Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Welcome, everyone.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 35 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I've been asked to read this, so I want to make it very clear.

Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the tables. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

For the benefit of members as well, wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand.

I saw your hand already, Mr. Barrett.

For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Before we start, I did decide to move to committee business. There were two motions put on notice, one prior to the break and another one that came in last week. We were supposed to start the Lobbying Act with witnesses, and I did not want to have that interrupted.

Fill your boots. If you want to move the motions, move the motions now. We are going into committee business afterwards in camera to deal with the Conflict of Interest Act.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'll move a motion, Chair, and then I'll speak to it once you have received it.

I move:

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;

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

Chair, it's been sent to the clerk and distributed to all members in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The motion is in order. It was put on notice.

You want to make comments on that, and then I'll open up the floor to any other comments.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

The Alto high-speed rail project is the largest infrastructure project in the history of our country. Its current estimate is up to $90 billion, but evidence from other jurisdictions where they've pursued projects of this kind have seen the costs rise by many orders of magnitude, and there's a lot of concern.

I have a boutique set of concerns from my region with respect to this project and the impact that it will have on members of my community—the damage to the environment, the destruction of heritage sites—as well as the consultation process, but that's not what this motion is about. The issue that's come up arises from a revelation about a week ago that the Minister of Finance has a partner, a spouse, in the executive offices of Alto.

The minister revealed last week, once this information was publicly available, that he had informed the Prime Minister in the fall that he had imposed a conflict of interest screen on himself, that he had identified the potential for a conflict of interest based on his relationship with this Alto vice-president and that he had recused himself.

No formal recusal has been published on the Ethics Commissioner's website and no conflict of interest screen has been established with the Ethics Commissioner's office.

The minister has identified this risk of a conflict of interest, and when we have a scenario like this, which is governed by the Conflict of Interest Act, the act tells us that the minister can't participate in decisions, discussions, debates or votes on the matter, but the problem is that the minister has done all of those things. We can infer from the absence of recusals published online that the minister also participated in cabinet decisions that concerned Alto.

There were specific votes in the House on including this in the BIA. The minister is not the Minister of Transport, but in his bill he included a measure that was very specifically transport-focused, and we had a standing vote in the House on removing the creation of the high-speed rail network act from the BIA. The minister voted against removing it. He voted to keep it in place.

What this motion seeks to do is have three individuals testify at the committee, including the Ethics Commissioner, who can officially and directly speak to this matter. I think it's important that Canadians understand the rules and why what he is saying is contrary to what the minister is saying.

It's the minister who has raised the prospect that there is, in fact, the risk of a conflict of interest. The motion is to have the minister come and address that with the committee and, importantly, also to have the CEO of Alto.

The motion says “executives”, plural, and I previously did note that the conflict arises, as the minister has said, because his partner is an executive at Alto. She's a vice-president. Unless another member or other members have a compelling reason, I don't see why that particular vice-president would need to speak to the committee.

However, it does give bandwidth for the committee to invite the CEO. If the CEO wanted to bring another member of his executive team with him, then that makes sense, but it should be the CEO who comes to speak at the committee.

Why do we need to have someone from Alto come? First of all, this is Alto-specific. It's this $90-billion project, but, also, the enabling effect, the creation of that high-speed rail network act in Bill C-15, which the minister had put forward, and which Conservatives and Bloc members voted against, what would that have meant for Alto had it not passed? This is something that the minister took an active decision to involve himself in.

It presents an opportunity for this committee to further examine the impacts of the act and how effective it is at doing the thing it's supposed to do. We need to protect the confidence that Canadians have in all of the different levels and parts of our system, including the executive, including Parliament, and this allows that to happen.

It's rather narrow in that it's not seeking to strike the special committee on the examination of potential conflicts of interests with the $90-billion Alto project. It's very narrow, and that's why I've looked to establish what our rationale is in seeking to have these specific witnesses appear at committee. I've observed the public interest in this matter to date, and what precipitated the minister responding wasn't Parliament, and it wasn't a committee. It was the online sleuthing which discovered this connection that forced a response from the minister.

