Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this issue is incredibly important. This is why the ethics committee has called for that Liberal minister from Edmonton to come back before the ethics committee to see if we can get a third version of his truth, or maybe get to the facts of the matter. It is a real problem when we have a minister come before a parliamentary committee and we have to bring them back because we have learned that evidence demonstrates what they said at committee was not true.

We have to hear from the minister at committee, and, of course, we need to have Mr. Anderson come before the House to answer questions and to answer for his contempt. This is a scandal that goes right to the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister is supporting that Liberal minister from Edmonton who has an ongoing involvement in this business venture. Today, the National Post wrote an article entitled, “Cabinet minister’s firm shared mailing address with person named in cocaine busts”.

While at the cabinet table, that same minister's business, which he owned a 50% share in, won government contracts. It won a contract with Elections Canada. What an advantage he gets. If claiming he was indigenous for indigenous-only contracts when he is not was not enough of an advantage to him, and a disadvantage to Canadians, he is also sitting at the cabinet table. I wonder if it weighs into anyone's decisions in government when they are deciding which vendor to pick, if one of the vendors sits around the cabinet table.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague opened up such a wide area of topics, but in particular with regard to sitting at the cabinet table, I want him to tell us the official Conservative policy, now, on his leader, and Stephen Harper before him, closing veterans' offices, including the one in Windsor, Ontario.

What is the official position on the cabinet decision that locked the doors, fired workers and threw veterans to the streets when they needed services? What can Windsor West residents expect in the future about closing veterans' offices after they recruited veterans off the streets to go to Afghanistan and all the other different wars before that? What is the official Conservative response to his current leader's responsibility in closing veterans' offices, while at the cabinet table?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame that, today, Canadians who voted for NDP members see those NDP members supporting a Liberal government and a Liberal Prime Minister that has attacked workers—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I asked a very simple question to this member about closing veteran offices—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is just falling into debate.

Order. I will just wait. Is the hon. member for Windsor West going to be continuing the debate? Thank you.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are rightly disappointed, especially those who voted for the NDP, to see the NDP members supporting and voting for a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that have attacked workers. It is really shameful and I understand why they are so upset. The NDP members must be taking marching orders from their leadership to support a Prime Minister, to support a Liberal Party that is attacking workers. They continue to give confidence to a government that has attacked workers at the two ports during labour disruptions there.

With respect to veterans, the Prime Minister has said veterans are asking for more than they can give. However, the NDP members continue to give the Prime Minister carte blanche. Canadians are upset with them and their failure to stand up for veterans and for workers. They should be ashamed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before going to our last question, I just want to make sure that when a person has the floor, the other folks keep comments to themselves. They can ask a question in the process later on.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil has the floor.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, we could not write a Hollywood script better than what this Parliament has been experiencing with this latest scandal that has been before the ethics committee and is now making an appearance before the House. We have had a former member of Parliament start a business with a character of suspect. They got government contracts. They defrauded companies and are facing civil actions right now. A fire happened at a warehouse, and now, with the latest bombshell, there is seemingly involvement with cocaine. We have seen Liberal members at committee filibuster this issue. We are seeing Liberal members defend this issue.

I know the hon. member spoke about defending the indefensible. What are Liberal members thinking in defending this minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine how the Liberals and their NDP counterparts can defend the Prime Minister and the Liberal minister from Edmonton, when he had to come out and apologize now that he has been caught for misrepresenting himself as being indigenous when he is not, and for being involved in a business that is facing fraud allegations and is under investigation for arson. It is just unbelievable.

The Prime Minister should have fired him. The minister should resign. It is just unbelievable that he is getting cover from the back benches of the Liberal Party and the NDP.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his outstanding work on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I thank him for helping Canadians learn more about this and, above all, for shining a light, day after day, on all those revelations in the newspapers about Canada's Minister of Official Languages. It takes dedication, and it is also a lot of work. Indeed, I doubt a day goes by without my colleague learning something new about the various ways in which the minister responsible for official languages has used his duties, his position, his name or his other name—I will talk about that later—for his personal gain.

