Evidence of meeting #35 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I appreciate where Ms. Church is coming from on some of this. In the spirit of collaboration, what she's saying about the reporting element is that you can't report without hearing more witnesses. I would be open, as would our colleagues, to an amendment—
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
—if she would like to hear witnesses on Liberal corruption and cronyism, if that's what she's saying we need to hear witness testimony on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Lawton. That's not a point of order.
Ms. Church, continue speaking to the amendment, please.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I think my colleague has proven, to the Prime Minister's point earlier today, the difference between real testimony, real substance and getting to issues and debating aspects of law. That is certainly the preference of this side of the table and always is.
We'd like to move forward on these issues and talk about how to get things done and move forward constructively. Not everything needs to be a partisan debate. Not everything needs to be filled with nasty barbs and name-calling across the aisle.
In reality, I think what Canadians are showing time and again is that they want a Parliament that can get on with it. They want members to work together with the resources of Parliament. They want their members, who represent 343 ridings from coast to coast, to come together and figure out the best path forward for Canadians, particularly when it's on a project that stretches across provincial boundaries, through communities and through some of our largest cities. This could have such an enormous economic impact, boosting our GDP by $35 billion and creating more than 51,000 jobs over the next decade. That's the type of project that I think Canadians want us to be talking about.
Maybe we don't all agree. Maybe we don't all agree on how it gets done, where it gets built or how it takes shape over time, but hopefully what we can actually agree on is that, as Canadians, we should be able to have serious and constructive debates. The fact that we haven't had these debates and that we haven't had major nation-building projects like this—or it's been rare in our history—speaks to one of the reasons it's so important that we have these debates today.
Coming back to the amendment, we owe it to the full operation of Parliament to only be using House time when we have something serious to say about Alto, and given where we are on this motion, it clearly isn't now. While we are putting our time and energy into this particular session of our committee, the greater cause at stake is time in the House, where 25 government bills and 125 private members' motions and bills are waiting for the attention of parliamentarians.
To gum up Parliament with a motion that does little to shine light on an important subject, a subject which the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has been crystal clear on to this point, doesn't make sense and does a disservice to Canadians, who would probably prefer that my colleague and I could come together in a collegial....
I'm not even going to call it a debate; I'm going to call it an exchange of ideas. Should we have high-speed rail? If we do, how should it be built? What are the parameters on which that rail system should be built? Should we be enforcing “buy Canadian”? Should we be building that rail with Canadian steel? Where should the path of that rail system go?
This isn't even a discussion that's limited to Ontario and Quebec communities. High-speed rail has been a topic that has been discussed in other provinces as well. As my colleagues said previously, countries around the world have adopted high-speed rail. They have shown the willingness of people to take it. They have shown how much it cuts down on travel time, how it has environmental and economic benefits.
This is about setting up our transportation infrastructure for generations to come. When I think back on things like the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Trans-Canada Highway, these were hard projects and big projects, but we got them done. We got them done in an era when we could get them done.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Chair, I had to leave the room for a few seconds, and I'm wondering if we're still talking about the motion to remove the sentence at the end or if we're looking at all of Canada's major projects? I just want to make sure.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's true, Mr. Hardy.
We are on the amendment.
I've tried to bring this back to the amendment about 60 times now, and I'm going to ask that Ms. Church do that.
I want to welcome you into hour number 10 of this, Ms. Church, so please stay on the amendment.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I welcome the interventions from my colleagues. I'm sorry that you missed some of my argument today. I hope I was making a compelling case about why we should vote in favour of striking the final sentence from this motion.
If my colleagues opposite are interested, and if they are convinced that we should consider this motion without this final sentence of Mr. Barrett's motion, I'd be very happy to work collaboratively. My colleagues and I certainly would like to come to a solution with our colleagues around the table.
If the members across are willing to accept this amendment, we'd certainly like to move forward and get back to the main question of addressing the motion overall.
Mr. Chair, I'd be willing to call for a vote on this, provided that I could be added to the speaking list on the main motion following the vote. I'm not sure how your speakers list is shaping up. I think if the members opposite wish to progress on this, and if they have given some thought about this motion, and whether or not they'd be willing to accept ensuring that we pass this amendment and do not report this to the House at this time, I think that on this side, you'd see agreement to move to a vote on that amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, Ms. Church. I still have a speakers list. It's not until the speakers list has been exhausted that we would move to the vote, but I still have speakers on the list.
If you're ceding your time, I will move on then to Mr. Deschênes-Thériault.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Are there any other comments on the amendment by Mr. Sari?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Could we have a brief suspension, please, Chair?
Never mind, no suspension is needed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
If we have no more discussion, I'm going to call for the vote on the amendment.
Mr. Thériault, I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand up. Did you want to make a comment?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's quite astounding to see that it took nearly nine hours for the government to recognize that it's possible to stop talking about a major project and get back to the substance of the motion. We're now being told that people want to discuss the substance of the motion after the vote on the amendment. It's quite astounding and shocking that it took nine hours to get to this point. However, people have the nerve to say that there's no time to waste, that time is limited and that Canadians expect responsible behaviour.
What my government colleagues have never mentioned is that we sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We don't sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; the Standing Committee on Finance; the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or the Standing Committee on the Environment. In those committees, we could debate the various aspects that such a project may involve. Here, we're on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The motion before us stems from the fact that $3.9 billion was given to a consortium to determine the stations, the route and the timeline for the Alto project. I'm talking about public funds here. However, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue's spouse was suddenly hired by Alto.
The minister obviously felt some unease, because he consulted with the commissioner. That's precisely what we're looking to establish. He consulted, wrote to the Prime Minister and indicated that he would put a screen in place. What we don't know is whether this is a nepotism situation. What does this have to do with the minister's ability to intervene in the future?
The issue I have been raising since yesterday is that Mr. Champagne has been the “driving force”—no pun intended—of this project, Bill C‑15. This bill gives Alto broad powers, including expropriation powers, that weren't provided for in the Expropriation Act. These new powers reduce the rights of people targeted by expropriations. These people include agricultural producers, particularly in Mirabel, who have already experienced the consequences of the Mirabel airport fiasco and don't want to relive it.
In this context, our committee wants to hear from the commissioner. I would point out that the commissioner himself recommended to the committee that we include the concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest in our review of the act. We followed that recommendation. It seems to me that we have an apparent conflict of interest here. It's so apparent that even the minister felt uncomfortable—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Thériault, I would remind you that some discussions took place in camera.
Just be mindful of the fact that we did discuss some things in camera that cannot be discussed out of camera at this point. I just want to put that in front of you, particularly on recommendations perhaps that were made, etc. I just want to make sure you're guarded on that. I say that because you were speaking about some recommendations made.
Thank you.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
The commissioner's recommendation was made at a public meeting, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I just want to make sure that you're guarded on any other discussions we had with respect to the Conflict of Interest Act. That's all I'm asking.
Mr. Thériault, I'm sorry, you have the floor, but Mr. Sari has a point of order.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I agree with you. The reason I'm raising a point of order is that not only did he talk about a recommendation, but he also talked about the report. Everything in the report so far has been discussed in camera. Mr. Thériault has experience, but he really needs to show some restraint before he starts talking about what was said in camera, what will or will not be in the report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Thériault, keep in mind my previous comment.
The floor is yours.