Let's just re-establish the transparency; get an understanding of why the minister took the decisions that he did; find out how the act should be applied and understand why the commissioner is interpreting in the way that he has, is or will; and also get an understanding of what the impacts are, based on the decisions that have been taken to date, and how they do impact this Crown corporation. That's what we're looking for.

I think that, as a measure of transparency, Chair, it's something that could conceivably be dispensed with quickly today, and over the next two weeks in....

Pardon me?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's wishful thinking.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

It sounds like we're in for a filibuster from the Liberals. Mr. Turnbull says it's wishful thinking to think that it would be dispensed with today, but we think it's an opportunity for transparency. Unfortunately, it's telling that the committee won't be able to get on with other business, including the report on the Conflict of Interest Act, which was supposed to follow in the second hour. However, I guess we'll start the filibuster clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Turnbull, I know you've been to this committee before. If you have any comments, they don't go across the table. They come to the chair. You were not in a position to speak at that point, so I ask you to respect the committee, please.

Madam Lapointe, go ahead.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Alto high-speed rail project is very interesting. This train will pass through my riding, in Saint‑Eustache. From Mirabel, it will pass through my riding. This high-speed rail project will connect Quebec City to Toronto. The project involves structuring investments, the largest in Canadian history. It will result in jobs. It will contribute close to $35 billion to the economy, create close to 51,000 jobs and improve productivity for future generations. Can you imagine the greenhouse gas savings this will generate, considering the number of people who travel between Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto? Let's also think about how fast we'll be able to travel.

Personally, I don't know if we'll still be sitting here once we have high-speed rail. However, this is a structuring project that will enable people to continue working while on the train and to travel quickly from one city to another.

It is clear that the route hasn't yet been finalized in my riding of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, which includes Deux‑Montagnes, Saint‑Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. We are currently at the consultation stage. Alto is going around, meeting with people and addressing their concerns. It's far from over. It's important to continue to hold consultations. People can submit briefs. Some cities are submitting briefs. People are concerned. Alto is currently testing the soil.

Personally, I'm going to talk to you about the section between Montreal and Ottawa, because that's the one we're focusing on right now. We haven't gotten to the section between Montreal and Quebec City yet, which will go through Trois-Rivières. Right now, the first section we're analyzing is the one between Montreal and Ottawa. The good thing is that consultations are currently being held in both provinces. Consultations are being held in Quebec and Ontario. After that, consultations can continue for the regions further away. The section between Montreal and Ottawa will be the first to be built. There are lessons to be learned every time a structure like this is built. We will use that experience to continue on to Quebec City. We'll do the same thing to continue on to Toronto from Ottawa. We know that, when undertaking a major project like this, we must ensure that people are consulted properly.

At present, there is a fairly wide corridor, about 10 kilometres. In the end, the train won't be 10 kilometres wide. It will have a right of way of 60 metres wide. However, it is clear that, wherever it's located, it raises some concerns. It's important to keep in mind that my riding is south of Mirabel. Those who remember will recall that expropriations took place in Mirabel in the 1970s. Those expropriations were carried out under legislation that no longer exists. Under the new legislation, agreements must be reached before expropriations can proceed.

I can tell you that when the people of Mirabel heard about the high-speed rail, which could potentially pass through Mirabel, they were very anxious. From one generation to the next, they remember the expropriations for the airport. Where do the people of Mirabel who were expropriated in the 1970s go? Most of them moved to my riding, to Saint‑Eustache. People have spoken to me about their concerns; we're here to listen to them.

Alto is currently conducting consultations. It's important to begin with that first step. Following the soil assessment—environmental assessments are currently being done—we will be able to determine what the exact route between Montreal and Ottawa will be. That's the first section, as I mentioned earlier. Later on, there will be the section extending to Quebec City and the one going as far as Toronto.

I, for one, am very pleased with this project. I'm happy about it, and I support it. That said, I also listen to people who have concerns. We need to listen to them. As members of Parliament, that's exactly what we're here to do.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a project that will inject $35 billion to the economy, create 51,000 jobs and boost productivity for generations to come. As I said earlier, I don't know if we'll be able to take the train from Montreal to Ottawa to come to work here, but we'll see. Imagine this: The trip from Quebec City to Montreal would take 90 minutes by train. It's a dream. In addition, when you take the train, you get to see the scenery, it's fast, you can continue to work, and you can get things done.

