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
Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON
I'm looking for relevance. We are not talking about Alto's viability as a project. We are looking at a minister coming here and providing us an explanation as to why we should not have the opportunity to speak with him, why the Ethics Commissioner should not be invited here and why the Minister of Finance and National Revenue shouldn't be here. That's it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I take your point of order, Mr. Gill. It's a relevant one.
We're dealing with the motion that's in front of us, and I suggest that we get back to it.
I've said this twice now, but I'll say it a third time. We're not dealing with the merits of the Alto project. That's not what's under consideration here. What's under consideration is the Minister of Finance making a claim that he recused himself from the decisions the government made related to Alto and calling in witnesses.
Mr. Sari, you have the floor. Bring it back, please.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I invite my colleague to read the second bullet point. What is being requested here? The appearance of “executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours.” Why? Let’s look back at the Conservative Party’s history at the ethics committee. I invite my colleague across the floor to look at what transpired when other groups were invited.
This is quite simply a smear campaign. It is a smear campaign that cannot be considered. We cannot be the ones to trigger this kind of situation.
I appreciate your point of order, Mr. Gill. However, please consider how your colleagues treated people when they appeared before us. They put words in their mouths.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Sari is debating the relevance of our committee and the way we do things.
Could he please come back to the motion? We are not going to start debating how things are done here.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I have the right; this is a public meeting. I can talk about what's happening here. Everyone saw it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Hold on. Everything should be through the chair, please.
Mr. Hardy, that's not a point of order.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I understand the relevance of your remark.
Mr. Sari, please go ahead on the motion.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
The first and third points request that individuals be invited here as witnesses. The second point requests that Alto's executives, including the CEO, appear as witnesses.
When I've seen people appear here to share their very relevant opinions and explain issues related to conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest, it was not only for committee members but also for Canadians listening to us. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing is that there’s no effort to explain procedures, regulations, or laws, or to demystify them. On the contrary, what I’ve experienced here—and I’ll say it again—is beneath the committee’s purpose and mission. That is not why we are here.
As for the Alto people, we are told there will be no consultation. I think that when they come to testify, they'll explain the procedures they've implemented. I should really say “if they come to testify”.
The conditional tense is used a lot, as Mr. Hardy noted. It’s good that he made that point, since everything the people opposite are saying uses the conditional tense. If these people appear, they will clearly explain the work they plan to do to consult the public regarding this project. They will explain how these public consultations will take place and how they will work with all stakeholders—and I mean all stakeholders, because no one should be left out. We must work with everyone, particularly those involved in the agricultural sector. This is truly very important.
Whether in government or in the opposition, a fear-based approach is unacceptable. Canadians know there are challenges, but they do not want an approach based on fear.
The sessions organized by the people at Alto will help gather input from the public, stakeholders in the agricultural sector, and all those affected—including those who will benefit from the project, both during its implementation and afterward, once it is operational.
Returning to the motion, Mr. Chair—otherwise people will say I’m straying from it, though that’s not the case. The motion also raises allegations regarding the Conflict of Interest Act. I believe this is a very serious matter, and we really must discuss it. This is an issue that must be examined by independent institutions; it is very important. These institutions must be independent, but also competent.
However, we must not confuse accountability mechanisms with the merits of the project itself. That ambiguity is what is problematic in the motion. Even if we set aside the political, economic and environmental arguments, the arguments in favour of high-speed rail remain very strong. I am speaking to the public now: the arguments presented by Mr. Fergus, Ms. Lapointe and others are very strong.
Should we disengage from government and rely on privately funded infrastructure? Is that what people want?
No country in the world has built a real high-speed rail network solely through private investment. Whether in France, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Switzerland or Morocco, we see that partnerships are always involved.
Neither in Japan, nor in France, nor in the United Kingdom did these projects come to fruition without a certain degree of public leadership, of course, because the benefits are widely shared on both sides. When we talk about the private sector, who is working in that sector? Canadians are. When we talk about the public sector, it is because we want to ensure a certain level of leadership.
