ETHI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, June 11, 2026
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I call this meeting to order.
[Translation]
Welcome to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, April 20, 2026, the committee is commencing its study of the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto.
I would like to welcome to the committee the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who is with us for the first hour today.
Minister, you have up to five minutes for your opening statement. Go ahead, please.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Colleagues, it is a pleasure to be with you today.
As the chair mentioned, I am here today to outline the measures my team and I have taken to prevent any potential conflict of interest regarding the federal Crown corporation responsible for developing the high-speed rail project.
Earlier this year, news articles reported that someone close to me had been hired as an employee of that Crown corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government of Canada that reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Transport.
However, the relevant facts date back well before the publication of those articles. On July 3, 2025, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was informed that someone close to me had received a job offer from the aforementioned Crown corporation. I then contacted the office directly, and was told that the circumstances in question did not give rise to any risk of a conflict of interest. Several months later, further correspondence with the office confirmed these findings.
Despite these repeated confirmations that no conflict of interest existed and that no screen was required, I nevertheless chose—out of an abundance of caution—to implement and maintain a screening process to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and to assure Canadians who are watching us of the integrity of the decision-making process, as evidenced by the letter dated September 10, 2025—a copy of which was duly sent to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
I acted in the same manner as I do in performing my duties as a member of Parliament and as a minister—that is, with rigour, integrity and in accordance with my obligations. I have had the honour of working with some of you for over 10 years, particularly with you, Mr. Chair. I hope and believe that you will all agree that, like all of you, I have always demanded impeccable ethics from my team and myself.
Nevertheless, despite the proactive measures taken and the unequivocal response from the Commissioner of Conflict of Interest and Ethics regarding the absence of any risk of conflict of interest, this matter has given rise to unfounded accusations, even slander and partisan posturing.
In light of these allegations, I would like to reiterate several important facts. The plan for a high-speed train serving the north shore of the St. Lawrence River and the Mauricie region is not a recent development. Five years before I was elected as a member of Parliament, and 15 years before the events that led to my appearance here today, economic stakeholders in the Mauricie region were already promoting the project. For example, in 2010, the Trois-Rivières Chamber of Commerce and Industry publicly supported the initiative, which was considered a flagship project for our region's economic development. Funding for this project was also announced by former Prime Minister Trudeau in February 2025, while I was serving as Minister of Industry—well before the events and circumstances being discussed today.
As soon as someone close to me received a job offer from this Crown corporation, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was notified. I contacted the office directly and subsequently received written confirmation on April 7, 2026, stating that no conflict of interest existed and that no ethical screening was therefore required.
Given that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport and that, as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority over human resources matters at Alto, you are not in a position to promote the interests of any specific Alto employee. There is therefore no risk of a conflict of interest, and a screen is not required.
Despite this, I chose to impose an internal conflict-of-interest screen so as not to participate in decision-making regarding the Crown corporation's project, except for decisions of a general nature permitted under the Conflict of Interest Act.
I believe we can all be proud that Canada has one of the most robust conflict-of-interest systems in the world.
In closing, I would say that this committee plays a vital role within this system and makes a significant contribution to maintaining Canadians' trust in public officeholders by ensuring they are held to the highest ethical standards.
However, I urge you to exercise caution. Preserving that collective trust also means refraining from politicizing the act or the work of this committee. We cannot allow partisan considerations or broader opposition to major projects that shape the country to divert this committee from the important work it must do to fulfill its mandate.
I am confident that committee members will be able to examine this issue fairly, objectively and reliably.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister.
[English]
Before we start, Minister, you know that members have a finite time to ask their questions—five or six minutes. I expect the question and response to be of equal time.
I don't want or need any interruptions unless they're related to the Standing Orders or standing rules. As has been practised on this committee, just because you don't like a line of questioning, that doesn't mean you interrupt.
Mr. Barrett, you have six. Go ahead, sir.
I have a point of order, Chair, before it's my time.
Are we able to get unanimous consent from the committee to work through bells if they ring during the minister's appearance? I expect that he has a limited amount of time.
Do we have unanimous consent to work through the bells?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, we'll do that.
Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for raising that point.
Go ahead, sir. You have six minutes.
[Translation]
Minister, thank you for joining us today.
[English]
This is the second time we've had the opportunity to discuss this issue. You appeared at the committee of the whole. I asked you questions. I regret that the responses weren't answers to the questions. Today, I'm hoping that we can drill down and get those responses.
In September 2025, you wrote a letter. It was reported that you wrote a letter to the Prime Minister because you believed there was a risk of a conflict of interest. To be clear, I'm not asserting that you said there was a conflict or that one did occur, but you wrote that letter to the Prime Minister.
Is that correct?
[Translation]
As I said at the outset, I have always complied with all the rules under the act. In fact, I decided—perhaps because of my legal background and out of an abundance of caution—to implement a screening process precisely to ensure that I comply with the rules and that we take all necessary measures under the act.
I was even prepared to implement a screening process precisely so that I would not be involved in specific decisions related to the project.
[English]
That being said, you went on to participate in votes in the House related to Alto. You went on to introduce a bill that included measures specifically related to Alto. It was the implementation legislation for the High-Speed Rail Network Act. There's no recusal publicly posted with respect to cabinet decisions or discussions, so we're left to understand that you didn't recuse yourself.
You've said to us today that you're operating with a keen eye to follow all the ethical rules and guidelines and even to exceed them. If that's the case, and you were of the view in September that a conflict would exist if you participated in decisions, discussions or votes in spite of the response from the Ethics Commissioner, why did you proceed to do the very thing you had said that you—not the Ethics Commissioner—believed would create a conflict?
As I said very specifically, Mr. Chair, I did that with an abundance of caution, being very mindful of the law and the exception in the law. I wanted to make sure that I did not participate in the decisions with respect to this project.
I wanted to refer to the principle of general application. I know my colleague, Mr. Barrett, is a solicitor. I think a barrister would know it.
The principle of general application contained within the Conflict of Interest Act allowed me to participate in parliamentary debates and votes, including those related to the budget and the budget implementation act. I think you even received testimony in front of this committee that this is a principle that exists not only in the federal law but in provincial law. It's widely accepted.
I not only complied with all the rules under the act, but I also went beyond to provide to Canadians the kind of transparency that would let them know I respected the act and the letter of the act within the exception permitted under the act, as well as that I had a filter to make sure that I was not directly involved in decisions.
Minister, I'd like to know what the precautions you took actually prevented you from doing. You did go on to do those things that you believe to be of a general application, but your department went on to hire one of the many Alto executives to participate in the preparation for your budget presentation and preparation of your budget speech.
It's a small world. It's a small country in terms of our population, comparatively. My goodness, that leaves people questioning how an Alto executive ended up working for you and helping you prepare your budget speech and your budget presentation. I couldn't imagine how they could find the time to even do that while they're preparing this massive project, for which these same executives are collecting massive bonuses without having laid an inch of track.
[Translation]
As I was saying, I followed all the rules.
As I also explained, out of an abundance of caution, we put a screen in place. This is a well-known measure that is properly enforced by the Clerk of the Privy Council. The measure actually goes beyond the legal obligation under the act. I did so voluntarily, because I believed it was the right thing to do.
The employee in question had no decision-making role—she had a role in French-language communications.
[English]
For my last question, what did the screen prevent you from doing if you were able to discuss or to vote on the matter? If there were all of these Alto-related intersections with your responsibilities, what did the screen that you said was invoked out of an abundance of caution prevent you from doing?
I will try, Mr. Chair, under your direction.
The screen, as I said, is a mechanism that is well established by the Privy Council for ministers and others not to participate directly in specific matters.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Minister. It's always a pleasure to see you again.
I have been vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics for a year now. The past year has certainly been a lot of work.
As you mentioned earlier, the Alto high-speed rail project was one of the promises in our election platform. It was included during the 2025 campaign.
As you also know, my riding is south of Mirabel, so I'm very familiar with what's happening with Alto. I could go on at great length about the potential impact of the Alto high-speed train—and I've already done so. This train will run through my riding. The vast majority of Canadians support this project. We need to find a way to properly address people's concerns.
You said earlier that Canada has one of the most robust conflict-of-interest management systems in the world. Several witnesses testified to that effect here before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That's a fact.
I'll ask a question, and then I'll let you answer and explain. Take as much time as you need to provide whatever explanations you wish. Can you explain to the committee why you felt it was important to take a proactive approach and consult the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules were followed?
First, I would also like to thank you for your leadership on this major project, Ms. Lapointe.
Many questions have been put to me. As for the high-speed rail project itself, let me read you the following: “The Trois-Rivières Chamber of Commerce is calling on elected officials and organizations in the Mauricie region to take action to ensure the high-speed train runs along the north shore.” This is an article published by Radio-Canada on February 15, 2010, so this widely known project has been in the public eye for a very long time.
