:
I call the meeting to order.
Good afternoon, everyone.
[Translation]
Welcome to meeting number 127 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act.
[English]
Before I begin, I want to talk about a couple of housekeeping rules.
First, obviously, the committee has been in receipt of a lot of information over the summer, so I expect, Minister, there will be some very pointed questions today.
Second, I want to limit the disruptions as much as possible. This is a reminder to all committee members that any comments are to come through the chair; they're not to go across the table. I'm going to strictly enforce that.
The other thing I want to remind everyone about is the interpreters, and the need for a question to be asked and an answer to be given, even though we may not like the answer or we may not like the question. I want to remind all members that every member has the right to ask whatever question they want in relation to this issue, even if you don't like the question that's being asked.
With that being said....
Ms. Khalid, what is this on?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.
Every member of this committee and every member of Parliament has an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner that respects both the letter and the spirit of Canada's strict ethics regime for public officials. Throughout my time in public life, I've always done just that.
As I explained to this committee in the spring, I respect the role of the opposition in holding the government to account on important issues. However, it's no secret that our conversations on accountability can, more often than not, be clouded by partisan interests. This has been particularly evident in the conduct of Conservative MPs in this Parliament.
When we are talking about people's reputations and people's ethics as they work to organize their financial affairs following an election, conversations that are marked with partisan suspicion and bad faith are neither helpful nor fair. To ensure fairness, we have a non-partisan and independent Ethics Commissioner to advise us, to help ensure compliance with our legal obligations and to adjudicate matters when concerns are raised.
With that in mind, I'm happy to inform this committee that the Ethics Commissioner has written to me and told me that he has completed his assessment, including the examination of my phone records. He has once again—for the third time—come to the conclusion that there is no cause for concern and he considers this matter closed.
[Translation]
To keep Parliament impartial, we have an independent, non-partisan Ethics Commissioner responsible for advising us, helping us comply with our legal obligations and adjudicating any matters that arise. With that in mind, I'm pleased to inform this committee that the Ethics Commissioner has written to me to say that he has completed his review, including the examination of my phone records. For the third time, he has come to the conclusion there is no cause for concern, and he considers this matter closed.
[English]
I thank the Ethics Commissioner and his office for reviewing the facts and the evidence and confirming to me once again that he sees no reason to believe the allegations made about me in the media and by Conservative MPs.
Colleagues, the commissioner has no reason to believe these allegations, because they simply aren't true. That said, I do recognize the distraction that this matter has become. I sincerely regret and am disappointed by the partisan attacks the allegations have prompted, and the effect they've had on my family and those around me.
With the benefit of hindsight, I should not have gone into business with Mr. Anderson. While it has had no impact whatsoever on my duties as a minister, and while I have always followed my ethical obligations, it is clear in hindsight that this is not an individual whose actions and choices I want reflecting on me.
[Translation]
With the benefit of hindsight, I realize that I should not have gone into business with Mr. Anderson. While it has had no impact whatsoever on my ministerial duties, and while I have always honoured my ethical obligations, it's clear, in hindsight, that this is not an individual whose actions and choices I would want reflecting on me.
[English]
Like all of you, I had deep concerns following Mr. Anderson's testimony before this committee. Like all of you, I believe he has an obligation to be forthright with this committee about the facts of this matter, in particular because I know those facts would further confirm that I'm not involved.
If Mr. Anderson was in fact intending to refer to someone else in the text messages he sent, he should give that person's name to this committee. If he was in fact using my name without my knowledge or permission, he should tell that to this committee. I do not know which is the case, but I can say unequivocally that I absolutely did not take part in the conversations referenced. I sent no such messages to Mr. Anderson. I had no involvement with any dealings or business with the Ghaoui Group, and any suggestion to the contrary is not true.
In the spirit of transparency, I proactively sent my own records for September 6 and 7 to the clerk of the committee this morning, which I previously gave to the Ethics Commissioner at his request prior to his most recent letter to me on this matter. I trust this will further illustrate the simple truth. Whatever happened there, I was not involved, and I invite the members here to review those records for themselves.
Once again, I thank the Ethics Commissioner for impartially reviewing the evidence and confirming this for a third time.
[Translation]
Friends, I'm here to provide what clarity I can, even though I was not involved in the events this committee has questions about.
