Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

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

We are supposed to be speaking about the finance minister and his profound conflict of interest lapses and ethics lapses here at the ethics committee. Unless that is the project Mr. Sari is referring to, I don't see how this has any bearing on the motion or the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Again, we're trying to deal with substance here and something that's relevant to the debate. I'm trying to keep it on track. It's clear that some members aren't prepared to discuss that. I'm asking again, and this is probably the, I don't know, 50th time that I've asked in the last eight hours of debate that we stay on the amendment to the motion, and that is to remove the last line. That's what I'm asking.

Continue, please.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that my colleague on the other side of the room wasn't here yesterday. So he doesn't know exactly what happened.

As Mr. Fergus said earlier, yesterday a number of colleagues and people believed that the debate on this motion was suspended. They thought that the debate would resume later, on Thursday or at another time, perhaps. They wanted to continue tuning in to the discussions. They called me in the evening, but I couldn't take their call since I was still in committee. They were surprised, as were a number of people who had been following the proceedings.

My colleague, Mr. Lawton, may not know this. The debate was suspended following a request from Mr. Barrett. It was then unexpectedly resumed following a request from Mr. Hardy. This is a crucial detail, because we're here to debate the motion. This major project will serve the interests of the public, the economy, tourism and universities. At one point, we said that we would stop talking about this and move on to another matter in camera. People left, members of Parliament disconnected and a number of them stopped following the proceedings. Then, at some point, the debate unexpectedly resumed.

I'm not questioning your decision yesterday, Mr. Chair. You acted as you saw fit, even though I disagreed with you. You had every right to do so. However, once again, some people lost the opportunity to keep up with the debates. For them, a suspension means that the debate will be resumed at another meeting. This was their understanding, and it didn't align with yours.

I think that it's vital to point this out to the people here this morning. They didn't sit through the seven hours of debate that we had together.

The Prime Minister spoke yesterday about co‑operation. In my amendment—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to avoid any confusion. I've been sitting here since the debates began, at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, without being replaced.

The parliamentarian is implying that colleagues didn't understand a problem because they weren't here yesterday, but that doesn't apply to me. However, I would like to point out that it could apply to his colleague Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault.

It might be a good idea to get back to the topic at hand, the motion. In the House, you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. On several occasions, my Liberal colleagues have said that they don't question your decision, yet they continue to discuss it and imply that it is questionable. There was only one thing to do: challenge it and try to overturn it.

It's a delaying tactic, it's a filibuster and it's pathetic.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I understand. You're right.

I'm just going to remind members, the other thing the Prime Minister said this morning is to have respectful debate. If one member calls into question another member's capacity to understand what's going on, I would determine that's not respectful and constitutes a little bit of showboating.

I do agree with Mr. Thériault on this, and I would ask that Mr. Sari get back to the amendment to the motion. I'm not sure if he needs me to read it to him again, but I think he understands clearly where we're at here.

Mr. Sari, continue, please.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will continue while being respectful of the debate. Respect must go both ways. I feel that my colleague Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault and I should be respected, since we have the same status as the others on the committee. Seniority does not confer any advantage or superiority in how to address another MP elected by their constituents.

On the amendment itself, to go back to the Prime Minister's comments, I have been co-operative. Yesterday, when I went point by point, I made it clear that I did not agree with the following three elements: inviting the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, inviting the Alto executives and inviting the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. Despite that, I indicated that we could be open, that we could be co-operative. It's in that spirit that I'm talking about the amendment.

I would add that Mr. Barrett, who moved the motion, rightly wrote to the Ethics Commissioner in the meantime. He thought it was appropriate, and I recognize that it's appropriate to go to the person who has the expertise and the most skills and knowledge in this area.

However, since his and his colleagues' objective, as opposed to ours, is to get sound bites, he thought it appropriate to table a motion instead of waiting for the commissioner's response. In my opinion, he could have waited. My colleague disagrees. He could have waited to hear back from the commissioner. Unless he has already received an answer that we don't know about. What the public knows is that he wrote to the Ethics Commissioner. However, we don't know whether the commissioner answered him.

