Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Since the member doesn't seem to understand the motion, could you remind him of it?

The motion states that we'll report to the House that we're undertaking this study. That's what it says.

Yet my colleague speaks as if we must now determine what should be in the report. However, we'll be reporting that we're undertaking the study.

For members of Parliament, who are supposed to be legislators, this means that the executive doesn't like having an imposed agenda. Yet this morning, they're serving the executive power and not the legislative power.

When you haven't sat through a seven‑hour debate, you don't pretend—if you're respectful—to act as if you know everything. You respect the debate.

I would like to ask my colleague to respect the debate. He can be for or against the amendment. It's simple.

We all have busy schedules, as he said. We don't have time to waste on all this rambling about whether the Alto project is a good idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

I don't think I need to add to what you said. Short of repeating it, I think it was well said. Hopefully the intention was received of what you said.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree that we have no time to waste. That's exactly why, when it comes to a project such as high‑speed rail, we mustn't waste any time. This project has the potential to strengthen the Canadian economy. It will have a major impact on all the regions along the route, and indeed on the entire country.

I think that the motion before us today amounts to a witch hunt and partisanship. This is the very thing that causes us to waste time on proposals of this nature.

Remember that our role as legislators is to serve the people whom we represent. We were elected with the mandate to build and strengthen the Canadian economy. Yesterday evening, voters in three constituencies renewed their confidence in us to continue carrying out this mandate. This includes constituencies located near the route proposed by Alto.

I believe that, as legislators, we must be able to address the concerns while also highlighting the benefits. Surveys show that most Canadians, and even most Quebeckers, support the project. It will be worth asking the various members of Parliament, including the members elected yesterday evening, to talk about what they have heard on the ground about the Alto project.

I'll get back to the time issue. When it comes to this motion, I think that we need to avoid wasting time on witch hunts and political games. We need to focus on what Canadians elected us to do, which is to take action.

I'll get back to the motion. It states as follows:

That the committee undertake a study into the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto, and the Minister's claims that he has recused himself from decisions….

It also talks about inviting the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

So we're talking about inviting different witnesses. At the end, it states that “the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.”

I personally attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. You can see this in the minutes. My colleagues are asking me what we'll be doing with this study, whether we've given the project any thought, what we'll be discussing and what the benefits will be. I want to be able to give a clear answer. That's why I think that we need to look at the big picture.

When I talk about the benefits of the high‑speed rail project, I'm doing just that. I'm looking at the big picture of this motion. If we don't take this picture into account, we run the risk of adopting a motion without fully understanding its ramifications or the project in question.

Mr. Chair, I'm only on the first page of my notes and I still have several points to make. I'm still not on the second page.

In terms of economic benefits, we can talk about investment attractiveness and regional development. This project could boost economic activity in the cities along the corridor.

It could also boost tourism by improving access to major cities and regions. This is a key factor in Canada. We want Canadians to be able to visit their country from coast to coast to coast. For example, this summer, we're introducing the Canada strong pass to encourage people to visit national parks and other sites. My constituency is home to a botanical garden, among other things. We want Canadians to be able to discover their country.

A high‑speed train is a key component of a tourism strategy, since it makes travelling easier. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I had the opportunity to travel in various parts of the world. In Japan, I saw just how fast a high‑speed train could get you from city to city. It gave me the opportunity to visit a number of cities in Japan, to discover the cultural richness and to see the tourist sites. If there hadn't been a high‑speed train, I would have had to make choices. It gave me the chance to discover—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have a point of order.

Are we now talking about Japan? This is not the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Jansen, again, I am going to agree with you and suggest that we get back on the amendment to the motion that has been proposed.

The amendment, again, is to remove “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

To be frank, the showboating and lack of substance here on this amendment is really getting frustrating. I would suggest that members get back to what the amendment is.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

May I speak to the same point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

On the same point of order, Mr. Lawton, go ahead.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I think you're doing a bang-up job, given the circumstances, Mr. Chair, but I do believe you have it in your discretion, when there is a repeated refusal to stick to the topic at hand, as has been the case, even in the short time I've been here, to move—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It can be deemed as disruptive, and I understand that. I could not allow the member to have the floor.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am not at that point right now, but if it does become increasingly disruptive and we're not relevant to the point of the motion and the amendment that we're discussing, I may actually invoke that power.

Thank you.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you for the question and the clarification.

Why did I bring up Japan? Of course, the motion concerns high‑speed rail in Canada. I'm keenly aware of this. I wanted to show how Japan's tourism industry benefits from high‑speed rail and how this could also be implemented here.

I drew this example from my past experience of travelling to various countries with high‑speed trains. I saw the opportunities, particularly for the tourism industry and for the economy of the countries that I was fortunate enough to visit.

The point wasn't to discuss high‑speed trains in Japan per se, but rather to demonstrate how a high‑speed train can be an asset to a country's tourism industry and economy. I mentioned Japan simply to provide a concrete example.

When we look at the high‑speed rail project and the matter of reporting to the House, I want to emphasize the need to fully understand the big picture of this motion. There are economic benefits, of course. However, we must also consider the environmental benefits.

We have ambitious goals for protecting the climate and fighting against climate change. The introduction of a high‑speed train could contribute to these efforts. One key benefit is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The high‑speed train is a much greener option than flying or driving, especially for medium‑distance travel.

From an energy transition perspective, it's a concrete example of how we can boost the Canadian economy, support various economic sectors, use our steel, provide jobs for Canadian workers, make travel easier and improve people's quality of life, all while helping to achieve our climate goals.