[English]
However, I am here to provide the clarity I can today, even though I was not involved in the events this committee seems to have questions about. Let's have a conversation about the facts. Let's move beyond the baseless accusations and innuendo. Then let's all get back to work delivering for Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Ms. Shanahan, I'm happy to provide context for this call.
These were the additional records and dates that the Ethics Commissioner reviewed prior to his September 12 letter. On September 6, while I was en route to Vancouver, a call came in that I was not able to take regarding GHI's account with the company. They were using records they had on file in an attempt to reach somebody from the company.
Despite the fact that I had not been involved in the company for more than a year, I then got a voice mail to text indicating Global Health's import account with Purolator. I texted Mr. Anderson to let him know about this voice mail. He then called me at 11:29 Mountain Time for a one-minute phone call. At 11:30 Mountain Time, that phone call ended. We discussed this account entirely. That was it. I forwarded the messages from Purolator to Mr. Anderson, and the conversation ended.
This is all documented clearly in the records that I provided to the Ethics Commissioner and that we have submitted proactively to the committee today for your information, and it was after reviewing these messages that the Ethics Commissioner wrote to me on September 12 and declined to investigate and closed this matter.
If I may, Madam Shanahan, the commissioner said the following: “On the basis of the information you have provided, and in the absence of any evidence giving me reason to believe you may have been operating or managing GHI in contravention of the act, I consider this matter closed.”
:
Thank you very much for that clarification, Minister. I'm sure Mr. Barrett appreciates it as well.
[Translation]
Minister Boissonnault, I'll switch to French.
My constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle, soon to be Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, are very interested in this issue because they hear a lot about what one might call “fake scandals”. They ask me what's going on in Ottawa when there's a conflict of interest or something fishy.
Every MP who comes to Ottawa goes over their public and private interests with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. An MP may own or have owned a company or a portfolio of shares and properties, for example. Some MPs own a lot of properties. I imagine that analyzing the situation takes much longer for some than for others.
Can you tell us how that process works?
As you noted, Mrs. Shanahan, there is a very important process. All MPs have legal responsibilities. We must all comply with the Conflict of Interest Act and ethics guidelines.
When you become a minister, the process is much more complex. You have to spend time with the Commissioner and their officers. You have to submit your bank statements, all documents concerning your investments, all the information about your spouse and any business or businesses that your spouse is in charge of. The point is that the Commissioner looks at all of those documents. Then there's a conversation about how assets, shares and anything else can be transferred to ensure compliance with the act, if necessary. The process can take several months. In my case, it took six months before everything was settled. Then, all that personal information has to be updated annually. That's another very important part of it.
Perhaps the best way to explain this to our fellow citizens is to use a sports analogy: The referee is there to see if people are following the rules. In our case, the referee is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He indicated, not just once, but three times, that the allegations made by the Conservatives and the allegations that appeared in the media were indeed only allegations and that he considers the matter closed, period.
:
That's a question for your colleagues.
I think there are some people around the table, Conservative members, who don't believe the truth and don't believe the Ethics Commissioner's findings.
That's too bad, because he's the referee. He's an officer of Parliament. Parliament pays his salary and provides him with a team, and when an officer of Parliament issues a ruling on personal matters, business matters or matters involving compliance with the act, it's important to take him at his word. I think that's important.
Mr. Villemure, I'm telling you and your constituents that I take my oath as an MP and minister very seriously. That's why I'm appearing here a second time, so that we can put this matter to rest and so I can answer the honourable members' questions very clearly.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Minister Boissonnault, when you last appeared before this committee, the committee had text messages referencing a “Randy” from September 8. You said the Randy referenced in those text messages was not you. Your office even put out a statement saying you were in Vancouver and had no access to electronic devices, and you made no phone calls during the time frame in question on September 8.
Since you appeared before committee, we have a new tranche of text messages from September 6 that reference Randy in Vancouver. You, Randy—through you, Mr. Chair—were in Vancouver, and now you tell the committee that you did talk to Anderson. You did text Anderson. You didn't say that before. You left this committee with the impression that you had no communications with Anderson, and now you say that you did.
I would submit, Mr. Boissonnault—through you, Mr. Chair—that it is a material omission. It is a material misrepresentation.
Why didn't you tell the full truth the last time you appeared before the committee? Why are we only finding out about this now? Is it because you need a new cover story?
