Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So do I; I'll go play tennis afterwards; that's no problem. However, the person who raised the point of order was not even present during the debate, either in public or in camera.

I'm speaking from my experience here. I'm talking about what I've heard and the way certain witnesses have been treated. I'm talking about facts. I would say that, on a number of occasions, witnesses have not been treated with the respect they deserve. I don't want to go through that again. The people who appear before the committee do so to share their expertise with us, to inform the committee, not to say who's right and who's wrong.

On the amendment itself, I haven't heard anyone explain why the last line is needed. No one has demonstrated why it's needed, far from it. No one has explained why it should be reported to the House that the committee is undertaking this study. What more will that do for Canadians? I would have loved to hear arguments on that specific point, rather than accusations that we received instructions. I thought that was really irresponsible on their part. We have not received any instructions. On the contrary, we came here ready to debate. It was Conservatives who interrupted the debate, which was resumed later when some people had stopped following the proceedings. Those are the tactics and manoeuvres we have witnessed today.

For our part, let me say again that we have been open. Even though we had reservations about the three points, we still accepted them. We simply moved an amendment. That amendment could have been passed quickly, which would have allowed us to get on with things. Instead, people have chosen to make further accusations, which will be put to the witnesses, I'm pretty sure.

That is why I maintain that we must adopt the amendment to remove the last line, which reads as follows:

And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.

Mr. Chair, I'll leave it at that, but I think my colleague wants to add something as well.

I also note something that is very important: The people who moved the motion and revived the debate are no longer here. For our part, we stayed during all of the exchanges. We could have been replaced, but we chose to stay to take part in the debate.

The Conservatives have changed their trio several times, but we will keep the same trio right until the end. We will continue to defend the interests of Canadians, obviously.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, going back to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead on the amendment, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, I'll speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair.

I want to pick up on what my colleague Mr. Sari said when he asked whether anyone would justify keeping that sentence at the end of the motion. I have already explained the reasoning behind this position, and I stand by what I said.

Looking at what has happened in the past, as my colleague Mr. Sari said—and I want to stress this—there are a number of examples where, instead of getting to the bottom of things, the committee went on what looked like a witch hunt.

Mr. Chair, I would like my colleague, who seems disappointed by my remarks, to consider one fact. I had the privilege of serving as Speaker of the House of Commons in the last Parliament. I would like him to explain to me how the 70 or so days of debates we had in the House on a motion, and on numerous subamendments related to a question of privilege—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor on a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's late, Mr. Chair. Could you call Mr. Fergus to order? He doesn't seem to have digested some of the things that happened in the House of Commons in another Parliament. However, that's not what we're talking about today.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Is this really a point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault, but that's not a point of order. That said, I appreciate what you said.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It may not be a point of order, but it requires your patience as to the relevance of what he said. This is not the first time he has spoken. If this was his first time speaking—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm very patient, indeed.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If this was the first time he went off topic, it wouldn't be the same thing. However, I don't think that's relevant.

Moreover, I would just like to point out that Mr. Sari said that the Conservatives were not here until the end. Meanwhile, Mr. Fergus just made a statement about committee business, although this is the first time I've seen him at a committee meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.

For the record, I have been at this committee before. This is the second time I've been here. Fortunately, we have access to the transcripts of committee proceedings, and I often consult the minutes of the various committees. That has always been the case.

Let's get back to the matter at hand, which is the debate on the amendment before us.

If we want to get to the bottom of things, we have to start somewhere. The first thing a member of this committee did was write to the Ethics Commissioner. That's great. I hope he will provide the response to the committee, but I assume he hasn't received a response yet. Otherwise, I bet he would have shared it with his colleagues and the media by now. That is not the case at the moment.

If we want to duplicate the work of the Ethics Commissioner, we can invite him to appear before the committee and allow members to ask him questions about the advice he gave the minister. If we want to go further, we can also invite the minister. He can come and explain all the steps he has taken to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Despite my colleague's answer—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fergus, I'm going to have to interrupt you there. We have run out of resources. I do appreciate the fact that the interpreters have been here tonight, as well as our analysts, our clerk and our staff. I will advise you, Mr. Fergus, that you will have the floor when this meeting resumes tomorrow at 11 a.m. in room 425 of the Wellington.

The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.

[The meeting was suspended at 10:05 p.m., Monday, April 13]

[The meeting resumed at 11:06 a.m., Tuesday, April 14 ]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are resuming from the suspension of the ethics committee meeting that happened last night at 10.05.

As a reminder, for the sake of all members, we are on a motion proposed by Mr. Barrett. The motion reads:

That the committee undertake a study into the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto, and the Minister's claims that he has recused himself from decisions his government made related to Alto; that, for the purpose of this study, the committee invite the following witnesses to appear by May 8, 2026:

1. Konrad von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for two hours;

2. Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours; and

3. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, for two hours;

And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.

We did have an amendment proposed by Mr. Sari to eliminate the line “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”.

