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.