:
Minister Boissonnault, no one believes you. After you misled this committee by leaving out a material fact, you lost any benefit of the doubt.
You have yet to explain how there are nine text messages referencing “Randy” when the only Randy at GHI—ever—was you. You had a 50% interest. You have a text message placing you in Vancouver. You were in Vancouver. You've now admitted that on that very day, you spoke and texted with none other than Anderson, which you weren't forthcoming about until you had no choice, because you wanted to cover your butt.
Very simply, Minister Boissonnault, do you think Canadians are stupid? Everyone knows it's you. The Randy in the text messages and the Randy in the half-million-dollar shakedown is you. You, sir, lack the character and judgment to serve in cabinet. If you had any integrity, you would resign.
:
Mr. Bains, that's certainly what the Ethics Commissioner thinks and has stated in his letter to me, as has been now reported in the media. This matter is closed because not once, not twice, but three times now, I have shared exhaustive information with the Ethics Commissioner and with this committee, indicating that I have followed the rules, starting back with my initial filings with the commissioner, proceeding then to when the story first broke on Global.
That is when I was asked to provide text information about September 8, which I did, again, across all platforms and on all devices that I have. Based on that, the commissioner said there was no need to have further examination of the matter.
Then, following summer testimony, we provided more text messages for the 6th and 7th of September to the commissioner, which the committee now has, and that is how the commissioner, for the third time, has indicated that I have no involvement in operating this company and that he considers the matter closed.
:
I would love as much as anybody to be able to move beyond this particular issue. The challenge that faces me is that from the get-go, this has been a sorry tale of allegations of fraud and corruption in some instances. The stories do not add up.
I'll share with you, Mr. Boissonnault, that the testimony of Mr. Anderson, within six minutes.... He's certainly not somebody that I'd be doing business with. I'm quite frankly shocked that as a minister, a senior minister in this government, it took you until 2024 to come to those same conclusions. I would hope that in the days and weeks to come, the Canadian public does have all the information that's available to it.
In closing, I just want to give you the opportunity to state whatever you feel like in your defence so that we hopefully do not see you back in front of this committee on this particular issue.
:
Minister, despite your best efforts, this story is not going away anytime soon. The cloud of suspicion will hang over you until the next election, after which time you'll be looking for a new job.
Let's take a look at the facts.
Ghaoui Group knew of only one Randy, and that Randy was a minister of the Canadian government. That's yourself. At all material times prior to your election, you were in a fifty-fifty partnership with Anderson. During your time with the company with Mr. Anderson, you in fact were the only person named Randy.
Mr. Anderson, whom you're now deeply disappointed about, although you didn't say that when you first testified, blatantly lied to the committee about lying to Canadians and lying to the press that there was some other Randy. He also promised this committee to provide us with details as to who the other Randy is, but—surprise, Minister—he couldn't because by doing so, he would identify you.
Then we now find out that on September 6 you were in a text communication with Anderson and in a phone call with Anderson, despite you assuring us at committee the first time that you've had no communication with Mr. Anderson. It's highly suspicious, Mr. Boissonnault.
Furthermore, you know full well that for any minister to engage in a management capacity or an operational capacity is indeed an operational issue that is banned by the ethics laws. You could have had a staffer reach out to Anderson. You could have simply told the courier company, “I have nothing to do with the company. Deal with Anderson. Go pound salt; it's not my responsibility.” Instead you chose to take matters into your own hands to deal directly with Mr. Anderson. Those are the incontrovertible facts.
Now you're also relying upon the fact that you exercised your due diligence with this committee and your due diligence with the Ethics Commissioner. I asked you specifically to provide us with details, including all your text messages on all your devices. You failed to do that, Minister. You gave this committee only one set of records pertaining to one device. I was led to believe that you told the Ethics Commissioner you had two devices.
Again, the Ethics Commissioner is not an investigator. He doesn't have investigative powers like law enforcement. He can't obtain production orders on service providers to verify what you are saying. The Ethics Commissioner has to take it on good faith that you're being honest. I have some serious reservations about your honesty, as do Canadians.
Will you provide this committee with all text records on all your devices and tell us how many devices you had in your possession in the fall of 2022?
:
No, but in your disclosure process, you would be required to inform the commissioner of that and to provide all of the documentation. To make sure that the minister is compliant with the act, they must organize their former private affairs in a way that complies with the act.
