Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to interrupt you, Ms. Church.

Again, we're not talking about Alto. We're not talking about high-speed rail. We're not talking about the benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking about the finance minister and his claims that he recused himself from decisions that the government made related to Alto. There have been published reports that indicate that he hasn't. That's what this motion is about. We are on the amendment to remove “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

I would really like it if you stayed focused on what the amendment is and not repeat yourself on this issue of whether or not Alto is a benefit to Canadians. That's a debate that doesn't happen at this point. At this point, we're studying the amendment to the motion, so please, go ahead.

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

In the interest of hearing from some of my colleagues on both sides, I'm willing to wrap up my remarks there, but I'd appreciate being put at the end of the speakers list in case I have further thoughts on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Mr. Saini, I have you on the list. Go ahead, sir, on the amendment, please.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I wasn't here yesterday, but I understand Mr. Barrett spoke quite extensively on why Alto should not be built. For the same reason, I think I, as a member, have the opportunity to speak about the same proposal. It is part of the motion, and I don't find it very good that there are different rules when it comes to members from one group to the other side of the House.

My remarks today are about how our government is contributing to building a Canadian economic—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Saini, I was in the room when Mr. Barrett moved his motion, and it's been referred to several times that, yes, he doesn't support it, but he didn't drone on about it. What he did was talk about the motion and why we need to do this. He didn't spend hours talking about his opposition. He made it very clear at the top of the meeting that he was opposed to it and then he spoke to the relevance of the motion. That's what I'm asking members to do today.

I understand that you support it. I understand Ms. Church, Mr. Watchorn, Ms. Lapointe—I know that you support Alto and that's fine. You can support it, but in the context of this motion, I am asking members to deal with what we're on, which is the amendment to the motion, and I'll repeat it, to remove from the main motion “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

That's what I'm going to ask you. Look, I know you support it. You don't need to repeat that. That's all I'm saying.

I'm telling everybody on this side that none of this needs to be repeated. Okay?

Go ahead, sir.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The fact that national revenue and Alto is part of the motion, I don't think we should be excluded to talk about it, about the motion that strictly talked about the same issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

To be clear, it's in connection with the finance minister's claiming that he has recused himself. That's the connection between all of this. It's not about the value or virtue, as I've said many times, of Alto. It's about the connection with the finance minister.

That's, I believe, why the Alto executives are part of this motion. If you don't want the Alto executives to be part of this motion, then we can deal with the amendment, vote on it, whatever way that goes, and then you're quite welcome to move an amendment to the main motion to remove the Alto executives. Then we can have a debate on that, but I don't want to continue this debate. I don't want to do this, on the value and virtue of Alto. Look, you support it, and that's fine. I may not support it, and that's fine too, but that's not what we're discussing today.

I really would like, no pun intended, to get back on track on the amendment, please.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Chair, when we were dealing with the ethics committee, the report that was going to the House had all kinds of debate and all kinds of comments from the people who are going to be witnesses. It had all kinds of comments from the members of that committee. You are now telling me that I don't have the same privilege of presenting my point of view, because on ethics, you folks were able to do that. You are now telling me—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You do absolutely have the right to speak to the amendment but it has to be relevant. I'm going to say there have been 50 or 60 points of order that have been raised by members of this committee on all sides about relevance. I've been equally amenable to ruling about the fact that we have to stay on board, so I'm just asking you to stay on board.

The relevance in this is that we're not dealing with whether we agree with Alto, whether we support it or not or what it's going to mean to this nation. What we're debating here is the amendment to the motion, and the motion is to call these three witnesses to this committee in relation to the apparent conflict of interest of the finance minister and the ethics screen.

I'm not sure I can be any clearer than that. Certainly, for the last 11 hours I've been very clear.

Please go ahead on the amendment, Mr. Saini. I'm not taking away your privilege. I'm just asking that you speak to the relevance of the amendment. I'm asking all members to do that and not just you.

