Thanks, Chair.
I'm comfortable with Mr. Boudria, only because I think it makes eminent good sense. We've heard ministers bracketed on both sides. And this was the key time, so it would be to be consistent. I'm not convinced that we need to bring Mr. Goodale back. I realize that it's not a big deal to us, but it has an impact. We shouldn't do these things willy-nilly.
I understand the point Mr. Poilievre makes about wanting to find out what's behind that information, but all that's about is whether it was a $4.6 million loss or a $2.1 million loss, and I'm not all that interested, at this point, in which number is correct. They're both unacceptable.
If we're going to call anybody back, I would look at Drouin. For the longest time I thought there was something here, money-wise, that was not right. Something smelled. But now I'm beginning to wonder. If that's not the case, then the only other alternative is that this newly minted minister didn't like the digs he'd be going into in the new place and wanted to stay in the current place, because he talks about prestige and all that. And everybody else fell in line to take care of their friend. The government had been in power so long that they kind of got used to the idea that they ran everything.
So I would bring him back.
I'm going to vote against the motion, but I would say that if it loses—it may not—and there's another motion with Mr. Boudria in it, I would support that.