Information & Ethics Committee on April 17th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely on the Zoom application.

We are resuming debate on the motion moved by Mr. Barrett on Monday, April 13, 2026, as amended:

That the committee undertake a study into the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto, and the Minister's claims that he has recused himself from decisions his government made related to Alto; that, for the purpose of this study, the committee invite the following witnesses to appear by May 8th, 2026:

1. Konrad von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for two hours;

2. Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours; and

3. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, for two hours.

We are on the amendment which was moved by Mr. Saini, that the motion as amended be further amended by deleting the words: “2. Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours;”.

There was a subamendment moved by Mr. Hardy to that amendment to delete the words “including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours”. This subamendment by Mr. Hardy, just so that everybody is clear, would have the effect of confirming that executives from Alto will not be invited to appear, but that the CEO, Martin Imbleau, will be invited to appear.

That is where we are right now. We are on Mr. Hardy's subamendment. If you are to support Mr. Hardy's subamendment, it would, in effect, delete the executives and just have Mr. Imbleau, the CEO of Alto, come. If you are not in support of that, it would return to Mr. Saini's amendment, which is the complete deletion of line 2: “Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours”.

We are on Mr. Hardy's subamendment to delete the executives but not delete CEO Mr. Martin Imbleau.

I have a list—I really went back through the list as best possible—and I have Madam Lapointe as first on the list on the subamendment.

I see your hand, Ms. Church.

Madam Lapointe, you may continue on the subamendment. As I mentioned, it would effectively return Mr. Imbleau back as a witness, but would delete the executives.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead on the point of order.

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

Apologies to my colleague but, Mr. Chair, we have called this meeting despite the committee agreeing at the start of the session of a minimum of 48 hours' notice for a meeting. Are we suspending that practice? I am just wondering how we are going to approach that given the agreement we had for 48 hours' notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I called the meeting at the discretion of the chair, Ms. Church, so that's where we are this morning.

As I mentioned last night, we have from 8:15 until midnight tonight to deal with this issue, so we're going to continue. It's at the discretion of the chair.

Go ahead, Mr. Sari.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to the point of order.

When the committee began its work, the members agreed on a number of things. In light of what happened yesterday, am I to understand that there may be other things we agreed on in September that will not be adhered to? That said, I fully respect your decision.

I would remind you that, at the first meeting, we agreed on certain things, including the fact that all meetings had to be subject to a 48-hour notice.

Could there be other things that are within your purview—I understand that you're within your rights—that are going to change at your discretion, like what happened last night?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just for clarification, the 48 hours is, in fact, intended for the election of the chair. This is what we dealt with at the beginning of the process of this committee being formed. Forty-eight hours is also the process for notice of motions as well.

The chair has the authority and discretion to call a meeting. I decided to call the meeting last night so we're here today, and this meeting will continue. It's duly constituted and it's within my power and purview to do this, so we're going to continue on with the meeting.

if you want to keep going—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

What you said is interesting, and I fully respect your decision.

Calling a meeting is one of your prerogatives, and I respect that. You called us to an emergency meeting, but I would like to know one thing. What emergency justifies calling us last night for a meeting taking place this morning? The discussion we're going to have today is very important, but I'd like to know why it was urgent that we hold a meeting today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll answer your question as simply as I can.

This is an issue that we've now been at for 14 hours, by last count. I'm of the opinion that we need to continue this. I think this is an important issue. I think the committee, clearly by its actions of 14 hours of debating this particular motion, sees it as important and that's why.... Maybe some members don't, but, in my opinion and discretion as chair, I believe that it's an important issue for this committee to be seized with, and that's why I called this meeting.

Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Good morning to all of you on this slightly less grey than usual day. We're getting a bit of sun.

If I understand where we're at, we're talking about the original motion that was put forward by Mr. Barrett, for which the notice of motion was given on April 10. The motion read as follows:

That the committee undertake a study into the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto, and the minister's claims that he has recused himself from decisions his government made related to Alto; that, for the purpose of this study, the committee invite the following witnesses to appear by May 8, 2026: 1. Konrad von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for two hours; 2. Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours; and 3. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue, for two hours; And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.

