Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Have we resolved the problem on the French channel, Mr. Thériault?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I don't hear the English interpreter any more.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, that's good then.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It should be.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

What's that? Oh, you just have to raise your hand.

Mr. Fergus, continue, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, it is quite normal to invite another parliamentarian or minister to appear before a parliamentary committee. That is someone who is essentially responsible for policy. They must be ready, at any time, to answer questions from parliamentarians, from their colleagues, to defend how they are doing their work and to reassure us that everything was done in accordance with the rules and all the laws that applied to them. To my mind, that's normal.

That said, there are two things that really concern me. The first pertains specifically to the second part of the motion, that is, the need to remove the amendment that was added to it. That is in fact why we want to remove it.

I listened carefully to my colleagues Mr. Thériault yesterday and Mr. Hardy as they tried to justify parts of the motion. However, I want to stress the following: Their justifications do not stand up, especially considering all the information and the measures taken by the main stakeholders.

As I said earlier, in this situation, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue proactively approached the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, an officer of Parliament, for advice. He received that advice, which the commissioner subsequently confirmed publicly. That advice was given to the minister in writing. Despite that, the minister went even further.

Canadians who are following this matter are wondering what we're doing. It's not like he was trying to hide something. He proactively sought advice. Despite the opinion he received that there was no problem, he went far beyond that.

In this case, where is the fire? Where is the smoke? I am eagerly waiting for someone to answer that question.

without shading the truth or the actions that were taken, or making false equivalences to justify an outcome.

If we look at the situation honestly and clearly, the conclusion is obvious. That is why I strongly support the adoption of this amendment, which seeks to remove the words “that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

That way, we can move forward and hopefully get to other business.

Second, last night I received an email from a Canadian, one of my constituents, who wanted to contact me. He thought I would be available for a Zoom call. He told me that he had been following the committee live. When we suspended to go in camera, he did not expect us to resume our discussions because he thought that, according to the schedule, the meeting was supposed to end at 5:30 p.m. yesterday.

To his surprise, after receiving my message that I would not be available, he went back and checked and found that we were continuing our work. He then wondered what was going on, especially since the matter had already been discussed before and a motion to adjourn debate had been adopted to go in camera and consider other matters. As I explained, Mr. Chair, your ruling was entirely in order, but it was quite a surprise to people who are not familiar with the inner workings of procedural debates in the House of Commons.

I would point out to the people here that the reason the debate has dragged on is that we want to avoid continuing to play political games and adding things to the motion, since they could lead to other political games.

In my opinion, we need to put an end to these political games and get back to the basics: invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and, if necessary, the Minister of Finance, while removing the parts that add nothing to the discussion on members' and ministers' responsibilities to Parliament for complying with the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Second, we must not add procedural elements that could lead to an unnecessary waste of time in the House of Commons. I don't want to say it's unusual, since it has come up a number of times in the past, but just because it was done in the past doesn't mean that it was a good thing.

Indeed, adopting this part of the motion could lead to hours and hours of debate that would be as unhelpful as other pointless debates we've had in the House of Commons.

I know this may offend some of my colleagues, who will say that, as I was Speaker of the House of Commons, it is my duty to defend the rights of all members of Parliament at all times. To that, I say, yes, absolutely. However, members of Parliament have an obligation to be reasonable. We must behave responsibly. Having power does not mean we must exercise it at all times. We have an obligation to act with dignity, responsibility and discernment. We must not hesitate to ask pointed questions to get to the bottom of things, but there are ways to do so that respect the noblest traditions of the Canadian Parliament.

Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will support the motion that has just been moved.

I will now give the floor to another speaker and listen to my colleagues' responses. I would like my name to be added to the list of speakers so that I may respond to my colleagues' comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

On the amendment, we are now going to Mr. Deschênes-Thériault.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment concerns the issue of reporting to the House. I would like us to take a step back. I know I was not with you yesterday, but my colleagues have fully informed me of the lengthy and substantive discussions that continued late into the evening.

I would therefore like to offer a few points for consideration. Before determining whether to report to the House and before we consider the amendment, I would like to take a fresh look at the motion and share some thoughts with you.

When we talk about high-speed rail, we are talking about a project that is central to our government's commitments over the past year: strengthening the Canadian economy, supporting nation-building projects that will use our products, creating jobs for our workers, and increasing GDP. This represents a tangible economic impact, benefiting our communities and our citizens.

I believe the public has entrusted us with a strong mandate in this regard. Moreover, the results of three by-elections last night showed us that voters have reaffirmed this trust so that we may continue our work to build a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy. This requires nation-building projects such as high-speed rail. That is our priority.

On our side of the table, we are focusing our efforts on implementing such projects. It is not about throwing a spanner in the works, engaging in partisanship or conducting witch hunts. Rather, it is about building faster and more efficiently in Canada, putting our fellow citizens to work, and using our resources to stimulate the economy. What motivates us and what we think about when we get up in the morning is fulfilling our commitments.