For example, if you personally have any actively traded stocks, you have to get rid of them or you have to sell them. You can't even put them in a blind trust. I followed all those rules.
If you'll allow me, Mr. Housefather, I want to state, so the committee hears it again, that I submitted all the messages across all devices for the date requested on September 8, and I've now done the same for September 6.
It's simply not true that I didn't fulfill the request from this committee.
I think we're left with the question....
You're here because Mr. Anderson chose to reference “Randy” in multiple text messages. That's the reason we're here. There are people claiming that you're that Randy. There's no proof of that. All we know is that Mr. Anderson either has somebody else named Randy, and he needs to tell the committee who it is, or he misleadingly used your name with different clients of his trying to somehow bring you in—perhaps there was a minister of the Crown involved—and trying to make himself more important.
However, the only person, Minister Boissonnault, who can actually answer that question is Mr. Anderson, correct? None of these other people that Mr. Bains asked you about—the list of people that you didn't know—would know if Mr. Anderson had exchanged text messages with you or not, presumably. Is that correct?
:
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
That concludes our round of questioning for today. It's been an hour.
Some hon. members: [Inaudible—Editor]
The Chair: No, it's been an hour after the second round. That's the way it goes.
Mr. Barrett, I see your hand.
I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. I want to thank the minister for appearing before the committee today. I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. We're going to come back with open committee business, and I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett when we're back.
:
Thanks very much, Chair.
I don't feel, having heard from the minister, that we're any further ahead. Frankly, we heard a lot that the minister is unable to corroborate. The revelation that wasn't offered in the minister's first appearance before the committee—that he talked and texted with Mr. Anderson on the dates in question—seems to be a basic opening statement-level detail that he would have provided in his first appearance before the committee.
I'd like to move, given today's testimony, that the committee expand its study on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, and call related witnesses.
:
Chair, you know, I'm still finding my feet in this committee. However, from what I heard today, and in the time I've had to review previous testimony, the work this committee has done and the clarification that....
Indeed, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has reviewed this matter. May I say that this is an independent commissioner? The commissioner is not there to score political points. The commissioner is there to review the facts and interview the person in question. The commissioner acts under a law we put in place here in Parliament to deal with these very issues of conflict of interest, either with MPs or ministers.
It's not once or twice: It's three times that this commissioner has come back with a conclusion, letter or report saying that this allegation does not stand up under scrutiny.
I think this will be interesting. I know it's coming up in a different study, but given that it's part of the mandate of this committee to review the commissioner's work, we can have a better understanding. I think it was Mr. Green who was questioning the quality of the commissioner's work and what he can and can't do, and so on and so forth.
I don't know. If we start having a court of—
Mr. Matthew Green: It was scope.
Mrs. Brenda Shanahan: It was scope. Okay. However, if we start having judicial powers when dealing with conflict of interest issues, I think it's going to be a whole other ball of wax. It could be used, for example, as a political or partisan weapon against anybody the majority decides should be on the receiving end of that. This is where I really feel that this....
You know, I read the evidence. I looked at it again. I listened carefully to all the questions that were asked. I asked my own questions. There's really nothing more to be said. It has all been clearly dealt with.
Chair, I just want to....
[Translation]
Sometimes my constituents ask me what committees are and what they do. They hear things, and then they ask me how they can keep an eye on MPs' and ministers' work.
I mentioned fake scandals earlier. People ask me what's going on in Ottawa and tell me there must be a way to look into allegations. They want to have confidence in their MPs and their ministers. They ask me why people are always stirring up fake scandals. They see all this and they hear about text messages and Purolator and so on.
They wonder if that's why they're sending MPs to Ottawa to get paid big bucks. We know exactly what we get paid, what our budgets are and how much we get to spend on staff. Are we being paid to look at MPs' texts about a Purolator account? This is so weird.
I'm very happy with the answer the minister gave today. I think I'll make a little clip and post it on social media. It doesn't really come naturally to me, but I do my best. People are wondering if the process is thorough and trustworthy, so I want to show them the minister's response. That way, they'll have a better understanding of the Commissioner's investigation process and see how the minister answered his questions. When I show them that the issue was text messages about a Purolator account…. I didn't get to hear Mr. Anderson's testimony, but, based on what my colleagues have told me, he's not a very trustworthy person. That may be worth looking into, but we're not talking about him, are we? We're talking about the minister, and the minister provided all his information and all his communications. I wonder what would happen if officials had the right to search everyone's phone.
