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.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I disagree with calling Mr. Imbleau to appear here.
In fact, I will explain why I disagree with including him in the motion as subamended by Mr. Hardy.
I'm in—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
If you're against it, then there's really no need to repeat it. You made that point already.
I'm going to let you go, and then I'll make a determination on relevance and repetition in a very short period of time. If you stray, then I will move on to Mr. Cooper.
Go ahead, sir.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Sari.
There was a lot of latitude given there. I am going to refer members to section 20.110 under “Committees and Questions of Procedure and Privilege”. It speaks to the issue of disorder of conduct. In 10 minutes, we will head into the 16th hour of this debate. I think I quoted this section the other day. I want to point out to the committee specifically what it says about the authority of the chair:
In addition, the Chair may, at their discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member.
This is something that I don't exercise, or don't want to exercise lightly. As members of this committee have been part of this committee for a while, I understand that—
Conservative
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I just want to tell you that there's a fire alarm in the building we're in right now.
Then I'm going to come back to what you said.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's something that I don't exercise. I try to use my discretion on it, but I will tell you....
What's that?
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
There is a fire alarm. I don't know if we can ignore it. I repeat, there is a fire alarm.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Sorry, I was on a roll there and I didn't see it. I am going to suspend for a couple of minutes.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
We have to suspend the meeting until the fire alarm is done. Those are the rules. The committee does not supersede these rules.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I am going to suspend until this is dealt with by the fire services and PPS.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We're resuming the meeting after suspending for a fire alarm.
As I was saying, I referred members to the procedure book under “Committees and Questions of Procedure and Privilege”. I'm going to repeat myself. We're 16 hours into this now. Section 20.110 states:
In addition, the Chair may, at their discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member.
Given the length of this debate and what I deem as some repetitive comments, I'm going to be exercising that authority. Again, as I said earlier, I try to give a lot of latitude no matter what we're doing because I believe fundamentally that the member's time is the member's time, but when a member drones on and carries on into repetition, that becomes a problem for me.
Anybody who's been part of this committee for as long as I've been chair knows that whether it's a discussion on any study that we're doing, debate or questioning, I give a lot of latitude, but I'm going to narrow that latitude quite a bit as we move forward.
Next on the list on the subamendment which involves Mr. Imbleau coming to committee, not the executives, not the finance minister's wife, nobody but Mr. Imbleau coming before this committee on the issue of the finance minister's ethics screen, is Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, first of all, thank you for your demeanour, your words and your reminder.
That said, I would like to raise a point of order. The following is provided for in Standing Order 116(2)(a): Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.
That's the first point I want to make on this point of order.
The second point, Mr. Chair, is that you raised the issue of relevance and being able to stop certain interventions when they're not relevant. You have outstanding experience and I greatly appreciate your work. However, I wonder if this allows the chair to rule that what a member is saying, whether it's me or another member, like Mr. Cooper, for example, is irrelevant or repetitive.
I say that in a very respectful and friendly way, and I thank you.
I am raising this point of order under Standing Order 116(2)(a). I would very much like us to maintain the level of work and co-operation we have always had. This is a friendly point of order, and I thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
To answer your questions, Mr. Sari, the chair has no authority to end the debate as long as there are still speakers on the list. I understand that but as I said earlier, the specific reference in the book on procedures of the committee that I was referring to refers to the issues of repetition and relevance, and that the chair does have the discretion to move on to the next speaker.
If I exercise that authority, every member is well within their right to add their name back on the list, but their comments are irrelevant, off-topic or repetitive, then I can exercise that authority again.
As I said, I generally give a lot of latitude. You guys know that because you've been with this committee for a year, whether it's, as I said earlier, with studies, whether it's on this issue, I do that. However, we are getting into 16 hours, in my opinion, of repetition and irrelevance on what was first an agreement among the parties to remove something and yet the debate continued, and now we are on the removal of the executives of Alto and including just Mr. Imbleau to appear before the committee.
I happen to think that we can move on and deal with this, but I have no authority as long as there are members who are still on the list, but I do have authority under the issue of relevance and repetition and I will exercise that authority.
With that being said, I have Mr. Sari's name added again behind Mr. Thériault.
Mr. Cooper, you are charged with commencing the 16th hour of this issue being debated. I'm going to you now, sir, on the subamendment.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On the subamendment, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by Liberal MPs opposite, including Mr. Sari who last spoke. I want to respond to some of the arguments that he put forward in terms of his position that for some reason the CEO of Alto, Mr. Imbleau, is not a relevant witness. Mr. Sari concluded his comments by suggesting that somehow hearing from the CEO of Alto, demanding the CEO of Alto come before this committee and the process to get answers that we are dealing with, with this motion, is somehow undermining the trust of Canadians.
I'll tell Mr. Sari what is undermining the trust of Canadians. It is when a minister of the crown, the Minister of Finance, has a hand in directing billions of taxpayer dollars to a company, Alto, in which his partner is a vice-president.
I'll tell Mr. Sari what also is undermining the trust and confidence of Canadians. That is this 16-hour spectacle we have seen from members opposite, who have wasted time, who have filibustered—
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. If we could go back to Mr. Hardy's subamendment, it would be very relevant.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
There they go, running interference yet again and wasting more time.
You know, I have seen this movie before. It was in the last Parliament at this committee during the dying days of the Trudeau government when the rot, and I mean the absolute rot, of that government had sunk in. The more things change, the more they stay the same, because here we have a minister of the Crown caught in a conflict of interest.