In my part of the country, we were even talking about this project five years before I was elected to Parliament. A great deal of information about this major project is publicly known. If you visit the Transport Canada website, you'll see the mandate entrusted to the Crown corporation for one of Canada's largest infrastructure projects, if not the largest.
I've been a member of Parliament for over a decade. I have always acted with the utmost integrity. As an MP and a minister, I believe we must comply with all the rules. For my part, I chose to go a step further—namely, to apply a conflict-of-interest screen so that the decisions directly affecting this major high-speed rail project would not involve me. I believe that was the right thing to do. I am a legal expert, a lawyer, and I served as chief ethics officer for five to eight years while working in London before entering politics. I would say that when it comes to ethics, I have specific knowledge of the processes and principles that must be put in place—both in the public sector and in large corporations. In the public service, it is the trust of Canadians that matters. I did this because I want Canadians to have faith in our system.
As you said, our legislative framework is among the strictest and most comprehensive in the G7 and the OECD. With that in mind, I understand the decision of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As you saw, his response to me was quite substantial. I'll quote his reply to an email: “There is therefore no risk of a conflict of interest, and a screen is not required.” That message, dated April 7, 2026, was in response to my request for confirmation.
Compliance with the law is obviously first and foremost, but as minister, I decided to go a step further by stating that we will implement a screening process. As I mentioned to Mr. Brassard, your committee chair, this process has been well established for several years now. I've been a cabinet minister for about 10 years. I've seen filters like these applied at various times, and I believe it's the right thing to do. The committee should have complete confidence that we will act in an exemplary manner on this issue, in the best interests of Canadians. That is why I'm pleased to answer my colleagues' questions today.
You chose to take precautionary measures to avoid any potential perception. You referred to Canadians' perceptions and trust regarding the Alto case. Could you explain why this approach was important to you?
It's because ethics is a fundamental value for me. As I told you, I was previously the chief ethics officer as a lawyer at a major international firm. This is a matter of public trust. The role of the committee chair—Mr. Brassard—is to preserve the public's trust in our institutions, our procedures, our processes and our deliberations.
That is why I said at the outset that we should not politicize this committee, the law or the committee's work, because the public interest is at stake. For some, my tenure on this committee is more recent, but for others, it goes back over 10 years—even 12 years. Maintaining public trust in our institutions is important. When things are done right, it should be acknowledged. Before you is a case in which a member of Parliament is complying with the law—and, moreover, is applying a screen even though he is not required to do so. I think this kind of approach should be celebrated rather than criticized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, you often mention the screen you have in place. Could you explain to the committee exactly what this screen consists of and what it prevents you from doing? Could we have some concrete details, or is there nothing written down anywhere?
Here again, we must be mindful of what the committee is saying, because the Commissioner of Conflict of Interest and Ethics himself acknowledged receipt of the letter. He said: “Nevertheless, you provided us with a copy of a letter last September.”
I'll come back to the letter later on.
Could you explain your screen to us so that we can understand it in very concrete and specific terms? It seems clear in your mind, but it isn't to me.
To the best of my knowledge, the documents are not currently available on the Office of the Commissioner's website.
Here is my question: can you provide the committee with information about this screen, which you've mentioned several times?
If the Commissioner of Conflict of Interest and Ethics determines that, under the act—because the act governs these principles—providing you with a copy is the right thing to do, he will make that decision. It is up to him to do so.
You—a minister who advocates for transparency—do not want to submit the description of your so-called screen to the committee.
As I said, the letter was sent to the Ethics Commissioner. That decision is his to make, because there are legal rules around that.
You are refusing to provide the committee with information describing your filter, then. That's my understanding. That's fine.
Coming back to—
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
At no time did the minister refuse to do that. I want to follow up on what Mr. Bonin said. I am asking you again. The question was asked, and the answer was clear. The documents are available from the commissioner.
The minister didn't answer the question.
This is my question: Can he share the information on the filter with the committee?
Pardon me, but my question was crystal clear. Unless he proves otherwise, the minister is refusing to answer it.
Minister, could you also provide the committee with your letter and the commissioner's response, since the information isn't available on his office's website?
As I told you, there are rules around the sharing of information with the Ethics Commissioner. I invite you to ask him. He received a copy of the letter I sent and confirmed that he did.
I would say that it complies with the process currently in place.
I set up the filter voluntarily, because obviously, it's administered by the Clerk of the Privy Council. I sent it to the Ethics Commissioner on my initiative. It's up to him to decide whether it should be shared with the committee or not.
I understand. I see how you feel about transparency. I would have preferred you make the letter public in the interest of transparency.
The appearance of a conflict of interest is what's undermining your credibility or, at least, people's trust. In this situation, you are aware that you proposed legislation, Bill C‑15, part of which deals with Alto. The bill confers expropriation powers that go against the Expropriation Act.
Why didn't you just take the part about Alto out of the omnibus budget bill? That way, the Minister of Transport could have dealt with that part, and you wouldn't have had to state your position, appear before the Standing Committee on Finance or even vote on the matter? Why didn't you recuse yourself from the process and take that part out? I'm not talking about the whole bill. I'm referring only to the part about Alto. Why didn't you put it in another bill? That would have avoided the appearance of a conflict of interest.
If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to quote the Ethics Commissioner to correct statements that have been made today. This is what the commissioner wrote on April 7, at 4:36 p.m.:
Given that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport and that, as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto, you do not have the opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee. Therefore, there is no risk of conflict of interest and a screen is not required.
Those are the Ethics Commissioner's words.
Thank you, Minister.
The commissioner's words clearly state that you have no decision-making authority over human resources matters at Alto. That isn't the only issue, though. The problem is that you are part of a government that makes decisions, and that the Alto project potentially represents billions of dollars and involves expropriation superpowers. That proximity could influence public policy or, at least, give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's what we are talking about right now.
Do you not see why people might have questions about the fact that your wife is a senior vice-president at Alto and you are making major decisions that could benefit Alto, particularly when it comes to expropriating property? Billions of dollars in cheques could potentially be signed. Do you not get that? I understand the commissioner told you that you have no authority over human resources at Alto. Nevertheless, can't you, personally, see how the average person might perceive this as a conflict of interest?
Mr. Bonin, again, those claims are not true. You're probably not a lawyer, so I would encourage you to check with a lawyer, because the allegations you're making are baseless.
Mr. Bonin, let the minister answer. This makes things difficult for the interpreters.
Go ahead, Mr. Champagne.
Mr. Bonin, I am here before the committee with respect. As I said, I want to stick to the facts. That's why I am choosing my words carefully. I am a lawyer.
First, I am telling you that baseless allegations have been made.
Second, the act is very clear about the necessary measures. For instance, I urge you to read subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Act. They should inform your consideration of this matter.
Mr. Chair, you're signalling that I should hurry up, so I will come back to this later.
Mr. Bonin, as I told you, I followed all the applicable rules.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, you moved, spoke on and voted on measures to advance the Alto project through the budget implementation act in various ways and means motions.
You spoke about matters of general application. I want to look specifically at the February 25, 2026, vote. You voted, in the House of Commons, against motion number 44, which was to delete clause 191. You voted against that specific motion.
Is that correct?
The answer, Minister, is that you voted against a motion that was very specific: deleting clause 191.
Now, what was in clause 191? It was to delete the High-Speed Rail Network Act from the budget implementation act.
Minister, just to confirm, the High-Speed Rail Network Act dealt exclusively with Alto.
Is that correct?
[Translation]
As I said, I complied with all the rules under the act. You are well aware of what the Conflict of Interest Act says, especially subsections 6(1) and 6(2).
[English]
Minister, clause 191 dealt specifically with the High-Speed Rail Network Act, and that act dealt exclusively with Alto.
You said that the ethics screen was in place to prevent you from making decisions about, discussing or voting on matters related to Alto, with the caveat that this did not extend to matters of general application. Motion number 44 was not a matter of general application. It was very specific. It was specific to advancing the Alto project—nothing more and nothing less.
Isn't that right?
[Translation]
Again, as I said, I complied with all the rules. I believe you're a lawyer, so I urge you to consult the act, as well as the relevant case law and doctrine.
Under the Conflict of Interest Act, members are allowed to participate in a parliamentary debate or vote on a matter of general application. That principle is established not only federally, here in Ottawa, but also provincially. I believe it's a best practice.
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Minister, if that isn't specific or doesn't relate exclusively to Alto....
What could be more specific than a clause to delete advancing the project?
[Translation]
As I said, I followed all the rules in the act. I urge my colleague, whom I think is a lawyer, to read the relevant provisions, doctrine and case law, as well as the principle of general application, which allows parliamentarians—
[English]
[Translation]
It really begs this question: What good is your ethics screen if you can vote on matters that specifically and exclusively relate to advancing the Alto project?
By the way, your spokesperson, John Fragos, is quoted in an April 6, 2026, National Post article.
He stated:
The minister fully respects the screen...meaning he is neither implicated in nor party to any discussions, decisions, or votes related to Alto.
