Information & Ethics Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The problem we have is exactly what I said earlier. We could end up going down a pathway where every time the chair identifies somebody he or the clerk believes has the floor, that can be challenged.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

No, Mr. Chair, I'm not challenging.... I think there are two different things. I understand the question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? If you don't agree, you vote no. That's, I think, where there's a confusion.

What I've challenged is not that you gave the floor to Mr. Barrett. It's that a privilege motion should supersede anything else. As a result, we had a privilege motion, and the floor should go to Mr. Bains. It's not challenging who you saw or didn't see first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think that's what we're voting on. We're voting on the fact that you're challenging the fact that my decision to identify Mr. Barrett is not going to occur and that you believe that the privilege motion should supersede. I think everybody's clear on that. I think we've said it three or four times. That's what you're challenging my decision on.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Can I get that in writing?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do you want that in writing?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to have to suspend in order to do that, Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Khalid, you have a point of order. I'm going to come back to that after we we have the request from Mr. Barrett to put that in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I see your hand. Before I go to you, Mr. Brock, I want to thank everyone for their patience.

Mr. Brock, you have a point of order. Go ahead, sir.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I thank you for the indulgence you've granted the committee. I know we are well beyond one hour into our start time.

There's another option to consider to resolve the logjam we find ourselves in and move the business of this committee forward. It was referenced a couple of times on the last occasion by, I believe, MP Kurek. That's the issue regarding an apology.

I think the time has come that I make an unreserved apology to MP Parm Bains. It was one thing for me to repeat the evidence of former MP Kenny Chiu in relation to the evidence he gave on his last appearance. It was quite another for me to take those words and that message and amplify it in such a way as to justify expanding our study on misinformation and disinformation.

I took a step back and reflected on the comments I made, Chair, on the occasion. I essentially spoke for close to 45 minutes. Certainly, an independent observer could come to the conclusion that I was amplifying a message in the same fashion that Kenny Chiu had accused MP Bains of doing.

That, in my view, was unparliamentary. I offer my unreserved apology to you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Brock. I appreciate it.

I'm going to Mr. Bains right now.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I sincerely say this: I think it's extremely important that we continue to do the important work that this committee does.

I want to acknowledge and recognize Mr. Brock's apology. I accept the apology. I think the issues around misinformation and disinformation are far too important to continue to spread more misinformation and disinformation. I appreciate the apology Mr. Brock has given, and I accept it.

I withdraw my motion to take this matter to the House on a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate the interventions by both members. I believe the work of the committee is critically important as we near the end of the session.

I appreciate your words, Mr. Brock.

I also appreciate your words and your offer to withdraw the motion.

I need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.

(Motion withdrawn)

Thank you.

That takes me back to where we were at the beginning of the meeting. I had acknowledged Mr. Barrett to start. I'm going to Mr. Barrett.

I have Ms. Khalid and Mr. Fisher, and I see Mr. Cooper's hand up, so that's where we'll start. We are still in public on committee business. We are checking on additional resources and whether they are needed. I will advise you when the clerk is aware of that.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Chair, I want to move the following motion that, following media reports and Minister Randy Boissonnault's testimony on Tuesday, June 4, the committee call the following witnesses to appear: Stephen Anderson, co-founder of Global Health Imports; Kirsten Poon, Navis Group; Malvina Ghaoui, The Ghaoui Group LLC; and the other “Randy” referred to in Minister Randy Boissonnault's testimony who was formerly or is currently employed at Global Health Imports.

Chair, I've sent this motion in both official languages to the clerk for distribution. I'd like to make some brief comments on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

We did have a motion that was presented at the last meeting. This has some changes in it from what I can tell, so I'm going to rule the motion in order.

I'm going to ask the clerk to distribute the motion to the members of the committee. The motion is in order, it's on the floor and I'm going to ask Mr. Barrett to start.

Go ahead sir.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, we've heard in Global News reports about Minister Randy Boissonnault. These reports have raised concerns with respect to Minister Boissonnault's involvement with Navis Group, which has lobbied the government—the government for which he is a minister. He received payments from that company during his time.

