Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Hardy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Again, we are discussing Mr. Barrett's motion, which calls on the committee to undertake a study into the minister's conflict of interest and recusal in relation to government decisions, and to invite three witnesses for the purposes of that study.

I think the member's comments about the history of Highway 50 are off topic. It would be great if he could get back to the matter at hand. I think everyone wants to get somewhere.

As you said, Mr. Chair, we are in public and everyone is watching us. We need to stop wasting time on history lessons and the weather. What we want is for the minister to come before the committee and answer our questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's non-debatable. On the point of order on relevance, again, I do give some latitude, but, Mr. Fergus, we're not talking about the merits or the values of the Alto system. We're talking about a motion 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, and that for the purposes of this study, the committee invite the following witnesses to appear by May 8: the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for two hours; executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours; and the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, for two hours, and that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.

If you want to discuss the merits of Alto, I suggest that you go to the transportation committee and deal with it there. Stick to the motion. That's what we're debating.

Please continue.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate and respect Mr. Hardy's comment, but he is mistaken in thinking that I strayed from the substance of this motion. Had he been listening carefully, he would know that what I was saying was relevant to the last sentence of the motion, as I pointed out a number of times.

I'm going to read out the motion, so that it's clear why my comments are relevant and why I talked about Highway 50. The motion reads 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 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;

Now here's the operative sentence:

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

That's the problem, in my view. Alto is a crucial project, one that is important to my constituents and my region, and as a Canadian member of Parliament, I would say my country and its economic development. Frankly, it's even a matter of life and death for the constituents in my region, because Highway 50 is what links people in the Outaouais to Montreal, the province's largest city, without leaving Quebec. People regularly have to take other routes, and I'm sure my fellow member from Quebec is quite familiar with the situation. He is well aware that it is one of the most dangerous highways in all of Quebec.

Nearly 20 years ago, or maybe in the early 2000s, the road connecting the Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec City regions was finally turned into a dual carriageway. Why? Because it was a dangerous road, with moose and all kinds of things. It runs right through a provincial park and is very unsafe in the winter. It's an important region to Quebec.

The same logic applies: our region is important too. If we take population into account, it is more important. The city of Gatineau is Quebec's fourth-largest city, and our only link on Quebec soil is Highway 50.

Highway 50 isn't a real highway, though. Most of the way, there's only one lane in each direction, and that results in all kinds of accidents. Sometimes the accidents are caused by human error, with people speeding or driving aggressively, but other times they're caused by moose or deer. That is a fact. We don't have any other connecting road, which is why the Alto project is so important.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to let Mr. Fergus know that he forgot to mention wild turkeys when he was listing the dangers of driving on Highway 50.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault had a point of order, but I didn't hear what he said.

What did he say?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'll repeat it, Mr. Chair.

I said that Mr. Fergus forgot to mention wild turkeys when he was listing all the dangers of Highway 50.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's not a point of order.

Carry on, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I thank Mr. Thériault for his comment, Mr. Chair. I assume he wasn't being flippant, because this is serious. Not a month goes by when there isn't a serious accident or collision on the highway. A long-time friend of mine actually died on that highway. This is very serious.

Until we have an alternative that safely connects us to the rest of Quebec, the Alto project will be a safe way for people to get to Montreal—in 40 minutes, no less. People will be able to get to the provincial or national capital in two hours instead of five hours by car or on Via Rail.

Often, Via Rail doesn't own the tracks. You're lucky if you make it to Quebec City in five hours. I know quite a few people who were delayed by three or four hours, sometimes by as much as eight hours. As everyone will recall last summer, an incident involving freight trains made headlines across Quebec when Via Rail passengers were stranded on a train between Montreal and Quebec City, having to spend the night on board. That illustrates how important this project is and how important it is not to waste time if we want to have a serious discussion on the matter.

Speaking of wasting time, I would note that when Mr. Barrett spoke to his motion, he said he had written to the Ethics Commissioner in the wake of media reports.

I wouldn't want to speculate on what the Ethics Commissioner will tell the committee, but if memory serves me correctly, the commissioner did state in a letter that the individual in question, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, took the necessary measures and did what he was supposed to, and that there wasn't a conflict of interest. The question that comes to mind, then, is why we are considering this motion if everything was done according to both the letter and spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act.

