Information & Ethics Committee on June 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. I have that.

The confusion was that it was stricken in the last part of it, but it wasn't stricken just before “for one hour”.

I'll read out the last part of it again:

...the following witnesses to appear before the committee and testify for one hour:

a. Stephen Anderson;

b. Kirsten Poon.

Is that correct?

This is the amendment moved by Mr. Desilets.

There's a lot of scribbling on my paper.

We'll turn to Ms. Damoff.

We are on the amendment proposed by Monsieur Desilets.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing this forward. Like his counterpart Mr. Villemure, he is truly one of the most ethical people I've met in Parliament. I don't say that lightly; he is. We will support it, especially with the changes that have clarified that the two witnesses are coming together for one hour.

I share Mr. Green's concerns about a meeting being scheduled outside our regular time, which isn't reflected in this motion. I want to put that on the record. This committee does have a habit of just having meetings. It's the chair's prerogative and I acknowledge that. It's just unlike any other committee I've been on, in that there are no conversations with other parties when scheduling meetings.

I don't want to see this meeting scheduled on July 21 or some day in the middle of the summer. I don't know if my colleague wants to add anything to that effect, but I think the intent was that it be held during our regular sitting time. I'm just looking for clarity on that.

Maybe we can just leave it. It's not a hill I'm going to die on. I just want to get on the record that I agree with Mr. Green that we should have consultation with the chair and the other parties before meetings are scheduled.

As I said, I'm not going to propose an amendment, because I appreciate what the Bloc has put forward. I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

I'm going to address the issue you brought up about meetings. The committee will recall that back in April, we sent out....

Madam Clerk, was it April that we sent out the meeting schedule based on the motions that had been proposed?

[The Clerk]

I don't remember the date, but I can—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It was sometime back in April. A game plan was indicated in the meeting schedule of what meetings we were going to have and on what days based on the motions that were proposed. There's been a lot of back-and-forth and a lot of motions have been moved. It's a very dynamic and fluid situation on this committee that I've been trying to get through. The analysts have written a report on the data collection and information tools that we've been trying to get to, too. Unfortunately, there's no way we're going to end up presenting that report to Parliament before this session is over.

That game plan was shared with the committee back in April, with specific dates, specific studies and specific meetings. It did not necessarily have specific witnesses, but it was shared with the committee. What I've been trying to do—and we've had extreme difficulty in doing this because of motions that have been moved, which is the right of every member to do—is work within that game plan. Unfortunately, we haven't. That was shared with all members of the committee back in April.

Any sense or thought that somehow I'm trying to have meetings that haven't been scheduled...with the exception of one. That was the one on the Thursday that we were going to start the Winnipeg lab documents study. We had the Information Commissioner, who was here for one opportunity. In terms of the other two witnesses, one was on the list and the other wasn't. It was the current president of PHAC. We had them come in at that time because we were running out of runway, frankly, on all the other dates we had put on the schedule.

Look, there's nothing I hate more than coming in on an off week, but my job, in conjunction with those of the clerk and the analysts, is to ensure that this committee functions and that we have meetings. The game plan was laid out in April. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to meet up with it. If you go back to April, it was shared by the clerk with all members of the committee and had exactly what those meetings were going to be.

Ms. Khalid, on Monsieur Desilets' amendment, please go ahead.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

If you want to schedule tomorrow's meeting for that report, I think we can pass it tomorrow, but I leave that to your discretion.

I share the concerns Ms. Damoff has raised. I know “silly season” is upon us. I also know that each and every one of us has very important work to do in our constituencies over the summer. I want to register my concern about the perceived urgency, or the lack thereof, of what we're discussing here—not its importance, its urgency. We leave it in your good hands, Chair, to ensure that we are judicious with how members spend their time over the summer. I, for one, have been away from my constituents for a very long time. I would really like to spend as much time with them as possible and listen to their concerns.