That is simply not true. You voted at least 13 times on matters related to Alto. You qualified that by saying that it was a matter of general application, but you can't explain how you voted against motion number 44, which was not a matter of general application.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cooper, as I said, the principle of general application set out in the act allows members to satisfy their obligations under the act, without preventing them from voting in Parliament.
Indeed, the people of Saint‑Maurice—Champlain have the right to have their say on this issue. In fact, your interpretation of the act disregards the relevant case law and doctrine, and the expert opinions the committee has heard. The people of Saint‑Maurice—Champlain have the right to have a voice on this issue. That is why I complied with my obligations under the act, but also the exceptions provided for in the act, doctrine and case law.
[English]
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, can you confirm that the discussions regarding high-speed rail began long before your election to Parliament and long before you became Minister of Finance, yes or no?
[Translation]
Yes, I quoted an article to Mr. Bonin, because I know he too reads Radio-Canada articles. The article says that the Chambre de commerce de Trois-Rivières is calling on elected officials and organizations in the Mauricie region to work together to get high-speed rail service on the north shore. This article was published at 4:31 p.m. on February 15, 2010.
[English]
If you live where I live, you've been hearing about that project for at least two decades. As an MP, I have the right to discharge, and I have the obligation to discharge, my duty to my constituents. I came to know that project before I was even elected. It was five years before I was elected, and obviously way before I became Minister of Finance.
As I said, if you've been living in that part of the country, you've been hearing about that project. Not only have you been hearing about it; as you heard me quoting, the Chamber of Commerce and civil society have been asking for a project like that. When I took my role as Minister of Finance, I had to put the proper safeguards in place, which I did.
As I said, I have knowledge of the project just because of public knowledge. It's very well known in my part of the country.
Thank you, Minister.
Can you also confirm that the entity now known as Alto was created in 2022, several years before the events being discussed today, and at a time when you were serving as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry?
[Translation]
You know as well as I do that when you appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, you have to be very factual, so I'll read the published mandate, which is available online.
In March 2022, the Government of Canada issued Orders in Council authorizing and directing VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA Rail) to incorporate a wholly owned subsidiary, Alto. It has a mandate to develop and implement the HSR initiative including the design, construction […]
Obviously, there's more. What you're saying is what's written there. It also says: “The High-Speed Rail (HSR) Initiative is one of the largest infrastructure projects in Canada's history. This rail network will span approximately 1,000 km […]”
What I'm reading here is public. I'm being very careful with my comments to our colleagues, but it's available online. It's public information.
[English]
Thank you, Minister.
For the benefit of this committee, could you clarify the reporting relationship between Alto and the Government of Canada and which minister is responsible for the oversight of the Crown corporation?
[Translation]
I'll say this in English, because I think it's good to have it in both official languages.
[English]
Just for the record, I will read in extenso an email dated April 7, 2026, at 4:37 p.m., as follows:
Considering that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the minister of transport and as minister of finance you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto, you do not have an opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee.... There is no risk of conflict of interest and a screen is not required.
I just want to be very clear about the facts. When you're at the ethics committee, and you have a number of lawyers in the room, you have to stick with the facts and make sure that whatever you state in this committee is factually correct and is substantiated by evidence. That's why I brought the documents: to substantiate what I'm saying with evidence so that people can form their own opinion.
Thank you, Minister.
Could you explain what Alto would mean for Canada's long-term economic growth, productivity and connectivity? What would Canada lose by not moving forward with such a project?
[Translation]
Mr. Chang, you'll understand that, given the circumstances, I'll limit myself to what's public. I'll read what it says on the Transport Canada's website about the high-speed rail initiative, so public information: “The High-Speed Rail (HSR) Initiative is one of the largest infrastructure projects in Canada's history. This rail network will span approximately 1,000 km and reach speeds of up to 300 km/hour, with stops in Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montréal, Laval, Trois-Rivières, and Quebec City.”
If committee members are looking for public information, it's on the Transport Canada website. It can help people to form an opinion on this major project. As I said, back home, we've been talking about this project for, oh, my goodness, at least two decades.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chang.
You'll note that the bells are ringing in the chamber. We had UC at the beginning to continue on. I'm going to give everybody 10 minutes to go upstairs. We're in the same building.
[Translation]
Mr. Bonin, you have—
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, could you ask the witness to provide the letter he sent to the commissioner and the explanation of the conflict of interest screen he referenced?
The committee needs to pass a motion to get that letter. It's not up to me to ask the minister that. As chair, it's not my responsibility to ask the minister to produce a letter.
Therefore, I'd like to move a motion to that effect. It would simply be as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the committee request that the minister produce and make public the letter and the ethics screen he is referring to in his testimony.
I think it's in the public interest.
Okay.
Mr. Bonin has moved a motion. The floor is open for debate.
[English]
I don't see any hands. We'll go to the vote.
Do we have unanimous consent on the part of the committee for the minister to produce the documents that Mr. Bonin has asked for?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: We don't, so let's go to a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The Chair: The motion for the minister to produce the documents to the committee has been defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Bonin, you only have 25 seconds left.
Mr. Champagne, Alto's senior executives, one of which is your wife, obviously, were awarded a bonus. Did your wife receive a bonus? We hear about bonuses. Do you know if she received a bonus as part of her duties at Alto?
—that he received the letter, so he has all the information. It will be up to him to make the decision.
Minister, thank you for joining us. You began your opening remarks by talking about rigour, integrity and transparency. You said your goal was to fulfill your obligations and that you therefore wrote a letter to recuse yourself. The definition of “recusal” is to recuse yourself from participation because of incompetence or to avoid a conflict of interest.
What was the purpose of the letter? Why did you recuse yourself? Based on that definition from the dictionary, what was the reason?
Mr. Hardy, if you're looking for a clip, you won't get it today. I've been an MP for at least 10 years. You just got here. I'm an honourable member of this House, as you are.
Once again, I would ask everyone to think about the interpreters.
Mr. Hardy, if you have another question, go ahead.
I'm talking about facts. When you write a letter to recuse yourself, the words you use are important. If the people listening to us want to know what you did, they'll rely on the definition of recusal.
What I'm asking you is what part of the definition applies to your situation. I just want you to answer that question.
I'm happy to answer you on that basis.
It was out of an abundance of caution. As a lawyer, I have a fairly good understanding of these concepts. Even if the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner doesn't ask you to do something, it doesn't mean you can't go beyond what the act requires of you. That's exactly what I did, precisely to avoid any questions about my involvement in the decisions regarding this project.
That's perfect. I'm glad we're keeping to the facts, because it's important.
On September 10, 2025, you sent a letter. The Commissioner replied on April 7, 2026. That's what you said in a previous answer. There's a delay between the two. Theoretically, you'd recused yourself and you were waiting for the answer. However, on November 4, you took part in the debates; on November 7, you voted; on November 17, you voted; on November 18, you promoted the project and voted; on December 8, you voted; on February 5, 2026, you voted; and on February 25, you voted.
Between the time you sent your letter and the time you received the official answer, 13 times you did things you weren't supposed to do. We're just trying to figure out what happened.
That's not the case, Mr. Hardy. I invite you to consult lawyers on this. You'll find that the application principle—
That's why I can tell you that there are very specific sections in the act that are general in scope and that enable members, like you—
—to be able to do things.
I just want to correct your statement, since we're talking about the facts. What we received on April 7, 2026, was confirmation of a discussion I had already had with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As I said, as soon as the individual in question received a job offer, I contacted the Ethics Commissioner to inform him. As mentioned, this took place on July 3, 2025.
I have also taken other measures as Minister of Finance. I have a role as an MP and a role as Minister of Finance. In both capacities, we have complied with all the rules under the act.
That's perfect. I'm glad you told us that, because you said earlier that it was important to maintain trust and not politicize the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
However, when you do that, people have questions. They wonder how a finance minister can fast-track a bill, spend $4.27 million of taxpayers' money and allow senior executives of this public project to award themselves $2.8 million in performance bonuses.
My question is this: Is your wife a senior executive in Alto?
Check with your lawyers. Check what you're doing. I'm telling you that you're making allegations. You're politicizing the work of this committee.
You're against the project. That's one thing—
The people watching you at home understand exactly what you're doing. You're against this project; you're politicizing this committee—
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Minister, Alto's senior executives have received bonuses. What I'm asking you is whether your wife is one of Alto's senior executives, plain and simple. If that's the case, then citizens know that your household stands to get that money. At that point, the matter moves away from general application and into specifics. We're entitled to ask questions.
Thank you for what you're doing, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I understand that tempers can sometimes flare a bit in committee. However, as you said, we all have to use a respectful tone.
Mr. Hardy, I'm going to answer you by quoting the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Again, you're making allegations. I encourage you to consult lawyers if you want to know more about this.
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner says the following:
Considering that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport—
—as Minister of Finance you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto, you do not have an opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee.