Thank you.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to finish here, but I'm going to put my name back on the list so that I can come up with some different....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

Mr. Watchorn, you are next. I'm going to ask you to speak to the amendment. I'm going to remind you that the amendment is to remove the last line, “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

Mr. Watchorn, I would really like you to be laser-focused on that amendment, because if you do stray, I will interrupt you.

Thank you.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I find all of this very interesting. I sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence, where I've asked questions on this subject. I find it interesting to be able to speak today on the amendment before us.

I'd like to begin by reminding everyone of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's decision. His conclusion was very clear: There is no risk of conflict of interest and there is no need for a conflict of interest verification between Mr. Champagne and Alto.

I think this is clearly a waste of the committee's time and resources, and we know how under-resourced other committees are. We're borrowing resources from other committees. We know the interpreters' time is precious, the clerks' time is very precious and resources are limited. I think this exercise is completely unnecessary; it's a distraction designed to undermine the credibility of a project everyone finds very interesting.

I had the opportunity to meet with many of the elected officials whose ridings are affected by the Alto project, and I can say the interest and enthusiasm for this project is palpable. I believe any procedure designed to undermine that is completely pointless and a waste of time and resources.

That's why I find this amendment unnecessary. It doesn't help the project move forward or contribute anything to the Alto debate. I am an engineer by training and I was the mayor of a small town, and I'd be very happy if a major project were to be carried out in my region. I find it ridiculous to be wasting time debating such an amendment.

I believe the ethics committee's role is to carry out proper analysis and offer recommendations. However, what we are seeing right now is not helping to advance the debate.

This, in my humble opinion, Mr. Chair, is a distraction. It's a fishing expedition.

Like it was said before, there is no risk of a conflict of interest. The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that. There's no risk of a conflict of interest and there is no screen required. On top of that, the minister imposed a screen on himself. He's going above and beyond what is required in terms of ethics for the Alto project.

The Alto project is too important a project. It's a nation-building project because we want people to get from Montreal to Quebec City in an hour and a half. We want people to get from Montreal to Toronto in three hours. Wasting committee time on something like this is beneath us. We can do better. If we want to look at other ethics questions, that's fine, but this one is just a full-blown fishing expedition and you're not going to catch anything.

It's completely not in the interest of the public, in the interest of this committee or in the interest of the House to push this any further. Wasting hours of committee time, of resource time and members' time on something like this makes absolutely no sense to me.

You have an objective when you conceive an engineering project. You have to make the best use of your resources. However, I don't consider the amendment in its current form to be the best use of our resources. When you have an objective, you have a plan. I don't see a plan behind this amendment, other than trying to sling mud and see what sticks.

Conspiracy theories don't help move the debate or the project forward. I'm sure there are many other things our committees could be spending their time on.

You need a timeline for engineering projects like Alto. We're at the beginning of the public consultation. I think what my colleagues across are trying to do is make a connection between the budget bill and Alto. We're only at the consultation phase of the project. I had a chance to sit in on discussions with mayors and representatives from Alto about next steps. Again, I don't see how the amendment or the removal of the last sentence of the amendment would help move the project forward. It's important to make good use of the resources of the House, the committee and all stakeholders.

The importance of the Alto project is such that it must be viewed pragmatically, from an engineering standpoint, not a partisan one. A few years ago, even the people across thought high-speed rail projects were worthwhile. However, since the Liberal government proposed this project, the opposition parties decided to oppose it, even though it's a very good project.

I think Canadians really need this project. Again, I don't see how the amendment will help move the debate on this project forward. I don't understand what we're looking for exactly, and I don't understand the purpose of today's debate.

I think we have to be pragmatic in how we look at this. I think we have to focus our resources on moving things forward and making sure the project advances.

The proposed modification to the motion does nothing to move this forward. It does nothing to help the project go forward. It is a fishing expedition, but there are no fish. I see absolutely no use in moving this forward at all. It's something that we have to think through again. We don't need this amendment at all.

