Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre has a lot to answer for, notwithstanding the fact that he recently resigned from cabinet in disgrace.

Among the serious matters that the member must answer for and be held accountable for is the fact that his shady, pandemic-profiteering PPE company falsely held itself out to be a wholly owned indigenous company when it applied for two federal government contracts. It was a blatant attempt to give the company's bids a leg-up in the government's procurement selection process. In other words, it was an attempt to steal government contracts from legitimately owned indigenous businesses. It is about as low as it gets. It is cultural appropriation in one of its most offensive forms. Do members know what else it is? It is outright fraud.

The Prime Minister knew about the fact that the minister's company had falsely represented itself in this way, and for days the Prime Minister stood behind the minister. He kept him in his cabinet. It was only when the Edmonton police officially announced that a criminal investigation had been launched into the member's company that he finally resigned from cabinet.

I have to say that, as bad as it was to stand behind the minister for days, the Prime Minister has stood behind the member for months, despite the fact that he faced a cloud of corruption. It is a cloud of corruption that involved the fact that he almost certainly violated the Conflict of Interest Act while he was involved in the operations of the shady PPE company while he sat in cabinet. That is a situation where the member broke the law. Text messages reveal that a Randy was involved in the operations, in a half-a-million-dollar shakedown, and no one can identify that Randy other than as the member for Edmonton Centre. However, that did not stop the Prime Minister from standing by the member.

Likewise, the member's company had been ordered by Alberta courts to pay back clients $8 million for ripping them off and faces not less than seven lawsuits alleging fraud. That was not enough to kick him out of cabinet, nor was the fact that the minister falsely held his company as being wholly indigenous-owned when applying for two government contracts.

A normal prime minister, in fact, any other prime minister, would have long said to the member for Edmonton Centre that he was fired from cabinet. However, we do not have a normal prime minister. This is a prime minister who has presided over a culture of corruption and conflict that goes right to the top, right to the Prime Minister himself.

I have to ask if the Prime Minister's reluctance to fire the member for Edmonton Centre related to the fact that he has been found guilty, not once but twice, of none other than breaking the Conflict of Interest Act.

Also, could his reluctance have something to do with the fact that he is, like the member for Edmonton Centre, a cultural appropriator? The Prime Minister has worn blackface more times than he can recall and has repeatedly worn highly inappropriate and culturally insensitive costumes, including while serving as Prime Minister.

Could it be that he was reluctant to fire the member for Edmonton Centre for such things as breaking the Conflict of Interest Act and being a cultural appropriator because, by that standard, not only would he have to fire the member, but he would also have to fire himself? I would submit that a strong inference in the affirmative can be drawn in that regard.

With respect to the member for Edmonton Centre and the fact that his company falsely represented itself as being wholly indigenous owned, the member's excuse is that he had no idea. It was all the fault of his business partner, Anderson. I will observe that the member for Edmonton Centre has repeatedly and disturbingly held himself to be indigenous. This is a member who once said he was Métis; he then said he was non-status adopted Cree. He then said he was not indigenous at all but an ally of indigenous peoples, and now I believe he is purporting, again, to be Métis. Maybe he is not.

It is tough to keep track, given all the representations over the years that the member for Edmonton Centre has made about his indigenous status, which he, in fact, does not have. I also have to observe that I have listened to the member make those representations. I can remember when he sat over there between 2015 and 2019. I heard him make those types of representations enough times that I simply assumed he had indigenous ancestry of some sort as one aspect of his background.

For the member to say now that he had no idea does not bear any credibility. I would submit that it is part of a pattern. This is a member who constantly says, very conveniently, that he has no idea. He had no idea that his company falsely represented itself to be indigenous owned, just as he had no idea that his company was connected to a cocaine trafficker. He had no idea about the text messages from Randy to his business partner, who was implicated in a half-a-million dollar fraud, or the arson at the company's warehouse. On and on it goes.

The minister's contention that he had no idea about the fact that his company tried to steal government contracts from legitimately owned indigenous businesses has zero credibility. Further, I would observe that the minister, at the time these bids and these false representations were made, was not just anyone at the company; he was one of two partners, and he was involved in the operations of the company on a day-to-day basis.

This was, after all, before the member returned and was appointed to cabinet after the 2021 election. As I noted, it seems very likely that, notwithstanding that he ought not to have been, the member continued to be involved in the operations of the business, including potentially involving himself in matters of fraud while he sat in cabinet.

It is imperative that the minister come before committee to answer questions. The day he resigned from cabinet happened to be the very day he was scheduled to appear before the ethics committee. I have to say I find it highly suspicious that the member resigned from cabinet on that day.

The member has been less than transparent when he has come before committee. When he first appeared before committee, when there were allegations surrounding these text messages of a Randy, he claimed, and he had the committee believe, that he had nothing to do with the company, nothing to do with the operations and nothing to do with communicating with Anderson. This was until further text messages revealed that this Randy was in Vancouver at the very same time the former minister was in Vancouver. He then came back to committee and said, “Oh, actually, I did talk to my business partner, Anderson. Oops, I forgot to mention it.” This was not just an omission. It was a material omission that amounted to misleading the committee.

The member for Edmonton Centre better not hide behind the fact that he is not in cabinet because right now he is in hiding. No one has heard or seen from the member since he resigned from cabinet. He needs to come out of hiding. He needs to come to committee, and he must answer for his conduct involving this sordid and fraudulent matter.

Michael Cooper

$525,143.00