Connect with us

National

Randy Boissonnault and the Liberal Scandal That Won’t Go Away

Published

9 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs: How Fraud, False Identity Claims, and Liberal Entitlement Expose a System Rigged Against Canadians

Ladies and gentlemen, today, we take a closer look at what happens when the carefully constructed facade of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party crumbles. This isn’t just a scandal about one man’s lies—it’s about a government-wide culture of entitlement, deception, and corruption that prioritizes Liberal insiders over the hardworking Canadians they claim to represent.

Why are we here? Because a man named Randy Boissonnault—a former Liberal cabinet minister and trusted Trudeau ally—has been caught at the center of a scandal involving fraudulent business dealings, false claims of Indigenous identity, and federal contracts stolen from real Indigenous businesses. The setting? The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where Boissonnault faced over two hours of questioning from MPs determined to get to the truth.

But did we get the truth? Absolutely not. What we got was a masterclass in Liberal arrogance, evasion, and deflection.

At the heart of this controversy is Boissonnault’s involvement in a company called Global Health Imports (GHI), which falsely claimed to be Indigenous-owned in order to win lucrative federal contracts. For years, Boissonnault portrayed himself as a “non-status adopted Cree” based on vague family anecdotes. This label, of course, conveniently blurred the lines, allowing him to gain credibility in Indigenous spaces while avoiding legal scrutiny. Not only did GHI fraudulently secure taxpayer money meant for Indigenous businesses, but Boissonnault’s name and supposed Indigenous heritage were plastered all over Liberal Party campaign materials. For years, the Liberals actively promoted him as Indigenous, exploiting the very communities they claim to champion.

When the media and whistleblowers finally exposed the truth, Boissonnault resigned from his cabinet position. And now, he’s here, at INAN, supposedly to set the record straight. Spoiler alert: he didn’t.

Boissonnault’s opening statement was a lesson in political deflection. He apologized—not for the harm done to Indigenous communities or Canadian taxpayers, but for the “confusion” around his identity. He insisted he never claimed Indigenous status, despite evidence to the contrary, and described his use of the term “non-status adopted Cree” as an effort to honor his adoptive family’s supposed heritage—a claim Indigenous researchers have outright denied.

When pressed on his involvement with GHI, Boissonnault claimed ignorance. He told the committee he left the company in 2021 and had no idea his name was being used to secure fraudulent contracts. Really? We’re supposed to believe that a man who co-owned 50% of the company and whose name was actively used in business dealings was completely unaware of its activities? Either he’s lying, or he’s astonishingly incompetent.

It gets worse. When asked why he hasn’t sued his former business partner, Mr. Anderson, for allegedly using his name without consent, Boissonnault offered the weakest excuse imaginable: he’s “consulting legal counsel.” Months have passed since this scandal broke, and he still hasn’t taken a single step to clear his name. If someone stole your identity to commit fraud, wouldn’t you act immediately?

Thankfully, not everyone in the room was willing to let Boissonnault off the hook. Conservative MPs Michael Barrett and Martin Shields led the charge, relentlessly exposing Boissonnault’s contradictions and demanding accountability. Barrett zeroed in on Boissonnault’s failure to take legal action against GHI, calling it a clear sign of either complicity or cowardice. Shields turned his focus to the systemic failures that allowed this fraud to happen in the first place, pointing out the Liberal government’s negligence in safeguarding programs designed to support Indigenous communities.

Meanwhile, Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Déguin and NDP MP Lori Idlout focused on the harm done to Indigenous communities. They highlighted how fraudulent activities like GHI’s undermine trust, reconciliation, and real opportunities for Indigenous businesses. They also demanded systemic reforms, like stricter oversight and verification processes, to prevent future abuses.

Of course, no Liberal scandal would be complete without the party’s MPs running interference. Enter Ben Carr and Anna Gainey. Carr used his time to praise Boissonnault’s “allyship” and steer the conversation away from fraud and deception. Gainey, who didn’t even bother to show up in person, framed the controversy as a “learning opportunity” for Boissonnault and the government. Neither of them asked a single hard question. They weren’t there to seek answers—they were there to protect their colleague and the Liberal Party brand.

Final Thoughts

Let’s be blunt. What we witnessed at the INAN hearing wasn’t just a scandal about Randy Boissonnault—it was a damning indictment of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal regime and its entire culture of corruption, entitlement, and betrayal of the Canadian people.

Think about what’s at stake here. We’re not talking about a minor oversight or a simple mistake. We’re talking about a Liberal insider who exploited a sacred cause—reconciliation with Indigenous peoples—for personal and political gain. A man who co-founded a company that defrauded taxpayers, deprived Indigenous businesses of opportunities, and damaged trust between the government and the communities it claims to support. And yet, instead of taking responsibility, he shows up to a committee hearing and feeds us a steady diet of deflection and excuses.

But let’s not just focus on Boissonnault. What about the rest of the Liberal Party? A party that promoted him as Indigenous in their campaigns, used his fabricated narrative to boost their image, and now refuses to hold him accountable. What we saw at the hearing was a carefully orchestrated performance. Liberal MPs didn’t ask hard questions because they didn’t want answers. Their job was to protect Boissonnault, protect the party, and protect their grip on power.