That's what the commissioner thinks, Mr. Hardy. You are entitled to your opinion, I agree, but the Ethics Commissioner is entitled because he is the final arbiter of these matters.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, it's great to see you, as always. Thank you for taking the time to be with us.
I'll take a quick moment to comment. I don't know that I've ever met anyone who appreciates being in committee as much as you do. This committee certainly appreciates that about you.
For the benefit of this committee, I'm going to take a quick moment to rehash the timeline here with you. In March 2025, you were appointed Minister of Finance. Congratulations, by the way. You're doing a very good job.
Last spring, someone close to you received a job offer with Alto. You immediately contacted the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to inform them of said job offer. You were subsequently told by the commissioner's office that “there is no risk of a conflict of interest” and that “a screen is not required”. Notwithstanding that advice, you still chose to impose an internal screen to avoid any potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
In September 2025, you wrote to the Prime Minister, informing him of the implementation of a conflict of interest filter. In November 2025, Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, was tabled. In February 2026, Bill C-15 passed through the finance committee, with Conservatives voting in favour of Alto. Then, in March 2026, the Leader of the Opposition announced opposition to Alto, and that brings us to today.
Do I have this timeline right, Minister? Am I missing anything?
It's good to hear that.
At any point, has the commissioner expressed concern as to your approach, indicated that it's insufficient or that there's something missing?
No. I appreciate your question.
Mr. Chair, I would like to say again that I know it's not easy, especially when there are debates in this place. I want to thank you for the work you're doing.
What I hear from my colleague Mr. Al Soud is a recollection of events and facts, and I think that's what this committee is all about. It's about facts.
Members of Parliament are entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. That's a very clear principle that we should be applying at this committee. It's a matter of justice, and you have to abide by these rules. That's why I like your question, because you're talking about facts, and you leave the opinion aside. As I said, people know me, and people have seen me in many different positions. I've been a member of this House for a long time—I think for as long a time as the Chair, as we were elected at the same time. Whether in question period or in committee, I always submit myself to questions and answers to preserve public confidence in our institution, and everyone is doing important work.
As difficult as it may be sometimes to be a witness, as there are things you hear that may not be factually correct, witnesses come here to answer your questions, as should be the case. I've submitted myself to that many times, and I've probably answered as many questions as or—as I look around this table—more than most. I've been accountable to Canadians.
I've been accountable to Parliament. I've been accountable to committee, and I will continue to do that, because this is how our system works.
I want to thank the chair again for his work.
We're three rounds in now, and I'm still trying to understand what you might have done differently to somehow be even more transparent. You were repeatedly told that no screen would be required and that no conflict of interest is in question. You still chose to do a screen and to recuse yourself from any interactions pertaining to Alto.
Why did you make that decision? What principles guided that decision?
I know, as a lawyer—as well as from having been a director of ethics—that sometimes it is my own choice to go beyond in order to avoid any perception of a conflict, despite the fact that the arbitrator....
For Canadians who are watching tonight, maybe there are different views on who's asking the questions and the lead-up to that, but the arbitrator of what the code is asking of me, as well as anyone in this room who is at the table, is the commissioner. He's the arbitrator of all that. We are not; he is.
When an MP does everything he can, proactively contacting the commissioner to ask him for guidance, and the MP asks for advice, the advice is confirmed in writing. You then put in a screen and voluntarily copy the commissioner, so he has a copy of the letter; he can tell anyone whether he's satisfied or not. He then confirms reception of that letter.
I would say humbly to this committee and to you, Mr. Chair, that when one has done everything that one can do to respect all the rules—which apply to me and all the members around this table—one should take stock of that and say someone has done what he should do. We should not politicize the rest, because that's not the role of this committee.
I appreciate that people may have different views about different things, but this is about the rules, the articles that are in the code and the arbitrator, who is the commissioner.
Thank you, Mr. Al Soud.
Mr. Hardy should take us up to five minutes, and then when we come back, we'll have one more round of five minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Hardy.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just a kinesiologist. I have been here for a year. I'm not a lawyer, but there are some things I find odd, so I have come here to ask questions.
Minister, I'm glad you were talking to us about the commissioner, because the commissioner proposed that we include the appearance of a conflict of interest in the act. In fact, he even asked us to do so. That appearance is what we are currently experiencing.
You're bringing us back to what the commissioner can't do. He's asking us to incorporate this into the act, but when we put it in our report, your whole gang says that we shouldn't do it. We have just asked for a document, and your whole gang refused to give us access to the document, which is so clear, as you say. We just want to see it, but all the Liberals have just voted against that.
My final question has to do with your speech. It was drafted by an Alto employee for $12,168. My question is a bit simple, even simplistic, I imagine. How can an employee be allowed to write a speech promoting the project they're working on and be paid with taxpayers' money? I'm just trying to see how the speech can be influenced when the people writing it can influence the value of a project.
Mr. Hardy, I have enormous respect for you. I'm glad there are people like you who get involved and get elected in their ridings, but, again, you're making allegations. I would encourage you to be careful. I'm telling you this because there are lawyers—
You made allegations that this person was an Alto employee, but this person had not been employed there for a long time.
That's why I'm saying that you're making allegations. That's what's concerning. I have been trying to help you with this for a while now, because if you make allegations—
The people following our proceedings have just heard one thing, but those allegations are unfounded. If you were in court today, a lawyer would raise an objection, because you don't have evidence to say that, and the facts don't demonstrate that intention.
This person had left their job months ago. All the rules on awarding contracts were followed. The screen was in place. That's why I encourage you to be careful. I understand that you have the right to ask the questions you want. That's up to you, but I encourage you to be careful because, in your premise, you're saying things that are not accurate and that are not supported by evidence.
The evidence shows that this person, even though they had just left their job, worked for Alto and that you still paid them $12,178.
I understand that, at some point, we get bogged down in details. You said that the legislation allows you to do this. However, at a certain point, the public will lose confidence in the institutions when they see this.
You said that your role is to ensure that the public maintains confidence in the institutions. Unfortunately, since I've been here, you—the Liberals—have always put yourselves in positions that make people think that this is close to the line. You have a responsibility in this too, Minister.
I meet many Canadians who don't share your opinion. That's why we must distinguish between opinions and facts. That's your opinion. As I said, if you're making allegations, you must show evidence and you must be able to present facts. We're all fortunate to be participating in this special committee meeting today. It's the ethics committee, so you need the facts first.
Again, the Department of Finance hired a person who helped us during the budget period to ensure that French was used both in the speech and throughout the budget process. The person worked for quite a while to make sure that we were doing things properly. This is perfectly within the rules.
You're telling us that you followed the rules and hired someone who cost $12,168 just to make sure that the French was correct and that we'll find it in many other places. Is that right?
I'm trying to understand your responses. It's strange, but I, a Quebecker, can't understand you. Imagine that.
People will see what's on the television today. This isn't what they want to see from you. You have the right to ask questions, but you don't have the right to make up facts.
You're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to it, I grant you. You can't make up facts, but you're entitled to your opinion. People can judge by watching the television.
Okay.
Did Alto or its executives receive $2.8 million in bonuses, even though not a single railway line has been built? Is that a fact? Can I have that fact?
Mr. Chair, I'm here to speak about the issues that the committee asked me to address. I've followed all the rules. I've said so a number of times. I've repeated this in the House. So that people at home understand us, I would say that these people on the other side asked me questions for almost an hour in the committee, about a week or two ago. I answered all their questions. I'm doing this again today. I think that this shows transparency, Mr. Chair. I've provided fact‑based and evidence‑based answers to all the questions asked.
[English]
Thank you, Minister.
We're going to suspend to attend the votes. We'll be back, and the Liberals will have five minutes when we get back. That concludes the first hour.
[Translation]
I call the meeting back to order.
The minister said that he was available for another two minutes to answer questions from Mr. Bonin and Ms. Chagger.
Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes to ask the minister your questions.
I haven't started the clock.
Minister, you will have the floor for two minutes and thirty-five seconds.
You have the floor, Mr. Bonin.
Minister, I'd like to come back to one point.
You often refer to the fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner stated that there was no risk of a conflict of interest regarding Alto's internal management. That's what you said.
However, the issue is not Alto's internal management. Rather, it is whether there are any government policy matters related to Alto that could give rise to conflicts of interest. That is what matters.
You clearly asked the commissioner whether you had a conflict of interest regarding Alto's internal management. At the very least, you received an answer on that point.
However, did you ask the opposite question? Did you ask whether there could be a conflict of interest—or the appearance of a conflict of interest—because your wife is a senior executive at Alto and that could influence the handling of policy matters within the government?
Did you ask him that?
We must stick to the facts.
First, the premise of your question is incorrect, because that was not the question put to the commissioner. The question was: Is there a conflict of interest? The commissioner answered the question, and he will have the opportunity to speak on the matter.
He did not say that there was no conflict of interest; he said that there was no risk of conflicts of interest and that a filter was not required. These are the words of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, dated April 7, 2026, at 4:36 p.m.
