Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that clarification and summary.
We are beginning hour number 17 of the debate. In fact, I hardly dare call it a debate, as it resembles more of a monologue on the part of the government representatives.
Firstly, all these amendments and all these attempts to water down the original motion are based on an accusation of ulterior motives. When Mr. Hardy tabled his subamendment, which modified Mr. Saini's amendment, we heard on several occasions that what we were doing through this motion and this subamendment amounted to a fishing expedition, or even a witch hunt. This was repeated ad nauseam for 17 hours.
We are clearly not on the same wavelength. To suggest that the ethics committee is engaging in a witch hunt by wishing to hear from the Ethics Commissioner, the CEO of Alto, Mr. Martin Imbleau, and the minister concerned, is rather disappointing. Essentially, this amounts to saying that we must not do this and that it is better to drag out the debate until we are all exhausted, on the pretext that the opposition's intentions are malicious. It is therefore assumed that opposition MPs have malicious intentions, for example by proposing a subamendment to Mr. Saini's amendment.
Mr. Saini's amendment simply sought to remove an element from the second point of the motion, namely the part concerning the witnesses we wished to hear. I would remind you that, prior to Mr. Hardy's subamendment—which sought to retain at least the appearance of Alto's CEO—the Liberals were already asking us to withdraw the part concerning Alto's executives.
This is what the Liberals do: they take the floor, but once they have finished their speech, they ask the chair to put their name back on the list of speakers. This amounts to filibustering. The result is that it is difficult to add one's name to the list of speakers, to join the discussion and put forward counterproposals.
Mr. Chair, let us recall that, during those 17 hours, you even suspended the sitting to allow for discussions aimed at finding compromises. We did reach a few compromises. Before Mr. Hardy tabled his subamendment, we had already reached a third compromise. Initially, Mr. Fergus told us that the final sentence of the motion, which sought to have the committee report to the House that it was undertaking this study, would waste the House's time. To that, I replied that it is the legislative branch and the elected representatives who must debate in the House. A debate on ethics is never a waste of time. We agreed to remove the final sentence, agreeing to limit the study to the committee. We were then told that we should not invite Alto's executives to testify, for fear that our intention was to invite the minister's partner to testify. We agreed to remove this element.
When we agreed to remove this element, Mr. Saini proposed deleting point 2 entirely. We then responded with a subamendment. Mr. Hardy proposed maintaining a balance, noting that there are three parties involved and that it is impossible to shed light on the situation if one of the parties is excluded.
In this case, this subamendment is important. We are told that the Ethics Commissioner has already ruled on part of the matter, stating that human resources issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, not the Minister of Finance. However, this does not address the broader issue of the appearance of a conflict of interest. When a company receives $3.9 billion and offers a position to the partner of the Minister of Finance, who is spearheading Bill C‑15, which will amend the Expropriation Act and reduce the rights of those being expropriated, it is legitimate to want to understand Alto's role in this situation.
Is this a brilliant idea on the minister's part, or not? What is the rationale behind this decision, given the public statements made by Mr. Imbleau? He says he wants to do things right and respect people. So why, then, was this provision introduced into Bill C‑15? It effectively waters down the Expropriation Act, which was passed following the events related to the Mirabel expropriations that many still remember.
We are therefore faced with an attempt to remove one of the parties. In other words, we should not be hearing from Alto to explain this apparent conflict of interest. Furthermore, we were told that the matter had been settled, that the case was closed, and that the committee would not have to rule on it or hear witnesses, since the commissioner had resolved the issue.
However, it would be useful to hear from the commissioner on how he interprets the concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest. He had, in fact, suggested that we incorporate this concept into the next version of the Conflict of Interest Act, which we are currently revising.
I am somewhat disappointed to see that a government which is still in a minority position—for the next few weeks, days, or even hours—is acting as if it were in the majority. Let there be no mistake: there would not have been a 17‑hour debate. The Liberal members of the committee would have called for a vote, and we would have moved on.
I am absolutely committed to this subamendment. It aims to prevent one of the parties from being sidelined without a clear understanding of what happened. Inviting the Minister of Finance to testify is essential. I wouldn't want to find myself asking him questions only to be told that it's Alto's responsibility or for the commissioner to respond that it's not his place to answer the question. That is precisely why it is important to hear from all three parties. We need to be able to shed full light on the situation.
Citizens have a right to this transparency and to a minimum level of trust in democratic institutions. If they do not trust the democratic institution represented by the ethics committee in Parliament—whose primary function is precisely to analyze what is against what should be—and if the truth cannot be brought to light regarding a situation that may involve a lack of judgment or the appearance of a conflict of interest, then I wonder what purpose this committee serves. I sincerely hope to convince the members on the other side. I hope to hear today something other than an argument based on a trial of intent, suggesting that the opposition is acting maliciously or seeking to grandstand.
I am not conducting a witch hunt. I am not trying to launch a fishing expedition. I am simply trying to shed light on a situation that, at the very least, raises questions about a lack of judgment and the appearance of a conflict of interest. To determine whether this is more than a conflict of interest, we must establish, among other things, whether the minister actually recused himself. There are many who doubt this.
It is not certain that, following the vote on the subamendment, other amendments will not be introduced to further narrow the scope of the motion, which would already have been significantly reduced had this subamendment not been proposed.
What I want is to shed light on the situation. I want to be able to question all the stakeholders in this matter. We will do so with decorum and with all the rigour and respect that such a situation demands. The manner in which we proceed will also be judged by those listening to us.
It is true that, given the limited time we have to question witnesses, we may sometimes have to intervene, or even interrupt witnesses, when their answers do not directly address the question asked. However, I make a commitment to my colleagues across the floor: If they accept this subamendment, we will conduct ourselves impeccably toward the witnesses. If they answer the questions directly, without beating around the bush, we will let them answer.
It is very important that we at least be able to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. At one point, I had the impression that hearing from him was considered less relevant. Mr. Imbleau must also come and explain to us how his organization operates. I don't quite understand why Alto offered a position to the minister's partner. Not that she isn't entitled to it per se, but the minister steered Bill C‑15 through to its passage, participated in the debate, and voted. When one recuses oneself, one must at least abstain from voting if one truly wishes to avoid any doubt, whether it involves an actual or apparent conflict of interest.
With that, I invite all my colleagues to consider the merits of this motion as subamended, and, as much as possible, to avoid filibustering, or at the very least to acknowledge that some wish to get to the bottom of this unfortunate situation in which the minister has placed himself.
Some will say that he has set higher standards for himself than those required by the Ethics Commissioner. However, these additional standards were not strictly adhered to, since he voted on Bill C‑15.
I therefore call for co-operation today. We are in hour number 17 of the debate. Some may feel that my remarks are long, but they remain modest compared to the speaking time used by the Liberals over the course of these 17 hours.
In closing, I would like to point out that if, from the very first hour of debate, we had agreed to adopt this motion, after removing the part relating to the report to the House, we would have saved a great deal of time. This is a six-hour study. Six hours is not much. We have now reached 17 hours of discussion. We could have conducted this study three times over; we would have had the full picture after those six hours. People could have formed an opinion on the validity of the concerns raised, rather than seeing my colleagues across the way acting as judges and concluding, from their position of being able to obstruct, that this process is unnecessary, that it is a bad motion, a fishing expedition, or a witch hunt.
I urge everyone to resolve the subamendment quickly. I hope we can proceed to a vote promptly and hear from the three parties we wish to hear from, as they are necessary to shed full light on this situation.