Over the past two meetings, we have been discussing the motion that's been presented. There's obviously a lot of grandstanding, lots of partisan politics being played with it—not to take away from the importance of transparency and what we need to do as the ethics committee. The amendment proposed by Monsieur Villemure, through Monsieur Desilets, is fair. I am willing to support this amendment. I will not propose any further amendments with respect to timing because I trust you, Chair, to have that judiciousness in scheduling the meeting when you do, if you do. I appreciate that.

This amendment really helps take the majority of the partisan nature out of the original motion. It brings the issue in a condensed way to our committee. As Mr. Fisher said, we are not a judiciary. We are not here to cancel people on social media. We are here to look into the specific role of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. If it is the will of the committee, or the majority of the committee, to look at this issue, then so be it.

The majority of our challenge has been to take the partisan politics out of it. I am quite frankly concerned. I have faced a lot of the backlash that comes out of that partisanship. I have seen other witnesses get dragged before this committee and have to deal with a lot of hate and a lot of backlash on social media. I'm also very concerned about who we bring to this committee, and whether the Lobbying Act or the conflict of interest code is applicable to them.

We really need to understand what we are doing here and why we are doing it. Is the minister responsible regardless of what accusations are made and where they're made? Should we be hauling people from industry, private citizens, before the committee and defaming them? I don't think this is fair. We need to be a lot more careful.

I'm looking at and contemplating the amendment. It takes some of the partisan grandstanding out of the motion. We as a committee need to think about how we treat witnesses who come before this committee, and we need to think about what the consequences are when witnesses come before this committee. As committee members, we need to be a lot more judicious and careful in who we bring here and why we bring them, and we should refrain from using private citizens as props for political grandstanding.

I'll park my comments here, Mr. Chair. I'm still mulling over what I'm going to do with the main motion, but I am cautiously accepting of the amendment. I am hoping that I'll hear from some of my opposition colleagues as to where they stand on the issues, the concerns, that have been raised by me and my colleagues with respect to not just the motion but the amendment as well.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

I have Mr. Barrett.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

On the amendment that takes out the other Randy—the subject of great interest, this other Randy—and the Ghaoui Group, I have a curiosity. Members opposite, Liberal members, have said they don't want to drag citizens in front of the committee, but these two people are certainly citizens, and 50% of the amendment removes the other Randy. What are they looking to achieve with the protection of this other individual?

We have someone who's named in these texts—Randy—working at Randy Boissonnault's company, and when Mr. Anderson was asked if there was another Randy, he said that he did work with one. He wouldn't say what their name was, but they were the head of logistics. It's highly suspicious, to say the least, that Randy Boissonnault owns 50% of this company but can't tell us who the other Randy is who works for him at a small company, and that his partner and co-founder also won't say who the other Randy is.

It strikes me as a bit disingenuous, to say the least, that the Liberal members are saying that they're not just—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'll remind the member that this amendment was not moved by Liberal members. It was moved by Bloc members.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's not a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

I'm happy to reacquaint members with what House of Commons Procedure and Practice says. That's not a point of order, but first days are tough for everyone. I understand that.

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

That's really cheap, Chair.

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

We have Liberal members saying they don't want to bring members of the public before the committee, but they're going to vote for an amendment that does that. That seems really weird, but they say one thing and do another quite often. They say Canada has the strictest, most stringent conflict-of-interest rules, yet they break those rules all the time. It's a cabinet of serial lawbreakers. They routinely break the law and then say they broke the law and got caught, but they'll move on. They completely disregard the rules.

In this case, it seems like they're looking for the same thing to be accepted. The minister came before the committee and said he'd give us all his phone records. I'll accept that we got all the phone records from the minister if he only has one cellphone. He can write to the clerk and commit that he only has one cellphone and that's why he only gave records for one cellphone. He can say he doesn't possess one and hasn't used another one since he's been minister. Well, that may be, but again, I don't believe that this is it.

He gave us some call records and then said that, not only that, he couldn't have used it because he was in lockdown. They keep saying they're in lockdown. There was no lockdown. They were in a meeting, and their phones were in a box outside the meeting. When they took breaks and when they had their lunch, they took their phones out of the box. It's ridiculous. They're trying to say one thing when they know another thing to be true.