The full statement, Minister, is that the commissioner says there is no risk regarding Alto's internal management. That is what he says.
I will read to you in full the words he spoke.
In response to the question posed to him, the commissioner replied that there was no risk of a conflict of interest. I think that answers your question. He says that not only is there is no conflict of interest, but also that there is no risk of a conflict of interest. That is why he says that, in this case, a filter was not required.
The question that was asked was much broader, but the commissioner is obviously sticking to the law. The commissioner is the arbiter of the Conflict of Interest Act, and that is the answer he provided following the consultations I had with him.
I'd like to come back to the screening tool—the filter—that you say you've put in place to ensure that your management is transparent and free of conflicts of interest.
Mr. Sabia has submitted the Prime Minister's screening tool, which is specifically designed to ensure that a screen, a filter, has been put in place. Do you still refuse to submit your own screening tool?
As I mentioned, I have referred this to the Ethics Commissioner, and I will leave it to him to determine, in accordance with the law, what is appropriate to do.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before putting my question to the minister, I’d just like to say that I’m pleased to serve on this committee. One of my goals, as an elected official and as a member of the House of Commons, is to restore the confidence of the citizens who elected us in our institutions and to ensure their transparency. I believe our job is, first and foremost, to earn that trust and not to undermine it by trying to create sound bites.
I would very much like the minister to explain the facts to us again. I found him to be very proactive in his approach to handling this matter.
Minister, I’d like you to talk to us once again about the facts. For the sake of our listeners, for the good of our institutions, and for the sake of transparency, could you remind us of the facts? Making allegations or reporting statements that are false does nothing to promote greater transparency regarding our institutions.
Thank you for your question.
I will try to be as candid as possible, while sticking to the facts.
I believe, as the chair said, that the Ethics Committee is a special committee of Parliament. The trust of Canadians is important; that is why I have reiterated that I have complied with all the rules under the Conflict of Interest Act. To shed some light on the matter, I even took the time to explain certain provisions of the act that, given the questions that were asked, may have been less well known or understood by some members of the committee.
My goal was simply, and with humility, to shed some light on certain matters. I’m saying that there are allegations, and we must distinguish between facts and opinions, allegations and evidence. A committee like the Ethics Committee demands a high degree of rigour, because we analyze and make statements; there are also insinuations, and that’s why I stick to the facts. I am very precise in my answers, because I believe that Canadians have the right to expect that from people who come to testify.
As I said, the act is clear. For my part, I decided to go beyond what the Conflict of Interest Act requires: I put a screening process in place; this is a well-established practice with the Privy Council Office for individuals in ministerial roles. So, I have complied with all of that. I even notified the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
You know, people who follow our work understand that when you follow all the rules and go above and beyond expectations, at some point you cross a line and it becomes the politicization of an issue. People who may have a different opinion on certain matters may want to speak out, but there are other forums for doing so. If people disagree—for example, with a specific project—the Ethics Committee is not the forum to voice that disagreement.
That is why tonight I have stuck to the facts—to what I have done—to give Canadians the perspective they need to understand the situation. You, the members of the committee and the chair, play an important role in building trust. If there are people who have different opinions about projects, that’s possible and that’s fine. However, those people have other places, other forums, to voice their views. Today, I was testifying about the actions I have taken.
I thank the members of the committee and the chair for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight and inform Canadians.
[English]
It's important that we really appreciate your being here, for more than an hour. That means a lot. You came here with evidence—because you know the importance of this topic—which raises the level of transparency. You were proactive. You've done everything right, and you've raised the bar once again to ensure that you represent your constituents and Canadians well. That means a lot to me.
I agree with you. People cannot make up their own facts. Clearly, both opposition parties are making allegations, and that's unfortunate.
I want you to let members hear anything that you think is relevant, because I know these are the messages you've been sharing. You've been open. I'm not really sure why you're here when we have a country to run. I want to give you the last word.
I want to start with you. Thank you for your statement.
Thank you, Chair, for your leadership and your chairmanship of the committee.
Thank you also to the opposition members. What I was asking for today was to be treated fairly. That's what every Canadian would expect. I came here with evidence and with facts. I want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to present them to Canadians so that they can have the facts.
I also want to thank the commissioner, because he's ultimately the arbitrator of these things. I want to thank him and his team for the work that he's doing on behalf of Canadians.
Again, Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to put the facts on the table. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Minister. That concludes our first hour. I appreciate the fact that you spent some extra time with us, despite the motion's calling for an hour.
We're going to suspend briefly, and then we have the Ethics Commissioner coming in.
This meeting is suspended.
Welcome back, everyone, to our second hour.
We have witnesses from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with us today.
We have the commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein. With him are Lisa DeMoor, director, advisory and compliance, and Michael Aquilino, legal counsel.
Commissioner, I invite you to give your opening statement to the committee. Go ahead, sir.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Lisa DeMoor and Michael Aquilino, who work in my office.
The motion that brings me here concerns a potential conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Mr. François‑Philippe Champagne.
[English]
He has been facing scrutiny for his role in government decisions and votes in support of Alto and high-speed rail. It has been suggested that he is in conflict of interest because those decisions and votes could benefit someone with whom the minister has a close relationship: a vice-president of Alto.
Mr. Champagne is subject to the Conflict of Interest Act in his role as minister.
Under the act, a public office holder is in conflict of interest if they exercise “an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity” to further their own interests, further the private interests of their relatives and friends, or improperly further the private interests of anyone else.
[Translation]
There are three important points to consider.
First, the minister has no control or authority over Alto. It is a wholly owned Crown corporation. It falls under the purview of the Minister of Transport and not that of the Minister of Finance and National Revenue.
Second, the minister's official duties do not allow him to advance the personal interests of an employee, particularly one at Alto. Personnel decisions are made by Alto. As I said, it is a Crown corporation that does not fall under Minister Champagne's portfolio. He therefore cannot direct or influence it.
[English]
Given that the minister has no means of furthering the private interests of an Alto employee, he is not required to refuse or abstain from discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto.
In short, the minister's involvement in discussion or decisions that may benefit Alto is simply too remote to provide an opportunity to further the private interests of an Alto employee who has close ties to the minister.
Sometimes it is reasonably foreseeable that a public office holder could be involved in discussions or decisions in which they have a potential conflict of interest. In those cases, our office works with them to set up a preventive compliance measure, such as the conflict of interest screen. We then post such a screen on our public registry.
[Translation]
We did not require the minister to put in place a screening filter, as the concerns regarding the Alto employee are quite remote. However, the minister decided on his own to implement a filter, without any request from us. He informed the Prime Minister and sent us a copy. Since this filter was not required by the commissioner's office, we did not publish it in the public registry.
[English]
Thank you. I would be happy to answer the committee's questions.
Commissioner, the finance minister was just here at committee. In his final minutes on the question of the release of the correspondence between you and him, he said, and I quote, “I'll let the Ethics Commissioner decide if he wants to share it.”
The minister has said that it's up to you. We know that normally you would say that it's up to him. We have that Spider-Man cartoon with the two Spider-Mans pointing at each other. The minister says it's up to you. Will you decide, as the minister has said, to share that correspondence?
No. It's not up to the minister to interpret the act. The act is quite clear that everything given to me is confidential. If the person who gives it to me releases it, I will comment on it, etc.
Until such time as he releases it, I cannot comment on it. I have the copy of the letter. As he quite rightly said, he copied me in the letter to the Prime Minister. It's in my possession. He has publicly commented on it. He has not released it. The function of releasing is up to him, not to me.
In your explanation of why the minister wasn't in a conflict, you said in your first point that it was a file for the Minister of Transport and not a file belonging to the finance minister. However, it was in his bill. He introduced it.
The budget implementation act contained all kinds of things, but it also specifically contained the enabling legislation for Alto, the creation of the High-Speed Rail Network Act. Without that enabling legislation, Alto wouldn't proceed.
Does that change the calculation on who has ownership of it—when the transport minister could have put forward his own legislation, but the finance minister decided to do it under his auspices instead?
That's an arrangement that cabinet ministers make: who introduces a bill. The fact is that the bill provides for the Crown corporation Alto, and Alto comes under the Minister of Transport. Whether the bill authorizing that is introduced by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport does not change the relationship. The relationship is that it's a Crown corporation reporting to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport is responsible for it and answers with regard to it in Parliament.
For the creation of it, we understand your interpretation.
With respect to the minister's voting specifically on clause 191 of Bill C-15.... There was a vote to delete clause 191. It would have removed the High-Speed Rail Network Act from the budget implementation act. The minister voted specifically on that item. The minister said he did so because it was of a “general application”. Are you of the same view?
Yes, absolutely. He was voting on a piece of government legislation and specific parts of that government legislation. That government legislation piece would have created a Crown corporation; if it had been deleted, the Crown corporation would not have been created. That's fine. It still has nothing to do with him. That Crown corporation, once it is created, belongs to the Minister of Transport.
The minister did nothing.... It's like every other member of Parliament who is voting on part of the budget implementation act. That's his duty.
