Evidence of meeting #37 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Madam Lapointe, we are on the subamendment and the subamendment is very clear, and that is to add just Mr. Imbleau, the CEO of Alto, to appear before the committee. It's very clear.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Actually, I'm talking about Alto, and I'm talking about the Alto train. That's exactly what I'm doing. When we have the floor, we make references to certain things. Everything I'm saying is directly related to the subject at hand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Madam Lapointe, I would like to reiterate that we're talking again about inviting the CEO of Alto to appear before the committee in relation to the motion which, again, refers to the finance minister imposing an ethics screen on himself, yet participating in discussions, votes and other things related to Alto.
This is not about the value or the virtue of Alto. If you want to discuss that, or issues of expropriation or other issues, there are other committees in which to do that, and I would invite you to do that. We are dealing with the ethics issue here.
If you continue to do this, I'm going to go to Ms. Church, who is next on the list. Please speak to the amendment.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you for the clarification.
If I understand correctly, we're still discussing the motion and Mr. Hardy's proposed amendments. Personally, I'd like to revisit a point Mr. Thériault raised regarding expropriations, since it ties into the broader debate we have been having for several hours.
We're talking here about a high-speed rail project. Some have raised the possibility of a conflict of interest, even though the conflict of interest commissioner concluded that the Minister of Finance’s actions were in compliance with the rules. Everything was done by the book. When you become an MP—
Conservative
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
—you meet with representatives of the Ethics Commissioner.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Excuse me, Madam Lapointe. I'm going to stop you. It's not for the reason that I stated about relevance, but we are having problems with your video and your sound. I just heard again from the interpreter.
I am going to go to Ms. Church, and then I'm going to come back to you. I'm going to have the technicians work on fixing this problem, because it is a problem for the interpreters. Okay?
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to our wonderful committee, on a Friday.
I'm delighted to weigh in on this subamendment. Mr. Chair, I was very glad to hear you recognize that although we have been at this for probably close to 14 hours this week, it is in fact a robust and substantive debate. I do think that's important, recognizing going forward that on issues like this sometimes we do need to have a thorough airing of all the issues.
On this subamendment, there are a few directions in which I want to take my comments. First of all, I want to talk about the substantive disagreement we have about calling these witnesses, including any executives but including the CEO of Alto, to this particular inquiry. Over the course of the past few days we have set out our general concerns about calling witnesses and using the committee's time and also the witnesses' time on a matter that is improper for this committee to explore. It's improper because it is an issue that has already been addressed by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, quite clearly, and although I don't believe—
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, you have mentioned several times that we are now in the 14th hour of debate on this motion. Mrs. Church is now suggesting this debate is taking too long and we're wasting the time of staff and parliamentarians. If we had adopted the motion 14 hours ago, the study itself would have only taken six hours.
It seems to me that, at this stage, out of respect for these proceedings and the committee, we should at least avoid such remarks and set the record straight.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Once again, we're on the subamendment. It's very clear what the subamendment is, and that is to remove the executives from Alto from appearing, which I think addresses at least some of the stated concerns of members of the Liberal Party, and to just have the CEO, Martin Imbleau, appear before committee. That's what we're dealing with.
I'm going to forewarn everyone here about getting beyond this subamendment and talking about issues that aren't relevant to the subamendment. For the last 14 hours I've heard a lot of discussion about the value and virtue of Alto. That's not what we're discussing here. From an ethical standpoint, the motion is very clear, and I'll say it again, the minister's claims that he recused himself from decisions his government made related to Alto. That's, quite frankly, what we're studying here. I'm not going to be seeking any more interventions on points of order. I'm going to make it very clear right now, if I determine that what we're discussing is not relevant or germane to this issue, I will be moving on to the next speaker. You can put yourself back on the list if you like, but I'm not going to sit here and take this for another 15 hours.
Ms. Church, I'm going back to you on the subamendment. I'll remind you that the subamendment is to have the CEO, Martin Imbleau, appear for two hours before committee. That's it. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I have to say, I was less than a minute into my remarks and I have not spoken to the subamendment or the amendment to date—
Conservative
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Thériault, I appreciate, maybe, your frustration with how the week has transpired, but I do have the ability to speak to the motion and I certainly intend to do so.
We're at a point—
Conservative
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
On the subamendment, my apologies for that.
I am speaking directly about the subamendment and the question of having Alto executives, specifically the CEO, appear, and I'm going to continue to do that. We are in a meeting right now, without notice, and where resources have been requested for 16 hours today. I think it is fair to say that I'm within my domain and my speaking time to canvass the reasons we oppose the subamendment on this side of the table.
I was speaking about the substantive disagreement we have about calling Alto employees—any of them, or any Alto executives—to the committee to reflect on this particular topic. That includes Mr. Imbleau. The reason is that, as I was describing, the inquiry here itself has been brought before the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner, independently, as that office is designed to do, has already weighed in on this topic and actually confirmed that Minister Champagne is not in a position of conflict, that he has respected the rules that have been set out for ministers, and that as Minister of Finance he has no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto and therefore does not have the opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee.
When we're talking about bringing the CEO of Alto to committee, the real question here is, why? Why are we taking up the time of the CEO of Alto to weigh in on a matter that is properly within the scope of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and a topic which the commissioner has already made comment on to say there isn't an issue here and that the Minister of Finance has no decision-making authority. Now the fact that the minister went above and beyond the guidance of the Ethics Commissioner to establish a screen within his ministry is a reflection of the seriousness to which our government takes the conflict of interest regime. It doesn't change the fact that the Ethics Commissioner has said there is no conflict here.
When I take a look at Mr. Imbleau, he is an executive who brings to Alto a wealth of experience from other organizations. Before joining Alto, he was the CEO of the Montreal Port Authority. He's been at Hydro-Québec as vice-president of corporate strategy and business development for Canada and the United States. He has worked for Énergir as a vice-president in several roles. He holds a master's in law from the Université de Montréal and a bachelor's in law from the Université du Québec à Montréal. He has been a member of the Quebec Bar Association since 1997. He is chair of the board of directors of the Université du Québec at Montréal's Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies.
This is someone who has the experience to guide a project like Alto, but bringing an executive like Mr. Imbleau to this committee to testify on this matter seems to be nothing more than a dressed-up fishing expedition. Not only do we have that substantive disagreement, that it is improper to call Alto executives to this inquiry because the inquiry itself is improper, but, Mr. Chair, to your very specific point, we also have a procedural disagreement with this which is if the interest in having Mr. Imbleau here is to actually talk about Alto, then that is probably better referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
What we'd be expecting to hear from Mr. Imbleau, if he appeared at this committee, would be about the project itself, it's progress, its advancement, its community consultations, its timelines for building the route, items that are probably specifically and properly within the scope of the CEO's role.
I ask my colleagues opposite, with their intention to call a very senior executive from Alto, what is their purpose in having Mr. Imbleau testify?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
During the 14 hours of debate, during which Mrs. Church spoke for half the time—I'm exaggerating a bit, but she spoke far more than I did—the discussion centred on the fact that we wanted to raise ethical questions.
Today, she claims that if Mr. Imbleau, the CEO of Alto, testifies, he will come to discuss the project. I want to be clear: Mr. Imbleau will have to answer the ethical questions we're raising in the context of this motion. He won't be coming to discuss the Alto project.
Mr. Chair, during the 14 hours of debate, you called members of the government to order when they strayed from the motion and promoted the project instead. I want to make this clear to the people listening to us, and to Mr. Imbleau himself: Our concerns are strictly ethical and have nothing to do with the Department of Transport.