However, when I look at what is happening on the opposition side, I wonder. Why engage in a witch hunt? Why play petty politics over a project that has the potential to generate significant economic benefits for our country?

To meet the challenges of our time and seize new opportunities, we must make intergenerational investments that will protect and transform our industries, strengthen our economy and empower Canadians. That is what we are doing, notably through the 2025 budget and the legislative measures we have implemented since then.

I would like to see more co-operation from my colleagues in the opposition. Building and strengthening the Canadian economy and implementing major nation-building projects should be a shared priority that motivates us all. We should set partisanship aside and avoid throwing a spanner in the works of these major projects.

For my part, I have a hard time understanding the purpose of this motion and what it actually does for the average citizen. When I return to my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, in northwestern New Brunswick, and people ask me what I've accomplished in Parliament, I talk about legislative reforms and our work to strengthen the Canadian economy and generate benefits for workers in my region.

What constituents don't ask me is how much time I've spent debating opposition motions aimed at conducting witch hunts. That doesn't interest the people in my riding, and that's not why I was elected to Parliament.

This preamble, to which I will return later, brings me to the substance of the bill. If we are to determine whether to report to the House, we must understand the scope of the motion and its potential implications.

This is a bill with considerable economic benefits, particularly in terms of stimulating the economy. We are talking specifically about job creation: it is estimated that more than 51,000 jobs could be created, whether in construction, engineering, operations, maintenance or infrastructure upgrades. This represents thousands of jobs spanning several generations. Furthermore, these jobs have multiplier effects, since every dollar invested will generate indirect benefits. I am thinking of the many small and medium-sized businesses that will benefit, as well as suppliers of goods and services.

It is estimated that this project could contribute more than $35 billion to GDP, particularly through investments in steel manufacturing, concrete production, electrical systems, digital technologies and skilled trades. In and of itself, this represents a major economic boost for our country. We do not have time for partisanship or political games here. In my view, we need to get to work and carry out this project as soon as possible. Yet here, in committee, we are wasting our time—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Jansen has a point of order.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I'm wondering about relevance. The amendment isn't about the merits of high-speed rail.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, I agree with you on that.

I'm going to ask the member to deal specifically with what the amendment is, and that's to strike the last line “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.” I've been listening intently, Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, and it sounds like you are completely contrary to the Prime Minister's advice this morning. You're more performative than substantive or relevant to the debate, so I'm going to ask you to get back on track.

Please speak to the amendment.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I am a bit surprised by your comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Don't be surprised by it, because we sat here for seven hours last night with Liberal members talking about the merits of the Alto program when we're talking about the motion here, so don't be surprised by my proposal here.

Get back to the motion, please.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Actually, I thought that, as a member of the committee, I had the right to express my opinion. I wasn't aware that the chair could prevent me from expressing my surprise at certain remarks.

If I want to say that I'm surprised by something I hear, I believe that's an opinion I have the right to express as a member of this committee. I didn't know that limitations could be—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Speak to the amendment, please, the amendment.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I wanted to respond to you, Mr. Chair, because I did not realize that my impressions concerning my colleagues might be limited. I reiterate this, and I believe I have the right to express my surprise.

As for the amendment, the issue is whether or not we report to the House. However, before making such a decision, we must first fully understand what is at stake.

The motion specifically concerns the Alto project and the appearance of its executives, including the CEO, for two hours, as set out in the main motion.

My remarks are part of a broader discussion: What do we wish to report to the House? What might the content of such a report be? In my view, the points and benefits I am presenting are directly related to the amendment, since the issue is whether we want to bring these points to the attention of the House and, if so, in what form.

Our colleagues' time is precious. There are 343 of us in Parliament, and we all have busy schedules. The House's time is limited, and several legislative priorities are currently under consideration. Other committees are also presenting reports. I therefore do not wish to unnecessarily burden my colleagues or provide them with information that is not relevant.

At this stage, I have not yet decided whether we need to report to the House, as this requires further consideration. What types of information could we present to the House? What points would be worth sharing with our parliamentary colleagues? Since the motion concerns high-speed rail, it is entirely relevant to address this in my remarks, and I consider this to be directly related to the amendment.

If I may, I will continue. There are other points to address in this report. In particular, we can examine the economic impacts and the benefits for the Canadian economy. As I mentioned, in a motion of this type, we could also consider the productivity gains that could—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton, on your point of order.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I haven't heard the entire remarks of the member, and I don't feel I've been missing much, but I'm not sure what the economic benefits are of whether to report something to the House or not, which is what I understood we were supposed to be debating right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, we are debating an amendment to the motion to remove “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”. I've made this point several times today. I also made this point several times—many times—last night, that we are sticking to the amendment to the motion. We are not discussing the merits of the Alto program. If you want to do that, go to the transportation committee. That's not what we're discussing here.

Get back to the amendment, please. Be a little more substantive and relevant to the debate, please, as the Prime Minister stated this morning.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I will repeat what I said earlier, because my colleague indicated he missed some points. I don't want him to miss any information, so I will repeat what I said.