This, of course, raises questions under the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act.

With respect to Global Health Imports, this is a company that Minister Randy Boissonnault co-founded. He owns 50% of the company through an Alberta numbered company that he wholly owns. In his evidence at the last committee meeting, he offered that he believed that Stephen Anderson, his partner, is the only other shareholder in that company and that they are, in fact, partners.

Global News this past week released text messages that refer to a “Randy” in the decision to solicit a $500,000 wire transfer. This is now the subject of court proceedings. There are questions about fraud and wire fraud. The minister asserted to the committee that at this small company that he co-founded, in spite of the fact that in these text messages there's talk of a “partner call” and “Randy”, it's another Randy and he is not that Randy at the company.

It's important, then. We had the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner here, who testified that, in spite of having sent a letter previously saying that an investigation wouldn't be pursued, new concerns and new questions had been raised and he would examine the matter and then undertake a self-initiated investigation, should that need to occur.

The lobbying commissioner is reviewing the matter. Of course, due to the potential for Criminal Code violations and Lobbying Act violations, the RCMP will have to review the issue to see if criminal charges need to be pursued.

This motion is germane to the work the committee undertook at the last meeting. I think we were all surprised by the reports in Global News.

I think that having these witnesses come forward to get clarity and provide Canadians with assurances that all of the rules have been followed, specifically the ones whose commissioners fall under the purview of this committee—the lobbying commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner—with respect to the Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest Act and the conflict of interest code for members.

If rules haven't been followed, then the committee and Canadians would be aware of that and look forward to the expeditious passing of this motion so that we can get transparency for Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

On the motion, I have Ms. Khalid, Mr. Fisher and then Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is not what I was expecting to speak on today, but I definitely will.

We just experienced in this committee an apology for defaming someone in this committee. I really appreciated the recognition of that defamation. I've been on this committee for a couple of years now, and I have watched private citizens get hauled in here and get really rammed through the wringer on issues that are pure speculation, that are based on conjecture and that are just based on making an accusation and then expecting that everyone will follow through. It seems like being presumed guilty until proven innocent.

What that does, Mr. Chair, is put people at risk. It questions their integrity and it really does not help how we function as parliamentarians and as ministers in this place. I think this specific motion is exactly the same. Are we going to drag private citizens who have nothing to do with the Conflict of Interest Act and the lobbying code into this committee and shame them publicly? If so, for what?

It is the minister who has a link to the Conflict of Interest Act. The minister came in here and spoke quite unequivocally about what he has and has not done and what he is and is not responsible for, and I don't think that we, as a committee, are in a position to go down that path. It is not helpful to who we are, it is not helpful to our democracy and it is absolutely not helpful to how we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians.

I would like to think that we have integrity, but the way that this is being framed and the way my colleagues are constantly and consistently being put through the wringer “just because” is not fair, and I do not want to watch private citizens go through that same thing. I'm not sure why the Conservatives are so determined, Chair, to continue the character assassination and once again drag regular Canadians before the committee to attack them and impugn them in order to get more social media clips. It's not helpful to what we're trying to achieve here.

I want to review what we actually heard on Tuesday and some of the reality of the issue. I want to talk about the June 4 Global News story.

First, let's be honest about what we're talking about here with this latest Global News story. The reality is that the basis of the story is pure speculation. There is absolutely no evidence that Minister Boissonnault is the person who was mentioned in these texts, and if the minister is unequivocally saying that he is not the person mentioned in these texts, then we should believe him. If any one of us were in that same situation tomorrow—God forbid—would we rely on our colleagues for integrity to ensure that we are taking care of our democratic process and making sure we are letting the rules we have collectively agreed to rule how we govern ourselves as parliamentarians and as Canadians?

The minister was very clear. He said that he is not the person in those texts and in that conversation, and I think that we should believe that. Mr. Anderson, who sent the texts, is quoted in the June 4 Global News story as saying that the minister is not the person referenced in those texts.

The Ghaoui Group is quoted in the same article as saying that it never had any contact with the minister. Of course it didn't, because the minister had ceased to have any role in the operations of this company a year before any of this happened.