In light of the Prime Minister's comments this morning, I'm looking forward to a substantive debate on the issue, not a performative debate. I hope that members will oblige what the Prime Minister said this morning. I thought we got a little off the rails last night, if you will, on some of the comments that were made.

I have Mr. Fergus on the list on the amendment

Mr. Fergus, are you ceding your time to Mr. Sari?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

No, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify something.

We've been working together for eight months, Mr. Chair. My name is pronounced Sari, not Sarai. The amendment was tabled by Mr. Sari. Mr. Sarai, on the other hand, is a minister in our government. I wanted to say that because, since yesterday, I have heard Mr. Sarai and have been wondering who that is, because it's not me. My name is Sari. It's easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I got it. You'd think that after a year I would have got it and I thought I did.

Mr. Fergus, you are on the amendment.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and esteemed colleagues.

Where were we, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Chair, you referred to comments made by the Prime Minister. My home committee is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. This morning, I attended an in camera meeting and I didn't have access to my phone. So I am unfortunately not aware of what the Prime Minister said, but that's neither here nor there. It is important for the people who are joining us this morning or who are watching us on television to understand our procedures. As you said, we are dealing with a motion that was—

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The interpretation is not coming through for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The interpretation is working now, from what I can tell. The only issue was making sure that the microphone was a little bit higher, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to salute our esteemed interpreters, Mr. Chair. They provide outstanding service to the House of Commons. This is an essential service so that everyone can understand what's going on, in both of Canada's official languages.

As I was saying, we're considering an amendment to the motion. The reason we're looking at this amendment is that it proposes “that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”. That sentence might seem very innocuous, but all parliamentarians around the table and everyone in the House of Commons know very well that it can open the door to very long, probably unsuccessful, discussions in the House of Commons.

Normally, when a committee like the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics examines a matter, it is completely normal for it to present its report to the House of Commons, through you, Mr. Chair. There can be a discussion, and we can demand that the government respond to our report within a certain time frame. That's quite normal, so there's no need to specify that. However, when it is specified, it opens up the possibility of triggering various parliamentary procedures that, frankly, will lead to nothing except wasting the House's time.

I know there were members who felt that removing that sentence would not respect the right of all members to participate in a debate. It's true that the 343 members can have a discussion, but we know how the system works. The reason standing committees were created is precisely to make Parliament more efficient: committees do their work, study a subject in depth and present a report to the House of Commons. From there, the House can do whatever it wants with that report.

If we really want to find a consensus that suits everyone, I think the least we can do is remove that sentence. That's why my colleague Mrs. Church proposed an amendment last night. We hope there will be support for this amendment. That will allow us to move on to something else.

I want to be very clear: What we want is to look into the situation. The reason is that newspaper articles reported that the Minister of Finance had recused himself and had put in place a mechanism to ensure that he not only complied with the obligations and requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act, but in fact went well beyond what was required.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner confirmed that there was indeed no conflict of interest. Despite that, the Minister of Finance went even further to eliminate any doubt, hint or indication that may have violated the spirit or letter of the law. He went way beyond that.

For some reason that I don't understand, my colleagues across the way want to engage in a witch hunt. It makes no sense. It's as though they want to punish someone for doing the right thing. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up, in my opinion. There are other options. First of all, we can write to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and ask for his perspective. I think that's the first step.

As we know, a member of this committee has already written to the commissioner, who is an officer of Parliament, to ask him to report on this situation. The letter that was sent to the commissioner has been made public, and, to my knowledge, we have not received a reply as of yet. If we don't want to wait for the reply, we can at least invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to testify before the committee in order to ask him some questions. So in that regard, I think the first point in Mr. Barrett's motion is entirely reasonable.

Instead of sticking to that, though, other things were added. It's not clear why that was done. For example, it is proposed that Mr. Imbleau and Alto executives be invited to testify before the committee. Once again, we wonder why. How could Mr. Imbleau or Alto executives explain to us the obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act? They're not responsible for that; it's the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who is. So it seems very odd to me to include that in the motion.

Unfortunately, I've seen this committee invite people from outside Parliament in the past. Frankly, I have to say that I'm not convinced that we're going to derive much benefit from that. Various people even think that, in some cases, we exceed our privileges as members of Parliament by summoning citizens who are not parliamentarians to discuss a matter that originally stems from a political disagreement. It doesn't make sense, and I hope we don't go in that direction.

I think that, if we want to amend the motion, this is another area where improvements can be made.

Finally, it is proposed that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue be invited to appear. In my opinion, that's entirely legitimate since he's a minister. Parliamentarians always have the right—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I'm on the French channel, but I'm getting the English interpretation. Obviously, I want to hear all of the arguments that Mr. Fergus is making—I don't remember what he said yesterday, but he's repeating everything. I don't understand why this is happening, but I can hear the English interpretation. I don't need to listen to the English interpretation though.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, has the problem been corrected?