By the way, 76% of Quebeckers support high-speed rail. The majority of people support the project. The proposed high-speed rail act would cut the time to start construction in half, with a launch scheduled for 2029, instead of 2032, according to the Prime Minister. It's 2026. It's coming up fast. Canada is investing $3.9 billion in project design, route planning, station location, environmental assessments and consultations. There would be up to 25 trains a day. That would be fantastic.

For the first segment alone, thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete, as well as significant amounts of copper and aluminum, will be required. I assume my colleagues have heard about our buy Canadian policy, which aims to prioritize steel, concrete and all precious metals sourced from Canada, especially aluminum, which is produced in Quebec. That would be used. There is no doubt that, with everything happening south of the border, it is important to reinvest in our economy, and everyone will benefit from it.

Alto is applying the principles of the buy Canadian policy and is working with Canadian industry for the required materials. That matters a lot, but it will also create good jobs for Canadians and Quebeckers.

I've met with people in my riding who had questions for me. In Spain, 30% of high-speed rail users are people—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm new here, but I just want to understand why we're discussing the project in general when a motion has been moved on a very specific subject. We have an hour. We're here to talk about a minister who said he recused himself but didn't. We don't want to hear about the project; we've already voted on it in the House. We want to know whether or not the minister recused himself and whether we can conduct our study. We could spend 10 years talking about the pros and cons of the project.

Can we stick to what we're supposed to be doing today?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're right, Mr. Hardy, that the motion is on the floor.

I give a little more latitude when it comes to debate. I've done that on all sides consistently, but I will ask that we bring it back to the motion, Madam Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I will be happy to do so, Mr. Chair. That said, I was referring to the motion, which begins as follows:

That the committee undertake a study into the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto […].

I was in the process of describing the Alto company to you. I was talking about the high-speed train and explaining what a high-speed train is. There is a lot of misinformation circulating. There is misinformation everywhere. My colleagues in the opposition should know that some information is not always accurate. I am talking about the train. I am simply trying to update the information regarding the train.

The motion continues as follows: “and the minister's claims that […]”. We read the motion earlier.

The motion proposed by our colleague Michael Barrett is about the train. What I'm saying is that it will pass through my district. The line will start in Ottawa, cross the Ottawa River, and return to Mirabel. It will pass through my riding and through Laval, and it will go to Montreal. I feel very well positioned to talk to you about this and explain what it will mean for us, since people are talking to me about it. High-speed rail is a positive thing; people want it, but there is still some concern. We and Alto are here to listen and understand what people think about this whole project. People will want to take the high-speed train, but we need to make sure we've consulted people properly, provided the right answers, listened, and taken into account what local residents tell us. That's what we're doing.

Earlier, we were talking about the route and the 10 kilometres under study, but in the end, the line will be 60 metres wide. A lot of misinformation is circulating everywhere. You surely have some great ideas, but sometimes what circulates on social media isn't entirely accurate. So it's important to know that the right-of-way will be 60 metres wide, and that the goal is to cause as few problems as possible for the landowners. There will be ways to do this, and it will be worked out. We met with the Union des producteurs agricoles to make sure we were really listening to their concerns and what they wanted. As I said, I'm here to listen to people.

I'll continue talking about the train. I haven't given any examples yet. In Spain, 30% of high-speed train users are people who didn't travel before. That means people who have never taken the train are potential high-speed train users.

It must be said that here, when we want to take the train, we don't have a fast and consistently reliable service. I believe cars are more reliable. When you take your car to go somewhere, you know how long it will take. It takes six hours between Montreal and Toronto. However, taking the train results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it's safe, and you have time to do other things on the train. You can therefore use your time more wisely.

By the way, there is community support. Discussions with provincial governments have contributed to the development of this initiative. Ontario and Quebec support this project. The Ottawa City Council has passed a motion strongly supporting this project. It unanimously adopted a motion calling for the implementation of this high-speed rail system. Just imagine if Montreal supported the project. It would certainly help, because people could live in Trois-Rivières and work in Montreal. According to estimates, the trip would take 30 or 40 minutes. People could stay in Trois-Rivières and visit their families in Montreal easily and quickly. The same goes for Toronto. The mayor also supports this initiative. High-speed rail will make travel between Toronto and other cities easier.