Chair, there is really a circular nature with the Conservatives' argument. They incorrectly claimed that the minister was still involved in the company. He explained that he was not, but they expect him to prove that he was not by asking him to provide information about the company he is no longer involved with.

That reverse onus, Chair, is not something that we as parliamentarians should be dealing with. We are elected by our constituents to be honourable in this place and to work with integrity and honour, and I believe the majority of us do. I'm not just talking about the Liberal benches; I know that the majority of my Conservative colleagues feel the same way. They're here to serve their constituents, and I would remind them of that. Serve your constituents, folks.

This issue, very much like the apology we heard today to Mr. Bains, is the same. Let's not defame each other for clicks, for clickbait, for fundraising opportunities or whatever it is that you want to achieve by doing this. Let's not drag in private citizens to this committee to put them in a situation in which they're being harassed, a situation that is harmful to them. I think this motion should not pass.

If we focus on the date that this conversation is supposed to have happened, Mr. Chair, between “a” Randy, as has been previously noted, on September 8, 2022, Minister Boissonnault was in Vancouver. He was attending a cabinet retreat. We know this was a day that was especially hectic, because it was the day that Queen Elizabeth passed away.

The Conservatives are expecting us to believe that sometime during that day-long cabinet retreat meeting, when ministers didn't have access to their phones—even in our own caucus meetings, Chair, we don't have access to our phones—and as cabinet was being updated on the death of our head of state, Minister Boissonnault was stepping in and out to take phone calls about a business he had resigned from a year earlier. I find that really difficult to believe.

Dragging people through the mud is not acceptable. We have to do better. We have to do better, as committee members, on the issues that we bring forward.

Chair, I watched my own motion on artificial intelligence and social media and their role in the privacy of Canadians being completely killed by this committee. After we had spent months and months on it, and after I had personally experienced two kids committing suicide in my riding because of cyber-bullying—whose funerals I went to—for that motion and study to be quashed after the amount of time we spent on witnesses coming in and the amount of time our analysts spent on putting together a report....

I think we have better things to do in this committee. I think we need to focus in on what issues we need to discuss in this committee. We need to ensure that we are talking about and studying and working on the issues that Canadians want us to work on and that are having a real impact on Canadians, rather than conjecture and rather than vilifying each other for clickbait, for social media. I'm sure there's some competition going on somewhere as to who can get more “likes” based on what their tweets are.

Does that do us any favours? I don't think so, but that's exactly what this motion is about. It is not about making sure that our Lobbying Act is really performing for Canadians. It is not about making sure that our Conflict of Interest Act makes sure that we are accountable to Canadians on the work that we do and how we conduct ourselves. It is really about dragging people through the mud, whether they are parliamentarians or ministers or whether they are private citizens.

That is not acceptable, Chair. We have to do better. We have to make sure that the work this committee is doing is the work that Canadians need us to do at this point. This motion is very frivolous. It has no objective other than clickbait. It has no objective other than to create a frenzy. It has no objective other than to defame Canadians, private Canadians as well as parliamentarians. I think we can do better than that.

Mr. Chair, it's been a difficult couple of weeks, I'm sure, for a lot of us. How we conduct ourselves in this chamber is very important. How we raise the issues that are important to Canadians is very important. The fact that we cannot come together and figure out what Canadians need most at this time is disappointing. I think what Canadians need most at this time—my own youth council has said so, my own women's council has said so, and my constituents write to me on a regular basis—is to know whether we can have trust in our democratic institutions. Can we have trust in the people we elect?

The fact of the matter is that when we defame one another in this place, just as Mr. Brock apologized to Mr. Bains earlier today for defaming him, can we put those partisan politics aside, come together and look at the issues that Canadians want us to work on? Do we need to study the Lobbying Act and find loopholes and fix them? Absolutely. Do we need to make sure that parliamentarians are held to account for their actions, by each other and by Canadians.? Absolutely, we do, but should we be defaming parliamentarians? Should we be dragging private citizens into this committee and making speculative accusations against people? Absolutely not.