My question to all members, to my colleagues in the other opposition parties as well, would be what satisfaction we can get with respect to the question of the other Randy. Would they be amenable to a subamendment that had GHI provide a complete list of their staff names or, specifically, just the name of their head of logistics, whose first name is Randy? We don't need to hear from the other Randy. We just need confirmation of the other Randy's existence. Then we can hear from Minister Boissonnault's partner. Would that subamendment be well received by them? That, of course, achieves part of the stated goal of the the Liberals, who said they don't want to bring individuals before the committee, even though they're still going to support the amendment that calls for two, just not the other Randy.

So far we've only had one Randy come before committee, and it's most likely that he is in fact the other Randy. However, let's have a discussion about having Global Health Imports provide to the committee in writing the first and last name of this individual. That would answer a number of questions. Of course, it's not wholly satisfactory. This individual should come before the committee. That's why it's in the motion that was put forward. However, I think it gets us part of the way there. It's a big compromise, guys, so let's compromise on that.

I'm curious if that would find favour with the other opposition members, because although Liberal members may vote for the amendment, the indication is that they may vote against the main motion. Let's find something that satisfies our obligation as the opposition to have accountability.

To my colleagues in the other opposition parties, would you support a subamendment or, on passing the amendment, amending the motion to have GHI, Global Health Imports—Mr. Anderson and Mr. Boissonnault's company—provide the full name of the head of logistics, who is styled as the other Randy?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. I'm not hearing you propose that as a subamendment, but I do have a list. I have Mr. Brock, and then Mr. Green right after.

Mr. Brock, go ahead on the amendment, please.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I can be brief, Mr. Chair.

I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Mr. Barrett's suggestions to the other opposition members. I want to clarify a couple of loose threads that I think need to be focused on.

Canadians watching this may be left with the impression that there's nothing to see here, that Global News conducted a most thorough investigation on their own and the Liberal bench, including the Prime Minister, satisfied all the queries that opposition members made on this issue. However, this is a serious matter.

To Mr. Barrett's point, I know that good governance and high ethical standards are very elusive concepts for the NDP-Liberal government, but not for Canadians. The allegations are really damning. A minister, who had been a minister for close to a year, was communicating via a device to a company, demanding, within so many minutes, a $500,000 payment to a company that he still has a 50% interest in. The text message made it clear that there ought to be a partners meeting. Minister Boissonnault confirmed that he views himself as a partner. This was a two-partner company. What concerns me is that the Liberal bench could have cleared this up the moment the issue rose by simply identifying the surname of this other Randy. It amazes me the length to which the Liberal government will go to conceal the identity of this other Randy.

Canadians watching this are saying to themselves, “What's the big deal? If it's not Minister Boissonnault, then identify the person.” However, every Liberal member on this committee, as well as Liberal members in the House, is dodging, deflecting and not answering the question on the minds of Canadians. Clear this up. Why are we wasting government resources and arguing about this, with the filibustering not only today but last week? Canadians want government to work, and when they see the kind of gamesmanship that's happening right now and the attempts to not shed any sort of transparency and light on this, it is extremely concerning.

To answer Mr. Fisher, who said this committee has never been designed to be a judge and jury, well of course not, but our role as parliamentarians is to ask tough questions. Some of us have more skills than others in asking questions, probing questions, that might ultimately elicit a response from a commissioner and/or provide the basis by which we would extend an invitation to law enforcement to investigate, but that's our role. That's what we do day in and day out at committee. It is improper to equate this lawful parliamentary privilege and process as a means of acting as judge and jury. That's just not the case.

What's also concerning is that in the Global News report, Mr. Boissonnault's other partner flat out deliberately lied when he said that the other Randy is the head of logistics. The report indicated, in fact, that the head of logistics is Mr. Anderson's father, whose first name is not Randy. We're not talking about a large corporation. We're not talking about a multinational. We're talking about a small start-up company with maybe one or two other employees.

