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

Todayville

Published

1 year ago

9 minute read

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.

Up Next

Government Subsidies and the Oil and Gas Industry

Don't Miss

Trump Reportedly Has Ace Up His Sleeve For Countries That Refuse To Take Back Their Illegal Migrants

Todayville

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

The Data That Doesn’t Exist

Business / 4 hours ago

The Climate-Risk Industrial Complex and the Manufactured Insurance Crisis

Great Reset / 8 hours ago

Surgery Denied. Death Approved.

Great Reset

Surgery Denied. Death Approved.

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

Kelsi Sheren

Canada’s assisted-death regime has reached a point most people assumed was dystopian fiction and it’s doing so with bureaucratic calm. A woman in Saskatchewan, Jolene Van Alstine, suffering from a rare but treatable parathyroid disease, has applied for MAiD not because she is dying, but because she can’t access the surgery that would let her live.

Read that again. Not terminal. Not untreatable. Just abandoned by a system that has the audacity to call itself “universal.”

Kelsi Sheren is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Kelsi Sheren

Her assisted death is scheduled for January 7, 2026.

And the country shrugs. Van Alstine described spending years curled on a couch, nauseated, in agony, isolated, and pushed past endurance. The disease is brutal, but treatable a surgery here, a specialist there. The kind of medical intervention that in a functional system wouldn’t even make the news.

But in Saskatchewan? There are no endocrinologists accepting new patients. Without one, she can’t get referred. Without a referral, she can’t get surgery. Without surgery, she loses her life either slowly through suffering, or quickly through state-sanctioned death.

If you’ve ever lived through pain that warps time…
If you’ve ever had your mind hijacked by trauma…
If you’ve ever stared down suffering with no end in sight…

You know how thin the line can get between endurance and surrender.

And that’s why this story hits differently: it reveals how fragile people become when the system meant to protect them becomes an accomplice in their despair.

Canada frames MAiD as empowerment. As compassion. As choice.

But choice is only real when the alternatives are viable.
If your options are slow agony or assisted death, that’s not autonomy it’s coercion with a friendly tone.

Disability advocates, chronic-pain patients, the elderly, and low-income Canadians have been sounding the alarm for years: MAiD is expanding faster than support systems can catch up. Every expansion widens the chasm between the rhetoric of compassion and the lived experience of those who actually need help.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission itself warned that MAiD is being accessed because people cannot get the services required to live with dignity. And dignity matters. Anyone who has lived on the edge knows this: humans don’t just need survival, we need a reason to keep surviving.

When the healthcare system withholds that, death can look like mercy. This is the part polite society doesn’t want to confront.

Canada’s healthcare system is collapsing. Not strained. Not overburdened. Collapsing.

We have a growing list of citizens choosing death because medicine has become a lottery →
• a quadriplegic woman who applied for MAiD because she couldn’t secure basic home-care support
• veterans offered MAiD instead of trauma treatment
• homeless Canadians considering MAiD because they can’t survive winter

And now a woman denied a simple, lifesaving surgery.

At some point, we have to call this what it is: a nation outsourcing its failures to death. I’ve sat with veterans who couldn’t find themselves inside their own minds after war. I’ve watched people suffer silently because bureaucracy didn’t move fast enough to keep up with their pain.

I’ve coached clients who were one dropped ball, one missed appointment, one shut door away from losing the will to fight.

The lesson is the same every time. People don’t break because they’re weak. People break because they’re left alone with their suffering.

Van Alstine wasn’t offered community.
She wasn’t offered care.
She was offered an exit.

And she took it.

Not because she wanted to die but because Canada didn’t give her any path to live.

We need to stop pretending this is compassionate. Compassion is presence. Compassion is support. Compassion is a surgeon who actually exists, a referral that actually happens, a system that catches someone before they fall into the dark.

If MAiD is going to exist, it must be the last, quiet, grave option not the discounted aisle Canada sends you to when the cost of real care is too high.

A society reveals its soul by how it treats the people who can’t fight for themselves.
Right now, Canada is revealing something hollow.

People will debate the ethics of assisted dying forever. Fine. Debate it. But this is the wrong battleground. The real question is this →

What does it say about a country when death is easier to access than medical care?

Until Canada answers that honestly, we’re going to see more names on the calendar scheduled deaths, stamped and approved — for people who didn’t want to die. They just wanted someone to give them a chance to live.