I also want to thank all the members who sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, especially my Conservative colleagues who have relentlessly asked questions. Thanks to those questions, we have learned a great deal about this whole affair that is currently before the House of Commons.

This is a very important issue. We are talking about a minister in the Prime Minister's cabinet who, well, is a fraud in many respects. He has demonstrated that, and now we have tangible proof. I will come back to that a little later.

Canadians are struggling right now. We live in a country where the cost of food is skyrocketing, where young people cannot even imagine ever owning a home because housing prices are so high, and where food banks are in crisis. Newspapers are reporting that food banks are in crisis. We live in a country where violent crime is on the rise, in big cities and in rural regions alike. Crime is up 256% since 2015. What matters most to this Prime Minister and this cabinet? Their top priority is to protect the Minister of Official Languages and make sure he keeps his job, despite all the evidence that has been presented against him, showing that he gleefully put his hands in the cookie jar.

When he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar, he rushed to eat them all up, to get rid of the evidence and to keep his hands free so he could go right back in for more. That is what is happening right now with this situation involving the Minister of Official Languages.

I have a little file on everything that has happened so far with the Minister of Official Languages, such as the story about the other Randy. Several people may have testified about that. It is rather startling to look at all the press coverage since June. I am only going to read the headlines, but I think it is important for Canadians to understand how the situation with the Minister of Official Languages has evolved. I will start with the francophone media, where there have been fewer articles. Those listening will see the correlation with the rest of my speech.

The first article reporting on this situation appeared on June 27. The headline read, “Minister's past questioned”. On July 5, Radio-Canada published an article entitled “[Official languages minister] cleared by an ethics inquiry, but not by the opposition”. There were no articles between July 5 and October 2. On October 2, Le Droit published an article under the headline, “[Official languages minister]'s business dealings again the subject of debate”. On November 15, the following article appeared in Radio-Canada: “[Minister of Official Languages] apologizes for lack of clarity about his indigenous identity”.

On the surface, for the francophones listening to us and for the people watching us who follow federal politics, this might seem like a trifle. People might wonder why the House of Commons is spending so much time talking about the Minister of Official Languages.

Let us look at what the English-language press said had to say about it. On June 4, Global News published the following article:

“Texts from ‘Randy’ raise questions about minister's role at company while in office, [the minister] denies.”

It tells us about text messages concerning the “other Randy”. That is what I will call him. As a rule, ministers are not to be called by their name in the House. However, another Randy is supposedly involved in this matter, but his identity has never been determined. Suffice it to say that this raises questions about the role of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages.

On July 16, Global News wrote the following:

“Liberal Cabinet Minister's...former partner in a medical supply company has ties to an Edmonton woman who was detained in a massive cocaine bust in the Dominican Republic in April 2022.”

On July 17, the Toronto Star published an article under the following heading:

“In ethics hearing about Liberal minister, business exec admits he lied to a reporter.”

Fully 50% of the Global Health Imports company is owned by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, together with Stephen Anderson, the individual who refused to hand over documents to the House of Commons. This, incidentally, is the focus of the privilege motion currently before us. His business partner therefore admitted to telling the reporter a lie.

On July 30, Global News reported as follows:

“Public records contradict [the minister's] business associate’s testimony to ethics committee.”

The article revealed that, essentially, what the minister told the committee was not entirely accurate, based on the facts that have emerged.

On August 8, Global News reported the following:

“New ‘Randy’ texts lead to 3rd ethics probe into [minister's] business dealings.”

I should really say the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. It is hard to get that right when a single person holds so many portfolios, especially since I cannot name that person.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner conducted a third investigation. We have not heard much about that in French.

On August 15, Global News reported the following:

“[The minister's] former company, business partner face civil fraud allegation.”

Stephen Anderson, a 50% shareholder in Global Health Imports, is facing civil suits.

