Information & Ethics Committee on June 6th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Employment is under an ethical cloud with serious questions about whether he contravened the Conflict of Interest Act, the Lobbying Act and maybe the Criminal Code.

Let's look at the facts. First, the minister is connected to one Kirsten Poon. She is the minister's former business partner. She runs and owns a lobbying firm called Navis Group. Navis Group happens to pay the minister. The minister claims that it's for work that he did prior to being elected, except that he has also said that he has never done any work for Navis Group, which raises questions about why he is being paid by Navis Group.

In any event, the minister was a junior minister of finance when Kirsten Poon, his business partner, was lobbying not only this Liberal government but this minister's own department. Twice Ms. Poon lobbied officials in the minister's then department, and in the process, she secured more than $100 million in grants for her clients. This raises serious questions about the fact that the Minister of Employment was being paid by a firm that was lobbying his department and securing a sizable amount in the way of grants for its clients.

Now, the minister has very selectively noted that the Ethics Commissioner is not opening an investigation. However, when he was asked about whether he has received a similar response from the lobbying commissioner, he couldn't answer in the affirmative because the lobbying commissioner has indicated that she is looking into the issue of whether the minister contravened the Lobbying Act by the very fact that his business partner, someone by whom he was being paid, was lobbying his department. Similarly, he could provide no assurance that the RCMP haven't opened an investigation.

Certainly, there would seem to be some serious questions about whether the minister violated the Lobbying Act, but it doesn't end there. There are other ethical issues that this minister faces that involve a company called Global Health Imports. It's a company that he and his then business partner, Stephen Anderson, founded shortly after Mr. Boissonnault lost his seat in the 2019 election.

This is a company that held itself out as selling PPE. Needless to say, it is a company that engaged in a whole host of shady business activities, including during the time that Mr. Boissonnault held himself out as a partner at Navis Group. Indeed, the Alberta Court of King's Bench has awarded clients of Global Health Imports who have sued Global Health Imports $7.8 million in default judgments. Mr. Boissonnault says that he has, since being elected, had nothing to do with Global Health Imports, aside from the fact that he owns a 50% interest in the company, which he is lawfully able to do.

However, now there are legitimate questions about whether that, in fact, is the case, or whether, on the contrary, the minister was involved in the business operations of Global Health Imports.

Those questions arise from a Global News report in which text messages were leaked and reported on that indicate that there is a “Randy” involved in Global Health Imports. The context of the text messages is in relation to a shady business deal that occurred in September 2022.

In September of 2022, Mr. Boissonnault was a minister of the Crown, as he is today. The issue, as far as the text messages go, is with respect to a California-based client who was purchasing PPE from Global Health Imports. That company ended up wiring a deposit for over a half a million dollars U.S. to Global Health Imports. There was some back-and-forth between Global Health Imports and the California-based client.

During that back-and-forth, there was a text message from Stephen Anderson, the partner who I think owns 50% of the company but is the COO of Global Health Imports, to the California-based client, which said, “What is going on? I just received this from Randy!” Then, there is a message from Randy to Anderson talking about how it was so critical that the California-based client deposit the half a million dollars U.S. to Global Health Imports.

Now, why is that significant or of concern? First of all, if the minister was involved in any aspect of operating the business, as this Randy appears to have been by being involved in a wire transfer of half a million dollars to Global Health Imports.... Someone told Anderson in a text message to “be available in 15 for a partner call”, so there was a partner or someone who viewed himself as a partner at Global Health Imports. If that Randy happens to be the minister, then the minister plainly contravened the Conflict of Interest Act, because the Conflict of Interest Act provides that ministers may not serve as directors or be involved in a business. They may have an ownership stake, but they may not be involved in those operations. That's number one.

Second of all, there is a lawsuit that is before the Alberta Court of King's Bench from the California-based client alleging, among other things, fraud by Global Health Imports with respect to its PPE purchase. The PPE was never delivered, and the half-a-million dollar deposit from Global Health Imports was never returned. The case is fairly strong. I believe they even obtained an attachment order from the Alberta Court of King's Bench, which, among other things, in order to obtain, the court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that the claim would be established. Therefore, it is a situation where if the Randy in the text message is the minister, then we have a minister who may have been involved in a transaction that involves fraud.

The minister has said that he's not that Randy; that it's some other Randy. Okay. You might say there could be a lot of Randys, except that when we look at the minister, he was previously a partner of Global Health Imports.

In the text messages, he's telling the COO, Anderson, to “be available in 15 for a partner call”. He has a 50% stake in the company. That's a pretty significant stake in a company. The company, Global Health Imports, is not a big company.

