Mr. Speaker, it was the shortest speech in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system, I would argue, but we will have to do some research on that. I thank you for adding the extra second to allow me 20 minutes to speak about the important issue before us.
If someone were writing a Hollywood script, they could not write a better script than this. It has everything, and I am going to touch on that in a few minutes. It has intrigue, fraud, crime and a criminal investigation. All of it would make for a blockbuster Hollywood movie, yet here we are in the House of Commons playing this one out because of a minister who was using his position to further himself and his business with business partners who are suspect at best.
I would like to revisit how we got here. As you know, in your ruling on the question of privilege that was brought forward by the committee, you agreed that privilege had been breached. An appropriate motion was moved at that time, effectively calling Mr. Anderson, the former minister's business partner, to the bar to answer the questions that he refused to answer at committee.
In the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I was obligated by the committee, as its chair, to present the report to Parliament. It had to do with the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act. It was really, in essence, about failure to respond to an order of the committee.
Of course, through the SDTC scandal and the fact that Parliament has been seized with that privilege motion as well, we understand that the supremacy of Parliament is paramount. When we at committee, or members, ask for documents to be received, the expectation is that those documents will be received, because, again, the supremacy of Parliament is paramount. We have the right to compel documents when we feel that they are not being provided to us.
To revisit this, I will quote from a report I wrote to Parliament:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2024, the committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), to undertake a study of the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act. In the course of this study, on Thursday, June 6, 2024, the committee adopted the following motion:
“That, in light of media reports, [the minister]’s testimony at this committee, and the Ethics Commissioner’s confirmation that he is considering opening another investigation into [the minister]’s actions, the committee call on the following witnesses to appear before the committee and testify for one hour:
That includes Stephen Anderson, the character in question, and Kirsten Poon, who was a partner with Global Health Imports.
The report continues:
And that the committee request that Stephen Anderson and [the minister] produce for the committee all of their phone records, text messages, iMessages, and all instant messages and call logs from all applications from September 8, 2022, within seven days of this motion being adopted.”
The date of September 8 is critical in the context of the information that the committee was seeking in relation to the minister's actions in conducting business that he was not allowed to conduct.
The report goes on to state, “Mr. Anderson mentioned that some of the information requested was personal in nature”, which is fair enough, and he “requested that this information be guaranteed to be kept confidential and that, in the absence of a guaranteed confidentiality, he would not submit some of the documents. In the end, he did not submit any documents”, despite the fact that, through an order, the committee had compelled him to do so.
It continues:
Pursuant to the same motion, the committee invited Stephen Anderson to appear before it. During his appearance on Wednesday, July 17, 2024, Stephen Anderson repeatedly said that the “Randy” referred to in many text messages was an auto-correct....
Somehow there was a mistake made, and on more than nine occasions by his count, the “Randy” in question in the text messages was, in fact, an autocorrect. There were also some suggestions that it could have been somebody named Randeep, but there were only three directors of the company, and two principals, Mr. Anderson and someone named Randy, so it is highly improbable that there was a Randeep involved.
However, “Mr. Anderson”, and this is important, “repeatedly refused to answer members asking for the name of the individual referred to in the text messages.” He said that he would consider providing that information on a confidential basis if the committee were to move in camera. Fortunately, despite the obstructionist efforts of the Liberal members of the committee, the committee, in its wisdom, decided not to go in camera, and it asked Mr. Anderson to provide the name referenced by “Randy”.
Further, the committee noted the Speaker's ruling that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd edition, 2017, at pages 1078 to 1079, reads, “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them”. It goes on, but I am not going to read it as it is in the manual, but the committee also noted that at page 1081, the following is noted in relation to a witness: “Refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.” This is really the point we are at right now.
The report continues:
As a result, and in response to Mr. Anderson’s refusal to provide the name of the individual referred to during the meeting and other documentation requested, the committee adopted the following motion:
“That, the committee order Stephen Anderson to produce all of the previously requested documents, in addition to the name referenced in today's testimony, and if those documents are not received by Friday, July 19 at 12:00 p.m., the Chair prepare a report to the House outlining the questions that Stephen Anderson refused to answer in writing and during testimony.”
That is the report I am reading from. It goes on:
Mr. Anderson provided documentation to the committee; however, much of the information requested by the motion was not included. More specifically, the name of the individual he was referring to during his testimony was also not provided to the committee.
Pursuant to the Order adopted by the committee, the committee having not received the documents requested from the witness, and, most significantly, the name referenced during the committee meeting of Wednesday, July 17, 2024, continuing to be withheld, your committee [as I reported] feels it is their duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House may take such measures as it deems appropriate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the measures are to have Mr. Anderson, in a humiliating fashion, come before the bar of the House to answer the questions that were posed by the committee members. Once we dispose of the motion and vote on it, despite, as I said, many obstructionist attempts by Liberal members of the committee to not get to this point, we are at the point where Mr. Anderson will be called before the bar to provide answers to the questions that have been demanded of him, more specifically who the other Randy is. That is what we need to get to the bottom of.
As I said earlier, one could not write a Hollywood script better than this. It has it all, including the chance meeting of the former minister and Mr. Anderson on a flight coming out of Montreal, striking up a conversation about how it would be great if they got into business together. I bet that the former minister sure regrets that decision at this point, given the character he was aligning himself with.
The company was set up after the chance meeting, and the connections are critical because the former minister was not in government at the time. He had been so previously, and he had gained a tremendous number of connections within government that could elevate and escalate the business into dealings that it would not otherwise have had.
