Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with what Ms. Shanahan and Ms. Khalid have said, for a number of reasons.
From what I understand, the committee reported to the House of Commons on the issue involving Mr. Anderson. The real question is the following: Did Mr. Anderson lie to the committee? He clearly refused to say who the “Randy” in his text messages was. I think we should be putting our questions to Mr. Anderson, who should be sent before the House to provide answers. In my opinion, it would be good to consider that after having heard from Mr. Anderson.
What is alleged is that the company acted in a non‑ethical manner once Mr. Boissonnault left and was appointed minister. That may be true but, for the committee, the only issue of interest is whether Mr. Boissonnault was involved and whether he was there at the time.
I've seen the names. We're told that one of the people involved is an ethics professor who was quoted in a Global News article. However, he could not say whether Mr. Boissonnault was part of the company. I read all the Global News articles, and these names come up either in those articles or in the ones from Rebel News, if I've understood correctly. Nobody has relevant information that would tell us whether Mr. Boissonnault was involved. That is information that only Mr. Anderson and Mr. Boissonnault can give us. The latter has already testified before the committee and will be here on Thursday. Witnesses cannot give us this information. The only thing they can tell us is whether the company acted properly in terms of the contracts between these companies and Global Health Imports, or GHI. If someone worked in the GHI building, they would be able to tell us whether they had hired a certain person and how many people worked there. However, I don't think that any of the people here can tell us about the only thing that concerns the committee, and that is whether Mr. Boissonnault breached the ministers' code of ethics.
I don't think it's relevant to know whether the company acted appropriately with the other contractors. This is not an issue for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Rather, it would be an issue for the civil courts and the police, among other entities. We are here to deal with the issue of Mr. Boissonnault. None of the proposed witnesses can tell us who “Randy” is or whether Mr. Boissonnault was involved during the period during which he has said he was not involved.
For my part, I find it a bit strange to put forward a list of the names in this article in Global News. I also find it a bit strange that we were not given notice of this motion so that other members of the committee could look at who these witnesses are. I was only able to do a very quick search on the matter.
Finally, I think that what's important is to get answers from Mr. Anderson. I must say that I completely agree with the fact that Mr. Anderson was not a very good witness. He did not keep his word before the committee and we should demand that he answer our questions.