Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll take the bait. I think it's goofy when Conservatives, outside of the House of Commons or outside of their question period theatrics, refer to the “NDP-Liberal” government when they know full well that at this committee, I do my work in holding the government accountable. I, too, want to find out who this Randy person is.
My friends from the Bloc want to play a conciliatory role to try to move things along, and I understand why they might put water in the wine on this, but I am still left unsatisfied given that the minister's testimony is wholly inadequate. I would consider it to be obstructionist. I would consider it to be, at times, arrogant. It was just a basic refusal.
The quickest thing that could have happened for Mr. Boissonnault.... Whether he wants to pretend like he knows or doesn't know this person or whether he has one phone or two doesn't matter to me. The company in question has likely watched the testimony, certainly given the interest the Canadian public has in it, and it could have cleared things up in an instant by disclosing this person in their entirety, coming clean with Canadians about the nature of this other Randy's contract with the company and their employment there. However, they haven't. I would suggest to you that the longer it takes to do that, the more suspect it seems.
For that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment. I would move a subamendment to include a formal invitation to the other Randy via the company in question. That is my subamendment. We will find out one way or another if this person exists. If they do, will the real Randy please stand up? That's my subamendment.