Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today.
I was there when Stephen Anderson appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I was able to see first-hand his attitude toward the requests that had been made. We knew all along that promises would not be kept. His dismissive attitude was disturbing and must be discussed today. Parliament is built on trust. We have to trust each other. The public trusts us. People elect us and put their trust in us. We need to live up to that.
Trust means that you do not have to provide evidence. In this case, not only do we need evidence but the promised evidence has not been provided. The bond of trust has been completely broken. We are bordering on what my colleague referred to earlier as shame. Personally, I would go even further; I think that when we look at some of the debates at committee or even in the House, there is a cruel lack of decency. Decency is something that exists when people have some kind of social contract that leads them to do the right thing. Beyond that, what we are seeing is nonsense.
Mr. Anderson came to committee and told us that he could not provide the information right away. He promised that in a matter of days—I forget how many days—he would provide us two things: the phone records and the identity of “Randy”. We gave him the time to gather his evidence and do his things. Then, we were buried under the phone records. It practically took a team of investigators to find some sort of path. One thing is for sure, what was missing was the ability to determine who “Randy” was. We did not find out. Does “Randy” exist? I do not know. Is he the same Randy? I do not know.
One thing is certain, Mr. Anderson's attitude was, in my opinion, shameful. It is unacceptable, and I advise my colleagues across the way not to try to defend the indefensible, because that only makes matters worse. Everyone in life can serve as an example. Mr. Anderson is a bad example. It is not a good example. It is not an example of what should be done in committee. The committees are not a court, especially not the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, because we see all sorts of abuse.
Committees are a place where we often look for solutions to clearly defined problems, like disinformation or social media. Conflicts of interest are also an issue under our purview. I am not someone who would take legal action unnecessarily or make allegations out of obligation, but frankly, it was impossible to believe Mr. Anderson. It is not complicated. He even seemed flippant about the fact that he was a bad example.
As a responsible parliamentarian, I will support my colleague's motion. Responsibility is the ability to answer for one's actions. Mr. Anderson promised to answer for his actions, but failed to do so. In light of this attitude, we have no alternative but to say there must be consequences. Even though he said it was not his intention, the consequences are part and parcel of the underlying intention. Enough is enough. Actions have consequences, and the two cannot be separated. Therefore, Mr. Anderson must be held accountable for his actions and face the consequences. My language may seem harsh, but he left us no alternative. Unless we impose consequences for Mr. Anderson's actions, we will be left with a Parliament that lacks any credibility, where mistrust and chaos prevail. This is the decadence of a government on its last legs, as mentioned earlier, a kind of complacency that lulls people into believing that nothing is wrong and that everything will be fine.
Mr. Anderson is like the tree that hides the forest. In that sense, this matter must be brought to its conclusion. I will fight a headwind if I have to. This is contempt of the House. Again, these are not meaningless words. These are strong words. It does not look very good on a resumé. Mr. Anderson must therefore answer for his actions and come before the bar, because the credibility of Parliament is at stake.
To anyone who opposes my position, I would say that Mr. Anderson perhaps had it coming. He did everything he could to be treated this way. Mr. Anderson has taken indecency to a whole new level. I therefore believe that Mr. Anderson's appearance at the bar is inevitable. The credibility of Parliament is at stake. Public trust in parliamentarians is at stake. At a time when cynicism toward politicians is at an all-time high, we must take action and bring Mr. Anderson before the bar.