I won't dwell on that point, because I want us to get on with this quickly. I hope my fellow members are open to that. I move that the meeting be adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have a motion to adjourn the meeting. I don't suspect we'll have consensus on that.

It's non-debatable. I'm going to ask Madam Clerk to call the vote on the motion to adjourn the meeting.

There is a tie. I vote no.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Mr. Fergus, you still have the floor.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I gave you back the floor, but you were actually not supposed to have the floor, because you concluded your debate and moved a motion.

Since I gave it to you, Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to put you in a position where you could leave yourself being open to being challenged by members of the opposition who wouldn't think I deserve—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't think they really care.

You have the floor. Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm happy to pass it on, but I'd like to add my name to the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Your name is already on the list. You said that before.

Mr. Sari, you have the floor.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The main reason I'm here is to speak to those who are following these proceedings and those who are hopefully very interested in this debate, so they can understand what this is all about.

Two things are going on. There is an opposition member who is still trying to undermine the momentum that brought our new government to power. Our government was given a clear mandate by Canadians: build a strong and vibrant economy, and get projects worthy of this country done.

I'd like to say something before I go further. I'm someone who loves to travel. I've been all over the world, and my sense of belonging to this country is so strong that I sometimes get jealous, especially when I go to places like Europe, where I can get from Paris to Geneva in about three hours. I can go from Paris to Nice in under six hours. I can go from Paris to London in less than two and a half hours. Even in the Kingdom of Morocco, I can get from Casablanca to Tangier in under two and a half hours, while seeing both the Mediterranean Sea and the ocean.

Back in Canada, we can see what's going on here. People are saying the motion is being filibustered, but that's not the case. The real obstruction is members' inability to move forward as a country and to build a high-speed rail network, which has broad public support.

That brings me to say a few words about the committee. I am very pleased and honoured to be on the committee, because the work it does is very relevant. Why is it so relevant? Because we are called upon to consider motions based on facts.

When I listen to Mr. Barrett and Mr. Thériault, however—and I hope those following these proceedings will relisten to what they said—what I hear are hypotheticals. How can we move forward with a project as important as a high-speed rail network with filibustering, when the matter has already been voted on? Members want to carry on the filibuster and vote again to delay the work. One thing certain members excel at, one thing they deserve an award for, is hindering progress, hindering development, despite quite a clear mandate.

When I listened to Mr. Thériault earlier, he raised the possibility of delaying this important project. However, my colleagues have explained, quite eloquently, might I add, why this project is so incredibly important to people, to Canadians. It will reposition Canada on the world stage. No matter what some members across the way seem to want, we cannot imagine our beloved country without a high-speed train.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a city councillor, and I can tell you that public transit, rapid transit and multimodal transportation are priorities. Municipalities such as Montreal, those in the greater Montreal area, and Toronto are strong supporters and advocates of the project. They aren't saying the same things as the members opposite trying to obstruct progress. This is clearly a filibuster designed to initiate debate on various issues, using various motions, to reopen the debate yet again.

Personally, I am happy to debate this motion and the importance of the high-speed rail network until midnight. To do so would be my pleasure, because this debate is that important.

However, the people listening to us are wondering what this is about. What are we talking about here? We're talking about hypotheticals and a highly important project that members are trying to delay. That puts a label on the Conservative Party, which is joined by another party that is trying to hinder progress that we, on our side, want to see materialize as soon as possible.

Let's look again at the motion itself and what it seeks to achieve. Then, if I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose an amendment, since you said we're straying from the motion, but it's quite the opposite. This is indeed relevant to the motion. When we talk about Alto, we are talking about the motion. When we talk about the importance of interprovincial travel, we are talking about the motion. When we talk about how you are obstructing the project, we are talking about the motion. That's what you are doing.

You're asking us to turn our backs on a project that Canadians want to see built now. You're asking us to delay a project that municipalities want to see now. You're asking us yet again to examine hypothetical information about a project all stakeholders want to see built. You're asking us to delay the use of our routes in Quebec.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Hardy has the floor on a point of order.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

That's not at all what we are asking. I don't know what Mr. Sari is talking about. He seems to be accusing us of asking for things, but he's not talking about anything that's in the motion. Can he get back to the motion?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

I'm actually confused about what you're talking about, Mr. Sari, in terms of this hypothetical. We're dealing with a motion “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”. There's nothing hypothetical about that. It's well documented in the media.

