We have Liberal members saying they don't want to bring members of the public before the committee, but they're going to vote for an amendment that does that. That seems really weird, but they say one thing and do another quite often. They say Canada has the strictest, most stringent conflict-of-interest rules, yet they break those rules all the time. It's a cabinet of serial lawbreakers. They routinely break the law and then say they broke the law and got caught, but they'll move on. They completely disregard the rules.
In this case, it seems like they're looking for the same thing to be accepted. The minister came before the committee and said he'd give us all his phone records. I'll accept that we got all the phone records from the minister if he only has one cellphone. He can write to the clerk and commit that he only has one cellphone and that's why he only gave records for one cellphone. He can say he doesn't possess one and hasn't used another one since he's been minister. Well, that may be, but again, I don't believe that this is it.
He gave us some call records and then said that, not only that, he couldn't have used it because he was in lockdown. They keep saying they're in lockdown. There was no lockdown. They were in a meeting, and their phones were in a box outside the meeting. When they took breaks and when they had their lunch, they took their phones out of the box. It's ridiculous. They're trying to say one thing when they know another thing to be true.
My question to all members, to my colleagues in the other opposition parties as well, would be what satisfaction we can get with respect to the question of the other Randy. Would they be amenable to a subamendment that had GHI provide a complete list of their staff names or, specifically, just the name of their head of logistics, whose first name is Randy? We don't need to hear from the other Randy. We just need confirmation of the other Randy's existence. Then we can hear from Minister Boissonnault's partner. Would that subamendment be well received by them? That, of course, achieves part of the stated goal of the the Liberals, who said they don't want to bring individuals before the committee, even though they're still going to support the amendment that calls for two, just not the other Randy.
So far we've only had one Randy come before committee, and it's most likely that he is in fact the other Randy. However, let's have a discussion about having Global Health Imports provide to the committee in writing the first and last name of this individual. That would answer a number of questions. Of course, it's not wholly satisfactory. This individual should come before the committee. That's why it's in the motion that was put forward. However, I think it gets us part of the way there. It's a big compromise, guys, so let's compromise on that.
I'm curious if that would find favour with the other opposition members, because although Liberal members may vote for the amendment, the indication is that they may vote against the main motion. Let's find something that satisfies our obligation as the opposition to have accountability.
To my colleagues in the other opposition parties, would you support a subamendment or, on passing the amendment, amending the motion to have GHI, Global Health Imports—Mr. Anderson and Mr. Boissonnault's company—provide the full name of the head of logistics, who is styled as the other Randy?