If I understand correctly, someone said earlier that Mr. Saini had proposed an amendment to remove—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm not done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Hardy, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I think it's important for people to listen when you speak, Mr. Chair, because what the member is doing right now is repeating exactly what was said in the first few minutes of the meeting.

Instead of wasting time repeating what has already been said, it would be best for everyone to listen and, when the debate begins, to debate rather than repeat your earlier remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

My expectation today is that we're going to have a substantive and relevant debate continue. It's been 14 hours of a fairly robust and substantive debate.

We are on Mr. Hardy's subamendment right now, which is to have Mr. Imbleau, the CEO of Alto, come before committee. That's it.

I do appreciate the review here, Madam Lapointe. Everybody is fully aware of what the motion is. On the subamendment by Mr. Hardy, I'm going to give you back the floor and we can either vote on it after this or we can continue extending the hours that we've already been at it.

Madam Lapointe, go ahead, please.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I was summarizing things to make sure we were all on the same page. Thank you, Mr. Hardy, but I just wanted to make sure we were all talking about the same thing.

Mr. Saini proposed to remove, “Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours”. Then, Mr. Hardy proposed to specify the second item of the motion to invite only Alto CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours. Also, the last line of the motion is no longer in the version we're debating.

Now, allow me to come back to the fact that the Minister of Finance went to the conflict of interest commissioner. When you're sworn in, you meet many advisers to get up to speed, and one of the things they explain to you is the importance of being in good standing with the conflict of interest commissioner. All my colleagues here know full well that we're also explained what constitutes a conflict of interest. Over and above receiving this training when they became MPs and were sworn in, the members of this committee had the opportunity to meet with the commissioner on a number of occasions. He came to answer all of our questions.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue is aware of this, since he's been sworn in many times and is a minister. We're told that, when in doubt, we must consult the people at our disposal who can answer our questions about conflicts of interest, and not to wait for a problem to arise. That's what the minister did: He went to check if the fact that his spouse is vice-president of the environment at Alto was an issue, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found that there was no problem. Moreover, a member of the Conservative Party, Mr. Barrett, also checked with the commissioner and got the same answer: there's no issue and everything's fine. I don't understand the relentlessness around this issue. When in doubt, verify, and that's what happened.

Now, we have a motion to debate. It's true we've been debating for some time, but that's okay. The situation needs to be clarified.

During his last turn, Mr. Thériault made reference to Mirabel. He talked about all the expropriations in Mirabel. My riding is just south of the Mirabel riding and includes Deux-Montagnes, Saint‑Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. I can speak to the 1970s expropriations. I was a little girl at the time, and I remember the impact expropriations had on people. I want to point out those who were expropriated in Mirabel moved south, particularly in Saint‑Eustache, and some are still traumatized.

That said, practices have changed a lot since the 1960s and 1970s. Today, major projects are subject to clear and rigorous requirements. There are public consultations from the get-go, fair and transparent compensation, mandatory notifications, waiting periods and mechanisms to challenge decisions. That wasn't the case in the 1970s. I find it quite unfair that some people are scaring citizens by telling them a project like Alto could be a repeat of Mirabel. The rules have changed; it's different now.

All of this is based on well-established principles in Canadian expropriation laws, including the duty to consult, social acceptability and respect for the affected communities.

The high-speed rail act totally fits into this modern framework. It mandates consultation through impact assessments, provides for upstream collaboration with landowners and establishes a—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Lapointe, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the interpreters are telling me that the sound is cutting in and out.

Could you adjust your microphone?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Should I lower it?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think it's fine now.

Maybe take the plug out and plug it back in for me, please.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Can you hear me better?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I can hear you clearly, but the interpreters cannot.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I can speak more slowly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, you could speak more slowly.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The law requires consultations under the Impact Assessment Act; provides for early collaboration with landowners; and establishes a clear, transparent, and rigorous process, governed by the laws of Quebec and Ontario.

I will give a few examples.

Previously, there was no notice period. Today, formal notices and mandatory deadlines are required before any expropriation. In the past, the federal government acted without coordinating with Quebec. Now, projects are carried out in collaboration with provincial governments, in accordance with their laws. In the past, the rights of indigenous peoples were not recognized in these processes. Today, consulting with indigenous peoples is a duty, a legal obligation.

Let’s be very clear—