Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Villemure, I'm sorry, but I assumed you wanted to talk about something else.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That's right, I didn't want to talk about the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead, please, on the motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It appears that this is where I came into this committee. It was regarding this Mr. Anderson. It seems so sinister, this Mr. Anderson, who apparently has been playing fast and loose in using the name of Minister Boissonnault in his business dealings on a multiple of occasions.

I seem to remember that when I came in we were seeing the Ethics Commissioner for I think something like the third time, apparently. We were questioning the Ethics Commissioner regarding these texts. The commissioner had reiterated how he had conducted his investigation, and he was very clear about how he goes about his work. He's an independent officer of Parliament. He obviously takes this very seriously. It's the credibility not only of not him, but of that institution, that role, that is coming under question when members of Parliament, particularly members of the official opposition, don't get what they want and repeatedly call for further investigations and, indeed, are questioning the report that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner put forth to us.

Indeed, Minister Boissonnault provided those text messages. I remember looking at them and saying, like, “Okay, what is this?” It was a banal thing about some kind of telecom thing or something, you know, and to check back—the sort of routine thing when you leave a place of work and somebody's looking for a contact. He said, “No, I'm not involved in this anymore and please contact the person who is handling this business.”

It's this kind of mishmash of bits and pieces of text messages and WhatsApp messages and so on, which actually showed that the minister had nothing to do with the business dealings of this Mr. Anderson, but this Mr. Anderson certainly demonstrated, from what I understand—now, I wasn't there for his testimony, but I'm sure that colleagues here will fill us in—that he was very free and easy, apparently, with using the name of the minister. From what I'm told about the character and conduct of that person, it certainly appears that he was doing it for his own purposes, his own profit and his own ends.

It's a kind of lesson to all of us to be careful about who we get involved with when that day comes and we find ourselves in the private sector. Again, in fact, I found it very interesting at that point, when I came into this committee, that the Ethics Commissioner was able to talk about the rules around conflict of interest and the responsibilities of members. Indeed, we heard something of that earlier in the week when we heard from the Lobbying Commissioner, did we not?

At the same time, we have just completed what I think was a very fulsome report around misinformation and disinformation, and I know there are other motions on the table that concern the privacy of Canadians.

I was very glad, Chair, that you were able to arrange for the testimony of the big four—Facebook, X, TikTok and.... Which was the other one? Maybe there were two of them from Facebook. I forget now. I and my constituents were very glad to see that this committee was undertaking work to question les géants du Web, as we call them in French, about the safeguarding of confidential data. How is that data used in algorithms, for marketing purposes and so on? I think this, again, goes to how we need to be very mindful that these bits and pieces—text messages and so on—people are trying to put together to create a case.... I don't think it's worthy of the work of this committee.

What Mr. Genuis brought up is interesting, because that was from another committee I was sitting on—public accounts. We were made aware that there are companies specializing in indigenous procurement. They obtain public contracts by using the set-aside for indigenous procurement.

You know, Chair, I'm a paper person. My staff is trying to wean me off paper, but I have this with me. This is from David Yeo, who was very proud to tell us that not only was he a co-owner of Dalian Enterprises and using indigenous.... I'm sure this is being studied in public accounts. He is also a Conservative member. He was very proud to show us that. This was his claim to fame, how he was able to attract customers. It was because he was able to attract contracts for them.

Again, I wouldn't say that it's a grey area. I think it's quite clear that people need to conduct themselves—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead on your point of order, Mr. Genuis—not on a point of debate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Oh.

Isn't it correct that Mr. Yeo ran for a different political party in the last election?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

What's the actual point of order, Chair?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I apologize. It wasn't related to the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's a point of debate.

Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Was it as a PPC candidate? That's it. There it is.

Could we clarify whether she's allowed to use props, though?

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

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's it, Mr. Genuis. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Aren't they just a satellite party—if we're talking about the PPC? Maxime Bernier.... What is he doing these days? Do we even know?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

He's grifting.

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

That's right.

Again, if I look at this motion, it seems that we're trying to get back with another kick at the can. The Ethics Commissioner, I think, is going to be very right when he finally appears before us to talk about his budget in his office and so on, to say that he has to put aside a special budget just for these repetitive, redundant, frivolous attempts by opposition members to drag somebody into the mud.

As a serious member of this committee, I am really taken aback that, once again, we are back discussing these points. It's very clear to me again, and I think that was a unanimous motion. If I'm correct, Mr. Anderson.... How many privilege motions...? Is that not the subject of one of the privilege motions that are before the House right now? I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of piling on in this regard. I would suggest that, for clarity and to keep things on the right path, maybe one thing at a time would be a good strategy. However, I digress.

Mr. Chair, it's clear to me that there are obligations and that we as MPs and as cabinet ministers have even more obligations. I'm happy to see the Ethics Commissioner really any time of the day or week to further explain that, because I remember, in my first round in this committee, that we were very cognizant that many members really didn't have a good understanding of their duties under the conflict of interest and ethics legislation.

People have been caught inadvertently. With regard to putting together your assets, liabilities, revenue sources, investments and so on, as somebody who's a former banker, I pride myself on being pretty good at that, but even so, it can happen that you forget something. You could have a separate account for a TFSA or something. I'm always very pleased when someone in the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner takes the time, gives us a call and explains what it is, so that we're able to correct it, because God forbid that something should be posted and not be correct. I'm one of those people. To be hauled in front of this committee to explain myself and so on.... I don't think any member of Parliament would enjoy that.