And here’s the tragic part: the real victims of this scandal aren’t sitting in Ottawa’s plush committee rooms. They’re the Indigenous entrepreneurs who lost out on contracts, the taxpayers who unknowingly funded this fraud, and the millions of Canadians who believed in a government that promised to do better.

This isn’t just a Randy Boissonnault problem. This is a Liberal problem. A systemic problem. A Trudeau problem. It’s about a government that’s so addicted to power, so comfortable with corruption, that they don’t even bother hiding it anymore.

But here’s the good news: Canadians are waking up. They’re seeing through the Liberal lies and realizing that the system isn’t broken—it’s rigged. Rigged for the insiders, the cronies, and the friends of Justin Trudeau.

So what happens next? That’s up to you, Canada. You have a choice. You can let this scandal fade into the background like so many others before it. Or you can demand better. Demand accountability. Demand a government that works for you, not for itself.

Please consider subscribing to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

Support our journalism and enjoy the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Health

Canadian gov’t considers sharing census data on gender-confused children

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Statistics Canada recently consulted LGBTQ+ groups on releasing 2021 census data about gender-confused children ages 0-14, citing research that toddlers could be ‘transgender.’

Statistics Canada is seeking to collect and share data on gender-confused children in its latest move to promote the LGBT agenda to minors.

From November to mid-December, Statistics Canada held consultations with various LGBT groups to discuss how to release 2021 census data on gender-confused children ages 0-14, according to a report shared with the National Post.

“For the upcoming 2026 Census, Statistics Canada has been consulting with the Canadian population, experts and stakeholders on gender,” the government agency wrote in a recent report.

“The Agency has finished conducting extensive qualitative and quantitative testing, notably to assess the impact of modifying the gender response categories to include ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ and ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ for those younger than 15 years,” it continued.

In 2021, StatsCan conducted the first-ever census to collect data on sex assigned at birth as well as how Canadians later ‘identified’ as their gender. The census collected data from Canadians of all ages but only published that of Canadians 15 years and older.

According to the information, released April 2022, 0.33% of the Canadian population age 15 or older were gender-confused, with 0.19% believing they are transgender and 0.14% believing they are non-binary.

The report noted that “younger generations may be more comfortable reporting their gender identity than older generations.”

Now, StatsCan is seeking to further push the LGBT agenda on young children by releasing data to support their argument that young children can be “transgender.”

According to a copy of its most recent report, “children and youth are often assumed to be cisgender (people whose reported gender corresponds to their birth sex) from birth until they ‘come out’ as a different gender on their own accord.”

“Research also suggests that, like cisgender children, transgender and non-binary children may recognize their own gender identity as early as 2 to 3 years old or during later childhood or early adolescents,” the document read.

The StatsCan report conveniently ignores scientific data on the harms of gender-transitioning interventions, both on the physical and mental health of individuals, particularly children.

significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Studies find that more than 80 percent of children suffering gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence and that “transition” procedures, including “reassignment” surgery, fail to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide – and even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.

As LifeSiteNews has previously noted, research does not support the assertions from transgender activists that surgical or pharmaceutical intervention to “affirm” confusion is “necessary medical care” or that it is helpful in preventing the suicides of gender-confused individuals.

In fact, in addition to asserting a false reality that one’s sex can be changed, transgender surgeries and drugs have been linked to permanent physical and psychological damage, including cardiovascular diseases, loss of bone density, cancer, strokes and blood clots, infertility, and suicidality.

There is also overwhelming evidence that those who undergo “gender transitioning” are more likely to commit suicide than those who are not given irreversible surgery. A Swedish study found that those who underwent “gender reassignment” surgery ended up with a 19.2 times greater risk of suicide.

Indeed, there is proof that the most loving and helpful approach to people who think they are a different sex is not to validate them in their confusion but to show them the truth.

A new study on the side effects of transgender “sex change” surgeries discovered that 81 percent of those who had undergone “sex change” surgeries in the past five years reported experiencing pain simply from normal movement in the weeks and months that followed — and that many other side effects manifest as well.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Canada’s New Green Deal

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Nuclear power a key piece of Western Canadian energy transition

Just reading the headlines, Canadians can be forgiven for thinking last week’s historic agreement between Alberta and Ottawa was all about oil and pipelines, and all about Alberta.

It’s much bigger than that.

The memorandum of understanding signed between Canada and Alberta is an ambitious Western Canadian industrial, energy and decarbonization strategy all in one.

The strategy aims to decarbonize the oil and gas sectors through large-scale carbon capture and storage, industrial carbon pricing, methane abatement, industrial electrification, and nuclear power.

It would also provide Canadian “cloud sovereignty” through AI computing power, and would tie B.C. and Saskatchewan into the Alberta dynamo with beefed up power transmission interties.

A new nuclear keystone

Energy Alberta’s Peace River Nuclear Power Project could be a keystone to the strategy.