I'm not telling you anything new when I say that the majority of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the southern border, specifically between Quebec City and Toronto. These are the people we want to serve. Of course, we also want to serve the people in the surrounding areas. People will be encouraged to use it.

As for the business community, the high-speed train will enable faster travel, more jobs and a stronger economy. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has said, this is exactly the kind of ambitious investment Canada needs.

We are encouraged by the government's plan to introduce legislation that would accelerate the development of the Alto high-speed rail project, which will provide a vital link between Quebec City, Toronto and the cities in between.

Can you imagine how easy it will be to get to Quebec City, no matter what the weather is like? You can go to Quebec City on the weekend, and it will take you 90 minutes. The round trip will be safe and pleasant.

I think I'm the only one who's had the chance to sit in Quebec City. In fact, Mr. Thériault, who's online, has also sat in Quebec City. Instead of taking Highway 40 in the snow and spending three hours on a dangerous road, it would take 90 minutes by train. I could have studied my documents and prepared myself.

Of course, right now I'm in Boisbriand, in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. To get here, I have to drive two hours on Highway 50. Are there people here who have ever driven on Highway 50? Personally, I find this highway very dangerous, especially in winter. The provincial government supports the Alto project. It must know that Highway 50 is a dangerous road. This train would help everyone, and all those who want to come work here. Beyond work, it would also help people visit cities.

The president and CEO of the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce also supports the project. As I mentioned earlier, this is a high-speed rail project that will serve the most heavily populated corridor, between Toronto and Quebec City. It's like a global business hub attracting new investment.

There are surely some among us who have had the chance to try high-speed trains in Europe. We go to Europe, we come back, and we wonder why we don't have that here in Canada. We've been talking about this for a long time in the various caucuses. We've long wanted a great infrastructure like this, precisely to mobilize people and attract investment. We want something we can be proud of.

You know that Canada is a great tourist destination. High-speed rail will allow people to travel between Canada's major cities and visit all the tourist attractions they have to offer. That is my view. The Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, which represents tourism in Ottawa, considers the Alto project a unique opportunity. How long has it been since we've undertaken a project of this magnitude? Yes, we have the train, the Trans-Canada Highway, and the Trans-Canada Trail, which is accessible by bike across Canada. We have those things, but the investment in high-speed rail is an investment that will benefit the construction sector. Canadians and Quebeckers will work on the project. Plus, we have steel, aluminum, and all the minerals. We have everything we need right here. We're going to have a modern train.

This is a project that will increase workforce mobility. For my part, I'm lucky that it's happening here. As I told you, the line will pass through my riding. To get from the Outaouais to Quebec City, you have to go north of the Ottawa River and through my riding.

It is important to listen to people and their concerns. People support the project. In fact, 76% of Quebeckers support it.

In summary, this project will increase workforce mobility while removing barriers to domestic trade, diversifying markets, boosting productivity and supporting our climate goals. That is very important.

Indeed, every time we fly, it takes a tremendous amount of energy to get the plane in the air and bring it back down. However, taking the train takes almost the same amount of time. When we fly, we have to get there early and go through security, so it ends up taking about the same amount of time when you factor all that in. Plus, the train will emit fewer greenhouse gases. That is what we want for future generations. We must stop climate change. High-speed rail is one way to do that. By investing in high-speed rail, we will help mitigate climate change.

Ensuring that Peterborough is a stop on the high-speed rail line has been a priority for the local Chamber of Commerce. High-speed rail is an essential way to connect communities to the rest of the province.

Currently, cities are submitting information and briefs. They too would like to have stations.

That said, when carrying out a project like this, we must still consider that if there are too many stops, travel times between major cities will be reduced. We need to keep that in mind. This is an important opportunity that will benefit Canadian workers and industries.