On August 21, Global News reported the following:

“[The minister's] former company awarded federal contract in potential conflict of interest.”

The company was apparently awarded contracts, and this was in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act.

On September 11, Global News reported the following:

“Why the contract won by [the minister's] former company went undisclosed for months”.

Is he hiding something? Why did he not disclose that a contract had been awarded?

On September 20, the National Post reported the following:

“[The Minister of Official Languages] admits he spoke to business partner in 2022 as MPs try to find the ‘other Randy’.”

Members will recall that at first, he was not there. That article was published on September 20. On June 4, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages testified at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. My colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, our ethics critic, asked him the following question.

Minister, there's fraud and there's another Randy in a “partner call” at your company. What is the other Randy's last name?

It was a simple question that he was asked on June 4, a long time ago, at the very start of all this.

The minister replied as follows:

[Hon. member], I do not know the name of that person, as I stated in my opening statements before at committee. I have no operational role with GHI. I do not know that person in question. That person is not me.

On September 20, the National Post wrote the following:

“[The Minister of Official Languages] admits he spoke to business partner in 2022 as MPs try to find the ‘other Randy’.”

Is that a contradiction or a lie? It is a fraud.

On October 8, the National Post reported the following:

“Liberal minister's former business associate could soon be found in contempt in ‘other Randy’ saga.”

That is why we are here today.

On November 9, the National Post wrote the following:

“One more firm alleges it was defrauded by Liberal cabinet minister's partner.”

On November 12 we read as follows:

“Ethics committee reopens [the Minister of Official Languages] inquiry in wake of new ‘Randy’ texts.”

More revelations and more texts were released.

On November 13, we read the following:

“[The Minister of Official Languages] won't say whether police should investigate claims of fraud against his former business partner.”

Fraud is fraud. When someone is a member of cabinet, they should support justice and want to get to the bottom of things. If, as he has claimed from the start, the Minister of Official Languages has nothing to do with any of this, he should open his books and let the police open an investigation into his former business partner's actions. However, when we open a can of worms, the worms do not always stay in one place. They move around. Perhaps that is why the Minister of Official Languages is afraid to ask the police to investigate his former business partner.

The story did not end there. On November 13, the National Post published an article under the following headline:

“‘It's just shocking’: Liberal cabinet minister's shifting Indigenous identity scorned.”

First, it was another Randy. Then it was not another Randy, it was him. Now we learn that this company fraudulently claimed that one of the shareholders was indigenous. The Minister of Official Languages appeared in Liberal Party advertisements stating that he was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada's indigenous caucus, and he allegedly claimed indigenous identity so he could steal money from real indigenous people who were entitled to it. Why did he do it? As I said earlier, he did it to keep both hands in the cookie jar and put money into his own pockets. That is unacceptable.

I will continue. The story broke on November 14. The National Post reported:

“For years, Liberals said this MP was Indigenous. He's not.”

This is not coming from us.

On November 15, the National Post published an article stating:

“‘I apologize unequivocally’: [the Minister of Official Languages] says he was not ‘clear’ about his ties to Indigenous ancestry.”

I have a lot of information to share with the public about all the Minister of Official Languages' misrepresentations. I do not understand how—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. There is another conversation going on. I am hearing it quite readily as I try to listen to the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I need everyone to listen while the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize. That was me. I was just talking with some colleagues, reminding them that it was Stephen Harper and certain cabinet members who—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will take the apology for what it is worth.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is so obvious, we have come to expect it. Every time the Liberal government is attacked, a member of the NDP tries to cause a distraction to defend and protect it. It is almost a reflex. If we are where we are today—and all we have to do is think about the state of our public finances, about what is happening to Canadians standing in line at the food bank, about the ever-rising crime rate, about the people who are living in tents because they do not have a home—it is because the NDP supports, has supported and will continue to support this ineffective Liberal government.