The minister himself said that he believed he would be in a conflict of interest were he to participate in debates, discussions, decisions or votes related to Alto. He said that in a letter to the Prime Minister in September.
Now, you've made public comments about your opinion, and you've made public comments in response to his comments on the advice that you've provided him. Are you able to provide us with the time frame in which you first furnished him with the advice that he would not be in a conflict?
The minister quoted to you from the letter, and he gave you the date, but I can look.
Michael, what was the date?
I believe, as the minister confirmed, it was August or September, but we would have to confirm the date. The dates that the minister provided are in line with our understanding.
It was in September that the minister said he believed that he would be in a conflict of interest if he were to do all the things he went on to do. That was the minister's belief. You have since provided him with advice contrary to that.
Were you asked if a recent or current executive at Alto could provide work on the budget speech or presentation? Was that something the minister or his office asked you for advice on with respect to whether there would be a conflict of interest?
As I keep telling you, the advice the minister seeks from us, and we give him, is confidential. He can disclose what we advised him to do, and he has. Therefore, what do you expect me to say? I'm sorry.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for helping us with all of this.
Commissioner, could you explain the preventive role your office plays when a minister or public official seeks advice before taking action?
The minister can always consult with us. To do so, he explains the situation to us. He asks us whether there is a conflict of interest or not, what he can do, and what he should not do. Once he has explained the situation, we generally tell him whether there is a conflict of interest or not. If there is a conflict, he asks us if there are measures to protect him. For example, what we're talking about here is the famous filter. We establish a filter to ensure that the minister does not participate in discussions that could create a conflict of interest.
Thank you.
In your opinion, is it good practice for a public official to proactively consult your office when they want to ensure they are fulfilling all their obligations?
Absolutely.
We encourage this because we want to avoid conflicts of interest. Our role is to make things easier so that members of Parliament can do their jobs without any conflicts of interest. We want to avoid problems, not create them.
All right.
I'll continue on that point. For example, François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, chose to take a voluntary precautionary measure by recusing himself. However, when a formal recusal is not required, is this an approach that can help strengthen public trust?
Let me explain our policy on filters, because that is really the issue at hand here. If there is a potential conflict of interest, the person must recuse themselves. If they do so, the recusal will be published on our website. This is something that is very public.
As a precaution, a filter must also be established. This filter is administered by two people who ensure that the minister is not involved in any discussion or decision regarding the matter creating the conflict of interest. We require this. To do so, we provide the member with a form to discuss the necessary measures, among other things. Once we have an agreement on this filter, we publish it on our website. It is an official filter.
Okay.
It's a bit like the conflict of interest screen that was required for the Prime Minister and is managed by his chief of staff and Michael Sabia.
It's the same thing, but in this case, they are two different people for Mr. François-Philippe Champagne.
Mr. Champagne did more than that: he set up a screening filter on his own initiative, even though we hadn't asked him to. We had told him very clearly that it wasn't necessary. As he said, however, he did it out of an abundance of caution, if you will. So he set up a private filter. He notified the Prime Minister and sent me a copy. Since this is not a filter we requested, we will not be publishing it on our website.
In some cases, a minister may request that a conflict of interest filter be established due to the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest in a given situation and the risk that this could undermine public confidence, among other reasons.
If there is indeed an issue of the appearance of a conflict of interest that could undermine public confidence, we will ask the minister to send us their disclosure and inform them that it will be published on our website. That is the only scenario. However, we are clear with the individual. We tell them that this is not something we require, but rather something they are requesting. We also tell them that we will not administer or monitor the filter; we will publish it as a courtesy to them, but it is not something we have required or imposed.
Thank you for your explanations.
From what I understand and based on your explanation, what the minister did here was intended to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. There was no conflict of interest, but he did it voluntarily anyway to ensure that any possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest was avoided.
Yes. He can do that, and if he asks me to publish it, I will publish it. In Mr. Champagne's case, he never asked us to publish that filter, so we did not publish it on our website.
I have another quick question for you, Commissioner. Why and how did your office reach the conclusion that there was no conflict of interest between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto, the high-speed rail company?
Alto is a Crown agent that forms part of the portfolio of the Minister of Transport. It has no connection to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who is responsible for funding across the entire government, including the Department of Transport and Alto. This is part of his general duties. The Minister of Finance has no responsibility regarding Alto and cannot influence its actions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, what is the exact date the minister asked for your opinion regarding a possible appearance of a conflict of interest?
I believe an email was sent to our office following that conversation. In the fall, we received a copy of the letter the minister mentioned.
I did not receive an answer to my question.
I have concerns about conflicts of interest. He consulted you verbally, not through a letter. You said it was a conversation.
He approached you in this way during a conversation in August 2025, and you immediately replied that, in your opinion, there was no conflict of interest. Is that correct?
He asked you the question, and you immediately told him there was no conflict of interest. That was in September. Is that correct?
I'd like to know the dates. When did you tell him that verbally?
I think my colleague asked that. Can you give us the exact chronology? It's not very clear.
I understand that you don't have the information, and I'm a bit surprised by that, because you knew you would be testifying today.
In order for the system to work, the advice we give is confidential. We can only comment on the part the minister mentions publicly. The minister was here and quoted from the letter that was sent to him from my office. It says precisely that there is no conflict of interest with Alto.
Yes.
Naturally, before that, there were conversations between him and us about the facts. It's all confidential. I can only comment on what he mentioned, and he mentioned the letter.
You're talking about the letter in which you say concretely that there is no conflict of interest. When is it dated?
Okay.
That was in September. Afterward, the minister came up with a budget bill that included a whole section on Alto, which allowed for expropriation. The bill even makes it possible to set aside the Expropriation Act and, for example, expropriate people quickly, by email, without public consultation.
You weren't aware of that information when you gave your opinion, then. You did not know that the minister would come up with a budget bill for which he is responsible that refers specifically to Alto and extraordinary expropriation powers.
Obviously, the discussions we have with the minister, the degree to which he communicates his needs and plans to us, are all confidential. All I can assure you about and confirm for you is that we sent that letter. Then he [Inaudible—Editor]. All he's doing is the normal duties of the Minister of Finance. It's not that he has a conflict of interest with Alto or is involved with the company. It is a normal duty of the Minister of Finance to table legislation that funds government projects.
You said that Alto falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. Now, the Minister of Finance has come up with something completely new: extraordinary powers to expropriate people and, therefore, very clearly, fast-track a project in which billions of dollars are at stake.
I understand that you made your decision, but, knowing that, don't you think there's a problem?
It is a normal duty of government to decide which projects it will carry out and what measures to take in that case.
His partner is a senior executive in a project. She will receive, for example, performance bonuses that are unknown and that could be large if the project moves ahead very quickly.
The minister comes up with—
Sir, don't put words in my mouth. My idea is that there should be no appearance of conflict of interest. That's my idea.
I'm not talking about appearance here. We're talking about conflicts of interest. According to the act, what is the conflict? Where is it?
Mr. Bonin, I gave you a little more time because the other members had more. Your time is now up.
[English]
Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes. Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, who in your office worked with and provided advice to Minister Champagne with respect to this potential conflict of interest in relation to Alto?
It would be the person who is always assigned to him. Every minister has a specific person assigned to him or her as their contact person.
I don't identify my employees. My office does this; it's not a single employee. This is a contact person.
Let me ask you this more specifically: Was Martine Richard involved in providing advice to Minister Champagne?
As I said, it was a general opinion. The position of the office was conveyed by the person assigned as his adviser.
Yes. Well, she's also sister-in-law to Dominic LeBlanc.
On April 7, 2026, Mr. Barrett sent a letter addressed to you in relation to concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving the minister's involvement in voting on and moving various budgetary motions and the budget implementation act in relation to advancing the Alto project. Was Ms. Richard in any way involved in reviewing that letter?
Ms. Richard is my legal adviser. She has disclosed the fact that she is the sister-in-law of Mr. LeBlanc. Anything involving Mr. LeBlanc and his conflict, she filters out. We have a filter inside. She does not touch it.
Anything that has to do with Mr. LeBlanc or questions of conflict of interest regarding—
She is your senior general counsel, with the responsibility for investigations and legal services. I presume that any time there's a letter written to your office requesting an investigation, that would come across her desk. Is that fair?
As I said, if anything comes in that concerns Mr. LeBlanc or anything—
I understand.
You've answered my question that Mr. Barrett's letter would have come across her desk. She would have been involved in providing advice to you in respect—
Say what you will: She would have assigned it to somebody, whether it was handled or not. I don't know why the internal workings of my office—
I'm sorry, but I am not disclosing to you the people who work in my office so that you can call them out as having made mistakes or not.
It is concerning that we have the sister-in-law to Minister LeBlanc, a senior minister in this government, with responsibility for investigations, who would have been involved with or at least had the whole issue surrounding Minister Champagne coming across her desk in relation to the very specific issues raised by Mr. Barrett in his letter of April 7, 2026.
