Yes, it is on the subamendment.
Mr. Chair, I think that there are just a couple of things I wanted to say.
First of all, the Ethics Commissioner told us that he felt there was nothing further to investigate on issues other than, now, the new question of who Randy is in these text messages. I agree that the one question the committee needs to actually understand is who the Randy is in the text messages. I think everyone here, on all sides, is unaware of the answer to that. We all have our own presumptions, our own ideas, but what's happening is that people are now speculating idly and the real question is this: How do you find out?
To me, Mr. Barrett's original proposal calls for the company to release the names of all the different employees. Who is to say that this Randy is an employee of the company? Randy could be a consultant. Randy could be somebody else, so Mr. Barrett's proposal doesn't resolve the question of who Randy is by simply producing a list of employees. You could argue that it's overbroad to produce all the employees. To me, the answer is to ask the company who Randy is. Ask Mr. Anderson who Randy is. Ask Mr. Anderson these questions. To me, the list of employees was irrelevant. The question to ask the company is this: Who is Randy?
At least Ms. Khalid's subamendment requires Mr. Anderson to produce his text messages for that day, and we will see what number this comes from. Presumably, at least from the text messages Mr. Anderson put out on September 8, we will have all of these answers.
I prefer Ms. Khalid's subamendment to the original amendment because the original amendment doesn't actually necessarily tell us who Randy is. It provides a list of employees from his company, and nobody can say that Randy was an employee. He could have been a consultant, or she could have been a consultant. We don't even know if it's a guy.
In any case, I will vote for Ms. Khalid's subamendment.
Thank you.