Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to come back to the reason for bringing Minister Boissonnault before the committee for a third time. I understand very well that the question before the committee is to establish whether Mr. Boissonnault was linked to the company after the date on which he became minister.
Mr. Boissonnault has appeared before the committee twice, and he has twice denied that he was connected with the company after that date. The real question is why Mr. Anderson repeatedly used Mr. Boissonnault's name in text messages and perhaps in conversations with people who were potential customers or suppliers of the company. For this purpose, we need Mr. Anderson.
The first time Mr. Anderson appeared before the committee, he was clearly a terrible witness. For this reason, and because of Mr. Anderson's failure to provide the information requested by the committee, the members of the committee unanimously asked the House to raise a question of privilege and bring Mr. Anderson before the House of Commons to answer our questions before the Speaker and all Canadians.
In my opinion, this must be the next step. It seems to me completely pointless to call witnesses who have had no direct communication with Mr. Boissonnault, and it's pointless to call Mr. Boissonnault a third time without new information.
Here's what we should do. The House of Commons should refer the present question of privilege to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is what was proposed by the Speaker, this is what is the subject of the motion before the House, and this is what is currently being filibustered by the Conservative Party. Once we've dealt with this motion of privilege, we'll turn to Mr. Anderson's question of privilege. We can all, unanimously and very quickly, pass this motion and bring Mr. Anderson before the House to get real answers.
If, after Mr. Anderson's testimony before the House of Commons, we have new information and intelligence that helps us understand why Mr. Anderson used Mr. Boissonnault's name in his text messages and conversations, it may be useful to call Mr. Boissonnault or other witnesses to testify again before the committee. However, it seems to me completely pointless to deal with this matter before we have called Mr. Anderson before the House of Commons.
For these reasons, I will vote against the motion.