Wouldn't it have been appropriate to at least wait for a response from the commissioner responsible for conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest before judging the elements to be put forward? The comments made by my colleagues Mr. Barrett, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Thériault are based on hypotheticals. Since I've been a member of the committee, I've found the debates worthwhile and relevant. However, the objective is not the same on both sides.

The intended objective on both sides of the room is not the same. On one side, some people just seem to want to get sound bites. On our side, we want to strengthen Canadians' trust in institutions.

Canadians understand that there are procedures to be followed. They understand that there is an Ethics Commissioner who looks into these matters. The experts who appeared before the committee clearly stated that our system for ethics, conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest is among the strongest in the world. Despite that, the member doesn't wait for the commissioner's response and chooses to table a motion. Why? It's because he wants to get sound bites.

Mr. Chair, so far, the motion and the amendment have highlighted two approaches and two types of members. On one side, members want to co-operate. We accepted elements we did not agree with. We proposed removing a provision that we consider to impede efficiency in the work of the committee and the House. There is co-operation. The Prime Minister talked about the importance of co-operation. Nevertheless, when we try to debate the issue and provide explanations, we are cut off and told that we don't understand.

The people who understand it best are the voters. Last night, they clearly reiterated that the way things are done on this side of the room is the most appropriate. The Liberals have not represented the Terrebonne riding since the 1980s. The people of Terrebonne, where the project route will go, thought it appropriate to have the team on this side of the room, because our goal is not to produce sound bites. Our objectives are clear, structured and worthwhile.

Canadians want projects. They want leadership. They want people who are able to manage well and take risks. They say no to sound bites and yes to transparency.

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Lawton, go ahead on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Sari and Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault don't seem to be very interested in the subject of the debate before us. The debate is about a very simple issue. The question is whether or not Mr. Barrett's motion should be brought to the floor of the House. I don't know how you could be any clearer than you've already been.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Lawton, I've said time and again that we have to talk about the amendment. Time and again, we've drifted off-topic. I want us to talk about the amendment.

Mr. Sari, go ahead on the amendment.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Let's get back to the amendment. Our dispute is about reporting to the House that we're undertaking this study. I don't agree with that, and neither does my team. I'll explain why. I'm explaining why I want to remove this part of the motion and why I proposed the amendment.

We want to advance projects that we deem relevant and that the public deems relevant. Canadians placed their trust in us and reaffirmed that trust. The House has a number of projects to move forward, and it has to do so at a steadier pace. In fact, the committee's purpose is to help us make better use of members' time and enable the House of Commons to move forward on bills, not to debate the elements we've been debating since this morning.

My amendment is valid. Even though I didn't agree with the three points in the motion, I still accepted them. Why did I not agree? Mr. Lawton wasn't here and neither was Mr. Dean, but the other members were. When witnesses came and we asked them questions, I was uncomfortable. In a number of cases, not all, fortunately, but in the majority of cases, I was uncomfortable with the way they were asked questions in order to extract comments that were not theirs.

Again, what was the objective? It was to get sound bites. That's why I'm not comfortable—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Sari is implying that we heard from witnesses in relation to the motion and the amendment to the motion. We didn't, in fact. I don't know what he's talking about.

Could you call him to order and ask him to talk about the amendment and the motion?

We haven't heard any testimony. I don't know what he's referring to.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Personally, what I understand is that Mr. Sari is talking about the witnesses who came to testify at previous meetings, which were not about this motion.

Mr. Sari, I'll ask you to talk about the amendment.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I might have been unclear. I was talking about the other meetings I was at. I saw how some witnesses were treated. It made me uncomfortable. As I said, it didn't happen at all meetings, but there were a number of meetings where I was uncomfortable. That is why I hope that, when we hear from Alto's executives or other witnesses, it will not happen again.

Now I'll go back to the conflict of interest commissioner. We are in the process of inviting him to testify. We sent him an email, but we've yet to receive a response. That's why I'm uncomfortable with the invitation.

As for inviting the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for two hours, I'd like to explain why I'm uncomfortable with the idea. We heard that the minister had recused himself. Yesterday, Mr. Hardy explained what a recusal was, but he didn't explain why the minister recused himself.

The minister did not recuse himself because the commissioner asked him to, as was insinuated. It was actually the minister who decided to recuse himself. The commissioner did not ask him to. That's important. The minister went beyond what he was asked to do.