When asked by the Global News reporter to give them the surname of the other Randy, no one in the organization could answer, in much the same way that every Liberal member of this committee and this government has refused to give us the name of that person. That's why we are here. That's why I fully support Mr. Barrett's recommendation that we need the other Randy appear and/or have the government provide us with the surname so we can make our own inquiries.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair. I believe the member should be speaking to the amendment on the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have been—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm speaking, Mr. Brock.

Both he and Mr. Barrett talked about possible subamendments, but there haven't been any put forward. Should he not be speaking to the amendment, as opposed to imaginary subamendments that they don't seem to want to move?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's their prerogative, Ms. Damoff, to move a subamendment if they choose to or to speak to the amendment, which I believe they are. If, at the appropriate time, they want to move a subamendment, they can, but I don't think they're talking in theory; they're just talking about the amendment.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

They're not, Chair. They're talking about how they would like to amend it, but they're not amending it. Shouldn't they keep their comments to the amendment on the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment is to strike the other Randy referred to in Minister Randy Boissonnault's testimony, and I think it's extremely relevant.

You've been on this committee for a while. You know that I give members a lot of latitude. I think it's extremely relevant to be speaking to the amendment on the floor, which I believe Mr. Brock is doing at this point.

I'm going to ask Mr. Brock to continue.

You have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The last intervention is proof positive that they don't want to hear from Conservative members, who are asking appropriate questions that Canadians want answers to.

The other concern I have with the proposed amendment is the duration of the meeting. The original motion had individuals appearing for one hour each. Let's take a look at the logistics behind the passing of the amended motion. The passing of the amended motion would give every member of this committee one hour with two key witnesses. Their evidence, as I've indicated already, is far more important to Canadians and reaches further than what the Global News reporter asked. The Global News reporter simply asked what the surname of the other Randy was.

There is a multitude of other probing, relevant questions that need to be put to both Ms. Poon and Mr. Anderson. However, the amended motion would deprive us of a fulsome opportunity to ask those probing, relevant questions. Let's look at logistics. With possibly two opening statements of five minutes each and an opening round of six minutes each for each member, we're at 34 minutes. There would be another 15 minutes for a second round and possibly another 15 for a full third round, presupposing that we don't have interpretation issues, that we don't have interventions and that we don't have points of order.

It does not move like clockwork. Ultimately, at best, we might have three rounds for two highly relevant, important witnesses. I'm strongly suggesting that we reconsider having one hour and that we go back to the original motion terms, which had them appearing for one hour each, because quite frankly, we're simply going to scratch the surface by having interventions of two key witnesses in one hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, go ahead on the amendment.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll take the bait. I think it's goofy when Conservatives, outside of the House of Commons or outside of their question period theatrics, refer to the “NDP-Liberal” government when they know full well that at this committee, I do my work in holding the government accountable. I, too, want to find out who this Randy person is.

My friends from the Bloc want to play a conciliatory role to try to move things along, and I understand why they might put water in the wine on this, but I am still left unsatisfied given that the minister's testimony is wholly inadequate. I would consider it to be obstructionist. I would consider it to be, at times, arrogant. It was just a basic refusal.

The quickest thing that could have happened for Mr. Boissonnault.... Whether he wants to pretend like he knows or doesn't know this person or whether he has one phone or two doesn't matter to me. The company in question has likely watched the testimony, certainly given the interest the Canadian public has in it, and it could have cleared things up in an instant by disclosing this person in their entirety, coming clean with Canadians about the nature of this other Randy's contract with the company and their employment there. However, they haven't. I would suggest to you that the longer it takes to do that, the more suspect it seems.

For that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment. I would move a subamendment to include a formal invitation to the other Randy via the company in question. That is my subamendment. We will find out one way or another if this person exists. If they do, will the real Randy please stand up? That's my subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, I heard you propose a subamendment. You did it very quickly, so I'll need you to read it slowly into the record so that, first and foremost, the clerk can interpret what you said.

Please state your subamendment again.