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.