Where we have the privilege of representing our communities, we also have the responsibility of being parliamentarians with integrity. I don't think it's right for us to be accusing people of being guilty and then dragging them into our committee to prove that they're innocent. That's not the right approach. That's not the Canadian way of doing things. We have to be better.

There are so many more important things that we can do collectively on a consensus basis. I've worked with all my colleagues at this table on consensus on issues that matter to each and every one of us.

Let's not go down this route of clickbait. Let's not go down this route of defamation. Let's find the right way of solving the issues that each and every one of us may have, and that our constituents tell us we may have.

How do we improve our democracy? It's not by defamation and it's not by public flogging; it's by having reasonable conversations with each other. It's by talking about issues, not people. I think we have the ability and the opportunity to do that. I encourage all of my colleagues at this table to do that.

Folks, we are privileged to be sitting at this table. We have an obligation to Canadians to set a standard, to work with Canadians to ensure that we're doing right by them, and to set an example of how we should be functioning as a country. All 338 of us have an obligation to do that.

By presenting motions like this in this committee, and motions in the past, to drag people in and tell them to explain themselves and prove that they're innocent.... Why are we doing that? It's not fair to industry, it's not fair to private citizens and it's not fair to each and every one of us.

I think we really need to rise above and ensure that we are working in a non-partisan way or a multipartisan way—whatever way you want to frame it—to ensure that the issues our constituents raise for us are the ones we are working on in this committee.

I would have loved to continue our study on artificial intelligence, TikTok and social media, and how they impact young people especially, but that's not what we're doing. We really need to ensure that we're getting there, that we're working on those issues and that we're protecting Canadians, because ultimately, that's what they elected us to do, folks.

I'm not sure why I am sitting here, trying to help everyone here understand that we are elected to do the job of representing Canadians and that motions like these, in which we defame folks and drag them through the mud, don't help anyone. In fact, what they do is take away from the trust that Canadians have in our democratic institutions. Clickbait is not democracy. It's not the way to ensure that democracy happens for us.

Everybody at this table understands procedure in our House, in our committee and in committees across Parliament. We need to do better. We need to ensure that we are serving Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I'll come back specifically to the points raised by the Conservatives about the minister's integrity. I know the Conservatives are really clinging to this latest speculation about the minister being cleared by the Ethics Commissioner, because they know full well that the Ethics Commissioner looked into their previous allegations against the minister and didn't find anything to cause an investigation.

Mr. Barrett actually wrote to the Ethics Commissioner, who is a neutral party and is there to say whether or not there have been any violations of the Conflict of Interest Act. The Ethics Commissioner reviewed that letter and found no reason to look into this any further, so why are we using valuable committee time to continue this witch hunt? It makes no sense to me, other than just for clickbait.

The commissioner could not have been clearer in his testimony. He said explicitly that the minister—and I quote—“complied with the rules under the act and the code”. He reiterated in French: It appears that the minister has complied with the requirements of the code and the act with respect to matters relating to these companies, and therefore there is no need to proceed with a study.

I know how much the Conservatives give regard to our Ethics Commissioner. I think he's a great guy. He has come and appeared before our committee many times, and we always had the highest regard for him, but God forbid that his opinion deflects from the Conservative clickbait.

I think that if we are going to give regard to somebody whom I hold in high regard, and their opinion, then we need to be quite consistent with how we apply those rules. If the commissioner is saying that there's nothing here, that this is a big bad nothingburger, then why are we spending time in committee going over this? Why are we trying to defame? Why are we trying to use committee to provide clickbait and to question the integrity not just of parliamentarians or ministers, but of private citizens who are just trying to do their work? I think we're better than that, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to leave my comments there.

I'm hopeful that we can come together on a consensus basis and find better things to do with our time here in this committee. We have Canadians to look after. We are elected to represent, we are elected to highlight and we are elected to reform what challenges Canadians have, and I don't think that this is one of those issues. I think the Conservatives need to stop using precious committee time to further their partisan objectives, to raise funds off clicks and to fundraise off the defamation of parliamentarians, of ministers and of private companies in Canada, and not just in this instance. I've seen it over the past number of years.