I will move on, because my time is limited.
You stated that there was no conflict because it was remote and it was a matter of a general application.
I would challenge you on that insofar as Minister Champagne's spouse is an executive at Alto. Alto is a Crown corporation that exists solely to build the Alto high-speed rail line. That's its raison d'être. That's why it exists.
Mr. Champagne, on February 26, didn't just vote on any general matter touching upon the budgetary process or the budget implementation act that happened to touch upon Alto. He voted against a very specific motion that would have specifically removed the High-Speed Rail Network Act from the BIA, which would have killed the advancement of the project going to the heart of Alto, of which Minister Champagne's spouse is a VP.
I would put it to you that it's not remote. I would put it to you that it's not of a general application. I would put it to you that there is a very direct link between that vote—that decision—and the private interests of the minister's spouse.
I'll take that as a comment because you're out of time, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Casey, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today.
My first question, Commissioner, is this: Did the minister voluntarily approach your office for guidance?
That's fantastic.
Is it unusual for a minister to implement safeguards beyond those recommended by your office? How often does that happen?
Do you concur that the minister has gone above and beyond his requirements as it pertains to the Conflict of Interest Act?
We told him quite clearly that there was no conflict of interest. He felt, out of an abundance of caution—as he testified to you—that it would be useful for him. He wrote to the Prime Minister and copied me.
Commissioner, could you explain your role under the Conflict of Interest Act and how allegations of conflict are typically assessed?
They can come from members of the public, another minister or an MP. What happens is that people write to me and say, “Here is the following situation: We think there is a conflict of interest and you should investigate.” We get quite a few of those. We look at them, and we try to apply the test set out in the act. Is there any evidence, or is there anything that could reasonably amount to a conflict of interest? If so, and if we decide we can investigate, we investigate.
First of all, we write to the person and say, “These allegations have been made. Can I have your opinion?” We get a response from the person. On that basis, we decide whether the response is good enough. If we decide that it doesn't satisfy us—if there is still a reasonable doubt that something is amiss—we have the ability to start an inquiry. We have the full power of the court to ask the person to come and satisfy us under oath, and they produce documents, etc. Then we issue a report.
I understand the scope might be quite large, but what factors are typically used to assess whether there is a conflict of interest?
You look at the act and whether the various factors are satisfied. Did an action of a minister promote their private interest? Did it promote the private interest of their relatives or friends? Did they improperly do something for a third party?
The key is “improperly”. It isn't about their normal actions. Did they go outside normal actions to do something improperly?
Without discussing any confidential information beyond what's already public, could you describe the sequence of interactions between your office and the Minister of Finance regarding this matter?
For reasons of confidentiality, we can confirm only what the minister said in his appearance, which is that he approached our office in August. There was a series of conversations. He was given the advice—which the commissioner has confirmed—that, in our opinion, there is no conflict of interest, and no measures are required.
In September, as he outlined, the minister provided us with a copy of the letter indicating that he was putting in place a voluntary measure.
No. There was no reason to revisit them, because—as I've said several times now—it is so remote. There are no links. This friend of the minister is the vice-president of Alto. That's all. Alto is one of many Crown corporations we have. It doesn't report to him on anything. To suggest, as Mr. Cooper has tried to establish, that he voted to keep Alto alive and funded so his friend would have a job.... Well, where is the connection? Where is the evidence?
This is just so remote that I won't follow that line.
In assessing this matter, did your office examine whether the minister had decision-making authority over matters affecting specific Alto employees?
Of course not. Not even the Minister of Transport has that. The HR people of Alto deal with their employees, or the president of Alto does. The Minister of Finance doesn't, and certainly no other minister does.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, I just want to come back to one thing. You said that if the Minister of Finance and National Revenue wants you to release the letter and the screen, you will do so. That's my understanding.
Earlier, he said that it would be up to you to decide whether you want to release them. He said that if you wanted to release them, you could. Isn't that obvious to you?
The first time I heard that was today, here, when he talked about it.
If he calls me or writes to me and says he'd like me to release the screen because there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest, I will. I don't see the appearance of a conflict of interest, but if he feels that way, I will release it. In doing so, I will clearly indicate that this is not something we required and that we are releasing it at his request, out of courtesy, because he thinks it is important that it be released.
However, you heard him say that here. Can you follow up with the committee? I understand that you will check with him to see if he agrees that you should release the screen.
Can you check? He said verbatim that if you want to release it, you can. Are you going to follow up on whether he wants to release it or not? He may not want to, but it seems obvious to me.
You said there was no conflict of interest in that. I still have some questions, because you say that it is up to the Minister of Transport. However, it is clearly not just up to the Minister of Transport. A bill with expropriation powers has been passed. There's money involved. I have a hard time understanding.
Shouldn't this have been the subject of another bill? Now, if it had been the Minister of Transport, I would have understood. However, the Minister of Finance was responsible for the bill that had an impact on the Alto project and on the fact that he can now move forward more quickly.
I don't understand why you say it has no effect.
It's not a question of him being responsible. We're talking about conflict of interest. Where was his conflict of interest when he tabled a bill for the Alto high-speed train, for the expropriations and so on? I don't see the conflict of interest.
If there's no money for Alto and this project doesn't go ahead, unless I misunderstand, his wife will be out of a job.
As I said in response to Mr. Al Soud's question, I think it's too far removed. I don't think all of Alto's decisions are made to create employment for Mr. Champagne's partner.
You may doubt my opinion, but that's the decision I have to make, and I said it was too far removed.
I'll go back to one thing. You yourself said here during the review of the Conflict of Interest Act that the appearance of a conflict of interest is really important, and that you would even like the appearance of a conflict of interest to be included in the act.
Now you tell me that there's no conflict of interest in this case. That's your judgment. However, don't you think there is, at the very least, a potential appearance of a conflict of interest in this case?
Frankly, no, I don't see this as an apparent conflict of interest. As I said, the connection between a person's position at Alto and all the multi-million dollar projects for a rapid transit system is very remote. I don't see a connection suggesting that we decided to do these projects to keep someone's position. Frankly, I don't see the connection.
You can't make the screen we're talking about public. We have to ask the minister to make it public. Is that correct?
I have the power to release what I think is important to release for public trust, but I don't see the connection here.
Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Before I address them, I will start by saying that our experience here is always very odd, because we can really see the Liberals' intention. When things get a little heated, Mr. Chair, you need four Liberals to call you to order. It's crazy. They always feel that they have to intervene, or else the world will be in trouble. What would the world be without the Liberals? That's the right question.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. von Finckenstein. I want to stick to the facts, because that's what the minister asked us to do earlier. I think it's important to do that at the ethics committee. That's our role. Indeed, the very existence of our committee and your office is to avoid ethical problems and ensure that public trust is maintained in our institutions. I think we agree on that. You just said that we need to maintain public trust.
The minister recused himself and decided to set up an ethics screen. Are we still in agreement?
Based on what we've been told, we know that the first date the letter was apparently sent to the Prime Minister was September 10, 2025. We became aware of it on April 7, 2026. There was a lag. During that time, the minister voted 13 times. There was no requirement for a screen. You didn't require a screen. The minister himself demanded that a screen be imposed on him. There's a reason he did that.
We're told to stop making up facts, and I think he even told me that we shouldn't make false accusations. How can we judge, as parliamentarians, and how can citizens have trust, when nothing has been made public and we find out after the fact that the minister did the opposite of the reason for recusing himself?
How can we be ethical in all this when your office isn't able to tell us that a screen has been triggered so that we can at least know whether the screen has really been triggered or not?
How does that work? I think we're going around in circles a bit.
When we require a screen to be triggered, we release it. Everyone then knows that the minister must comply with the screen. If not, I will investigate if necessary. However, in this case, we're not talking about that. We didn't require it. It's a document that the minister produced for himself. It has nothing to do with us. If the minister is not behaving in the expected way, he has to defend himself before the public, before you.
I understand that there are rules to be followed, and you even came here to tell us that the appearance of a conflict of interest should be added to the act. You want to be proactive, and I'm not disputing that.
However, how do you expect people to have trust when a person imposes a screen on themselves, doesn't behave accordingly, then says that a screen had been triggered, but that no one is able to access the discussions, conversations and your proposals?
Earlier, during his appearance, the minister told us that it was important to guarantee transparency and ensure that people maintain trust. He could ask you to release all of his discussions. Do you think that would help maintain public trust?
You didn't require the screen. He did it himself. You could at least release discussions to inform people and not keep secrets. Do you think it would be a good idea for him to tell you? He came to tell us earlier that it was your job to do it, but now you're telling us that it would be up to him. Do you think it would be beneficial for him ultimately to reveal the process?
Yes. You're asking me to comment on the actions of a minister and what he did voluntarily. He did it, and he has his reasons.
No, but what would the result be? Would it or would it not help to ensure public trust? Is that what you want me to answer?
No. I'm just asking if you think it would help if we had access to the discussions.
