Mr. Chair, this situation with Alto and Mr. Champagne involves a sequence of events, and we need to understand that sequence of events. What happened between July and now?
When was the Minister of Finance's partner hired? Why did the Minister of Finance not take the necessary steps to recuse himself? If he did recuse himself, when did he do it? In what circumstances did he recuse himself and from what decisions? To me, the only way to look at this is in the context of Bill C‑15's implementation. How is it that he was the leading sponsor? You'll say that it was the budget implementation bill, and we understand that. However, why did he include provisions in Bill C‑15 giving Alto carte blanche going forward, particularly in relation to expropriating property? Why did he do that? How does that have nothing to do with his connection to Alto through his wife? Why shouldn't that raise questions in people's minds about the appearance of a conflict of interest and credibility? Doesn't he want to come here to explain his position?
I'm sure he didn't ask his fellow members to filibuster the committee today and talk out the clock. I'm sure he didn't do that. I am sure he is a man of honour and will appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to explain what happened. If he did anything wrong, he will admit his mistake. Personally, that's what I would do in his shoes.
The same goes for Alto. I'm not sure that Alto doesn't want to shed light on the situation. It's important to hear from the Ethics Commissioner, so he can explain how he handles situations like this one. Is a conflict of interest screen in place? Did he require one? Did he not? Why did he not require one?
Why isn't Mr. Champagne, the finance minister, in an apparent conflict of interest, given that he made the decision to put these changes in the budget implementation bill, including amendments to the Expropriation Act?
I want to thank Mr. Barrett for raising this issue and working on it while Parliament was on break. It's unfathomable to me that the ethics committee, whose primary focus is literally to examine conflict of interest issues, would be prevented from adopting this motion today.
We have three minutes left, Mr. Chair. I don't see any indication that my Liberal colleagues agree with what I've said. I wish they would have told me that they agree with me on the need to get to the bottom of this situation. Not doing so could sully the project.
Mr. Champagne apparently wrote to the Prime Minister on September 10, telling him that a conflict of interest screen had been put in place. It is nevertheless legitimate to ask what that means in practical terms. What does it look like? What is allowed and what isn't allowed under the screen?
Apparently, he sought advice on the ethics implications. How did that advice not result in his recusing himself from the vote on Bill C‑15 or his recognizing that it was better to do so? That's really hard to wrap my head around. Perhaps he should get a new ethics adviser. I will do it for free.
That said, right now, we aren't discussing the crux of the high-speed rail issue. This whole thing got off to a bad start. Why? It got off to a bad start because the government hurriedly passed this legislation and gave carte blanche to a company that doesn't consult stakeholders in a meaningful way. Rather, it puts on information sessions as a public relations exercise.
If the company engaged in proper consultation, perhaps the farmers, the people of Mirabel and others who may end up in the corridor could get answers to the legitimate questions they are asking. In Quebec, we usually consult stakeholders on all aspects of the project.
We're told that the 10-kilometre-wide corridor will eventually be narrowed to 60 metres. Obviously, there won't be further easements. Why start with such a wide corridor? At what point will people lose the ability to do any work on their property until the project is completed? This is going to have a major impact on people's lives, and the government gave Alto carte blanche.
If listening to people is just about understanding their concerns and frustrations, not about allowing them to exercise their rights, well then, the project is off to a very bad start. This is looking like Mirabel 2.0.
It's almost 4:30, Mr. Chair, and I think we should adjourn debate and move on.