Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I take the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Villemure, to heart.
That said, I want to point out two things. First, before his appearance, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner said that he had no reason to find fault with Mr. Boissonnault because Mr. Boissonnault had followed the rules and the law. Second, a number of the witnesses invited to appear, including Ms. Poon, have nothing to do with the issue raised at the committee's most recent meeting concerning the new text messages connected to Mr. Boissonnault.
A party involved in a dispute with a company that Mr. Boissonnault left in 2021 shouldn't come to this committee.
The plan is to summon people who say that they have never met Mr. Boissonnault or dealt with him directly, simply because these people are involved in a dispute with a company that Mr. Boissonnault left in 2021.
I think that the issue raised in this motion crosses the line. Stephen Anderson's name appears on the list of witnesses. He stated that he didn't receive any calls or messages from Mr. Boissonnault. It may be reasonable to ask him who sent these messages. However, apart from that, I think that the purpose of this motion is to bring before the committee people who, as the commissioner already pointed out, have nothing to do with Mr. Boissonnault.
The commissioner said that he would look into the matter. In my opinion, the most appropriate course of action is for the committee to ask the commissioner to appear again after he has reviewed the matter using all the tools at his disposal. We could then ask him questions. If the commissioner tells us that he isn't satisfied with his review, we can summon people to appear. However, if he decides to conduct an investigation based on the information reviewed, we can then proceed with the other committee business.
Right now, I think that some colleagues are accusing Mr. Boissonnault without any proof. They're convinced that he was involved in certain things while working for a company that he left in 2021. However, the commissioner is telling us that he believes otherwise, given all the messages between the commissioner's office and Mr. Boissonnault.
I find the idea of not trusting a member of Parliament or a minister despicable. I think that we should assume that the witnesses who appear before us are acting in good faith and telling the truth.
After his appearance before the committee, Mr. Boissonnault provided the TELUS invoice with the record of calls and messages sent and received on September 8, 2022. The invoice shows that he was in Vancouver that day. We all know that Mr. Boissonnault was in Vancouver for a cabinet retreat. The invoice shows that calls were made at 8:08 a.m., 11:05 a.m., 11:07 a.m., 11:12 a.m., 5:37 p.m., 5:39 p.m., 5:56 p.m., 7:52 p.m., 7:55 p.m. and 8:03 p.m. This is the complete record of calls sent and received by Mr. Boissonnault. No calls sent or received by Mr. Boissonnault indicate that he was involved in these events while working for the company in question.
You'll all recall that, at the most recent meeting, Mr. Cooper was absolutely overcome—