Evidence of meeting #139 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was anderson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
November 7th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's part of a pattern of not being forthcoming. It's part of a pattern of a minister who is changing his story as new details emerge.
Now that we have these additional text messages, evidence that the minister was not forthcoming, they may provide further evidence that the minister was involved in fraud. It will be interesting to see how his story changes when he, hopefully, comes before this committee as soon as possible.
We need to hear from this minister. He shouldn't be a minister. He should have been fired long ago as a minister. He has no place sitting in the cabinet, given his record of, frankly, not being forthcoming and being implicated in this shady business that is riddled by allegations of fraud. It's not just allegations of fraud. I'll emphasize again that there is $7.8 million in judgments by Alberta courts against his company, the company that he had a 50% interest in, stemming from lawsuits from the time he was a partner in the business.
Mr. Chair, it's important that we pass Mr. Barrett's motion and haul Minister Boissonnault back to this committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As I'm listening to the comments by Mr. Barrett and Mr. Cooper—I listened to the comments from Mr. Genuis, but those were on a different issue. Those were on the National Post story about the indigenous angle—I don't see anything. We've supported this motion in the past or a motion almost exactly like this.
We've had this looked at by the Ethics Commissioner every time that Mr. Barrett has asked for it to go to the Ethics Commissioner. I seem to recall that we asked him one time whether he looks into something when asked by a parliamentarian, and I think he said yes. Obviously, if this committee decides to ask again, he'll look into it again, but I don't see anything in the motion that's new. I didn't hear anything in the debate that was new. It was more to get some clips talking about this and talking about that, but I didn't hear anything new in this.
We've seen all of that stuff. I feel we've seen it all. I don't see any sign of anything new while the minister was a minister. There's talk about things coming out when he wasn't a minister, between 2019 and 2021, but I don't see anything that's come up today that's brand spanking new in this motion, other than asking for some different people on the same topic, and one of those people on the list is already pegged to come to this committee.
I guess I'll continue to listen to the debate and continue to listen to the rationale for why we want to do this yet again. It reminds me of that awesome Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day. I expect, if you bring the same people in for the same questions, you're going to get the same answers, but again, I'll listen to what other members of the committee have to say.
Conservative
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My confusion stems from the fact that the motion asks us to call the head of The Ghaoui Group and different employees of Global Health Imports, who are the subject of a civil claim whereby The Ghaoui Group is suing the company for approximately $500,000.
This committee is not a court. I have no basis to use words like those Mr. Cooper was using before, like “shakedown”, or to make assumptions about which side is right in a lawsuit that is being undertaken.
I think we were all displeased with and dismayed by the testimony of Mr. Anderson, who is one of the defendants in this lawsuit, which is why this committee unanimously voted to recommend to the House to hold him in contempt and bring him before the House.
To me, all of the issues that relate to Mr. Boissonnault, who has now testified twice before the committee on this issue, are ones that relate to Mr. Anderson and his text messages and telephone calls and claims he made. To me, we're not going to gain anything related to the ethical behaviour of Mr. Boissonault by bringing him back to the committee for a third time, when he will no doubt make the same comments he made the first two times he was here.
We have testimony...or at least we have reporters who have interviewed Ms. Ghaoui, who said she never spoke or communicated directly with Mr. Boissonnault, so all she could possibly offer is hearsay testimony about her communications with Mr. Anderson.
I'm at a loss about the point of this motion when these are issues that we're still dealing with and relitigating, and have talked about ad nauseam at the committee.
The one thing I would be willing to entertain is bringing Mr. Anderson back to ask him the difficult questions, since he has yet to appear before the bar of the House, given the filibustering going on in the House on a different privilege motion.
However, as of now, I certainly don't see what value Ms. Ghaoui will bring when she has said she's never had any direct relationship or communication with Mr. Boissonnault. She has nothing that could allow the committee to conclude that he committed an ethical violation, because all that she would know is what somebody else told her. I don't think bringing Mr. Boissonault back for a third time will yield anything new either.
