Information & Ethics Committee on April 17th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

I don't know how many times I've said it, but this is not the transportation committee; it's not the industry committee; it's not the finance committee. It is the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. Mr. Thériault is quite right, we are dealing with the question related to the finance minister's claim. That's what the motion is all about.

My expectation is that Mr. Imbleau, if he does appear—and we get to a point hopefully before midnight that we are able to come to an agreement on this motion that we've now been deliberating for 14-plus hours—he won't talk about the value and the virtue, as I've said many times, of the Alto rail system. That is not in question here. It is in relation to precisely what the motion says, and that's the finance minister's ethics screen and the impact it's had on him, or perhaps not. That will be up to Mr. Imbleau to determine through questioning that it is impactful with respect to the system. What we're deliberating and dealing with here is the ethics issue.

Ms. Church, I trust that you'll take Mr. Thériault's intervention with the sincerity in which it was intended. I expect that we're going to get back on the subamendment, which is to have Mr. Imbleau appear before the committee for two hours. In my opinion, I think you're on it, but I want you to continue to stay focused on it, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'm being very clear, actually, in terms of my views on this subamendment.

Mr. Thériault, I hear you. However, I would ask us, having called witnesses before in other matters, to also hear our concern that, based on what we know of the situation right now, Mr. Imbleau is not proposed to be here to contribute to a discussion of the Minister of Finance's conflict of interest screen that the minister established inside the Ministry of Finance. There is a deeper proposition here, a deeper expedition, that stems from, frankly, a concern on the other side of the table about this project as a whole.

To bring Mr. Imbleau here, to take him away from what we think is a very important role, driving this project forward, to participate in a fishing expedition, is not a good use of his time at a time when we are trying to cut this project's approval time in half. That requires the attention of the CEO. We want him to be doing the work of actually getting high-speed rail on track and advancing at high speed, so to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Church, can I intervene for a second?

Again, like all of us, I've sat here for 14 hours. My expectation as chair is that we are not inviting Mr. Imbleau to specifically talk about the merits of the Alto system. As I've mentioned a couple of times, there are varying opinions on that around this table. Some members clearly support it, and some members clearly do not. I think the fundamental issue that we're dealing with here is the finance minister's claims that he did create an ethics screen.

In my opinion, and I think I'm hearing this from other members, the value that Mr. Imbleau can provide is whether, in fact, notwithstanding this ethics screen that was applied, there were discussions between the finance minister and perhaps Mr. Imbleau as it related to the screen, as it related to decisions with respect to Alto, funding, financing and all of this stuff. Everything that the finance minister has said he recused himself from, in my opinion, Mr. Imbleau has some value to add to that discussion of what this motion is calling for.

I want to make it clear that this is not about Alto and the value and the merits of the system for having Mr. Imbleau here. I think he has a lot to add to this discussion. I just wanted to intervene to make that point, Ms. Church. At least from the perspective that I have been sitting here for 14 hours listening intently to all of the arguments that are being made. I think both the Conservatives and the Bloc have indicated that this has nothing to do with the system itself. They may not agree with it, and that's fine. This is all about the finance minister and the ethics screen and how it was applied or wasn't applied.

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

Mr. Chair, I hear what you are saying; however, I don't think that the Ethics Commissioner could have been clearer. When you raise the spectre of what conversations have there been, what interaction has there been, the Ethics Commissioner has been crystal clear in saying, “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”. If that is the language and the decision of the Ethics Commissioner, then that is what we, as parliamentarians, as an ethics committee, should be relying on.

We have tasked the Ethics Commissioner. We have built, as parliamentarians a regime on ethics that allows the type of inquiry that you are suggesting, Mr. Chair, to be invested in an Ethics Commissioner, someone who is independent and above the wonderful partisanship that the rest of us all live within, to be able to objectively look at these types of situations and to provide guidance that should be accepted by parliamentarians.

The Minister of Finance acted on the basis of the advice provided by the Ethics Commissioner, end of story, point final. We could call Mr. Imbleau to committee here. We could go on an expedition to find out what discussions he has with the federal government as a CEO of a Crown corporation on a major nation-building project where, of course, there are conversations with the government about how to proceed on high-speed rail, but that is actually beside the point. If we're being honest with ourselves, what is happening here with this motion is an attempt to bring individuals who are adjacent to this committee to make it into a circus. This committee is saying they reject they advice of the Ethics Commissioner. That is not an appropriate way—

[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 don't think it's turning it into a circus to invite the commissioner here to provide us with an explanation based on information he possesses—namely, legislation the committee is currently reviewing.

With all due respect, I have questions for the commissioner, not only regarding what is, but also regarding what should be. This situation is anything but a circus. With all due respect to the people speaking here, this is an ethics committee, and with the tools at our disposal, our goal is to shed light on a situation and better understand it. That's the purpose of this motion.

