Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House, having considered the unanimous views of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, expressed in its 12th Report, find Stephen Anderson to be in contempt for his failure to provide the information which the Committee had ordered him to produce and, accordingly, order him to attend at the Bar of this House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the next Wednesday the House sits which is at least one week following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of
(a) receiving an admonishment delivered by the Speaker;
(b) delivering up the records referred to in the 12th Report;
(c) providing responses to the questions referred to in the 12th Report; and
(d) responding to supplementary questions arising from his responses to the questions referred to in the 12th Report,
provided that
(e) any records which Mr. Anderson produces shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics;
(f) the questioning shall be governed by the provisions of subparagraphs (b)(iv) and (v) of the Order adopted on April 8, 2024, concerning the appearance at the Bar of Kristian Firth, except that references to “Mr. Firth” be read as “Mr. Anderson”; and
(g) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to consider the records produced by Mr. Anderson and his testimony at the Bar of the House and, if necessary, recommend further action.
Here we go again. We are here in this place dealing with another example of Liberals who do not seem to understand that their job is to represent Canadians and not to represent the best interests of their best friends and their business partners. Of course, I am talking about the saga of the “other Randy”.
We do not know who the other Randy is. That is one of the main reasons why we find ourselves here today; it is one of the questions that the witness, Mr. Anderson, refused to answer at committee when he had an obligation to do so. Why do we need to know who the other Randy is? At the heart of it is the Liberal minister from Edmonton, who was found out to own 50% of a business while he was serving in the cabinet. It was believed that he was directing the operations of that company.
The minister said, of course, that it is another Randy. We heard from members of the Liberal caucus that perhaps it was “Randeep”. We heard from the witness, Mr. Anderson, that he could tell us only if we held an in camera meeting, a private meeting of the ethics committee, so that he could reveal it to us. The committee rejected that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, they should show us who the other Randy is.
It gets worse. In the multiple appearances at committee, of witnesses on the strange story of the Liberal minister from Edmonton and his business dealings, we learned of course that the NDP-Liberal government did award a contract to the Liberal minister's business while he was serving in cabinet. That is outrageous. Of course, it is not allowed under the conflict of interest regime we have in this country. Said another way, it is illegal.
We heard from the minister, when he first appeared at committee, that he had not been in touch with his business partner, Mr. Anderson, in 2022. He was explicit that he had not. The thing about the company and about everyone who seems to be involved in it is that it is pretty sketchy. That sketchy company is involved in a massive lawsuit that alleges fraud of half a million dollars. An unexplained but suspicious warehouse fire targeted only the inventory at the Liberal minister's company's warehouse. Through the legal system, we are learning, through the disclosures, that there was in fact contact, which is in direct contradiction to what that Liberal minister said.
The minister said that he had not talked to his business partner in 2022. He then had his ministry talk to the media and say that it was impossible for the minister to have communicated with Mr. Anderson on the days in question, when he referenced Randy nine times in text messages. Mr. Anderson claimed, obviously not believably, that these were nine autocorrects, though he could not tell us what was being autocorrected. The recipient of the messages of course never challenged him on who the other Randy was, because he was always represented as the business partner, the individual who owned a 50% share in the business, the Liberal minister from Edmonton.
The minister's staff said that he could not have communicated, because he was in cabinet; he was locked up. He flew into Vancouver, and before he got there, they must have taken his phone and put it in a box, and he did not get it back for weeks. He did not talk to anybody. They said it was impossible.
However, we then demanded his phone records. He provided them for only one phone. We know he has another one, so we had to issue another demand for phone records and text messages. Guess what we found out: While the Liberal minister's business partner was telling the victims of the fraud worth about $500,000 and saying that Randy was in Vancouver and needed answers, the minister from Edmonton was in Vancouver at that time. Although his office said that he could not get the messages, there is testimony from the last time that he testified at committee.
I want to reference a story from Blacklock's Reporter from Friday, September 20, titled “Minister Changes His Story”. It says that the minister admitted to being in both a text message exchange and a phone call with his business partner during the 2022 retreat. What changed? What is it called when someone says something that they know is not true?