As I mentioned, every member of the House of Commons has a busy schedule. As a committee member, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that we send the most relevant documents possible to the House of Commons.

The amendment we are considering concerns whether we report to the House. When reading the main motion, it specifically mentions inviting the CEO of Alto, which ties into the high-speed rail project.

I am therefore considering the types of information that might be included in a report to the House, and the types of information that might be mentioned by witnesses. Before deciding whether to vote in favour of reporting to the House, I believe it is our duty, as members of the committee, to consider the relevance of the points that might emerge from the discussion.

I just mentioned economic benefits, but I'd also like to talk about environmental benefits, improved mobility, social benefits and benefits for the country. There are several other aspects to consider. That was just my first example. There are several categories of information to consider that could be included in a report to the House. Once we have carefully considered what could be included in a report, we will be able to make an informed decision as to whether we wish to report to the House. I hope this brief feedback will help my colleague better understand my perspective and why I would like to think a little more deeply about whether we should report to the House on this matter.

There are still relevant factors to consider when discussing productivity gains. I'm bringing this up to give an example of the kind of discussion we might have when talking about economic benefits. The productivity gains that these faster trips between major cities could generate are real. Consider the trip from Montreal to Toronto or from Montreal to Quebec City. It is said that the trip between Montreal and Quebec City will take about 90 minutes. This will be a game changer for our workers and our businesses. In fact, according to a study by the C.D. Howe Institute, a high-speed train would increase productivity across the country. I agree with these conclusions.

Let's imagine highly specialized professionals. In Canada, we have an extremely specialized and highly skilled workforce. If we have an expert in a cutting-edge field in Toronto, Montreal or Quebec City, that person could take the high-speed train in the morning and return home in the evening, travelling through the corridor of the cities served. These are factors to consider in terms of productivity gains and workforce mobility, and how this can benefit our various businesses across the country.

We're talking about strengthening the Canadian economy, but also about facilitating interprovincial trade. We're talking about better connecting major economic hubs across the country, such as Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa. This will bring people closer together, bring workers closer together and create new opportunities for our businesses.

Better opportunities for our businesses also mean greater investment appeal. It becomes attractive for businesses to invest in these various cities along the corridor, because we know that workforce mobility—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault on a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think you have been extremely patient.

You have called the member to order two or three times now, as he does not seem to understand the motion and the amendment to the motion, which have been the subject of discussion for at least seven hours, not to mention the hours and minutes we are devoting to them today.

Could you explain the motion and the amendment to him once again, so that he can, once and for all, stay on topic rather than acting like a know-it-all?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, thank you for this point of order.

You're right. I am being very patient with this. For seven hours last night, I made it very clear what we were dealing with, that this is the ethics committee of Parliament and we're dealing with a motion related to ethics. We're not dealing with a motion related to the value or the virtue of the Alto system. There have been several occasions where I've suggested that if members want to argue that, they can go to the transportation committee.

We are 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 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

The amendment that's on the floor is to strike the last line of this motion, and that is “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking the study”.

That is the amendment proposed by Mr. Sari.

I am going to ask that all members follow the advice of the Prime Minister this morning. He said that we were going to not be performative, that we were going to be substantive, that there was going to be less showboating and more substance. I'm not seeing much of that. I am seeing a lot of showboating and a lot less substance to the motion and the amendment that we are dealing with.

You're right, Mr. Thériault. I have been patient, but as I explained last night, late last night, after seven hours of this filibuster, I have no procedural tools to stop what is happening. The only thing I can do is to try to bring this back on track and get to the amendment. I've been doing my best to do that, Mr. Thériault, and I appreciate your patience as well.

Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, you have the floor. I would like you to get back to the amendment please.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some rather unkind remarks have been made about me. Before returning to the amendment, I would therefore like to ask my colleagues to treat one another with respect during our discussions.

To insinuate that a member is incapable of understanding the content of a motion seems a bit distasteful. Making similar remarks, suggesting that the member wants to act like a know-it-all is irrelevant to the debate. I believe we should focus on the arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks. I find this somewhat regrettable on the part of my colleague, whom I otherwise hold in high regard.

To respond to your remarks, Mr. Chair, if you allow me to finish my comment, perhaps everyone will better understand what I am trying to say.

I will reiterate it, since people don't seem to understand: We are discussing the amendment and trying to determine whether we should report to the House.

In the House, we are all busy parliamentarians; we all have full schedules. Before deciding whether to send information to the House or to report to the House, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that what we intend to report is relevant.

That is what we are discussing. The main motion concerns the high-speed rail project, and when we talk about withdrawing the report from the House, it is directly related to this motion, since the report would pertain to it.

In my remarks, I am considering the type of content that might result from the main motion. Then we can make an informed decision as to whether we wish to report to the House.

Yes, I am able to read the motion, understand it and understand the subamendment. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'd like to address the issue of—