Conservatives start process to find Boissonnault’s business partner in contempt of Parliament

Conservatives have initiated the process to find the business partner of cabinet minister Randy Boissonnault in contempt of Parliament.

In a report tabled on Tuesday, parliamentary ethics committee chair John Brassard wrote that Stephen Anderson, the chief operating officer of Global Health Imports, failed to comply with committee orders.

The report states Anderson failed to provide documents ordered by the committee on two occasions and refused to answer questions posed by MPs during his July testimony. It did not make a specific recommendation for the House to find Anderson in contempt.

Anderson is a central figure in the committee’s inquiry into allegations that Employment Minister Boissonnault breached ethics rules by communicating with Anderson about a business deal while in office. Conflict of interest laws prohibit ministers from operating or managing businesses while in office.

On Tuesday, Tory ethics critic Michael Barrett raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons based on the report, arguing that Anderson is in contempt of Parliament.

“I trust the House won’t start giving out free passes to those who think they can trifle at will with Parliament and parliamentary investigations,” he said.

Assistant Deputy Speaker Alexandra Mendès said she would take it under advisement.

A person can be found in contempt of Parliament if they deliberately mislead a committee, refuse to answer questions or fail to provide documents — actions that interfere with committees’ abilities to perform their functions.

The Edmonton Centre MP denies he was involved with the medical supply company after he was re-elected in 2021 and said he has followed ethics rules. He is scheduled to testify before the ethics committee for a second time on the matter this Thursday.

Boissonnault and Anderson co-founded Global Health Imports (GHI) in 2020 and ran the business together until Boissonnault won back his seat and was appointed to cabinet in the fall of 2021. Boissonnault said he then resigned from the company, in accordance with ethics laws.

The company, which sold personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, gowns and gloves, has faced serious legal trouble in recent years. Alberta courts have ordered it to pay nearly $8 million to several Canadian businesses and a U.S. company after it lost half a dozen lawsuits by default. More recently, GHI and Anderson have also been accused of civil fraud.

Boissonnault is not named in any of the lawsuits and Anderson denies the fraud allegations, which are unproven.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

However, the ethics committee’s focus has been on text messages Anderson sent to a client in 2022, first reported by Global News in June. While discussing a multi-million-dollar business deal on Sept. 8, Anderson said he consulted a business partner identified only as “Randy.”

Following Global News’ reporting, the committee passed a motion following ordering both Boissonnault and Anderson to submit “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.”

Boissonnault complied with the order, however, Anderson did not, the report states.

Despite Anderson confirming Boissonnault was the only person named “Randy” employed at GHI, he denied that the minister is the person referred to in the text messages.

Instead, he blamed autocorrect for typing “Randy” nine times in messages over two days.

In his appearance before the committee on July 17, Anderson refused to disclose the identity of the person he meant to refer to, whom Conservatives call the “other Randy,” but told MPs he would provide the name in writing.

Boissonnault denies he is the “Randy” in the texts and has accused Anderson of using his name without his consent.

After what some MPs called Anderson’s “unbelievable” testimony, the committee passed a motion ordering him to provide the name, as well the other outstanding phone and text message records, and written answers to questions he did not answer.

The report states that while Anderson did provide some documents to the committee, “much of the information requested by the motion was not included,” including the identity of the person in the texts.

“Your committee 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,” Brassard wrote in the report.

Because committees do not have the means to enforce orders, the matter is reported to the House of Commons, which has the power to initiate inquiries, call witnesses and demand documents.

The House also has the authority to discipline or admonish anyone found to be in contempt, though that power is rarely used.

Next steps

MPs may raise a matter of privilege if they feel their parliamentary privilege — that is, their right to fulfil their functions unimpeded — has been infringed upon.

In the case of Anderson, Barrett argued that his withholding of information and refusal to submit records and information ordered by the committee has interfered with the committee’s functions — namely, its ongoing inquiry into whether Boissonnault violated the Conflict of Interest Act.

“Parliament deserves to know just who the ‘other Randy’ is. All Canadians, especially those in Edmonton Centre, deserve that answer. And we must get that answer,” Barrett said.

Since Barrett’s question of privilege is under advisement, the Speaker must now decide whether Anderson appears to be in contempt and if the matter should take priority over all other House business.

If the Speaker rules in a publicly posted decision that Barrett’s question of privilege meets the requirements and should take precedence, the House will consider the matter immediately. Barrett will then move his motion to find Anderson in contempt.

“I intend to move a motion which would find Mr. Anderson in contempt and order his attendance at the Bar of the House to be admonished and to answer questions,” he said on Tuesday.

MPs would then debate the motion and, eventually, vote on it, ruling whether to find Anderson in contempt of Parliament and what punishment he should face.

Calling someone to the bar, especially a private citizen, is a rare move designed to publicly shame the person for “an offence against the dignity or authority of Parliament,” according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The bar is a physical barrier in the Commons chamber that separates MPs and non-members of the House.

There have only been two instances of non-MPs being called to the bar since 1913.

The most recent example took place in April, when ArriveCan contractor Kristian Firth received an admonishment from Speaker Greg Fergus after he was found in contempt for refusing to answer committee questions about his company’s work on the ArriveCan app.

Barrett also put forward the motion to find Firth in contempt.