I explained to you why I am uncomfortable, but despite that, I showed openness. I'm prepared to accept those three points, but we have to let the House of Commons do its work effectively. We need to focus on the work for which the committee was created. My amendment is not trying to hide anything. It's to make sure that we do the work that we've been appointed to do, which I'm proud of. Why add additional elements, other than to produce sound bites? That's the difference between the two sides of the room. Sound bites are not what motivates me to be a member of Parliament.

What motivates me is building trust in our institutions among the people of all ages listening to us. Yes, there are always things to improve in our system on an ongoing basis. Yes, we have to constantly review our procedures. However, people who have come here from abroad and from several Canadian provinces have recognized that our system is one of the strongest in the world. People come here to learn how we work. When I travel around the world, I am proud to say that I am a member of the Canadian Parliament, because our system for conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest is one of the most relevant in the world.

Right now, what we're doing is insinuating things and sowing doubt. As we know, many young people are leaving politics and institutions, unfortunately, for lack of trust in them. Are we helping by trying to produce sound bites along the way? No, we're sowing doubt. We are undermining the trust of our young people. I find that really deplorable, even more so when it comes from people who have experience in politics.

My colleagues have been playing these games for years. We saw the concrete results yesterday.

I repeat that, in a riding where the Alto project is to be routed, the citizens reaffirmed their trust in the way the members on this side of the room do things. They don't trust the members on the other side of the room, who are looking to produce sound bites. You can have incredible experience and be proud of it, but you can also lose the public's trust. That's what happened in Terrebonne yesterday.

I was talking about the motion. I was talking about two ways of working. On one side, they want to produce sound bites, and on the other, we want to collaborate and move forward on the projects for which Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, Mrs. Church, Mr. Fergus and Ms. Lapointe made arguments. Yesterday, I talked about the project, because I'm proud to be part of it. These two ways of doing things are completely different. Are we talking about co-operation? I myself co-operated by introducing my amendment.

I hope there will be some co-operation from the other side of the room as well. I'm co-operating on things that I have reservations about. I accepted those elements, but at some point, co-operation has to be reciprocal. All of these concepts—communication, collaboration and co-operation—go both ways. There has to be co-operation among all parties.

We earn the trust of Canadians because they understand that we show openness and are very willing to collaborate. That's also why some members choose to change sides. They see that there is co-operation.

Mr. Chair, thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Ms. Church, I have you next on the list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for helping us have a very thorough consideration of this motion and of the amendment in particular.

This committee has been at this for some time. Since we first met yesterday, we have covered quite a bit of ground both on this motion and on other motions that we've brought forward, and some in camera work, as well. I do know that this has a tendency to test the patience of the committee, but I think it's important that we get this right. I think it's important that we have a full airing of the various factors that determine how we look at this motion and how we proceed and its implications that it might have.

When I initially spoke to this motion yesterday evening, I talked about the considerations on what would be relevant and pertinent for us to think about if this committee were to report to the House. With that as the subject of the amendment right now, as my colleagues have mentioned, we propose striking that final sentence from Mr. Barrett's motion, “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

It may feel like we are dedicating a lot of time to that amendment here, but I think we have to look at that in the context of the work the House is doing as well. It's been a major concern of mine, first of all, as a committee we aren't pulled off in a new direction when we have such an important agenda ahead of us at this committee. We have motions right now, committee studies that we have lined up on important topics, from privacy, to a lobbying review, to algorithmic pricing, and continuing on our study of artificial intelligence. We have much work to do and the use of time in this regard is particularly important.

When I think about the House, I think about the—if I'm not mistaken—over 150 bills that are in Parliament this session, 25 of which are government bills. All of these bills are making their way through both houses, requiring a certain amount of precious parliamentary time in committee, in the House and in the Senate. A part of our responsibility as parliamentarians, but particularly as members of a committee, is to allocate our use of time in a way that respects Parliament's function and our democratic traditions, and ensures that we are truly advancing the agenda that Canadians would want to see us advance.