I think that we have to let the Ethics Commissioner do his work. He has, in this case, on three different occasions.... Am I right? I believe it is on three different occasions, in three different reports, that he has assured us that if there are any concerns, he would be, of course, the first one to be cognizant and seized with having to do what would need to be done in that case—further investigations, further interviews and so forth. Therefore, I don't really understand why the Conservatives are not willing to let the Ethics Commissioner do his work.

It would seem to me that there are better things we could be doing. There are more productive things we could be doing to be serving our constituents. I'm quite sure the other opposition members here would feel the same way.

Chair, I'm still putting my thoughts together on this. Please, put me back on the list. I'd like to come back after I've gathered my thoughts a bit.

Those were some preliminary observations that I wanted to make.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I put the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, Ms. Shanahan, back on the list.

I'm going to Mr. Cooper next.

Go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, could I be put on the list, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Sure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Shanahan alleged that Conservatives are bringing forward frivolous ethics complaints. I would remind Ms. Shanahan, through you, Mr. Chair, of the litany of guilty findings by the Ethics Commissioner with respect to key figures in this government.

We have the Prime Minister, who was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act not once, but twice. He is the first prime minister in Canadian history to be found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act.

How about the current Minister of Public Safety, Dominic LeBlanc? He was found guilty of contravening the Conflict of Interest Act.

Then there's the trade minister, Mary Ng. She was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act.

Do you remember Bill Morneau, the former finance minister under Justin Trudeau? He was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. I think it was twice in his case.

Then there's the Prime Minister's former parliamentary secretary, who was found guilty of contravening the Conflict of Interest Act.

What we have is a pattern of conflict and corruption in this government that goes right to the top, right to the Prime Minister.

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

They are serial lawbreakers.

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

They are a bunch of serial lawbreakers. Indeed, the Prime Minister, their leader, is probably the biggest lawbreaker among them.

With respect to the motion that has been put forward by Mr. Barrett, the central question that must be answered is this: Who is Randy? Where is Randy, by the way? Where is he? He seems to be in hiding in the wake of today's report in the National Post, which said that he fraudulently represented that his company was indigenous owned to secure millions of dollars in a federal contract. Where is he? It would be nice if he could show his face.

There is an affidavit that was filed on November 5, which we now have a copy of. Contained within the affidavit is a series of exhibits that include new text messages that cast further doubt about the minister's truthfulness when he came before this committee. I think it's important to look at the track record of this minister when it comes to telling the truth and when it comes to being forthcoming.

This is a minister who came to this committee in June and was adamant that he wasn't the Randy in the text messages, but of course, the Ghaoui Group believed at all times that the Randy in the text messages was the Minister of Employment.

Stephen Anderson was asked by Global News, “Who is the Randy in the text messages?” He said, “Well, it's the VP of logistics.” When Global News looked into who is the VP of logistics, they found that it was not a “Randy” but a guy by the name of Edward Anderson, who turns out to be Stephen Anderson's father, Stephen Anderson being the shady business partner of the Minister of Employment.

Global News made further inquiries to find a trace of this other Randy. They couldn't. Stephen Anderson came before the committee and said there was only one Randy that was ever connected to Global Health Imports, and that is the Minister of Employment. That's not to mention the fact that in the original text messages that were discovered, Randy is referenced in the context of being a partner.

It turns out that the Minister of Employment was a partner with Stephen Anderson up until he was elected in 2021. At the time of the text messages, the minister had a 50% ownership stake in the company, Global Health Imports.

In the face of all that, without any trace of another Randy, without any credible explanation of who this other Randy could be, there is really only one conclusion that can be drawn on the question of who Randy is, which is that Randy is the Minister of Employment, the minister from Edmonton, a Randy who shook down Global Health Imports in a half-million-dollar wire fraud scheme, a Randy who was a 50% owner, a partner in a company that has been ordered by Alberta courts to pay back clients $7.8 million for ripping them off.

We have a minister now who is part of a company that has been sued by The Ghaoui Group for this half-million-dollar shakedown when Global Health Imports failed to deliver the PPE that had been ordered, pursuant to the contract that they had entered into.

When the minister came to committee in June, one of the things his office did at the time was issue a statement that it could not have been the minister, because the minister was in Vancouver on September 8, 2022, at a cabinet meeting, and didn't have access to his phone. Therefore, it was impossible that the Randy in the text messages was the minister. Then, after he appeared before the committee for the first time, Global News uncovered new text messages—

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

Uh-oh.

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

—from September 6, 2022, between Anderson and The Ghaoui Group, in which Anderson, as he's shaking them down for the half-million dollars, says, “asking as west coast is closing in seven minutes and Randy is in the Vancouver office.”

Oops! Randy is in Vancouver.

The minister, it turns out, was in Vancouver on September 6.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Aha!

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

When the minister came back to committee in September with these fresh text messages—fresh insofar as they had just recently been made public—my colleague, Mr. Barrett, put it to him that he was obviously that Randy.

The minister, confronted with the text messages, admitted that he was in Vancouver on September 6. Then he provided new information that he had withheld from the committee, which is that he had texted and spoken with Anderson on September 6.

When the minister came in June, he would have had committee believe that he had nothing to do with Anderson, that upon being elected in 2021, other than having a 50% ownership stake, which is a pretty big deal, he never spoke to this guy, that he had nothing to do with the operations of the company and that he was totally oblivious to what was going on.

Then he came back, and, confronted with text messages placing him in Vancouver at the same time that Anderson referred to a Randy in Vancouver, he suddenly said, “Oh, by the way, I spoke with Anderson.”

That constituted a material omission on the part of the minister. The minister, for all intents and purposes, by his omission, misrepresented to this committee his dealings with Anderson.