I think we can do better. I think we need to get back on track in this committee and actually start talking about the real issues of ethics, of privacy, of access to information, and I think the only way we can do that is if we are all willing to put our partisan politics aside and come together for Canadians and are willing to ensure that we put our heads together on a consensus basis and actually talk about the real issues Canadians deal with on a regular basis, and this is not one of them. This is far, far from it, Chair.

I'm hopeful that by the end of the meeting today we can come to a consensus and say, “Hey, folks, you know what? We're not going to defame anyone. We are not going to haul people before this committee just to throw them through the wringer. We are going to ensure we work on the real issues Canadians care about, whether it's about access to information and ATIPs or whether it's about privacy and the role social media and artificial intelligence have to play in how we conduct ourselves as a society.” Those are real issues that Canadians care about.

I will leave it right there, Chair, and I'm hopeful that my colleagues will find consensus.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

We have roughly an hour until 1:45.

Mr. Fisher, you're next on the list.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, one thing I asked when I was brand new to this committee, which was only three or four weeks ago, was, "Do we have a work plan? Are we working forward on a work plan?" You, with your sense of humour, said, "Welcome to the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel committee", which I did find quite funny.

I've sat on committees for eight and a half years and I've sat on committees with many ministers, and I've seen opposition members ask tough questions of the ministers, as they are wont to do. What I saw Tuesday I didn't like. I didn't find it to be very fair. I've seen in the House, during things like committee of the whole, that questions and answers are equal. I don't recall that at committee. There was a lot of talking over and a lot of interrupting—by everyone, in fairness. It wasn't a great committee meeting to be a part of.

There are 338 of us in the House of Commons, and we're all colleagues. I do remember that in 2015, 2016 and 2017, on a regular basis, I'd cross the floor in the House and sit down with a chum from another party or a friend from the NDP or something. I don't see that happening as much now. I'm not sure if that has to do with the fact that there's less committee travel these days than there used to be.

Again, going back to Tuesday, I found that there was a level of rancour that I don't think people back home want to see us engage in. I certainly know that people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour do not want to see that level of partisanship.

I think that if you ask the average Canadian, they'll say you're innocent until you're proven guilty. The sense that I get is that some of the motions that have come forward recently—not just in this committee, but in a lot of committees—are based on speculation or a media report that vilifies or almost presents that person as guilty, and it's in the debate of the motions as well. I've seen names bandied about of general members of the public and heard that they've received vitriol through their emails, their phone numbers or through social media. That's not fair.

We sign up for this. In 2014 and 2015, I knocked on 26,000 doors in that 78-day election campaign. I don't think Canadians want to see this.

I used to be on the environment committee and the national defence committee. I used to hear from people on a regular basis saying, "We like the work that you folks are doing." We would get consensus on things. We did some really good reports.

When I came on this committee just recently, we were talking about disinformation, misinformation and malinformation. The chair mentioned numerous times to the witnesses that this was incredibly interesting. I could see in the chair's eyes that he was riveted on what was coming up at committee. I made a comment the other day about how this type of motion—these off-the-cuff, shooting-fish-in-a-barrel motions that come to committee, which members have every right to move—interfere with the work plan.

We really do need to continue studying things of the kind that MP Khalid spoke to. Probably less than five or six hours after I joined this committee, Mr. Chair, you sent out a work plan, which was quite interesting, with some really good things and meaty topics that we could really dig into, but make no bones about it: This motion and motions like it do interrupt a really good work plan. They just do.

One of the things I heard on Tuesday very clearly from the Ethics Commissioner was that he was not looking to investigate this issue. What was presented to him was not worthy of an investigation. He said very clearly that he could not find any cause for an investigation. Then yesterday in the House of Commons, Conservatives said—wrongly, I will say—that the commissioner has opened up an investigation on what we heard Monday in a Global News story.

That's not true. He did not say he was opening an investigation. He just didn't say it.

There was also something else. I don't know where I heard it. Maybe I read it on social media. It was that he was reopening the investigation. That's also not true. There was no investigation. The minister followed through on all the things the minister was required to do, as MPs, as PSs and as ministers always do. What the commissioner did say—exactly what he would say when he heard comments made by Mr. Barrett—was that he would look at it and decide if an investigation were warranted.