The MOU sets January 1, 2027 as the date for a new nuclear energy strategy to provide nuclear power “to an interconnected market” by 2050.

Scott Henuset, CEO for Energy Alberta, was pleased to see the nuclear energy strategy included in the MOU.

“We, two years ago, went out on a limb and said we’re going to do this, really believing that this was the path forward, and now we’re seeing everyone coming along that this is the path forward for power in Canada,” he said.

The company proposes to build a four-unit, 4,800-megawatt Candu Monark power plant in Peace River, Alberta. That’s equivalent to four Site C dams worth of power.

The project this year entered a joint review by the Impact Assessment Agency and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

If approved, and all goes to schedule, the first 1,000-MW unit could begin producing power in 2035.

Indigenous consultation and experienced leadership

“I think that having this strategy broadly points to a cleaner energy future, while at the same time recognizing that oil still is going to be a fundamental driver of economies for decades to come,” said Ian Anderson, the former CEO of Trans Mountain Corporation who now serves as an advisor to Energy Alberta.

Energy Alberta is engaged with 37 First Nations and Metis groups in Alberta on the project. Anderson was brought on board to help with indigenous consultation.

While working on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Anderson spent a decade working with more than 60 First Nations in B.C. and Alberta to negotiate impact benefit agreements.

In addition to indigenous consultations, Anderson is also helping out with government relations, and has met with B.C. Energy Minister Adrian Dix, BC Hydro chairman Glen Clark and the head of Powerex to discuss the potential for B.C. beef up interties between the two provinces.

“I’ve done a lot of political work in B.C. over the decade, so it’s a natural place for me to assist,” Anderson said. “Hopefully it doesn’t get distracted by the pipeline debate. They’re two separate agendas and objectives.”

Powering the grid and the neighbours

B.C. is facing a looming shortage of industrial power, to the point where it now plans to ration it.

“We see our project as a backbone to support renewables, support industrial growth, support data centres as well as support larger interties to B.C. which will also strengthen the Canadian grid as a whole,” Henuset said.

Despite all the new power generation B.C. has built and plans to build, industrial demand is expected to far exceed supply. One of the drivers of that future demand is requests for power for AI data centres.

The B.C. government recently announced Bill 31 — the Energy Statutes Amendment Act – which will prioritize mines and LNG plants for industrial power.

Other energy intensive industries, like bitcoin mining, AI data centres and green hydrogen will either be explicitly excluded or put on a power connection wait list.

Beefed up grid connections with Alberta – something that has been discussed for decades – could provide B.C. with a new source of zero-emission power from Alberta, though it might have to loosen its long-standing anti-nuclear power stance.

Energy Minister Adrian Dix was asked in the Legislature this week if B.C. is open to accessing a nuclear-powered grid, and his answer was deflective.

“The member will know that we have been working with Alberta on making improvements to the intertie,” Dix answered. “Alberta has made commitments since 2007 to improve those connections. It has not done so.

“We are fully engaged with the province of Alberta on that question. He’ll also know that we are, under the Clean Electricity Act, not pursuing nuclear opportunities in B.C. and will not be in the future.”

The B.C. NDP government seems to be telling Alberta, “not only do we not want Alberta’s dirty oil, we don’t want any of its clean electricity either.”

Interconnected markets

Meanwhile, BC Hydro’s second quarter report confirms it is still a net importer of electricity, said Barry Penner, chairman of the Energy Futures Initiative.

“We have been buying nuclear power from the United States,” he said. “California has one operating power plant and there’s other nuclear power plants around the western half of the United States.”

In a recent blog post, Penner notes: “BC Hydro had to import power even as 7,291 megawatts of requested electrical service was left waiting in our province.”

If the NDP government wants B.C. to participate in an ambitious Western Canadian energy transition project, it might have to drop its holier-than-thou attitude towards Alberta, oil and nuclear power.

“We’re looking at our project as an Alberta project that has potential to support Western Canada as a whole,” Henuset said.

“We see our project as a backbone to support renewables, support industrial growth, support data centres, as well as support larger interties to B.C., which will also strengthen the Canadian grid as a whole.”

The investment challenge

The strategy that Alberta and Ottawa have laid out is ambitious, and will require tens of billions in investment.

“The question in the market is how much improvement in the regulatory prospects do we need to see in order for capital to be committed to the projects,” Anderson said.

The federal government will need to play a role in derisking the project, as it has done with the new Darlington nuclear project, with financing from the Canada Growth Fund and Canadian Infrastructure Bank.

“There will be avenues of federal support that will help derisk the project for private equity investors, as well as for banks,” Henuset said.

One selling point for the environmental crowd is that a combination of carbon capture and nuclear power could facilitate a blue and green hydrogen industry.

But to really sell this plan to the climate concerned, what is needed is a full assessment of the potential GHG reductions that may accrue from things like nuclear power, CCS, industrial carbon pricing and all of the other measures for decarbonization.

Fortunately, the MOU also scraps greenwashing laws that prevent those sorts of calculations from being done.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X