This ineffective Liberal government has a fake in its cabinet, a fake who admits it. However, he does not have the decency or the courage to hand in his resignation. He does not have the courage or the decency to respect ministerial responsibility and resign. Why does the Prime Minister keep him on? That is what Canadians should be asking.

In closing, that is not all. There is another fib on the Minister of Official Languages' resume that is very serious for an official languages minister. The Minister of Official Languages campaigned as a successful entrepreneur. We understand why he was successful, given his ties with the government. However, he also ran as a journalist. The Minister of Official Languages claimed to be a journalist. That is true. It is not a joke. Le Devoir questioned that and took an interest in this particular situation on June 27.

According to Global News, the Minister of Official Languages apparently

“remained listed as director” of a company that sold millions of dollars' worth of protective medical equipment to the Government of Quebec during the pandemic “for more than a year” after he began his second term in office.

According to the digital archives consulted by Le Devoir, the minister ran for office in 2015 and 2019 as a former journalist and political commentator for CBC/Radio-Canada and Les Affaires.

The Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec found this assertion questionable, since the Minister of Official Languages “never worked as a journalist for either of these venues”. “His name does not appear [in our system]”. That statement to Le Devoir was made by Radio-Canada spokesperson Guylaine O'Farrell.

As for the newspaper Les Affaires, its editor in chief, Marine Thomas said, “I did not know he had worked for us.” That is what the editor in chief, the person who approves all the articles, said. However, the archives contain opinion pieces signed by the Minister of Official Languages between 2005 and 2007, which he himself called columns.

In his collaborations with Les Affaires, he signed the pieces as president of Xennex Venture Catalysts and the Alberta Chambers of Commerce. He said we wanted to upend a few preconceived ideas about the province. He clearly did not want to comment on these statements either. I think it is worth quoting another statement by the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, Éric-Pierre Champagne, who said in an interview, “It is clear to me that he was not a journalist...Anyone can send an open letter to the media...That does not make them a journalist.”

For all of these reasons, that is, for the other Randy affair, for trying to assume an indigenous identity, for trying to pass himself off as a journalist and for misleading Canadians, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages has no choice. If he has any dignity or honour whatsoever, he will resign. If the Prime Minister has any sense of honour, respect and honesty, he will fire the minister as soon as possible, because no one can have a fake in cabinet.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is to have Mr. Anderson come before the bar, just in case anyone is following the debate. I suspect all of us ultimately want to get to that vote and see that happen.

Since Conservative Party members are so hung up on this whole character assassination, which they have been doing since 2010, I wonder if maybe we should universally apply that and start talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and the numerous scandals he has directly been involved in. That would be an interesting subject for an opposition day type of motion.

Specifically, let me raise an issue that is out there and real. The only leader in the House of Commons who refuses to get the security clearance on foreign international interference is, in fact, the leader of the Conservative Party. Would the member not agree that the leader of the Conservative Party really needs to reflect on his motivation for not getting it? I believe it is because there is something in his personal background he does not want to share with Canadians. Would the member not agree that the leader of the Conservative Party should come clean and tell us what it is about his personal background that is preventing him from getting the security clearance?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty ironic. However, we are not surprised to hear that from the member for Winnipeg North. He started his question by saying that he would like to remind the members that we are here to talk about a question of privilege concerning Stephen Anderson. Then he does not ask any questions about Stephen Anderson.

Let us try to take this seriously. This question of privilege is extremely serious. We are here today because Stephen Anderson refused to turn over to the House of Commons documents that will surely show the involvement of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages in the company while he was minister. These documents will confirm that he communicated with his business partner when he was not supposed to do so, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Act.

That is not surprising, however, because the Liberals always do whatever they can to distract us and avoid talking about real issues in the House. I do not find that surprising, coming from the member for Winnipeg North.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, has the member for Mégantic—L'Érable ever considered, if only for a second, that our Randy might simply have a split personality?