I have questions for the Ethics Commissioner; perhaps Mrs. Church does not. I also have questions for Mr. Imbleau, particularly regarding Bill C‑15 and the extraordinary power that Bill C‑15 grants Alto concerning expropriation and those affected by it. It's not a circus when you're someone whose property has been expropriated and you no longer enjoy the protections currently afforded by the Expropriation Act. You will understand that being treated like a circus animal is almost a question of privilege.

The Liberals are filibustering. They oppose the principle that an ethics committee can summon three parties in connection with, at the very least, a perceived conflict of interest, which was even confirmed by the minister's actions. Can we have a slightly more respectful tone? If the Liberals want to continue filibustering because they don't want this committee to have better tools to manage such situations in the future, or to better understand them in the future, I don't know what we're doing here.

The Liberals are currently calling into question the very principle of an ethics committee. What do they have to lose? If everything had been done by the book, they would have demonstrated in under six hours that everything was in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, I gave you the time to explain.

We've all been very patient throughout the course of these now 15 hours that we're heading into. In my humble opinion, it's clear to some what this motion is intended for; however, it may not be as clear to others. I don't disagree on the relevance of this.

Again, Ms. Church, I'm going to ask that you take what Mr. Thériault said with respect and the purpose for which it's intended. That is, we need to stick to what is in front of us, which is the motion to add Mr. Imbleau.

Mr. Thériault has claimed, and I believe others have, that this is relevant to this motion with respect to Bill C-15 and the powers that were given to him by the finance minister. The finance minister actually voted on Bill C-15, despite the fact that he claimed he had an ethics screen that was to protect him from involving himself for a conflict that he, himself, had declared.

Again, this motion is in front of us.

I'm going to ask, Ms. Church, on the subamendment by Mr. Hardy that we invite Mr. Imbleau, if you don't agree with the subamendment, call the vote and vote against it. Then we can move on to the main motion.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Church.

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

I do hear you, Mr. Thériault. I wish we didn't have to devote this kind of time to this kind of motion. I hear your concerns around ensuring that we are taking questions of the ethical conduct of parliamentarians seriously. I think it's our position that we would gladly invite the Ethics Commissioner to the committee to discuss this.

Mr. Chair, if it would move our discussions forward, I would gladly seek unanimous consent to move a motion that I would put on the table right now.

That motion could be, “Given that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue proactively wrote to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to declare his relationship with the newly hired executive at Alto high-speed rail; that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner determined that there was no risk of a conflict and no screen was required; that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue nonetheless opted to recuse himself from the project via a self-imposed conflict of interest screen; that the committee: (a) invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to testify for two hours to discuss the Conflict of Interest Act, its application to cabinet deliberations and parliamentary votes, and whether any conflict of interest took place in this instance; (b) would reserve the right, following the appearance of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to invite both the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and the CEO from Alto high-speed rail to answer any outstanding questions.”

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move that motion and seek unanimous consent to do that. This would bring the Ethics Commissioner to the committee on this topic, so we can hear directly from him about it and it would reserve the right to have both the Minister of Finance and the CEO here subsequently.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That was a fairly substantive way—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault on a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, the text of this motion includes what the study's conclusion should be. I find it a bit ironic that, after 15 hours, the motion being proposed sets out the study's conclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, I'm sorry, but Mrs. Church is seeking unanimous consent for this motion. There's no debate on this. I must ask all members whether there is unanimous consent.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It is not agreed.

Ms. Church, continue please.

We're not on the unanimous consent motion. We're on the subamendment. Any comments related to that are not relevant to the discussion.

We are on the subamendment regarding Mr. Imbleau.

Go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, to me, the issue here is whether or not this committee is open to hearing from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. As for any of the executives at Alto or Mr. Imbleau himself, it is the Conflict of Interest Commissioner who would have, by far, the most relevance to the type of inquiry that Mr. Thériault and other members of this committee are speaking about. That is why from the outset we've been very clear that we are open to having the Ethics Commissioner speak to this committee about this topic.

Calling in the appropriate witnesses to offer testimony on this matter is exactly what this committee should be focused on. The reality is that it's the Ethics Commissioner who has the purview over this, who has the all of the facts of the case, who has provided public comment on it, who has provided guidance to the Minister of Finance and who would be the best person for this committee, in fact, for all parliamentarians in the public to hear from.

It is disappointing that we can't find consensus to start with the Ethics Commissioner and govern ourselves accordingly on the basis of his appreciation of this issue. Certainly, compared against the subamendment that we have here, the Ethics Commissioner is far better positioned to speak to these issues.