Nobody's trying to delay Alto here. We're trying to deal with the motion that's in front of us. I give a lot of latitude. Everybody knows that.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You can respond, but let's try to stick to the motion here.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, of course, Mr. Chair.

There's a thing called Google, and if you type “Conservative Party and Alto high-speed train” in the search box, you'll see that everything I'm saying is based on facts. I'm not making anything up. The Conservative Party's motion is proof of that. It's a clear sign of the party's obstructionist efforts. I didn't say that's what was in the motion, but it is yet another layer. I hope the members will listen to what I have to say on that point, because once again, they are adding something that shows they disagree with the progress we, as a new government, want.

What we want is for Canadians to benefit from a stronger economy and better quality of life overall. When we look at countries with a high-speed train system, it's clear that the benefits are quite significant, whether for tourism, the economy, the movement of workers, human resources or the appeal of cities and urban areas. The benefits are certainly considerable.

I want to follow up on something. I said there was a thing called Google, but there's also a thing called ChatGPT or Claude. When you search using one of those tools, you see that this isn't an expenditure; it's an investment. This is an investment in young people and the safety of travel. This is a major green investment when it comes to the environment. I won't dwell on the environmental merits of the project, since I don't think my colleagues across the way would be all that interested. The project will reduce traffic congestion and strengthen regional economies.

As we know, this is a vast country. The ability to travel long distances faster would make it easier for people, including workers, to get around. I won't get into the billions of dollars the project will generate, but the point I want to make is this: we are giving Canadians faith that we are a country brave enough to take risks.

The opposition is just scared of moving forward. Every time we seek to tackle a challenge with Canadians, and leverage the country's skills, universities, and physical and human resources, the opposition tries to block us. It's very unfortunate for those listening to us.

There is no way to consider this motion in isolation. It's impossible, because it's all related. It's all related to the Conservative Party's behaviour, to the fact that, once again, it lost the trust of Canadians, including some of its own party members.

I want to say this, because it's what I am seeing. When I see this motion, I think to myself the opposition shouldn't be doing this; it shouldn't be blocking a project that Canadians are proud of. The project is about improving mobility. That brings me back to the benefits. The reason the city councils of Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and other municipalities support the project is that it will strengthen the connection between these cosmopolitan areas and the economy. Silo approaches and silo thinking will give way to integrated solutions, thanks to an integrated transportation network.

I repeat, our goal as a government is to protect the environment and provide an alternative to car travel. That matters to Quebeckers listening to us.

As my colleague said, travelling on Highway 50 is a challenge. I wonder if it can even be called a highway. Forgive me, but when you've travelled all over the world, you can’t really call it a highway, as it lacks many safety features. I’d like to go over all these points.

When I saw the motion, which we received during our party convention—where people were dazzled and very happy to see our country’s progress—I told myself that I truly understood. There were 4,500 people who made the trip to Montreal, and they know why they came.

When I see people crossing the floor of the House, I tell myself that I fully understand why. As for me, writing this today and debating it until who knows what time—I’m not saying it’s a waste of time, far from it. I am very proud, and I’ll say it again. I am very proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

However, since I’ve been here, this has been a committee that produces sound bites. We don’t really create laws; we produce sound bites. When I see these taken out of context, I’m surprised. We spend hours debating issues that are very important to Canadians, and in the end, all we get out of it is a sound bite. The opposition wants to produce sound bites, but we want to tackle major projects. They want to make sound bites, while we want to earn the trust of Canadians. If they want to disseminate these clips to show them in their ridings, there are other ways to do it.

No one should come here to sow doubt in the minds of Canadians. We saw that during the election, and I don't think it worked—we can still see it in the polls.

On the contrary, Canadians want a government that can take risks, that can say it takes pride in its identity and that can ensure that major projects move forward. The government's not afraid. Canadians should not be afraid.

Once again, let me return to the issue of costs. I’ll say it again: If you do a quick search using the terms “high-speed rail” and “Conservative Party”, the results are all about costs and spending.

Basic economics clearly shows that this isn’t an expense—it’s an investment. It's an investment in a public good. It is for the public. Its value does not lie in recouping fare revenue, but in the economic activity it will generate. This is very important, and it is what is called a return on investment, including implicit factors—

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.