The train project is too important to throw stuff at the wall, start fishing and try to discredit people when there is absolutely nothing there. It's very important to stay focused and make sure we're looking at what has to happen to make the project work.

Is this amendment and this debate any good at making the project move ahead? The answer is no. I don't see how this amendment to the motion would do anything to move the project forward. We have to rethink this. We have to try and do a better job to make sure that the time of the committee is better used.

Mr. Chair, I'll wrap up for now, but I'd like to put my name back on the list, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Watchorn.

On the amendment, Ms. Church.

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

Mr. Chair, could you just confirm with me who is on the speaking list?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have Ms. Church, Mr. Saini, Mr. Hardy, Madam Lapointe, Mr. Thériault, Mr. Sari and Mr. Watchorn.

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

Mr. Chair, we've heard a fair amount about this amendment, and I'm hoping with a couple of my colleagues getting set to speak that maybe we're making some progress on our approach to this report.

As my colleague Mr. Watchorn discussed, in addition to the considerations around what constitutes a good report from a parliamentary committee, there are some additional matters that we need to think about in considering this amendment.

I am quite concerned about the idea of reporting back to the House on the motion that Mr. Barrett has put on the table, in part because I think that it gives a faulty impression to the House and to Canadians.

I know from the many months of work that we've been doing on this committee how seriously my colleagues on both sides of this table have valued the ethics of this committee and the necessity of providing fulsome and correct information when anything is being reported out of this committee to the House.

We should take a moment and think about the nature of the motion Mr. Barrett put forward, and about Mr. Thériault's points, which I have been reflecting on as well. If Mr. Barrett's intention was to probe the nature of a personal link and allegations of conflict between the Minister of Finance and Alto, that worries me. It worries me because I think we have found ourselves there before in providing motions to the House that were ill-informed and incorrect. We are the ethics committee. there's no question of that. We have heard from the commissioner on several occasions.

It is important for us to consider that on this issue, the commissioner has weighed in and has ruled that there was“no risk of a conflict of interest and that a conflict of interest screen was not required”. Also, this motion and the amendment have been the result of speculation, conjecture and a twisting of facts about the commissioner, his rulings and the actions of the minister, who is acting above and beyond any of the guidelines that were provided to him.

We do have a responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure that we aren't pursuing a frivolous path, that we aren't undermining the work of government members, or ministers, or opposition members, for that matter, when it comes to the very serious accusations related to the operation of the Conflict of Interest Act and the code of conduct which all members are a party to.

I think in this case, again, the problem that the amendment raises is that a bare report, a report without any type of testimony or facts behind it, without any type of investigation, simply reinforces the misinformation, the conjecture that I think underpins a better part of this motion.

Mr. Chair, when I first heard of this issue and saw some of the media reports around it, I was pleased to see that the news reports had all reported on how the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner said that the matter at issue here does not constitute a conflict of interest.

In the excerpts that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has provided, the commissioner has stated, “As minister of finance, you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto, you do not have the opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee”. These are the commissioner's words, the commissioner's guidance. However, yesterday and today we have been subjected to an unending debate about how the House of Commons should take time out of its precious and limited schedule of days to focus not on the 150-odd bills that are before Parliament right now, but on a report with no basis in fact.

We keep coming back to this idea of the time that we're taking to discuss this particular amendment, but I feel it is our duty as parliamentarians, as members of this committee. It is our judgment about what is ready and what is ripe to go to the House of Commons as a report. This isn't it.

Earlier today, we heard the Prime Minister calling for substance. Mr. Chair, I think you echoed the Prime Minister's comments in calling on all of us to offer substance in what we do. He explained how that included real testimony—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Relevance, as well.

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

—getting to issues, relevance and debating aspects of the law. None of which have happened today in any meaningful way on this issue.