When the minister appeared before a committee, he admitted that it comprises a handful of people. It appears there are only four or five people who are involved in Global Health Imports, so the question is, who is this Randy? Who is a partner at this four- or five-person company? It shouldn't be that difficult to track down who this other Randy is, but this other Randy can't be tracked down.

The COO, Mr. Anderson, said that there is some other Randy. It's not the minister, but he couldn't really remember his last name, this being his business partner who's telling him to be available in 15 for a partner call involving a wire transfer of half a million U.S. dollars. He can't remember his last name. He can't say who it is. He said that this Randy, who doesn't have a last name, was involved in logistics, except that when Global News looked into who was involved in logistics at Global Health Imports, it turns out to be Stephen Anderson's father, Edward Anderson. His story doesn't add up, on top of it not adding up that this Randy doesn't have a last name or that he never knew what it was.

Global News tried to track down this other Randy. They couldn't track him down. The minister says it's not him, but he has provided no explanation as to who this other Randy could be. He hasn't accounted for that. With his strong connection to this Global Health Imports company, including owning half of it, it wouldn't be very difficult for Minister Boissonnault to pick up a phone or to text Stephen Anderson and say, “Who is the other Randy?”, but I guess Stephen Anderson wouldn't be able to help him because Stephen Anderson can't remember his last name. It is absolutely farcical.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. It simply is a matter of common sense to realize that the reason that Randy Boissonnault can't track down the other Randy is because there is no other Randy. It is the Minister of Employment. Unless this mysterious Randy suddenly shows up, we have a minister who contravened the Conflict of Interest Act and we have a minister who is mired in a business transaction that is facing serious allegations of fraud, a lawsuit in which the California-based client even obtained an attachment order from the Alberta Court of King's Bench based on the strength of its action against the Global Health Imports company.

We need answers. It's not good enough for the minister to come here and say that it's some other Randy that no one can find, in the face of text messages from someone who was his former business partner, involving a company that he has a 50% interest in and that has only a handful of people who work there. I would say it's “highly suspicious” and, on that basis, it is important that this committee get to work, call Stephen Anderson, Kirsten Poon and the California-based client, and find out who the other Randy is.

I'd like to see this mysterious other Randy. I think the clerk's going to have a really tough time tracking him down.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rest assured, I won't hijack the proceedings.

As committee members, we hear people's testimonies on relevant topics. However, I've always been uncomfortable with the committee's role as a court of law. I don't believe that we're a court of law and that we should make sweeping judgments. Ethics is about shedding light on matters in order to make the right decisions. To this end, we must be able to look at an issue in an unbiased manner. When a motion is worded to reflect a bias, problems arise.

A former Quebec premier, who was generally held in high esteem, once said, “audi alteram partem.” This means “listen to the other side.” In this situation, the Ethics Commissioner didn't say that he would conduct an investigation. He said that he would look into the matter. Personally, I think that this is a good thing. However, going back to the expression “audi alteram partem,” I also want to hear what the other party has to say. I would like to give them the chance to state their case without facing accusations. I'm not comfortable with accusations. I have no issue with shedding light on things. However, I do have an issue with making accusations, especially on an a priori basis.

It may be appropriate to hear what some proposed parties have to say. However, the process mustn't go on forever either. This brings me to another concern. The committee takes on many projects without finishing them. I'm concerned about this too, given that 12 departures doesn't equal one arrival.

I want to ask my colleagues to act wisely and to make a decision on this motion with their hearts, souls and heads. It's a good idea to hear what the other party has to say. However, we aren't a court of law and this shouldn't involve a conviction. We all receive online messages of varying degrees of pleasantness. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a member of civil society receiving the same treatment because of bias. We can still shed light on the matter or at least clear things up.

If we want our actions to have meaning, we need to know where we're headed. Simply making gratuitous accusations isn't the way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I take the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Villemure, to heart.

That said, I want to point out two things. First, before his appearance, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner said that he had no reason to find fault with Mr. Boissonnault because Mr. Boissonnault had followed the rules and the law. Second, a number of the witnesses invited to appear, including Ms. Poon, have nothing to do with the issue raised at the committee's most recent meeting concerning the new text messages connected to Mr. Boissonnault.

A party involved in a dispute with a company that Mr. Boissonnault left in 2021 shouldn't come to this committee.

The plan is to summon people who say that they have never met Mr. Boissonnault or dealt with him directly, simply because these people are involved in a dispute with a company that Mr. Boissonnault left in 2021.

I think that the issue raised in this motion crosses the line. Stephen Anderson's name appears on the list of witnesses. He stated that he didn't receive any calls or messages from Mr. Boissonnault. It may be reasonable to ask him who sent these messages. However, apart from that, I think that the purpose of this motion is to bring before the committee people who, as the commissioner already pointed out, have nothing to do with Mr. Boissonnault.

