just makes it look like Elections Canada, really, would be the only one that seems viable to invite to this committee.

I was in the House this morning when Mr. Barrett talked about bringing Mr. Anderson before the House on his question of privilege. I think Mr. Anderson was a bad witness. I think the issue is more with Mr. Anderson.

I will certainly listen to what others have to say.

Mr. Cooper, thank you very much for the explanation. However, I don't buy most of those names on there. I see some value in Elections Canada, but I don't see any reason why many of these names are on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank Mr. Cooper for that further explanation, because it only proves my point that these names were chosen because they have some kind of dealings—legal cases and so on. The Conservative Party of Canada is exploiting people who have legitimate or legal concerns. They have issues. There are things that could be conflicts. Whatever it is they are going through, the Conservatives think, “Wow, this is going to be great. Let's exploit this. Let's drag these people in here and expose them outside of a court of law, where they would have certain protections and so on. No, let's do that.”

It's really an exploitation and fishing expedition for people I would guess would.... Maybe they've been promised something. Maybe they've been told, “Oh, you're going to get justice. You're going to get this. You're going to get that.” Maybe they are going to be very disappointed. In fact, I hope they are listening to me right now, because, please, be observed—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mrs. Shanahan, I'm sorry, but there is a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Caputo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

They may well be listening and have something to say. Be that as it may, to suggest that any member on this side here has promised something to somebody in exchange for their coming here is not only inappropriate, it is highly inflammatory and should be withdrawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's fair enough. Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead. You have the floor.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Indeed, in an earlier intervention, we talked about who the people were who would be concerned about this. That would mean, perhaps, a further appearance by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is our independent officer of Parliament who deals with these issues and, certainly, can deal with any confidential.... That's the other part of this: the confidentiality and that people may inadvertently reveal information. They don't necessarily have the benefit of having guidance or legal representation in a forum such as this. Certainly, I'm not sure that their best interests are at the heart and purpose of this motion.

I am moving an amendment to delete the text after “Official Languages by no less than four meetings” and continue after “officials” to add “and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.” That is the proper term in English, I believe, and then delete the rest of the text. There would be a period after “Commissioner”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It substantively changes the motion here, so I'm going to defer to the clerk on this one. This is a pretty significant change, Mrs. Shanahan.

Repeat it again, so that we're clear.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

To preface, you know that motions which restrict, predict, enforce timelines and the calling of certain witnesses, I believe, really prevent the committee, through its subcommittee, through you, Chair, to do the work that you and the team so ably do in calling witnesses and so on.

I will read the clean version. It would say:

That the committee expand its study on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages; that the committee invite Elections Canada officials; and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to testify on this study.

I will leave that there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I didn't hear you say the second time that you want to strike the rest of the witnesses. Is that what you're suggesting? I heard it the first time, but I didn't hear it the second time.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Yes, that is the clean version with the amendment I'm suggesting. There are two ways we can do that. We can use the clean version, or I can repeat “delete”, “add” and “delete”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The way I read it now is, “That the committee expand its study on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages; that the committee invite Elections Canada officials; and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.”

That's the way—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

It's “and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to testify on this study.” That's just to round it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give me a second here, please. Thank you.

The amendment is in order.

On the amendment, I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett.

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

There's a lot to unpack here, Chair.

I will just say that Mrs. Shanahan, in her concluding comments, said that she doesn't support motions that would prescribe when the meetings occur, but her colleague Ms. Khalid just put forward a motion saying that a study should happen immediately. Her colleague proposed a motion mere minutes ago that did the exact thing that she's decrying.

Look, the motion by Mr. Cooper seeks to invite, not to order, any of these people to appear, in spite of Mrs. Shanahan's objections and her thinking that we need to worry about the police feeling victimized by receiving an invitation from the clerk of the committee. I think they will probably be okay if they get that invitation. For any of the folks on here who haven't expressed an interest in appearing, they might just decline the invitation. If it would perhaps be useful to the chair and other members of the committee, I'm quite sure that we could make an overture to anyone who's interested in appearing, and they could come and appear.

It's also standard that we would, just on the study, be able to invite witnesses based on the agreed-upon number of slots per party. If the idea is to just take out all of the witnesses and that all the parties can submit names of witnesses to appear, I think that's great. I would be worried that the Liberals might invite someone who would feel victimized by having received that email. I think having Elections Canada and the folks Mr. Cooper named, including the Edmonton police, come would provide us important context. We've had witnesses, including a minister and his business partner, come to committee and cook up some whoppers about what has been going on.

It speaks to the.... I hear Ms. Khalid ask if it's lying. I'm not sure if Mr. Boissonnault is lying. Perhaps he is.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hang on a second, Mr. Barrett.

I don't want any crosstalk here, and that goes for both sides. I'm trying to deal with the clerk on an issue. I'm listening as I deal with it, but I can't hear and I can't deal with it if I have crosstalk on both sides. Let's stop that, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

We're not sure who's lying. I think that's the important thing. Ms. Khalid is very frustrated today that she has to defend the most corrupt government that Canada has ever had, with a Prime Minister twice found guilty of breaking the law. It's the first time that has ever happened in history.