We can also think of road congestion. A high‑speed train means less road congestion. This makes it easier to travel from city to city. People can choose between using their vehicle or a reliable and fast service to get from city to city.

As I said earlier, the trip from Quebec City to Montreal would take 90 minutes. If a fast and reliable travel option is available, many people will choose the train over the car. This will help improve traffic flow and make an impact on the environment. We can also consider the reduction of noise pollution and the better use of land. This contributes to both national and international climate goals.

Canada isn't the only country committed to the fight against climate change. We're part of a group and we have commitments with our international partners. I believe that we need to show leadership, particularly through large‑scale projects of this nature.

I also talked about the impact on mobility for Canadians. This project would have a significant impact on mobility across the country, in part by greatly reducing travel times. People could travel from Montreal to Toronto or from Quebec City to Toronto in just a few hours. This would bring about a major change, both for the tourism industry and for workers and businesses.

I would like to share another example from my own life. When I was a student, I had the opportunity to spend a semester in France, where the TGV connected the island where—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have a point of order.

We now seem to be talking about the member's time in France. I wonder if we could get back to the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to accept that as a point of order.

Deal with the amendment, or else I will invoke my authority under section 20.110 in chapter 20 regarding the rules and procedures in committees.

Stick to the amendment, please.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The connection with the amendment stems from the ability to link different educational institutions.

When it comes to improving mobility, a high‑speed train makes travelling easier. I also spoke about the tourism industry and the workers, but we can also think of two universities—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, despite your multiple warnings to the member of Parliament, he clearly isn't complying with your instructions and advice.

I understand that you're quite patient. You said three times that you would invoke your authority. I think that we've reached this point. Clearly, the member of Parliament showed up with his notes to demonstrate that the Alto project is the ninth wonder of the world. Yet we aren't talking about this here. He spoke of a witch hunt without explaining how the motion and amendment fit into this concept.

I think that he's going too far and that he's putting your authority to the test. I think that it's time to invoke your authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

At this point, I'm not prepared to do that. If the relevance of this issue is not brought to where it needs to be, and there is more non-substantive debate on what we actually are debating, which is the amendment, and this continues, then I am considering it.

I'm not prepared to do that at this point, Mr. Thériault.

I appreciate your intervention on that.

If this disruption continues, then I'm going to have to make a decision.

Carry on, Mr. Deschênes-Thériault.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

I would just like to respond to a point raised by my colleague. I have notes because I prepared myself for the debate. I'm interested in the topics studied in committee and I want to be well prepared. Yes, I have notes, and yes, I have sheets of paper. I want to be able to stay on track with my argument and my ideas and to have information on hand. The goal is to do my job properly, to come prepared and to have content to refer to as needed.

Mr. Chair, regarding the motion, I think that we really need to look at whether we want to let the House know that we'll be undertaking a study that's seen as a witch hunt—to say the least—and that wastes our time. We should be focusing on building the Canadian economy and carrying out major projects of national interest such as this one. I think that this is the crux of the motion.

In my opinion, we should be focusing on how to get this project up and running as quickly as possible, rather than on debating this type of motion in committee today.

Mr. Chair, I know that my colleagues have other points to make. I don't want to encroach on anyone's speaking time. I'll let you give the floor to the next speaker. However, I would like my name added to the list of speakers. I have a few other points to make later on in the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault. I'll add your name to the list again.

Mr. Sari, you can now speak about the amendment.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The power seems to be out on this side of the room. If we're going to stay in this room, could we have some sort of solution? Is there any solution in place for us, for our devices and whatnot?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm glad you brought that to my attention. It's the first time I've heard about it. Did somebody trip a breaker or something?

Before we start with Mr. Sari, I'm going to suspend for a minute until we fix this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There was a small technical issue with some of the power in the room, but it has been resolved.

We're moving into hour eight of debate on a motion, and I'm going to read it again to remind members:

That the committee undertake a study into the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto, and the Minister's claims that he has recused himself from decisions his government made related to Alto; that, for the purpose of this study, the committee invite the following witnesses to appear by May 8, 2026:

1. Konrad von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for two hours;

2. Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours; and

3. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, for two hours;

And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.

We are on an amendment proposed by Mr. Sari to remove the last line of the motion “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

I'm hoping that this can be resolved soon and that, as the Prime Minister said this morning, the committee work can be substantive and relevant to the debate. He also said that we are going to have less showboating and more substance. I would like to see less showboating and more substance on the amendment.

Mr. Sari, you are starting hour number eight on this.

Go ahead, sir.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This did get me thinking about the amendment, yesterday evening. I was asked what led me to move it in this manner. It falls squarely in line with our Prime Minister's call for us to be co‑operative.

I read the motion. Yesterday, I took the time to speak quite explicitly and to outline the benefits of the project. Canadians aren't happy with how things are understood and handled on the other side of the room. This came across clearly in yesterday evening's results. As a result, the priorities aren't clear.

My colleagues—Ms. Lapointe, Mr. Fergus, Mrs. Church and, today, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault—have really tried to better explain this project and its benefits. However, it seems that the other side doesn't want to hear what Canadians have understood and retained.

I won't go into the details of the project because I'll focus on the amendment. That said, it's a good project. For such a major project, which places our country at the cutting edge, with, of course, a certain amount of risk‑taking and an international positioning—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton, on your point of order.