The commissioner said that he would look into the matter. In my opinion, the most appropriate course of action is for the committee to ask the commissioner to appear again after he has reviewed the matter using all the tools at his disposal. We could then ask him questions. If the commissioner tells us that he isn't satisfied with his review, we can summon people to appear. However, if he decides to conduct an investigation based on the information reviewed, we can then proceed with the other committee business.

Right now, I think that some colleagues are accusing Mr. Boissonnault without any proof. They're convinced that he was involved in certain things while working for a company that he left in 2021. However, the commissioner is telling us that he believes otherwise, given all the messages between the commissioner's office and Mr. Boissonnault.

I find the idea of not trusting a member of Parliament or a minister despicable. I think that we should assume that the witnesses who appear before us are acting in good faith and telling the truth.

After his appearance before the committee, Mr. Boissonnault provided the TELUS invoice with the record of calls and messages sent and received on September 8, 2022. The invoice shows that he was in Vancouver that day. We all know that Mr. Boissonnault was in Vancouver for a cabinet retreat. The invoice shows that calls were made at 8:08 a.m., 11:05 a.m., 11:07 a.m., 11:12 a.m., 5:37 p.m., 5:39 p.m., 5:56 p.m., 7:52 p.m., 7:55 p.m. and 8:03 p.m. This is the complete record of calls sent and received by Mr. Boissonnault. No calls sent or received by Mr. Boissonnault indicate that he was involved in these events while working for the company in question.

You'll all recall that, at the most recent meeting, Mr. Cooper was absolutely overcome—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

It's been an observance by the government members at this committee that, unless documents are properly received by the chair and the clerk and circulated in both official languages, they not be entered into evidence, even if shared as a matter at hand at the committee.

Therefore, incomplete records or records from one of multiple phones, you know...it's irrelevant. Also, with documents that are shared with only some members of the committee, it's not appropriate unless these have been properly distributed to all members, including our members, who aren't regular members but are participating today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I do appreciate that. We did deal with this, I recall, when the RCMP commissioner was here.

It has been the practice in the past, Mr. Housefather, that any information that's been received has been shared with the committee. I can assure you that, first and foremost, we're in receipt of the correspondence from Mr. Boissonnault. It's in translation right now. It will be distributed when that translation is complete. The difficulty for other members, and I'm sure you can appreciate this, is that they don't have access to the same information that you have at this point.

Until that information is shared, I'd ask, sir, if you would just hold off on what you're referring to. In fairness to the committee, I think that's the appropriate course of action.

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

This is on the point of order, Mr. Chair.

Are the things that are being said during debate on this motion considered testimony or evidence? It's not the same as when you have a witness before you sharing things that the committee is not privy to. This is debate.

I will tell you that next to nothing that Mr. Cooper said in his entire speech is something that I had—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Now you're into debate.

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

It was duly sent to the committee clerk by a minister, and it has not been translated and sent to all members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have made my position clear. I would ask that you respect that, Mr. Housefather. This information will be shared in both official languages—very shortly, I hope—and then we won't put members on their back heels over the fact that you have information that they don't have.

This was sent to the clerk. It was sent by the minister for distribution. It hasn't been distributed yet. If you have access to something that the other committee members don't have access to, I would ask that you hold off on it until we're able to get it into their hands, sir.

Thank you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, given that this is relevant to a motion that was raised today at the committee, why are we debating that motion without having this in front of us? You cannot argue that they're going to rush and put forward a motion and then negate the evidence that was brought to us by the minister—which was actually requested by the Conservative members at the last meeting—and say that I can't refer to it when saying that I oppose the motion they're putting forward to bring witnesses to the committee. To me, that is not actually a reasonable prospect.

Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn debate on this motion until such time as Mr. Boissonnault's documents are translated and sent to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right. We have a motion to adjourn debate. I would ask whether we have consensus to adjourn debate.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We do not.

I will ask the clerk to take the roll. The motion is to adjourn debate.

[The Clerk]

The vote is five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I vote no.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The motion is defeated and—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

On a point of order, I wasn't asked for my vote. Is it appropriate that I be skipped?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Is Mr. Longfield on the list?

[The Clerk]

At this point, I called Ms. Diab and Ms. Thompson.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Diab and Ms. Thompson were on our list, but just hang on a sec.

[The Clerk]

I may be losing track of the many substitutions. If there is a later substitution, let me verify that.

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

On a point of order, Chair, would that change the outcome of the vote if Mr. Longfield...?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I don't have the information in front of me for the debate either, so of course I wouldn't vote for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's not going to change the result of the vote. We had Ms. Diab and Ms. Thompson as subbed in. They both voted on the motion, so it's not going to change the result of the vote.

Mr. Green, I do see your hand. I assume that you want to be on the speaking list, sir.