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
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to go with the list that I have.
Mr. Fergus, I'll put you on the list. That's not a problem.
I'm going to Mr. Hardy first and then Mr. Thériault second.
Mr. Hardy.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to take the floor.
It's now 8:22 p.m. We have been here since 3:30 p.m. to debate Mr. Barrett's motion, which asks the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for something quite simple, I think. The motion is asking to consider the connections between the Minister of Finance and Alto, a Crown corporation. We want to know more about the recusals. Recusals are not something we invented. For the last while, it's felt like we are being accused of wanting to do terrible things, but it was by his own admission that the minister said he had recused himself.
It was the minister who saw a potential conflict of interest, and we just want to look into the matter further, to understand it better. So he asked to recuse himself upon seeing an apparent conflict of interest, but he spoke between 12 and 16 times during debates or to answer questions. He even voted on the project. So we have questions. Canadians are asking questions. For the last little while, we’ve been telling people that what’s happening here is important, that they should take an interest in politics, since it’s their money and the future of their country that are at stake. We’re here to discuss this together.
I looked up what “recuse oneself” means. It means withdrawing from a matter owing to a conflict of interest or incompetence. Earlier, I was invited to do a Google search. We'll look it up on Google; that's what it says. I'll let my colleagues decide between conflict of interest and incompetence—it's not up to me. He asked to “recuse himself”, and that's the definition. He asked to recuse himself, so I imagine he saw a potential conflict of interest.
Here at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we are requesting a meeting with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Alto executives, who could pose a conflict of interest risk, and the minister in question. We're not questioning the project as a whole. That's not the committee's role. We're trying to understand a situation that is potentially problematic from an ethical standpoint. We want the minister to explain what happened, so that Canadians can see clearly and have confidence in our institutions. This is a concern that comes up every week.
Earlier, my colleague Mr. Sari talked about wasting time, but the Conservatives have not spoken since the beginning. The meeting began at 3:30 p.m.; it's now 8:25 p.m. I'm the first to take the floor. Yet we're being accused of filibustering. I don't know what's going on. This is the first time I've experienced this. I feel like this is a monumental waste of time. We're hearing about Highway 50, about the future, but that's not today's topic.
The topic is a motion to invite witnesses who themselves have raised a potential conflict of interest. The minister voted and has not lived up to his own words. We want to understand why he gave himself the right to vote between 12 and 16 times, to defend the project and to answer questions. Why did he highlight the fact that he had a potential conflict of interest with Alto? We'll invite Alto's representatives to tell us about that. We are being told that this makes no sense and that it shouldn't be happening here.
We've also been hearing, for the past little while, that the project runs through my riding. I have to say that this is none of the committee's business. The interests of the committee members are not at stake here. This is not about them. We're talking about citizens; we're talking about Canadians. We're talking about a multi-billion-dollar project. It's not a question of whether it suits the committee members or whether they like the project. We just want to know whether the billions of dollars that belong to Canadians—at least $90 billion, of which $3.5 billion has already been spent on studies, even though not a single railway line has been built yet—have been used appropriately. We want to understand how a minister decided to recuse himself without anyone knowing, without anyone being informed, while continuing to vote. We want citizens to have access to that information.
We are also told that certain statements are hypothetical. Again, this is not hypothetical. These are proven facts. What the motion calls for is simply to invite the minister to clearly explain why he asked to recuse himself.
Earlier, it was said that the government should be able to take risks, and it was said that the Conservatives are always opposed to everything. I would remind you that we must take into account the fact that the government wants to take risks with other people's money, even though families are already struggling financially.
When this is brought in committee and people talk about a “minor motion” or “political formalities”, I'm sorry, but every time I come here, I do so to stand up for my constituents. I do so in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. I do it because I think it's really important for people to be able to see what's happening in Parliament and to take an interest in politics. We need to democratize federal politics so that people will take an interest in it.
When people say that these are minor formalities or minor motions, I'm sorry, but, as a reasonable and informed citizen, I want the minister to come here to answer questions. I want the president of Alto, a Crown corporation, to come and tell us whether or not there was a violation, whether there was an ethical breach. I want the commissioner to come and explain to us how the very definition of recusal was not respected, and why he considers this not to be an ethical issue. That's all. We don't want to remake the world. We don't want to debate the high-speed rail project in general. We want to understand what happened in this specific case. That's the purpose of this motion.
Mr. Chair, it's now 8:28 p.m. I hope I haven't take up too much time. We started the meeting at 3:30 p.m. I don't want to filibuster. I want this to move forward. Canadians who are watching have a right to wonder whether we can move forward on such a simple and effective motion, instead of wasting time talking about Highway 50, the future or the past.