We asked for that earlier. The Liberals all voted against it. They don't want it to be disclosed here.
Do you think it would help guarantee public trust if we could at least have access to it and if, as members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we could look into whether everything was complied with? If it were voluntary and the minister allowed you to do it, would you do it? Should he allow you to do that?
Mr. Hardy, you have only 15 seconds left, so you can come back to your questions later.
I will now give the floor to Ms. Chagger.
We will have time for two five-minute rounds for the Conservatives and the Liberals.
[English]
Ms. Chagger, you have five minutes. Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner, for coming back to the team and helping Canadians understand what you do.
Just to take it down to the basics, can you share when the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was initiated?
Remember, it was part of the Federal Accountability Act that Prime Minister Harper brought in. That act contained four separate acts, and one of them was the Conflict of Interest Act.
My understanding is that it was established to prevent conflicts between the private interests and public duties of federal officials.
Yes. It does more than what you just said. Its members want to avoid conflicts, but they also recognize that while good, capable people are needed in the public service, good people and capable people have conflicts. They have networks and they have interests, etc., so you have to accommodate them and find a way that they can come in, serve the public and share their wealth of knowledge for the public good. Later on, when they exit, you have to make sure that they don't take advantage of what they learned.
The act tries to do this whole thing. It tries to bring good people in; make sure there's no conflict; make sure they can exit, etc.; and, after they exit, make sure they don't use the information improperly. However, you want to make sure that you do it at a minimum so people aren't completely cut off from their environments, their contacts, their networks, etc.
It's a balancing act. We do that all day long. You want to make sure the public has confidence, but you don't want to put restrictions or limitations on people that are not necessary.
They should trust us because we are totally non-partisan. I was appointed by Parliament. You all voted for me to take this job. My people try to look at the act, look at the spirit of the act and apply it in such a way that it creates confidence. That's our goal and that's our task.
I also want to thank you for not disclosing the identities of people in your office, because it's tough. When we're at the temperature of politics that we're becoming accustomed to, it's really hard for certain people to have private lives, and doing a disservice to those individuals doesn't help. We've seen a massive attack on individuals serving in certain roles, so I want to thank you and your team for the work you do.
Can you tell me why you believe the general application rule exists and is needed?
It would be very difficult to govern otherwise, because if you make a rule regarding income tax, let's say, it may benefit your husband because of some change. Does that mean you shouldn't be voting on the Income Tax Act? No. The act applies to everybody. It just so happens that it touches your husband negatively, but it also does that to hundreds of other people. I'm just making this up to illustrate the point.
The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that conflict of interest screens represent a reasonable exercise of your authority under section 29 of the act. Do you agree with that finding?
Yes. Otherwise, if you have a conflict, you have to recuse yourself. When a recusal gets published, it becomes a big deal. Why go that way? Just make sure you don't get involved in decisions that can create a conflict of interest. Then we put the screen on there.
We put that in place and make sure that, in these areas, these people can't participate in making decisions or participate in discussions. If, by accident, the screen doesn't work and the people get involved, then they have to recuse themselves.
Not everyone gets to find a life partner, but the approach it appears the official opposition and the third party are taking is that anybody who chooses to run for office needs to be single. Is that reasonable?
The act makes it quite clear that it applies to your family, your friends and your common-law partners.
Thank you.
Commissioner, can you tell us why the minister imposed a screen on himself?
You're indicating to me that you can't tell us. However, an article has been published and informs us—
The minister was here and told you five times, I believe, that he did it out of an abundance of caution.
My point is that there's a reason. What came out in the articles is that his wife is vice-president at Alto. The minister saw that there was potentially a conflict in that situation. He came to talk to you about it. When I asked him the question, he told me that I was making up facts again.
He potentially saw an issue. That's why he imposed a conflict of interest screen on himself, because it was the connection that could pose an issue.
It's often said that it's always important to govern for general application. However, if the top executives of a company, Alto or otherwise, are giving themselves bonuses, and those bonuses are benefitting their families, is that still general application? If a minister has influence over a project that will potentially bring money into their home, do you still consider that a matter of general application, or is there potentially something to look into and perhaps address?
I'm not saying it's deliberate; I'm not saying it's premeditated. I'm just wondering if a situation like that still falls under general application.
No. We have to consider all aspects of the situation to determine whether there's a conflict of interest.
At that point, a conflict of interest screen would be applied, and a line would have to be drawn to say to be careful, since the person is making decisions that will indirectly affect their family. It would no longer be a matter of general application.
Obviously, if there is a conflict of interest, the general application rule does not apply. The rule applies in situations where you do something general that may have impacts on your spouse or family, in particular. However, it has the same effect for everyone. For that reason—
I understand the concept. Earlier, you said that—I took careful note of this—that if it's in the person's own interest, in the interest of a friend or spouse, or in the interest of any individual with whom that person has a connection, there's a problem, and they have to set up a conflict of interest screen or another measure.
In this case, I'm trying to understand how many steps it would take to say whether or not there's a conflict of interest. As part of the act, the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, in which he granted accelerated powers to a major project in which his wife is involved. The justification given is that the project falls under the Minister of Transport's responsibility and that there is no direct connection. However, we can see that this project is paying performance bonuses to its directors. At that point, things start to get very close. How much more would it take to say that there's a problem? If even that isn't a problem and there is no conflict of interest, I feel like, ultimately, we can do just about anything. General application becomes quite broad.
Listen, you're well aware that the Minister of Finance has a big portfolio. Everything that's done and the decisions that are made have an impact on the entire government's budget.
At that point, there will obviously be impacts on many people, including—
That's why I'm talking [Inaudible—Editor]. What is the connection between one and the other? If you can explain or show a direct link between the—
That's my question to you. I just want to question the whole thing. We're talking about general application. I understand that the Minister of Finance is going to make plenty of decisions for the country. Basically, virtually nothing can be held against him because, every time, he will be able to say that he put it in the budget and that it's ultimately for everyone.
At a certain point, how can we enable Canadians to be confident that an independent commissioner is in place and ensuring that this kind of ethical issue never happens with current ministers?
No. The act sets out the concept of general application. It's there in the act. It's my job to interpret and apply it.
We can have various opinions on a specific case, but the rule exists, and we have to apply it honestly to assure the public that there aren't conflicts of interest.
Thank you.
As in the last hour, I'm going to give two and a half minutes to Mr. Bonin, and we'll then wrap up with Ms. Lapointe, who will have five minutes.
Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, earlier, the minister said that he had put a screen in place to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. You have the power to make that screen public, right? You could make it public.
The commissioner is bound by the requirements of the act. Unless the act expressly requires it, any information provided to us remains confidential.
That isn't what I understood earlier.
You're telling me that he doesn't have the capacity to make that screen public.
Section 51(1) says that I can make many specific documents public, including “any other documents that the Commissioner considers appropriate”.
Explain things to me, because we still have some questions.
Some articles appeared in the media. The thought is that it's important to have as much transparency as possible so that people can say that there is indeed transparency and they can have confidence.
Don't you think it's appropriate to give people a chance to make up their own minds and decide that there isn't a problem, that there is a robust screen, that the minister has done his job and has given himself a tool, a screen that makes it possible to avoid any conflicts of interest?
You have the opportunity to make the screen public, to restore people's confidence, to put a lid on the whole thing. However, you don't want to do that, because you think it wouldn't help transparency [Inaudible—Editor]. Is that indeed what you're saying?
This is only one of two provisions. The other provision states that all my conversations with the minister and all my correspondence with him are confidential.
Both provisions exist in the same act.
One of the provisions is absolutely clear: It's confidential, unless the minister asks me to make information public.
The other provision talks about discretion, but that discretion isn't stronger than the prohibition.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again to the witnesses for being here and shedding light on the whole subject.
Commissioner, as you said earlier, the act exists to be applied honestly to everyone, whether that means us, members of Parliament, ministers or public office holders.
I'll leave the floor open to you. Are there any comments you want to add? Are there any things we haven't asked you about, or are there any things you would like to shed light on?
The only thing I would say to this committee, and I have said it twice already, is that the act is very outdated. It has been in effect for over 20 years, and it needs to be modernized. You have carried out studies on this issue.
I hope that the government will one day decide that it's necessary to review the act and bring it up to date with today's context. In particular, I'm thinking of all the financial provisions, which are somewhat outdated. We're in a different era, and the act doesn't apply to today's context.
Thank you for your answer. What you just said is very important.
Rather than conducting studies on issues that don't contribute much, we should focus our study topics precisely on what our committee is supposed to do, which is to review the Conflict of Interest Act, ethics or the Lobbying Act. That's really supposed to be our main mandate here, rather than going on witch hunts all over the place without doing the right things that we should be doing. I have to say that, over the past year, there have been things happening on the ground here at the committee instead of us doing our real work.
From what I understand of your suggestions, it would be very appreciated if we were to review and update the Conflict of Interest Act to adapt it to the 2026 context.
[English]
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer