I would have understood the honourable member, who's very learned, had they had said it was relevance, and I would have responded to a point of order on relevance.
In this amendment, we're looking to remove people. I believe that there could be the potential to expand the list of people, because I am curious about this.
If I had Mr. Boissonnault here, I would ask him directly if Francheska Leblond—or Francheska Quach, or whatever alias she's used—in any way, shape or form, had any connection whatsoever with GHI. I would want to know that. In fact, I would be interested—because maybe I couldn't take Mr. Boissonnault's word for it—in what she would have to say for this, so if we're in this process now of removing people or adding people, just know that there could be the possibility of subamendments.
Again, Mr. Chair, looking at all this stuff, the fact that this was part of the story back in July but didn't actually get dealt with in this committee just shows how twisted this whole affair is. I won't move a subamendment to the amendment, but I will say I have questions about Francheska Leblond's business relationship with Mr. Anderson and whether or not there was any connection directly or indirectly with Mr. Boissonnault.
This is because when we're talking about integrity and ethics, I think business dealings with people who are under investigation, although not charged, for smuggling massive amounts of cocaine.... I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I am from Hamilton Centre. I would say if your other business is in imports and exports and your business partner is attached to somebody connected to smuggling, there are lots of questions still to be asked.
Those are my remarks. Thank you.