Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to be here to replace my colleague Ms. Lapointe.
I'm happy to speak because it brings me back to something I used to love. In the past, I worked in the banking sector for more than 20 years. When we think of banks, we must also think of conflict-of-interest management and ethical issues. After all these years, I think I've become an expert on conflicts of interest and ethics. Every year, we had to sign a statement and ensure there were no conflicts of interest. I find it very meaningful to be here today to discuss this, both personally and for the broader debate.
I must say that I was a bit surprised by what I heard earlier. I'll start with the motion. When I read it, I note that at the time, that is, last September, the minister had recused himself. He followed the rules. The established rules were developed, debated and implemented by our predecessors. He decided to recuse himself. Today, we're debating a motion to reconsider this decision, and that surprises me.
As I was saying, I worked in the banking sector for a long time, and we know the Canadian banking system to be among the best in the world. That's the context in which I was trained. When there are rules, and they're respected, we don't go back on them. When commitments are made, we don't change the rules along the way thinking we'll revisit them later, just because there seems to be an issue. The rules were followed. So this process comes as a surprise to me.
Something else also surprised me. I'm referring to the relevance of remarks made during the debate. When I hear my colleague and riding neighbour Mr. Hardy, whom I appreciate, say that the high-speed rail train isn't relevant to this discussion, I take issue with that. I do think it's relevant to the discussion, and I'll tell you why. Everything is connected, and there is a cause-and-effect relationship.
I'm from the lower St. Lawrence region, and I grew up on a dairy farm. Here's how I'd put it: It's like talking about milk quality without talking about what the cow is eating, the stress it's under, or whether milking schedules are respected. We're only talking about the quality of the milk, but everything is connected.
We're dealing with the same thing here. As I joined the meeting this morning, I heard that a subamendment was being discussed, and that Mr. Imbleau, whom I know, is involved. I met him in my previous professional life, at the chamber of commerce. I had invited him as a speaker and interviewed him. Does that mean I should recuse myself today? Where does it end?
I was surprised when my colleague Mr. Hardy said that we were not talking about high-speed rail. Of course it's part of the discussion. His leader openly said he was against the high-speed rail project. I think it's part of the conversation. As I said, everything is connected.
I do understand that we need to talk about the subamendment. However, what I've heard since I got here is that it's irrelevant. I take some issue with that, especially when there's a conflict of interest.
As I mentioned, in the banking sector, when we analyze a situation, we look at everything. We turn over every stone. That's probably what the Ethics Commissioner did. It's also what those who came before us did in establishing these rules.
Today, we think that following the rules isn't enough. We're going to do this for everyone.
My spouse works for a company that receives provincial, federal and municipal funding. Should I recuse myself as an MP? Colleagues at the table might have a neighbour who works for a company that receives government funding. Should they also recuse themselves? At some point, we have to know where it starts and where it ends.
That's exactly why rules were established. In the past, very competent and experienced people sat around a table and decided to establish rules, because at some point, you have to know where it all starts and where it ends. The minister respected the rules and recused himself. However, today we want to put that back on the table.
We're talking about a subamendment, a single point, without looking at the overall context. This is what surprises me about the substance of the discussions. I'm very surprised.
I've taken some other notes—