I was here when the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics examined the use of parliamentary email addresses and resources by political parties. I think Mr. Cooper and Mr. Barrett were here. In 2019, 2020 and even 2021, I was still getting fundraising emails from the Conservative Party of Canada, since I used to be a member, as well as emails from some MPs that were sent from their parliamentary email addresses. It was interesting. I should have suggested that we look at the use of parliamentary resources for partisan purposes. Maybe I'll get another chance. That might be interesting, so I'll jot it down and come back to it at another time.
This motion is really just a witch hunt. Actually, it's not even a witch hunt, because there are no witches. The rabbits are
[English]
down the rabbit hole. The rabbits are gone.
[Translation]
There are no witches. Nothing to see. It's just about a few text messages and a silly story about a Purolator account. I think all of us have given our information and phone number to a business and then received a call telling us to forward something. It's seriously annoying. For sure, it can lead people who don't trust the process to speculate and make assumptions. The Conservatives certainly do that. I see that Mr. Green does not trust the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I would like him to explain exactly what he would like from him. Obviously, my colleagues don't think his work is comprehensive enough.
I am just a member of Parliament. I do not have a big portfolio, nor am I in business. I find that he follows up the files very well. He asks us questions, follows up, gives us deadlines to meet, and all the information we provide ends up being made public. I imagine that this makes for very interesting and relevant reading, not only for the other members, but also for all the employees who work here.
There is certainly a reason why Parliament created the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It wasn't just a matter of having a regular way for the public to find out about the profile of MPs. The public has a right to know that because we are responsible for millions if not billions of dollars. This is even more true for the people who form the government.
Also, I'm not sure when the Conflict of Interest Act was enacted. I think it was in the 1980s or 1990s. The analysts can help me with that. That was the act that created the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
:
I want to reassure my fellow citizens that in this matter of text messages and Purolator and all that, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner said on three occasions that was telling the truth about the incident and how things unfolded. The Commissioner feels that the file is closed; he agrees with Minister Boissonnault. I think this shows the wisdom of the parliamentarians who put forward the bill to create an independent commissioner. They got it right.
I imagine that some parliamentarians are frustrated and would like us to go back to a kangaroo court. In a kangaroo court, random people ask questions, judge and decide whether or not to convict the person. In a just society, that is not how things work. The laws and regulations in place are not designed to protect members of Parliament.
Mr. Chair, I don't know if you've experienced this, but when we receive an email or a request from an office because information was missing from our statement, it can be annoying, but at the same time we're happy to see that the system is working as it should. I am pleased to be able to assure my constituents that the system is working.
:
Thank you, Mrs. Shanahan.
[English]
I will say that, like you, I get asked many times—I know you brought this up at the onset of your remarks—about the ethics committee, and, particularly in chairing the ethics committee, “What's the function of the committee?”
Well, we have a clear mandate of what our function is, but I tell people in my riding, as you tell people in your riding, that it's an oversight committee. There is a majority of opposition members on this committee for a reason—that's true not just for this committee, but for government operations and public accounts—and that is to hold the government to account. I think we do that job very well.
Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please, on the motion from Mr. Barrett.
I think Ms. Shanahan made a lot of excellent points. I'll be brief. I will speak to three reasons as to why I cannot support this motion.
The first is with respect to timing. As you have indicated many times, Chair, our work on social media and on disinformation and misinformation has been quite prolonged because of the timing, because of the scheduling, and you've clearly outlined that. I don't agree with this motion, because I think we've heard from the Ethics Commissioner on three occasions that there is no violation based on our rules of conduct from the Ethics Commissioner. I will leave that be.
The second reason is with respect to witnesses. There aren't any listed on this motion. It seems again as though this is just broadening the scope to the point where it could be anything and everything, which doesn't help the work this committee is doing. It makes us less efficient. It makes us basically waste resources of the House.
Also, as you said, Chair, one purpose of this committee is to provide that oversight. This motion does not help in achieving that purpose.
The last is with respect to the purpose. We're not achieving our purpose, what this committee is supposed to be doing, with this motion.
With that, I will conclude my remarks and say that I will be voting against this motion, and I'm happy to go to a vote now.