I know that my colleague Mr. Thériault is listening to us, and I also know that one of his colleagues, Mr. Alexis Deschênes, member of Parliament for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, said he was in favour of this project. I was glad to hear that, because I've heard different things. We're in the middle of a by-election today in the riding of Terrebonne, and people have said that what's happening is appalling and that we've scared the people of Terrebonne by talking about the high-speed train. That is shameful, and it is misinformation. They have been fearmongering, and people are asking questions. I'll go back to what I was saying at the beginning: There will be consultations on the route, among other things. We must not scare people. Mr. Deschênes said he was in favour of the project.

Here is a quote from the former member for Trois-Rivières, Mr. René Villemure, who was a member of the Bloc Québécois:

Today's announcement is in itself excellent news that aligns with a greener and more modern vision of transportation.

He added:

[…] it is not only a tremendous time saver for users, but also a valuable infrastructure asset for Laval and Trois-Rivières […]

The train would stop in Trois-Rivières, and people would be connected.

Personally, I have family in Trois-Rivières. Being able to visit them quickly, without taking my car, I find that appealing. Plus, it's safe.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou‑Duval, a member of Parliament, said:

[…] we will remain vigilant in the face of cost overruns, which can sometimes be astronomical for projects of this magnitude.

He did not say he was against the project; he said we would remain vigilant.

This legislation reduces the risk of cost overruns by cutting down on administrative red tape. That is well said.

I return once again to Mr. Villemure. He said:

When you care about a project, you put in the necessary energy to make it happen, and right now, that's not what I see. Quebeckers and Mauritians must give up on the idea of a train in the foreseeable future.

It takes a long time to build a high-speed train, after all. As I said, we're still in the consultation phase. We don't need obstruction.

This legislative measure comes from Mr. Barsalou-Duval, who stated in 2024 that he didn't feel there was any sense of urgency. He also encouraged the government to build a high-speed train. Shouldn't we be focusing on high-speed rail, which, in addition to saving time, would encourage more people to switch from cars to trains?

This brings us back to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It could help and increase the use of high-speed rail.

There are also the Conservatives. I'm going to share another quote, and I'll ask you to identify who said it.

Here is the quote:

People in my region are tired of waiting decades for this project to become a reality. When will the government decide to get these projects off the ground […]?

The person who said that is Mr. Jamie Schmale, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes. He's happy.

I have no quotes from the New Democratic Party, since there are no NDP members on the committee.

Who said that high-speed rail in Canada would be a very good thing? It was the only NDP member from Quebec, Mr. Alexandre Boulerice, who represents Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Mr. Boulerice has gained a great deal of experience since 2011; he has learned a lot. He uses his judgment, and he believes it is a good thing.

Who said this was a truly exciting project that meets the needs of Canadians? That person also said that Canada should have had high-speed rail a long time ago and that we are talking here about projects of national interest or national scope. Once again, it was Mr. Alexandre Boulerice who said that.

I could go on and on about the Alto project. We need to be visionary, invest in our workers, and invest in our industries—particularly the steel and aluminum sectors—to ensure we have a project that will usher Canada into a new era.

I could go on about this for a long time, if you'd like, but I think I'll yield the floor to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

Then I have MPs Turnbull, Fergus, Sari, Church, Cooper and Hardy.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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].

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, your mike isn't working.

I don't know how to say it in French, but the sound is muffled. Can you give us a bit of a test, please?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Is this better?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think so, but talk a bit more.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I've been talking for a while. I hope everyone can hear me now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, that's better.

You may carry on, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you're proposing a motion to adjourn debate. Is that correct?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's a dilatory motion. There's no debate on that.

The motion proposed by Mr. Thériault is that we adjourn debate on the motion. A yes vote means debate is adjourned, and a no vote means that debate keeps going.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The debate has been adjourned.

Ms. Church, do you have your hand up? I had you on the speaking list.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

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

It has been sent to the clerk.

In light of the need to ensure government operations remain modern, secure and effective so that Canadians can benefit from efficient and innovative public services, and recognizing the rapid advancement of digital technologies and their implications for the protection of personal information, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee undertake a study of not greater than ten meetings to review the Privacy Act; that the committee invite:

(a) the President of the Treasury Board of Canada for one hour;

(b) the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for two hours;

(c) the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta for two hours;

(d) any other witnesses the committee deems relevant;

that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.