Okay.
I know that you just joined us this morning, so I'm going to provide some clarity on this, Mr. Lavoie.
The motion in front of us is on the finance minister's ethics screen as it relates to his participation in decisions, discussions, his vote on the budget and other things related to Alto. It's not related to the merits or the values of Alto. Mr. Barrett put Mr. Imbleau in the motion, and we've amended it again so that Mr. Imbleau has something to add to the merits of the motion in relation to the ethics screen.
We're not talking about the project. We're not talking about what it means for the Quebec-Canada corridor. The industry or transport committee can discuss that. We are talking about the finance minister's ethics screen and his participation in those discussions.
It is the opinion of Mr. Barrett and perhaps others that Mr. Imbleau has some value to add to the ethics screen discussion and discussions among others. I'll remind you that the finance minister did say that he had not participated in any of those discussions. The evidence contrary is that perhaps he has. What we're trying to do is get to the bottom of it, so please don't discuss the value or the virtue of the train system again, if you don't mind.
I will ask you to speak to the subamendment.