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—