Can we get back to what's before us?
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor on the amendment.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
For several hours now, my colleagues across the way have been talking about the opposition filibustering. However, they are the ones talking. There is, in fact, filibustering. You don't have to be an expert in debates to see this; even people who don't follow the proceedings will clearly understand that the Liberals aren't happy with the motion and that they've been ordered to filibuster.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
First, I have not received any orders from anyone. Second, we are discussing the amendment. Earlier, I was talking about the motion. Let's stay on the topic of the amendment.
Conservative
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, it's quite ironic to see Mr. Sari react this way to the very first sentence I've uttered, when he spoke at length to discredit not only his colleagues across the way, but also our committee.
Mr. Chair, this is the ethics committee. This is not a marketing committee or an exercise in promoting a project that has been touted as the eighth wonder of the world. We're here to determine whether it's appropriate, from an ethical standpoint, to summon the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to summon the Alto executives, including the CEO, and to summon the Minister of Finance. The latter himself deemed it necessary to consult an ethics adviser. He also saw fit to write to the Prime Minister to indicate that a conflict of interest screen had been put in place. Therefore, he must have felt at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Anyone who learns that the minister's wife has been hired as vice-president may have questions, particularly about the fact that he finalized Bill C‑15, which suspends certain provisions of the Expropriation Act.
There is talk of time being wasted. Mr. Fergus, who served as Speaker of the House, really offended me with his remarks, even though his tone was very calm. He said that, in his opinion, this was a waste of time and a squandering of Parliament's time.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, we are having trouble hearing what my colleague is saying.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Thériault, there is still a problem with the microphone. Is it old or new?
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Madam Clerk, maybe just instruct him on what he might be able to do to correct it.
The Clerk
Sometimes, it's as simple as unplugging the microphone from the USB port and plugging it back in.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was saying that I was quite offended by the comments made by Mr. Fergus, who was once Speaker of the House. He claims that the last sentence of the motion, as drafted, would cause us to waste time. I just think it's the role of members of Parliament to demand accountability. The members who, among other things, sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics have just reviewed the Conflict of Interest Act.
Mr. Chair, this is simply a matter of transparency. There's no connection to delaying anything. Just because it says in the last sentence that we want to report to the House on what we have heard, it doesn't mean that this delays the progress of the project. Does that mean that, in the meantime, Alto will not continue its marketing or public relations activities? No, absolutely not. There is no connection between what the government is claiming and the actual effect of the motion. No evidence has been presented to that effect. What the Liberals have done tonight is filibustering. For some reason, they don't want this motion, as it is written, to be adopted. They keep bringing us back to the substantive issues of the project, its merits and its justifications, even though that's not what we're debating.
By Ms. Lapointe's own admission, many people who do not live in Montreal, Gatineau, Toronto or Ottawa will see a high-speed train pass through their farmland. This is land that could be cut in two. That could jeopardize the remaining 2% of farmland in Quebec. The owners of those lands have questions.
On the other hand, enough has been said about the substance. However, the problem is that we don't have an answer. We have no idea what the cost is. Aside from the $3.9 billion that was just given to the Alto consortium to determine the station locations, the route and the timeline, we're talking about a range between $60 billion and $90 billion. There is a small difference of $30 billion. Mr. Fergus was talking about the dangerousness of Highway 50. That highway could be made a lot safer for much less than $30 billion.
Asking questions is not delaying the project. Asking questions is the role of members of Parliament. I suggest that my colleagues review their job descriptions. If, every time we ask for accountability, we are accused of partisanship, we will never move forward. Today, it is the Liberals who have shown partisanship by refusing to shed light on the issues raised by the motion.
If the Ethics Commissioner comes and tells us that he doesn't see a problem with the current legislation, perhaps we can make a connection with the amendments we've made to the legislation. Perhaps these amendments would provide a different framework for the commissioner's analysis. So there is a direct link to the work we've been doing since the beginning, particularly regarding the appearance of a conflict of interest that we are now introducing into the legislation at the Ethics Commissioner’s request.
If there were any impertinent remarks today, from 3:30 p.m. to 8:38 p.m., they did not come from the opposition. It's normal to ask questions. Why? Because on November 18, there was the first reading of Bill C‑15, which was sponsored by the Minister of Finance.