When I think about this particular amendment that calls on this committee to report to the House that it is merely undertaking this study, it's a suggestion that raises concerns in my mind. I have concerns about the misuse of time, concerns about whether the House is actually better served not by a study that would merely inform the House that this committee was undertaking a study, but a report that would actually come at the end of a study on Alto, that the House would actually be better served by a thorough report—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. There's a technical issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

What's the issue, Mr. Thériault?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The interpreter tells me that a telephone is vibrating, which prevents them from doing their job properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Can it be heard in the interpretation booth?

Is it somewhere here?

Whose phone is vibrating?

Just make sure your phones are on silent mode, please. It must be close to the microphone; otherwise, they wouldn't be hearing it. Make sure the phones are on silent mode.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, my main concern is about the use of time and whether or not the House would be better served by a thorough report on Alto, by a “substantive report on Alto”, to quote the Prime Minister's word of the moment, rather than a report that would simply seek to inform the House that it is undertaking this study. This is a study that I'm concerned about as a distraction when it comes to the progress of a major nation-building project like the Alto high-speed rail.

If we were to report to the House, typically we would require witness testimony. We would require a discussion around which witnesses the committee would hear, and we would have time allocated for consideration of that testimony before we reported. Typically, in our Westminster parliamentary tradition, when a committee reports, it follows a period where a committee creates recommendations. These are recommendations that the House can then consider, that the government can then respond to. It follows a period of deliberation on the path forward, in this case with high-speed rail, and how would this project proceed? What would the role of the Major Projects Office be? How do we get this project from the idea of high-speed rail where we're at today to a transit system that is effective for countless Canadians on this corridor?

There are many considerations when we think about how this project can go from the planning phase it's in today to an actual operational train that is meeting what Canadians expect and want from a high-speed rail service.

However, without those recommendations, we really have a naked report. We have a report that is simply misusing House time, at a time when the House should be considering a whole host of other legislation that is important, that's been put forward in government and private members' bills, that are at a stage deserving of debate. I worry about that.

A report must also typically be relevant. When we know what the context of the study is, when we know what the outcomes of a study are, when we have the recommendation, that helps us to determine whether there is relevancy to the question of whether a committee reports to the House. I certainly don't believe we have fulfilled that precondition here. We don't have agreement on the scope of a study. In fact, on this side of the table, we would wholeheartedly disagree with the pursuit of this particular study that my colleagues across the table have proposed here.

In the absence of a study that we agree on, in the absence of a study where we have done our due diligence of having an evidentiary record, of having witnesses that both sides have contributed to and agreed to and heard out, before we have that substantive work in place, it is inappropriate for us to be considering asking this committee to report to the House merely that it is undertaking a study.

Reports presented when a committee has completed a study or after reviewing a bill are far more common in our parliamentary process. When we wish as parliamentarians to make recommendations on a subject that the House can consider or that the government can respond to, this particular phase of discussion around this motion feels much more like an administrative update, a notice to the House that we are considering pursuing a study that has yet to materialize or to have a full scope or mandate around.

Typically, committees don't report administrative proceedings back to the House, so it seems unusual to me that we would be so divided in terms of our approach to this particular sentence in Mr. Barrett's motion. I say that knowing full well that when a committee reports, it is at the discretion of the committee. It is discretionary by nature.

I think that makes it all that much more incumbent on us to consider whether this is a good use of the committee's discretion, to pursue a meaningless report at an inopportune time to gum up the proceedings of the House and Parliament. That does not seem to me to be a good use of this committee's discretion, and not one that I think I or my colleagues would support, which is why you're hearing today the concerns that we continue to raise.

Mr. Chair, you and other members have raised this. When I think about the Prime Minister's comments this morning, that we need to be getting back to substantive debate, he said there's a difference between real testimony, real substance, getting to issues, debating aspects of law and showboating. That's the substance that the Prime Minister is talking about: real testimony, real substance, getting to issues, debating aspects of law. None of that has been fulfilled at this stage of consideration of this motion.

I would go further to say that Mr. Barrett's motion on the whole, with or without this amendment, fails to live up to that test of offering Canadians a chance to get at the issues or to debate aspects of law of real substance. If it were, we would be looking much more closely at the progress of high-speed rail and the progress of Alto and debating its economic benefits, debating the process to build it, debating how Canada should invest in major infrastructure projects like Alto at a time when we are trying to ensure that we have a strong economy, resiliency, sovereignty and are demonstrating to Canadians that we can build again.