Let us be a little more serious. The debate on the first question of privilege lasted a month, and this morning we started to debate a second question of privilege. I feel like asking my Conservative colleague when he intends to get back to serious parliamentary business.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shameful that the Bloc Québécois supported this government for nearly $500 billion in inflationary spending, that they voted almost 200 times to keep the government in power and that they twice voted against our non-confidence motions.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois just told us that what we are doing now, that is, holding the fake that is this government minister to account, is not part of the work of parliamentarians. There is our answer. The Bloc Québécois does not understand what it is supposed to do in Ottawa, which is holding the Liberal government to account rather than supporting it in every vote.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about some of the past practices that have taken place, this member knows that former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper talked about Atlantic Canada and Quebec being part of a cultural defeatism. Is that still the current position of the Conservative Party, a cultural defeatism for Atlantic Canada and for Quebec?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the NDP has a unique opportunity to walk the talk. In a dramatic gesture, they tore up their agreement with the Liberals at the end of August, saying that the Liberals were no longer good for them and that they were not taking the country in the right direction.

However, every time they get a chance to defend this bad Liberal government, they do whatever they can to create distractions, change the subject or take the discussion in another direction. They do this so as to avoid taking responsibility, to avoid voting with Canadians and most of the opposition members to bring down this government so that we can finally trigger an election and put an end to the damage caused by the Liberal government. Of course, they know they are responsible because they voted with the Liberal government, so they find it hard to give themselves a rap on the knuckles.

I think that the NDP is not in a position to be lecturing anyone. If we are here today, it is because they supported this government many, many times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent speech.

We are in the House today discussing the fraudulent, dishonest behaviour of the Liberal employment minister pretending to be indigenous, his company claiming to be indigenous-owned, to try to get contracts that had been set aside for indigenous entrepreneurs. There is a context to this. The AFN has testified before the government operations committee that, actually, a majority of those companies benefiting from these indigenous procurement set-asides are shell companies. There is rampant abuse in this program, with elite, well-connected insiders trying to take advantage of this program, people who are not indigenous trying to take advantage of a program that was supposed to be about creating economic development for indigenous people.

The Conservative Party is committed to real solutions that will advance economic development for indigenous Canadians, whereas the Liberals, it is clear now, have been using this program to try to advantage not only their friends but themselves. I wonder if the member can comment on just what the abuse of this program by the Minister of Employment's company says about how the government likes to talk, on the one hand, about reconciliation, but it is clear now that the Liberals are just using that as an excuse to try to enrich their friends and themselves.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that, for them, it is a question of opportunity and that they are trying to take advantage of the system as much as they can.

I have here an article from the National Post stating that “[f]or years, Liberals said this MP was Indigenous. He is not”. What is in the article, what I cannot show, is a red Liberal Party of Canada poster showing the indigenous Liberal caucus. Whose picture is on it? This article was published on November 14, 2024. It may be a picture of the other Randy, but I do not think so. It is a picture of the Minister of Official Languages. This minister is a fake and a fraud. He tried to defraud Canadians. He does not deserve to keep his place in the cabinet of any government. It is time for the Prime Minister to fire him.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North said that he agreed with this question of privilege. I think members want to know what is happening. This motion of privilege asks Mr. Anderson to appear here. We can make that happen with the support of all members.

I am therefore asking the member opposite whether there is a member, a party or anyone who disagrees. I agree. The member for Winnipeg North agrees, and I think that the Liberals agree. I think that the Conservatives agree. I heard members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP say that they agree. Is there a member or a party that does not agree? I think that we can vote on the motion. We can find a solution to get the information that I think the House and all members want. That is my question.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. There is a solution. It is very simple. It is readily available. It is within reach. This situation can be resolved very quickly. What is the solution? The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages needs to step down because he is no longer worthy of his current office. We do not need to hear Mr. Anderson's testimony if the minister steps down. If the minister does not want to step down, if he does not have the decency to do that, then an even simpler solution would be for the Prime Minister to fire him.