The long-term benefits are significant and widespread. They affect many sectors. Private capital also has a role to play, and that is very important.
Conservative
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Is it because there are long-term benefits that we shouldn't hear from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Alto executives and the minister? I don't see the relevance of what my colleague Mr. Sari is saying. I don't see where he is going with this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
As I said, the debate is on the motion. You have to talk about the motion. That's my advice to Mr. Sari.
Go ahead on the motion, Mr. Sari.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I mentioned major investments because this motion invites us to think small. Instead of looking at the big picture, the focus is on hypothetical details and prioritizing short-term costs. That is what this motion invites us to do. We must not interpret the motion solely on the basis of its three points, namely calling witnesses. Behind the motion lies a problem, a pattern of behaviour, and a history from which the Conservative Party, unfortunately, cannot distance itself. This motion is merely a continuation of that. That is the real issue that needs to be explained today.
I'll come back to the motion once again. Let's assume that people come to testify, that a company explains it will hold public consultations, that it wants to speak with stakeholders in the agricultural sector and explain how the project works, its governance and the shared responsibilities. Let them come here and explain it; I agree with that. However, the way they might be treated—given that we want a long-term partnership—is problematic for me, especially since this is no longer a luxury but a strategic necessity. There's no room for this type of behaviour or tactics that I do not particularly like.
On the contrary, the opposition parties should also behave responsibly. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois—Quebec will benefit greatly from this project—should adopt a different approach than the one in the motion. The motion is intended to filibuster, hinder and slow down the work.
I am keen to see the day when all members stand up in the House of Commons to say that we are going to take the risk, that we are going to move forward and that we deserve this high-speed train. We're not going to play these games, with little motions here and there.
It's not that we didn't want to be here today; it's just that we had planned to meet with other groups whom we had promised we would join, because this issue is important to us. Yet, we are here because we have this responsibility, and I am proud to take it on—though I would like it to yield a result that benefits our listening public.
Instead of debating the project's relevance—as my colleagues have done—we are discussing aspects that will simply delay the project's completion.
As a Canadian, I choose to be a leader. Other groups here seem to want to lag behind. By introducing the motion today, they are choosing to lag behind. I don't think that's what Canadians want.
We must invest in the future. We cannot be paralyzed by fear or hypothetical concerns. Personally, I would have preferred not to debate this motion today. I would have preferred that it not even be on the table and that we move beyond these political considerations. Personally, I would have rejected the motion outright. Not because the concerns raised do not merit debate, but because its conclusion is problematic. What is important now is not to sow doubt in the minds of the public. In the current situation, in Canada as elsewhere, certain conclusions could be fundamentally flawed.
The high-speed rail project must move forward. If Canada wants to move forward, it cannot do so by standing still.
In closing, let me summarize. It's happening in Europe. It's happening in Africa. High-speed rail exists. The results are clear. Its impact is clear. When I travel, I'm very happy to use it. On the other hand, it always breaks my heart a little, because it's not available in Canada. I understand why: It's because on several occasions people lacked the courage to act. Yet when they do show courage, others try to stand in their way.
I see my colleagues opposite laughing at this, but it really hurts me. If they can laugh, it's because, to them, it's okay. Perhaps some aren't receptive to the arguments we're making because they're economic. My colleagues opposite don't understand economics. I won't even mention environmental arguments.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment.
Madam Clerk, I move that we keep the motion 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.
I move that we end it there, meaning that we delete the last part, which reads:
And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Sari.
I'm going to suspend for a minute, because I want to make sure that every member understands what the amendment is. It will also give me some time to circle back with the clerk on some other things that I've been thinking about.
The meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Before the pause, an amendment had been put forward by Mr. Sari.
He sought to delete the last line, which reads:
And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.
Two people wish to speak: Mr. Hardy and Mr. Thériault. I also see that Mrs. Church has raised her hand, as has Mrs. Goodridge.
Mr. Hardy, you have the floor regarding the amendment.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I believe my name was added to the list before the break, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