Canada has failed every single citizen, and not a single person seems to care.

KELSI SHEREN

– – – – – – – – – – – –

SOURCE: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/canadian-woman-getting-assisted-death-because-she-cant-get-surgery

– – – – – – – – – – – –

One Time Donation! – Paypal – https://paypal.me/brassandunity

Buy me a coffee! – https://buymeacoffee.com/kelsisheren

Let’s connect!

Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/@thekelsisherenperspective

Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/thekelsisherenperspective?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw%3D%3D

X: https://x.com/KelsiBurns

Substack: https://substack.com/@kelsisheren

TikTok – https://x.com/KelsiBurns

Economy

Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman, Joel Emes and Austin Thompson

According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city

The dream of homeownership is alive, but not well. Nearly nine in ten young Canadians (aged 18-29) aspire to own a home—but share a similar worry about the current state of housing in Canada.

Of course, those worries are justified. According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city. It’s not just Vancouver and Toronto—housing affordability has eroded nationwide.

Aspiring homeowners face two distinct challenges—saving enough for a downpayment and keeping up with mortgage payments. Both have become harder in recent years.

For example, in 2014, across 36 of Canada’s largest cities, a 20 per cent downpayment for a typical home—detached house, townhouse, condo—cost the equivalent of 14.1 months (on average) of after-tax income for families earning the median income. By 2023, that figure had grown to 22.0 months—a 56 per cent increase. During the same period for those same families, a mortgage payment for a typical home increased (as a share of after-tax incomes) from 29.9 per cent to 56.6 per cent.

No major city has been spared. Between 2014 and 2023, the price of a typical home rose faster than the growth of median after-tax family income in 32 out of 36 of Canada’s largest cities. And in all 36 cities, the monthly mortgage payment on a typical home grew (again, as a share of median after-tax family income), reflecting rising house prices and higher mortgage rates.

While the housing affordability crisis is national in scope, the challenge differs between cities.

In 2023, a median-income-earning family in Fredericton, the most affordable large city for homeownership in Canada, had save the equivalent of 10.6 months of after-tax income ($56,240) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home—and the monthly mortgage payment ($1,445) required 27.2 per cent of that family’s after-tax income. Meanwhile, a median-income-earning family in Vancouver, Canada’s least affordable city, had to spend the equivalent of 43.7 months of after-tax income ($235,520) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home with a monthly mortgage ($6,052) that required 112.3 per cent of its after-tax income—a financial impossibility unless the family could rely on support from family or friends.

The financial barriers to homeownership are clearly greater in Vancouver. But, crucially, neither city is truly “affordable.” In Fredericton and Vancouver, as in every other major Canadian city, buying a typical home with the median income produces a debt burden beyond what’s advisable. Recent house price declines in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto have provided some relief, but homeownership remains far beyond the reach of many families—and a sharp slowdown in homebuilding threatens to limit further gains in affordability.

For families priced out of homeownership, renting doesn’t offer much relief, as rent affordability has also declined in nearly every city. In 2014, rental rates for the median-priced rental unit required 19.8 per cent of median after-tax family income, on average across major cities. By 2023, that figure had risen to 23.5 per cent. And in the least affordable cities for renters, Toronto and Vancouver, a median-priced rental required more than 30 per cent of median after-tax family income. That’s a heavy burden for Canada’s renters who typically earn less than homeowners. It’s also an added financial barrier to homeownership— many Canadian families rent for years before buying their first home, and higher rents make it harder to save for a downpayment.

In light of these realities, Canadians should ask—why have house prices and rental rates outpaced income growth?

Poor public policy has played a key role. Local regulations, lengthy municipal approval processes, and costly taxes and fees all combine to hinder housing development. And the federal government allowed a historic surge in immigration that greatly outpaced new home construction. It’s simple supply and demand—when more people chase a limited (and restricted) supply of homes, prices rise. Meanwhile, after-tax incomes aren’t keeping pace, as government policies that discourage investment and economic growth also discourage wage growth.

Canadians still want to own homes, but a decade of deteriorating affordability has made that a distant prospect for many families. Reversing the trend will require accelerated homebuilding, better-paced immigration and policies that grow wages while limiting tax bills for Canadians—changes governments routinely promise but rarely deliver.