Now, committees of the past would say that we have an officer of Parliament here who we have tasked with doing those things on occasion. What would a normal committee do back in the day, before they got so partisan and vitriolic? The committee would say that the Ethics Commissioner said he's going to look into these new allegations. Normally, that's what you would do. You'd say, well, that's what the Ethics Commissioner is going to do. He's going to look into those new allegations. Then you would wait for him to come back with the results of that investigation.

If you surveyed 100 people, regular Canadians, and asked them if that seemed logical after there were some new allegations made in a news story in the media, would 95 of them say that it makes sense that we would wait until the person tasked with ensuring that a minister of the Government of Canada has done what he must do to fulfill his requirements in that role? It makes perfect sense.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but the commissioner said he could be back by August, I think he said, which makes sense. I mean, we rise in a week or two. That's the person who's tasked with checking into those types of things. To say in the House of Commons yesterday that the commissioner has opened up an investigation, or to have someone somewhere suggest that there's a reinvestigation or a reopening of an investigation, that's absolutely false. That is not the case.

Again, as he is supposed to do, he has said that he absolutely will look into these new allegations, but he never said he will investigate. He never said he will reinvestigate. He never said he will open an investigation. The minister was very clear, I felt. He point-blank answered the questions that he is not this other person.

MP Khalid talked a lot about regular Canadians. I touched on it for a minute, but imagine inviting Kirsten Poon. What would that do to her future? She would be dragged through the mud in this meeting by the Conservatives with partisan attacks. She would receive social media hate and vitriol, as I have recently and as other members on this side of the House have. It would probably ruin any potential future for that person.

Is that what we want to do? Do we want to drag people up to the bar of the House of Commons, interrogate them, ruin their lives and attack their mental health because they're business people? I'd like to think that we're not going in that direction.

Something that the commissioner said the day before yesterday, which I thought was really prudent and good to hear, was “I deal with facts,” not speculation. I suggest we allow him to dig into the facts to see if this is something that he sees as worth looking at. I don't think it's up to us to litigate that. I don't think it's up to us to invite regular Canadian business people here and grill them before a committee of Parliament. I say, let's let the commissioner look into this.

There was some talk also on the weekend about Minister Boissonnault's phone records. I felt that it was a little bit like those legal shows that used to be on NBC all the time. It felt like we were getting into some pretty interesting territory.

I'll go to the clerk for maybe a head nod about Minister Boissonnault writing to the clerk this morning and sharing the phone records of September 8, 2022.

That's through the chair to you, Madam Clerk.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, René Villemure]

Yes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you so much.

Were they distributed to the committee members?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, René Villemure]

Yes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That is excellent sharing.

Every member has those records. We can see very clearly that there are no calls on that phone from 11:12 a.m. to 5:37 p.m. Pacific time, which covers, the entire time frame Global News talks about in its coverage and the time frame Mr. Cooper—one of the two Michaels—brought up and talked about at length at our last meeting. Within that time frame, everyone involved was supposed to be on a partner call at 12:30 Pacific time. Clearly, from this phone record, Minister Boissonnault—that Randy—was not on that call.

I want to take a quick moment to thank Mr. Brock, as MP Khalid did, for his apology. Oftentimes, we do the bidding of our parties and take a hard stance, but we have to remember, as MP Khalid said, that we are here to represent our constituents and do that in the best possible way. I thank Mr. Brock for those comments. I found that to be a sign of a possible positive directional move for this committee. I'm not sure how long that will last. I see some smiles and some minor head nods among some of my colleagues across the way.

However, I heard the minister very clearly answer the questions. No, he was not that person and no, he wasn't on those calls or text messages. Again, going back to the things we said earlier, are we guilty before we're proven innocent? Are we going to use speculation and news stories to drive the way this committee does its work? Are we going to bring in regular Canadians and business people from across the country, grill them and have them face scrutiny they don't deserve? I hope not. I look at my colleagues and say that there are ways we can ask the tough questions. There are ways we can get the answers people need.

