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.

Darren Fisher

$415,939.00