Division 1 of part 5 of this bill enacts the High-Speed Rail Network Act and establishes a legislative framework to facilitate the implementation of the network. This act changes the expropriation process for high-speed rail networks. Between November 18 and February 26, when the bill was passed and sent to the Senate, the minister took the floor and voted on that bill. Was it necessary to include this provision? Why did he do it? Is there a connection with the hiring of his wife? These are questions people may have. This is not in any way questioning the merits of the project. The purpose is simply to determine whether there was any funny business. Was there any or wasn't there? That doesn't delay the timeline at all.
They got in a state and tore their shirts saying that it was terrible, that the people on the other side wanted to filibuster and prevent this project—which is the eighth wonder of the world—from happening. That's not the case at all. We're only talking about the ethical implications related to a minister who felt he was in a conflict of interest. Yet we hadn't heard a thing about it. There has been a lack of transparency on this. We want to ask legitimate questions.
I believe that the people of Quebec want us to ask these questions. The credibility of democratic institutions is at stake. The House of Commons is the seat of parliamentary democracy. That's where the debates take place. Debating this issue in the House of Commons does not mean we are delaying anything.
The problem with this motion is not that it slows things down, but that it ensures that things are done properly, according to the rules, by the book, and in accordance with ethical standards, as required by the Conflict of Interest Act. That's the problem.
We've heard all sorts of things from the other side; they've said all sorts of nonsense. Now, after hours of filibustering, they want to remove the single sentence that would allow a report to be made to the House if there was a problem, if the minister's answers were unclear or if we felt that the House should be seized of the matter. They say we absolutely must not be able to do that. This reflects a desire for opacity.
I think that, as parliamentarians, we're not here to create opacity around ethical issues that may be raised. In this case, these issues have been raised not only by the official opposition, but also by the minister himself.
Mr. Chair, I won't dwell further on this issue, and I won't waste parliamentarians' time, as Mr. Fergus said. However, I will definitely be voting against this amendment, as our duty is accountability. Parliamentary democracy takes place in the people's legislative assembly. That's where debates must be held. When one goes so far as to say that a debate in the House of Commons is a waste of time, one is adopting a position that belongs to the government and the executive branch. This is not worthy of a legislator; it's about being a lackey to the executive branch. That's why people are fed up.
I travelled across Canada and Quebec as part of a study on electoral reform. Do members know what Quebeckers and Canadians from coast to coast to coast were saying? What kept coming up was that they were fed up with the party lines. I ask my colleagues to think about that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
On the amendment, I have Ms. Church.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When Mr. Thériault speaks about people who have had enough, they have had enough of games, and they have had enough of delay. There are ramifications to this motion that we need to consider legitimately as parliamentarians.
The amendment, which struck the line that the committee is to report to the House that it is undertaking this study, ahead of any testimony, ahead of any recommendations, speaking of a misuse of the House's time and the committee's time, I think that would fall into that category. I may be a new MP, but I was not born yesterday when it comes to these types of motions and the delay and muddying of waters they cause on very important issues.
If we want to have an informed and comprehensive debate about the merits of high-speed rail, we should absolutely have that. However, what we're talking about here with this motion, of which this amendment is a part, is about something that does serve to get in the way of committee business. We have established that there are motions right now on artificial intelligence, on algorithmic or surveillance pricing. We have a privacy motion. We have a lobbying motion. We have studies under way that do take the real time and energy of this committee.
I would say it is not a misuse for us to thoroughly debate this motion and consider it on its merits as to whether or not it is an appropriate use of time, because it does have the impact of changing our committee's focus and changing our committee's business.
I would also note, as we look at this, when Mr. Barrett originally introduced this motion earlier tonight, he led off the debate speaking about his opposition to Alto and to high-speed rail. He framed this motion around that. That set the tone and the boundaries of the debate that we're having tonight. The motion that's introduced calling executives from Alto, including the CEO, to talk about a matter within the purview of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, speaks to a motion that is intended much more as a fishing expedition or as a way to stall the progress of a major national project, than it is a serious call to investigate.
When the opposition seeks to drive opposition to a particular project or initiative, this is the playbook. This is how they seek to muddy the waters through a motion like this, like having the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's staff appear at committee to discuss allegations that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has already essentially waved away, as we see in this case as well.
I believe the major reason we're even debating this motion is that the opposition is seeking to distract from their own approach to this. Delegates at the 2023 Conservative policy convention voted in support of a high-speed rail project between Quebec and Ontario. During the clause-by-clause consideration of the budget implementation act at the finance committee earlier this year, Conservatives initially voted against the Alto high-speed rail clauses only to seek unanimous consent to rescind and retake the vote. The opposition then supported the budget implementation act on division, only to publicly criticize the Alto high-speed rail project weeks later. Which is it? Why are we seeing this flip-flopping by the Conservative—
