Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are discussing the high-speed rail project, whereas, as the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we must take a position on a motion that would allow us to determine whether there is an appearance of conflict of interest or an actual conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance, who sponsored Bill C‑15 until the very end and voted in favour of it. Why did he not recuse himself from the process surrounding Bill C‑15, if only as a precaution?
My colleague Ms. Lapointe cited a few colleagues who have taken a position on the high-speed rail project. This was done before the power play of passing Bill C‑15. Everyone can be in favour of the high-speed train. In fact, 76% of people support this project. Everyone likes apple pie. However, it all comes down to how things are done.
Back then, Mirabel Airport was hailed as the seventh wonder of the world. We saw how that turned out: It was a complete mess. When we listen to the people of Mirabel, we see that they do indeed have reasonable concerns. Personally, I'm a bit worried to hear Ms. Lapointe say she's already in favour of the project as it stands, when we don't even know what it looks like, how much it will cost, or if it will destroy farmland.
It's all well and good to talk about greenhouse gases, but at the end of the pandemic, we realized we needed to bring producers closer to our plates, because we had experienced shortages in the supply chains.
In Quebec, the proposed line actually runs through my region. If Ms. Lapointe met with members of the Union des producteurs agricoles, she would have seen that they are clearly opposed to the high-speed rail project. There are two things that concern producers regarding the project in its current form.
The consequences of the high-handed move to pass Bill C‑15 are the suspension of the Expropriation Act and the removal of powers from the affected parties, rather than the application of this law, which had been enacted following the Mirabel Airport fiasco and the power grabs of that era. In that sense, it's all well and good to say we support a concept, but it's another matter entirely to figure out how to implement it.
Today, that is not the question we are asking ourselves. Rather, we are asking whether, from an ethical standpoint, the Minister of Finance has crossed the line. He certainly acted wisely by consulting with people and seeking to establish a conflict-of-interest filter. The problem is that we don't know what that filter consists of. How is it that, if some kind of filter was applied by people around him, he was able to vote on Bill C‑15?
The question is not about what the Ethics Commissioner said. In one of his responses, the commissioner states that Mr. Champagne does not manage human resources, but rather the Department of Transport. He therefore cannot be in a conflict of interest.
The question we might ask is this: Is there indeed an appearance of a conflict of interest? After all, we are talking about his spouse. Did Alto hire his spouse because he is Minister of Finance? As Minister of Finance, did he consider that he had to see Bill C‑15 through to its passage, while allowing himself to vote, even though his wife worked for Alto? These are entirely legitimate questions.
According to a document on the Treasury Board website, when it comes to conflicts of interest, the key factor is not the integrity or good faith of the public servant, but the appearance of a conflict of interest in the eyes of the public. I suggest that my colleagues read the McKendry decision.
Today, instead of obstructing proceedings, the Liberals should simply acknowledge that Mr. Champagne needs to come and explain himself, and that the commissioner should tell us why we need to investigate to understand what happened, because there is a lack of transparency regarding access to information. The head of Alto should also explain, in the chronology of events, how the minister's partner came to be hired, and why the minister does not seem to see a problem with taking a stand and voting. That's what blows my mind. How can he vote? How can he decide not to recuse himself during votes on Bill C‑15?
If the concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest applies to a public servant, it should also apply to a project like this one, which effectively pushes people aside. Telling people that we're listening to them isn't enough. As the Minister of Transport said during today's oral question period, it's going to happen because it's the seventh wonder of the world. It's the greatest project we can achieve, but at what cost? How is this happening? At whose expense is this being done? These are questions that need to be answered.
We're not talking about public consultations. No one seriously believes that Alto is conducting genuine public consultations. These are more like aggressive promotional and public relations activities. Why are they so aggressive? It's because they have the law on their side. They've just been given a blank check. When the president of Alto says he wants to avoid expropriations and prioritize agreements, that also means he holds all the cards and can impose his will.
Before supporting a project like this, perhaps we should get answers to our questions. That is fundamental. All the colleagues the member mentioned would agree with me on this point. There is a gap between the concept, the idea, and the implementation. Today, we see that, in this project, the Minister of Finance has decided to take a stand, defend his bill, and include an amendment in the budget implementation bill, which means that the Expropriation Act no longer allows affected individuals to be represented.
If we truly want to listen to and respect people, as the Minister of Transport said this afternoon, why was this provision introduced? Why was it necessary for Bill C‑15?
We can certainly accuse each other of spreading misinformation. I've heard it said that the Bloc Québécois is trying to create fear. That is not the case. We are asking questions, and we have no answers. Alto doesn't have those answers either. Until we have answers to our questions, we must exercise caution.
Has there been any questionable behaviour? Personally, I would like the minister to have the courage to come meet with us rather than asking his colleagues to filibuster in order to run out the clock and avoid a perfectly legitimate motion for an ethics committee. Let him come meet with us, let the president of Alto come explain himself, and let the Ethics Commissioner tell us why, in his view, there is no problem.
In the next few hours, we'll be finalizing our conflict of interest report. Perhaps there are things we will need to add.
I can certainly say that a high-speed train is an extremely appealing project, but the people at the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, said they would prefer a high-frequency train, because it would have less of an impact on farmland. The proportion of very productive farmland in Quebec is about 2%, and this project could seriously threaten that land.
I think it's time to get on with things. It's 4:19 p.m. Mascouche time. I've never heard Ms. Lapointe be so talkative during our proceedings. It's inspiring, but it's important not to dodge the issue.
The committee is not the issue. The committee has a mandate to explicitly, publicly and transparently uncover what happened between when the minister expressed his initial concern, when he took the specific measures he took, and when he determined that he did not have to recuse himself and was free to vote. We also need to understand why he included provisions in Bill C‑15 that could derail the project and make certain people apprehensive.
I met with the people of Mirabel, and they don't want to relive what happened to them. The same goes for farmers in Lanaudière. The UPA has come out against the project as it currently stands. Meaningful consultations have to take place.
As far as I'm concerned, it would be inappropriate not to shed light on the minister's ethics and involvement. I heard him say this afternoon that this was a disgrace. He should be careful with his words. Is it a disgrace every time someone asks a question about the ethics of a situation? The disgrace, to my mind, is having to ask the question. Someone somewhere showed poor judgment and didn't do what they should have. This is about the appearance of a conflict of interest and the credibility of our institutions. Everyone could end up being muzzled.
The Liberals like muzzling people, and they've done so in the case of major bills. However, they're asking people to trust them. If they want to rebuild trust, they need to be transparent every step of the way, and for us, figuring out whether the minister broke the rules is an important step. We want to understand what happened. Everyone should [Technical difficulty—Editor]. This isn't a partisan comment.
Mr. Chair, I would like us to [Technical difficulty—Editor].