It was nine times. However, we now have more messages, so it would have to be more than nine times. In none of those nine instances, nor in the new documents, does anyone ask who they mean, because they're not familiar with that name. No one questions whether it's a typo or whether it's someone else. No, they say it's Randy. Now, Randy has said that he's not the Randy in question, but we also have confirmation that there was no other Randy who worked at this firm.
We later learned, after the Liberal minister from Edmonton said he couldn't have communicated with his business partner Stephen Anderson on the dates in question, because he was at a Liberal cabinet retreat in a room impenetrable by electronic communications, and his phone was locked in a box and buried under the building, that he did actually exchange text messages and did have a phone call with his business partner, Stephen Anderson. It's another example of where we see that the Liberal minister is not being truthful. We also know that while he was a 50% owner of the company, they won a contract with the Government of Canada while he was sitting around the cabinet table.
Of course, none of these things are acceptable. What is of paramount importance, though, is that we had the issue with Mr. Anderson. This committee did vote by majority to send to the House that he had been in contempt and that he had prevaricated when he was here, and the Speaker ruled on that. Now we have an issue of a similar nature with respect to the minister.
Therefore, today, I'm not looking for the committee to take a decision on whether there's been contempt by the minister, but I do think we need information about this. While these text messages or WhatsApp messages add a new dimension to what this committee is dealing with, it comes down to whether the minister was honest when he testified at this committee.
There's a story in the National Post today that says, “Liberal minister's former business questioned over 'Indigenous' claims in government contract bids”. It's highly suspicious at best, but at worst, it's fraud. While that issue is one that perhaps we can discuss another day, it certainly speaks to the apparent dishonesty of the minister.
We can't have people come before parliamentary committees and do anything other than tell us the truth. They can't not answer the question, and they can't lie to us. Therefore, we need answers to that. It is incumbent on this committee.
We've heard, time and time again from members of the Liberal Party that the Ethics Commissioner looked at it and said that it was fine, but then he had to look at it again, because it turns out he wasn't given all the information. Then he had to look at it again, because he wasn't given all the information. I think that he's going to be surprised that he was, again, deprived of all the information. However, that's for the Ethics Commissioner to decide. He can take his decisions about what he would like to do.
This committee is solely responsible for whether we permit people to come before this committee and lie. We need to get answers, and it's important that the witnesses who are proposed in the motion also come to speak to this. We've seen, so far, that the co-owners of the company have demonstrated themselves not to be honest. We are not looking for Mr. Anderson to return. The committee has taken a decision with respect to his conduct before this committee and has referred it to the House, and the House will deal with it. We do need to speak to another parliamentarian, Mr. Anderson's business partner, Mr. Boissonnault, and we need to hear from these two folks who come up every single time the minister's name is mentioned, and they are Shawna and Felix.
No one at this committee should want to be made a fool of by people who are invited to come before us, but that's what's happening. We are being made fools of by these witnesses who have come before the committee.
It can't be allowed to stand that Randy Boissonnault can offer a different set of facts in answering the same question every time he comes before the committee. He needs to come here and tell us the truth. Then we can move on. Until we've finally gotten the truth, then this committee needs to undertake this study and get resolution.
Thank you.