We would need to hear from Mr. Anderson under oath, being required by the Speaker to answer what it is that caused him to repeatedly type Mr. Boissonnault's name in his text messages—I think we all do not believe it is credible that this was an autocorrect issue—and what caused him to use Mr. Boissonnault's name. I can think of many reasons. Mr. Boissonnault himself speculated on the reasons he might have for using Mr. Boissonnault's name, but really, the only person it makes sense to hear from is Mr. Anderson, and I think the House should proceed to that privilege motion and bring him to the bar of the House as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I'll yield the floor now. Maybe I'll come back later.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
I'm going to go to my friend from Châteauguay—Lacolle. I have family who live there.
Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
We'll have to chat off-line. That's wonderful.
I said I wanted to gather my thoughts on this, but I'll pick up on what Mr. Housefather was saying, because that's where I was going, too. Now, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but that's what I was thinking.
It's an old joke, but it's a good one.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you for that, Mr. Green.
This idea is that there's this piling up of different actions between committee testimony and reporting to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner not just once, not twice, but three times. Not just once, not just twice, but three times, the commissioner came back with basically no findings that warrant further investigation. There is a privilege motion somewhere in the lineup. What could be delaying the House getting to that privilege motion? I don't know. Maybe somebody can help me out with that.
I think we voted on one subamendment. Who knows? I understand that every single member of Parliament on the Conservative side must speak to the.... Is it the subamendment now?
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
That's right.
It's so refreshing to see such passion in the House in the matter of debate.
If members are really serious about wanting to find out about this.... Maybe they don't want to find out what Mr. Anderson has to say under oath. That's another interesting question to explore. Maybe they have their doubts as to what Mr. Anderson will provide by way of evidence, or they don't want to hear what Mr. Anderson has to say under oath and they simply are trying to delay that privilege motion indefinitely.
I'm just speculating here, Mr. Chair.
I certainly have my doubts as to the sincerity of some of my colleagues. I hate to say that, because I'd like to believe that every member of Parliament is here to get to the truth of matters and to work on behalf of Canadians. It's just possible that in this case there are some partisan games going on. I hate to go there, but there you have it.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Very good.
Let's have Mr. Green on the list, and we'll get to him very shortly.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You guys remember, right?
You forgot the third person connected?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I want to address something else.
You know, I have worked with Mr. Cooper on a number of different committees, and I can certainly appreciate his style. However, the whole “Guilty! Guilty!” thing is.... I don't know. It's effective as a social media clip, I suppose. That's not my thing.
The commissioner appeared before us and talked about what the act is intended to do. I believe the act came into force and was renewed a few times. What it intends to do is act as a guideline. Yes, there are some punitive aspects to it, as well there should be. However, this is not a court of law. It's to call members back into line when there are behaviours, actions, activities, omissions or something like that.
It's not even so much about the individuals themselves needing to be called back into line. Our concern is about Parliament as a whole, is it not? We want Canadians to have confidence in the workings of Parliament and in any serving member of Parliament. We certainly earn a well-above-average salary. I think we can all agree that we earn a healthy salary. It's public, as well it should be. Our expenses are duly advertised and made public.
This was before my time as a parliamentarian, but I seem to remember that there was quite a scandal around expenses. There was a senator who lived in Ottawa but was claiming a shack in P.E.I. or something. I don't know. Maybe someone here remembers the name. Was it a former journalist?
Liberal
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
That's right. It was Mike Duffy. I used to enjoy his programs.
When you hear that somebody who should know better is reporting on the behaviour of parliamentarians but is himself double-billing the Canadian taxpayers.... I believe he was a senator from P.E.I., yet his home here in Ottawa was his principal residence. He was pretending to live in P.E.I. That's the kind of thing that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Then the chief of staff or someone wrote a cheque to cover his expenses, as if to make the whole thing go away.
Do you remember that?
