Evidence of meeting #125 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was anderson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
That is Boissonnault. Who were you trying to say? Who was the other partner named Randy?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
I have two more minutes. I'm going to Mr. Naqvi, I think.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Chair, I was just going to say that I think for the next part of the meeting, the committee was going in camera anyway. Why don't we just go in camera and hear the name?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
This will stop Mr. Naqvi's time and give him a moment there for his motion.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
If the committee does elect to go in camera, are you able to provide the committee with an update on whether or not the previous information requested from the witness has been provided to the committee with respect to his phone records? Has he provided those?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I can inform the committee that that information has not been provided up to this point. Mr. Barrett, there have in fact been multiple requests made by the clerk for Mr. Anderson to provide that information.
On a point of order....
Mr. Naqvi has the floor, Mr. Brock.
Are you done with your point of order? Okay. Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Naqvi.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I move:
That the committee proceed to sit in cameria; and that Mr. Anderson share the name of the individual referred to with the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. We have a motion from Mr. Naqvi. It's been duly moved to move in camera to have Mr. Anderson provide the name of the "Randy". Do I have consensus for that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We do not have consensus to move in camera, so I am going to call the vote.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Let me clarify that.
I'm going to ask Mr. Naqvi to state his motion one more time for me, please.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Yes. I simply moved that we move in camera and have Mr. Anderson share the name.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. That's not a dilatory motion. It's debatable, because you're making a specific request to have Mr. Anderson provide the name. If it were simply to move in camera, that would be a non-debatable motion.
So, we will have debate. I'm going to open it up to Mr. Barrett.
Go ahead.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Chair, the reason I asked.... I'm keenly interested in getting the name of this other Randy.
The testimony from the witness is not credible.
Mr. Anderson said he'll offer the information in camera. He had a June deadline to provide the text, instant messaging and phone call logs for the dates outlined by the committee. He missed the deadline. He then said he would only do so if the committee agreed to the protection of personal information, and the Chair provided that assurance. He knew he was coming today, and he didn't provide it. That's operating in bad faith.
We have answers that are just not credible, and I challenge anyone around the table to say they believe his responses with respect to who the other Randy is or that what was in those text messages was an autocorrect. That's absurd.
His answers aren't credible. He has not been a good-faith actor in providing the information requested by this committee or meeting his obligations when he said he would provide it.
We're left really having to weigh what the value is of closing a public meeting, because we have a motion we would like to move with respect to the testimony we've heard today, and that opportunity will be lost should we move in camera.
Now, if the decision of the committee is to simply move in camera to hear the response from Mr. Anderson.... Frankly, Chair, he could write the name on a piece of paper and hand it to the clerk. The clerk could then confirm that she's received the name and that it will be shared with members confidentially. That would negate the need for us to move in camera.
I'm not comfortable with us shutting down a public hearing when we have a witness who has refused to answer questions, which is in contempt of this committee. He's refused to answer—and he does not have the privilege to refuse to answer—so we can't support moving in camera.
I would just say quite simply that the witness could write the supposed individual's name and provide it to the clerk. The clerk could walk over there and pick it up. It requires no translation. It could be treated confidentially and circulated to members with an understanding that it is confidential.
There's no other information to solicit from the witness in camera that's been proposed by Mr. Naqvi. That would then allow us to move a motion that's germane to the proceedings today, because the way the witness has conducted himself is absolutely unacceptable.
Canadians deserve answers, and that's why the committee chose to meet today. It was to get answers.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I appreciate that, Mr. Barrett.
I have a speakers list on the motion by Mr. Naqvi to move in camera so that Mr. Anderson can provide the name. Next on the list, I have Mr. Brock.
Mr. Brock.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
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.