Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank Mr. Thériault.
I'm just trying to explain why it wouldn't be appropriate to move immediately to the other two items, as proposed in Mr. Hardy's subamendment. I have already presented a first argument, which focused on the importance of first utilizing using the commissioner's independent resources.
Now, let's talk about Martin Imbleau and why it wouldn't be appropriate to invite him to appear here. What is this about? You have to read the wording of the motion. I put myself in the shoes of the head of a large company like Alto, who would come here to answer questions about an appearance of conflict of interest or an actual conflict of interest. I don't see what questions I can ask him if I don't really have the necessary documentation, given that an independent resource has already indicated that there was no conflict of interest.
Mr. Imbleau has some very interesting leadership and project management skills, especially when it comes to carrying out infrastructure projects. I invite my colleagues to read his biography. He's a pretty interesting guy, but where does he fit in here? How would it be appropriate to include him in a discussion about a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest? What might be interesting to do one day is to see how Alto conducts its consultations, because exceptional work is being done with indigenous communities. I would find it fascinating to ask him questions about that.
As far as the motion tabled by Mr. Barrett is concerned, I don't see how a person who has served as CEO of the Port of Montreal could help us with ethics. He's someone who is managing a major project today. I don't see how he could help us with an ethical issue or how he could guide us. He's also someone who worked at Hydro‑Québec. I don't see the relevance. That said, I might be wrong.
Which individual can tell us whether or not it's a good idea to call him to testify here? Unfortunately, we skipped the step of consulting the person who could guide us and tell us who to summon. Here's what I'm saying, quite simply. There may be some who aren't listening to what I'm saying. Let's not forget that I was a teacher for many years. I was a teacher in Quebec for over 18 years. I was taught that repetition is sometimes a good way to teach students. Some things need to be reiterated. It works for some people.
In closing, I'd like to say something very important. My goal is to ensure that the Canadians listening to us—even if we pause the discussion, resume it and start it again on Friday morning—will always have faith in our institutions. I think some people are interested. I hope we're not contributing to eroding their trust in our institutions. I hope we are not introducing motions to publish excerpts. The goal is simply to summon the commissioner, as Mrs. Church rightly said, and I hope that my remarks will be taken into consideration and accepted. I would like us to summon the commissioner first, as provided for in the first item, and then reserve the right to summon any individuals it would be appropriate to summon. I therefore reiterate Mrs. Church's request.
I hope that, with everything I have said, we will this time be able to capture the attention of our colleagues on the other side of the room, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Lastly, for the Canadians listening to us, I want to say that, on the government side, we want this project to move forward. Canadians deserve it. We need it. Countries like Japan, France or Morocco are no better than Canada. Canada has the right to have its own high-speed rail.
We don't need this kind of obstruction or disruption. On the contrary, we need the trust of the people, the trust they placed in us when they went to the polls in Terrebonne. Thank you.