Mr. Imbleau, as the CEO of Alto—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I don't know whether it's because I'm tired, but I do not understand Mrs. Church's remarks at all. I just want to clarify things, because we need to be able to focus our comments.

I understand from her remarks that the motion and the subamendment to the main motion would mean we would not want to hear from the Ethics Commissioner, even though, from the outset, he has been one of the three parties we want to hear from. This is just a subamendment intended to clarify the second point. Rather than deleting this point entirely, as Mr. Saini wanted, and rather than retaining the wording of the second point of the original motion, which provided for the appearance of Alto executives and the CEO, Mr. Hardy's subamendment aimed to clarify the second point so that only the CEO would be invited to appear. Thus, no other Alto representative would be called to testify. The bill cannot therefore be delayed by our remarks.

I don't understand where Mrs. Church is going with this. I don't understand how she can claim we're opposed to hearing from the Ethics Commissioner.

I wonder if, deep down, she's debating the motion that was rejected without any mention of the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault. I'm still wondering whether this is a point of order.

I understand you are asking a question, but a point of order is not subject to a debate.

Ms. Church, you have the floor.

I actually erred in procedure there, and I'll admit this to the committee. Once a motion is moved, we move on to the next speaker. I didn't do that. I gave you the floor, but go ahead, Ms. Church. Please consider Mr. Thériault's comments as well, because I'm in agreement with them.

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

Mr. Chair, I think I've been clear in my opposition to the subamendment and clear in the opposition to needlessly calling executives from Alto or Mr. Imbleau to this committee, particularly prior to hearing from the Ethics Commissioner. If the committee is interested in hearing from the Ethics Commissioner, that is entirely appropriate. We have a sense from his ruling that there is “no risk of a conflict of interest and that a conflict of interest screen is not required”. We can hear from him about his considerations, how he arrived at that conclusion. That is obviously the most relevant testimony to the inquiry that's being sought here by the overall motion, but on the subamendment, I've been clear that we do not agree with it on the basis of substantive concerns about the propriety of calling Alto to an inquiry on this as a whole. Also, if the interest is in calling Alto's senior executives or Mr. Imbleau, by its very nature we would anticipate that not only would this committee want to explore ethics questions, but also questions relating to Alto as a project itself, which would properly reside elsewhere, as we've discussed.

Mr. Chair, I think I've been clear, but I will end my remarks. I'll ask to be returned to the speakers list, and I look forward to hearing from other colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

I had Madam Lapointe, but she's no longer with us, so I'm going to move to Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Lavoie, I'm going to put you below Ms. Church.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We are now in the 15th hour of debate, which is supposed to be the very definition of what we do here, but which, for 14 hours and 30 minutes out of a total of 15 hours, has been more of a Liberal monologue.

The first question asked today was this: Why are we here with so little time to prepare? I think this is a perfect demonstration of the Liberal government's attitude: It creates a problem, and then wonders why it finds itself in this situation, and blames the opposition for putting it there.

We're discussing a simple motion. We want to call three individuals to appear before the committee for two hours each, for a total of six hours. The debate has now been going on for 15 hours, which is disrupting everyone's schedule, as I understand it, and costing taxpayers a fortune. We have heard about everything except what we need to discuss, and then we are accused of wasting the committee's time. This is serious.

Furthermore, we have repeatedly proposed ways to resolve this. We accepted an amendment to remove the obligation to report to Parliament, even though I believe that is the basis of our work here. What we're doing here should be presented to parliamentarians and to Parliament. We agreed not to do so to save time.

We also agreed to clarify that we did not wish to call the minister's spouse to testify. That seemed to be a concern. That's fine; we did so. We didn't want it to be too broad for Alto's leadership, and we agreed to that as well.

My subamendment aims to clarify that we wish to call three individuals who work for the government to testify. Let's stop being told that they don't have time or that they have other things to do. They work for the people; they are paid by the public. We want these individuals to come and testify. They are paid by taxpayers, and they have nothing better to do than come and answer our questions. They are paid by the people, who have questions.

We are the opposition. We hear the questions being asked. People are telling us that a minister recused himself and that, on 16 occasions, he voted, participated in the debate, defended the bill and answered questions. Why can't we have him appear here to answer legitimate questions before an ethics committee?

Earlier, Mrs. Church said that this matter might need to be considered by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities. In fact, the view that has been presented is that we want to reopen the debate on the high-speed rail project. That is not at all what we want to do. We want to ask questions of people who are potentially involved in an ethical conflict. This is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics. So, over the past 15 hours, we were right to say that what was happening here was irrelevant, because people were talking about the possibility of reinventing the wheel and revisiting the Alto project. That is not the subject of today's debate or the monologue we are engaging in.

So, after 15 hours of debate at great expense to taxpayers, can we return to my subamendment, which is clear and effective?

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

Point of order.