We have our commissioners, and we can rely on them. It is their job. They are tasked with doing those jobs. The commissioner here on Tuesday is a neutral and independent officer. He will make the call on whether the act was violated based on the information he has. Regarding the speculation, he said he'll look into it. I don't know why we wouldn't just pause while he does that work. I don't see head nods to support waiting for his thoughts on this.

I would also hope we are not in this business for anything other than to represent our constituents and we're not trying to score political points. I will say that it's been very clear on committees, for the last year or so, that the clip rules. I've seen MPs get their clips, close up their iPads and their work is done. They got their clip and downloaded it to social media. They may or may not say things like, “Reach out to the Liberal members of this committee and tell them you're angry with them.” I see that happening.

I follow MP Khalid on social media. I love her social media. I will tell you that I've seen some horrifying comments made her way. If you listened to her words today when she spoke here at committee, she talked about caring and respect. On one of our many suspensions, I watched her go over and give another member a hug. That's what we should be aspiring to. We should be aspiring to respect each other and work together to find the answers and not be throwing speculation to the wind and hope to get a wonderful piece of social media gold that will rile up supporters—who are probably already supporters of the members who do this.

It's like going to a debate. Sometimes you're not really converting any new voters. Your followers on social media tend to be people who support you already.

I met Minister Boissonnault in 2014 at the Edmonton Pride parade when I was a municipal councillor. I will tell you that I was impressed with him that day. He did everything he could to keep up to the then-leader of the Liberal Party. One of them remained dry. One of them did not. I'll let you guess which one was out of breath and which one wasn't out of breath.

What I saw was a person who cared about people. I saw a person who cared about his community and wanted desperately to represent the people in that community.

He said to me before that he represents everyone in the community, not just the people who vote for him. I'd like to think that we're all that way, so I would hope that we would get to a point where we don't make these allegations.

We can put the tough questions out. I've been in committees for eight and a half years, and I've seen some pretty heated conversations between opposition members and cabinet ministers, but I haven't seen what I saw on Tuesday. I haven't seen what I've started to see creeping into other committees now, which is a level of disrespect for another colleague. It's not just for a cabinet minister or not just for someone who's in a position of power, but for a colleague—someone who, eight years ago, would have walked across the aisle and sat down with you and said, “How's your family?” That happens a lot less and that's heartbreaking.

Again, I go back to my point. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that committees don't travel anymore. Maybe we need to find a way to get this committee to travel somewhere. My best friends on the opposition side are the people I have travelled with on committee travel. They are the people that I still see and still high-five when walking down the street. I still ask them about how their son or their daughter is doing, what their family's doing or how they are making out, how their mental health is here on the Hill when they're here from January to June and September to December, away from their families.

I used to lean on people from all the parties more than I do now. I still have a few people from other parties that I'm able to lean on. What I see in committees these days is taking us in the opposite direction.

Again, I go back to my points. I don't believe that this is what Canadians want from us. I believe Canadians want to see us ask the tough questions, hold people to account and ensure that we get the answers, but to do it in a respectful way. I don't think Canadians believe in the philosophy of guilty until proven innocent. It should be innocent until proven guilty.

There's nothing that I heard from the minister on Tuesday that made me think that he was anything other than a good-standing person who cares about people, cares about his country and cares about his constituents. To have him raked through the coals when, again.... Let's get the commissioner to take a look, if he wants to take a look. That's his job—to ask those questions and find out if there's something.

To say in the House of Commons—and I only reiterate this point because my jaw fell to the ground in question period when I heard this—that the commissioner was opening an investigation or reinvestigating.... Again, these things aren't true. He has said that he believes in facts, not speculation, and that any new information that comes to him will be looked at. That's his job. That's the job description that he's responsible for.

We all appreciate him and know that he's someone of extremely high character, so I do not see why this committee would not support allowing the commissioner to do his job.

Mr. Chair, I think I'll leave it there for a bit and then possibly come back if I hear any other things that I may want to comment on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher. We have until two o'clock now, so we're going to continue until two.

First, we'll have Mr. Cooper.

We'll then turn to Mr. Villemure.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.