Thank you, Chair.
I don't want to belabour the point. I concur wholly with the commentary by my colleague, Mr. Barrett. The danger I see—and this is my opinion only—with disclosing the identity of this mysterious Randy in camera is that it denies Canadians, who have been dealing with this ethical issue, this potential breach and this potential act of criminality from Minister Randy Boissonnault for the better part of two months the ability....
Given that this particular witness had every opportunity to give us that information, not only today, but a month and a half prior to today, pursuant to a ruling of this particular committee, it concerns me. In my view, it concerns Canadians, who are watching this and who want to know, finally, who the Randy is who was referenced in these very damning text messages.
Their interest is even more piqued, I would suggest, because we have Mr. Anderson now as a self-admitted liar. It really goes full circle on my request, which I made incorrectly, and I apologize to the committee. I should have brought the motion simply as a motion, not as a point of order, because there is absolute merit. It is not a signal at all of the veracity or ethical position taken by witnesses, but it is a standard practice that has been adopted in numerous committees when we have very important ethical issues to be debated and discussed. This is a commonplace issue that is happening across numerous committees. I dare say there's probably some reference in our green book to the ability to ask for this.
I find it ironic that my Liberal colleague Mr. Naqvi, a former attorney general of Ontario, would take the position that we should just presume that witnesses who testify at committee are telling the truth, without that ambit of scrutiny, the honest oath made on a bible or some other religious instrument, or an affirmation to tell the truth. It binds the conscience of individuals to give us the straight facts, without holding anything back and without embellishing. In this particular case, he admits that he lies.
In the former environment that Mr. Naqvi and I participated in, it happens every day in thousands of hearings in Ontario. It does not presume a lack of credibility with any witness. It's just a requirement that binds the conscience.
I think Canadians, given all of these circumstances, and now that we're hearing this witness is adamant that there is so much secrecy surrounding this particular surname of another Randy—if it is even Randy, because we don't even know if the first name of this individual is Randy.... I heard the evidence that it's perhaps a female, so was it autocorrected to "Randy" spelled with a “y” instead of with an “i”? Who knows? Maybe it's a completely different surname altogether.
These are questions that not only parliamentarians are grappling with, but the nation is grappling with. The nation deserves to know the identity of this other person today, full stop.