OTTAWA — Parliament has been seized by a question of privilege regarding the so-called green slush fund for the past week. But should that get sorted, MPs will be turning their attention to a second question of privilege — this time, about the “other Randy” controversy.
At the heart of the issue is whether Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault breached ethics laws in 2022 by interfering directly in the global health imports business he co-founded with former business partner Stephen Anderson during the pandemic.
Due to Anderson’s refusal to answer questions and provide documents, he could be found in contempt of Parliament and admonished by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
This all started when Global News obtained text messages showing that Anderson was receiving directions from a certain “Randy” to obtain a wire transfer of $500,000 on Sept. 8, 2022 to secure a large shipment of nitrile gloves.
It raised questions whether Boissonnault still had an active role in the company despite having been named in cabinet a year prior — contravening the Conflict of Interest Act.
Boissonnault has always insisted he is not the individual in those text messages.
Other messages resurfaced showing that same “Randy” referenced many other times in days prior, including mentions that the individual was in Vancouver. Boissonnault was visiting the city during that period for a cabinet retreat, raising more suspicions.
Anderson first told Global News that “Randy” was head of logistics but admitted during his passage at the House of Commons ethics committee this summer that he lied.
He also claimed that “Randy” was an auto-correct, despite having used that name multiple times, and that he would reveal the person’s true identity in-camera as he said the individual’s situation could be negatively affected by media exposure.
Conservatives and the NDP said after his testimony that they had reason to believe “Randy” was in fact Boissonnault.
Anderson was ordered by the ethics committee two times to provide phone records, text messages and phone logs from that period but did not comply.
Sources with knowledge of the exchanges said Anderson promised his phone records would come a few days after the deadline because his phone provider could not easily process information older than 18 months.
In the end, he provided some information by email but not what was requested by MPs.
Anderson has also not shared the true identity of “Randy” despite promising to do so.
The chair of the committee, Conservative MP John Brassard, already issued a report to the House outlining the questions that Anderson refused to answer during his testimony.
Conservative MP Michael Barrett and NDP MP Matthew Green then called on House Speaker, Greg Fergus, to recognize this as a prima facie case of breach of privilege. They argued that Anderson disregarded orders of the committee to produce documents.
Fergus accepted their arguments, and Barrett subsequently tabled a motion to find Anderson in contempt of Parliament.
Earlier this year, GC Strategies partner Kristian Firth was found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to answer certain questions in relation to the ArriveCan scandal. He was also ordered to appear “before the bar” to receive a rare public rebuke from the Speaker.
Anderson will likely meet the same fate. Barrett’s motion is likely to have enough votes to pass, as the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are poised to vote in favour.
“Of course, when Mr. Anderson comes before the bar of the House, we are going to need to find out who the other Randy is. I do not think there will be a surprised face in here if we find out it is that Liberal minister from Edmonton,” said Barrett.
Bloc MP René Villemure said in the House that Anderson “had it coming.”
“Mr. Anderson has taken indecency to a whole new level. I therefore believe that Mr. Anderson’s appearance at the bar is inevitable,” he said.
NDP House leader Peter Julian said that while his party supports the motion, he criticized Conservatives for not showing the same level of transparency when in government.
“I find it a bit hypocritical that Conservatives are saying they want to get to the bottom of this when they never want to get to the bottom of it when it is a Conservative scandal.”
Boissonnault has always claimed that he was not involved in the company’s operations since he was re-elected in 2021.
However, last month, Boissonnault admitted he briefly spoke on the phone and exchanged text messages with Anderson on September 6, 2022, but only because Purolator had mistakenly contacted him to settle an account concerning the business.
He also claimed that the ethics commissioner found no wrongdoing after reviewing his phone logs and considered the case closed. But Conservatives said the commissioner does not have all the information as he cannot order a minister to produce evidence.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, they should show us who the other Randy is,” said Barrett.
National Post
[email protected]
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.