Certainly over the course of the last nine years, the extent of insiders, the connected cronies who have benefited as a results of their connections to the Liberal Party, is well documented. Not the least of the issues are the SDTC scandal and Frank Baylis. The list of the insiders connected to the Liberal Party who have benefited as a result of that connection is as long as the day.
There was an opportunity for pandemic profiteering. We had gone to the height of a pandemic, and procurement was being done all over the country to try to supply PPE, for example, with contracts that were being sole-sourced. The opportunity was there for pandemic profiteering, a perfect storyline for a Hollywood script.
There was fraud, which we have found out about since. Seven lawsuits have been filed against the former minister's company, of which he was a director, seven civil suits for fraud. He was not supplying material that had already been paid for. One of the last straws, but not the only last straw, was the sworn affidavit just filed a couple of weeks ago that names the former minister as the Randy in question in one of those civil lawsuits. That sworn affidavit is certainly an indictment on who was involved.
Then there was the famous fire at the company that still to this day remains unsolved. How was the warehouse set on fire that housed many of the products that GHI was storing?
There is a cocaine connection. One of the people involved with this company was found to be transporting cocaine on an airplane and shared a mailbox with the company. It is almost laughable.
Then there was the cover-up and the extent to which the cover-up went on. I mentioned this briefly in the information that I provided earlier. There were text messages that were not submitted after they were asked for. Those text messages are important because Mr. Anderson was directly communicating with the former minister while he was at a ministerial retreat in British Columbia. There was denial after denial on the part of the former minister and on the part of Mr. Anderson, yet it has been proven through the text messages that they were communicating while the former minister was sitting around the cabinet table. It is more intrigue, as if it were a Hollywood script.
I mentioned this earlier, but I think it is worth mentioning again. We saw many Liberal members trying to obstruct the committee's work by filibustering certain motions. The role of the ethics committee as an oversight committee is to get to the bottom of ethical breaches and violations, whether related to the code of conduct or the act itself, and the Liberals were obstructing that in every way. I finally had a sidebar conversation with the vice-chair, and I said to him that if he was willing to stake his political career and capital on defending that guy despite the amount of evidence that has been produced before us, with the text messages, the civil lawsuits and the sworn affidavit, it was not a hill that I would die on, quite frankly.
We have seen in recent news that he was let go, but, again, there is more intrigue. There is also the money, almost $110 million in contracts, and the half-million-dollar fraud case going on for not supplying PPE to a company that had already forwarded the money.
Of course, we have heard about the indigenous connection too. The company claimed an indigenous connection in order to submit bids for indigenous procurement and contracts. The mighty OGGO has been dealing with that, as have other committees. The former minister embarrassingly had to step down, in large part as a result of the false claim of the indigenous connection.
I think the icing on the cake, and the last straw, was the police investigation. Given that the Edmonton police are now involved and engaged in a criminal investigation into this company, I think the Prime Minister had no other choice but to force the former minister's resignation and have him stand down as a result of all of those things.
It is a beautiful Hollywood script that would probably be a money-maker if it were to be produced. Of course, if we were to produce a movie like that, we would need a cast and an ensemble. Who would some of those cast members be?
Perhaps for Randy, we might look at Stanley Tucci or Jason Alexander from Seinfeld. I saw Stephen Anderson at committee, and I think he thought that he was auditioning for a reality TV show. Honestly, he lacked credibility, and the indifference he showed to our committee in requesting this information was quite something. Who would play him? Maybe it could be Brad Pitt or Charlie Sheen. Who would play the chair of the committee? Who would play me? Well, I think Mike Pence would be a good choice, but I am not sure that the former vice-president of the United States would go for that. I would settle for Tom Cruise, if that were the case.
For the Prime Minister, maybe Kevin from The Office would be a good choice. For the other ensemble members, Rosie O'Donnell would be there, along with Gérard Depardieu and my favourite actor, Denzel. Ryan Reynolds would be part of it, and we could get Cher in there, as well as Macaulay Culkin and Jude Law. I suggest that they would perhaps be good choices of actors for the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. Of course, Dog the Bounty Hunter would be himself because the committee has summoned both Mr. Anderson and the other one, Papineau, to the committee. We summoned them the other day, so we are hoping to see them. Maybe Dog the Bounty Hunter can find them because they are nowhere to be found on the radar.
Seriously, the minister has been forced to step down as a result of all of the things that I have listed, which would make this a perfect Hollywood script. He said he wants to clear his name, that he is going to take time to clear his name, and he has not. I have not seen him since. I suspect that he is probably out there. I would like to give the former minister an opportunity to clear his name.
Once this motion gets approved, Mr. Anderson will be appearing before the bar. The motion indicates how many members on each side would be able to ask Mr. Anderson questions. If the former minister, the member for Edmonton Centre, truly wants to clear his name, I cannot think of a better way to do that than in this place, facing his accuser. That would be a perfect opportunity. He should get out of the fetal position, lick his wounds, come in here and face his accuser. I want to give the member for Edmonton Centre that opportunity.
Therefore, I move:
That the amendment be amended, in subparagraph (f)(i), by adding the following: “followed by an additional 10 minutes which shall be allocated to the Member for Edmonton Centre,”.
That would give him an opportunity to face his accuser in this place, at the bar, in an attempt to clear his name. That would make for an interesting ending to this movie.