I'm very happy to debate, when we get back to it, the main motion and why it falls short of the standards of what this committee should be looking at. While we are focused on the amendment itself and the removal of this requirement to undertake a study, I think it just becomes all the more transparent how this motion is made in bad faith and how the tactic here to waste the time of the House with a report that hasn't been written, with a report that has no evidentiary foundation, is a problem.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor on a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, did I miss anything? I'm participating via Zoom, but you're in the room, so I think I may have missed something.

Didn't the Conservatives move to strike the sentence the amendment relates to when we left this morning? Didn't we agree to accept the Liberals' amendment so we could debate the main motion?

Now we're starting the debate over as if nothing happened. Have the Conservatives withdrawn their proposal to accept the amendment? I have to say I don't quite understand. We've been talking only about the amendment for over an hour, even though a proposal had been made.

Did the Conservatives withdraw that proposal? Have they now taken a different position after 11 hours of debate?

I think you'll agree we've spent more time trying to waste time. We've wasted 11 hours. That's more than the time we need to hear from the three witnesses. It should have taken six hours, but we've been debating this issue now for more than 11 hours.

What happened? Did I miss something?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're right, Mr. Thériault.

Just to explain what you had said, I believe it was Mr. Hardy who proposed a unanimous consent motion to accept the amendment and accept the main motion. It would have effectively removed the last line of the motion which, based on the last 11 hours, is precisely what the Liberals have been looking for. The process, as I explained at the onset of this—or there was a question that was raised earlier in the hour—that if we were to accept the amendment by Mr. Sari, that would mean we would then move to the main motion. We would be debating the main motion. If there were any concerns within the main motion, or amendments to be had, then any one of the members around this table who are locked in could certainly propose that. I believe you are quite right that there was a proposal from the Conservatives to eliminate that and accept the main motion as is, but unfortunately, there wasn't unanimous consent given to it, so we are in the position of still debating the amendment.

If the amendment went to a vote, it would be either accepted or rejected. I think the Conservatives have indicated through their unanimous consent motion that they'd be willing to support the amendment by removing that last line. We would then move on to the main motion as amended, which again would leave it open to other amendments as well.

Mr. Thériault, you're not missing anything. You've seen clearly what's going on here, and I hope that explains it to you, sir.

I will return to Ms. Church on the amendment, I suppose.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just to be crystal clear, especially for Mr. Thériault, the issue wasn't simply that we could move to a vote and back to the motion. The consent was sought as I understood it—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I explained that, yes, on removing the last line and adopting the motion as unamended. I think I was crystal clear as well.

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

Mr. Chair, many of us are new to the House in the past year and have only so much experience dealing with reports back to the House, but I certainly recall how one of the challenges that I know, when we report back to the House, results in other opportunities for the opposition members to make other orders of the House, to order production...it sometimes resulted in millions of dollars spent, hundreds of hours wasted, ultimately leading to nothing or very little.

Mr. Chair, when I talk about our responsibilities as members of this committee in protecting the House from the tactics that we have seen in the past, it's motivated in part by that, by making sure that when this committee does work, it does good work. It does work that is substantiated and that when it goes to the House, there can be a thoughtful and real debate, as opposed to simply a licence for games and more partisanship, which is what we are trying to avoid in the way that our government seeks to operate today, with the posture that we have struck and that the Prime Minister has struck.

We are interested in finding a way forward on this. I thank the members opposite for at least a first attempt at moving us along. There needs to be a broader recognition that a frivolous and vexatious motion, along with a frivolous and vexatious attempt to report that the committee is undertaking the study to the House cannot and should not proceed and should not be tolerated by the members of this committee.

There is a way to examine the government's engagement with Alto. There is a way to examine the work of the Minister of Finance and others on this project, but this is not it. That's why we're going to continue to stand in opposition to the motion and propose the amendment that we are debating today.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask you a question in terms of the committee's timing and resources. How long do you envision we're going to be sitting this evening?