Information & Ethics Committee on April 17th, 2026

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Church.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, as my colleague across the way knows full well, the Ethics Commissioner said exactly the opposite. At least let's debate the facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Well, if Ms. Church wants to talk about facts, let me tell her a few facts about the Ethics Commissioner.

First of all, he hasn't responded to Mr. Barrett's letter. There were some very specific points that were raised, some specific allegations, specific references to sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. There has been no response from the Ethics Commissioner, and yet members opposite have suggested that. In fact, I think Mr. Sari, in his comments, opened by saying that Mr. Barrett had done such a great job doing his due diligence, sending a letter to the Ethics Commissioner, and that the Ethics Commissioner has responded. Well, no, Mr. Sari, the Ethics Commissioner has not responded to Mr. Barrett. In fact, the Ethics Commissioner hasn't, to my knowledge, made a statement regarding what appears to be a conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance.

What I saw was a statement quoted in a CTV news story by someone in the Ethics Commissioner's office that is less than satisfactory in the face of the very serious issues and serious questions about the minister's involvement in handing out billions of dollars to Alto. By the way, if everything is so clear and obvious with the Ethics Commissioner, why is it that when the Minister of Finance has been asked to provide documentation, proof, that everything is on the up and up, he can't do that? He can't do that and won't do that and won't answer questions and is in hiding.

With respect to some of the arguments, if you can call them arguments, put forward by Mr. Sari as to why the CEO of Alto shouldn't appear, he said, first of all, that we don't need to hear from the CEO of Alto because the Ethics Commissioner is coming to committee. That is a circular argument. Of course the Ethics Commissioner is coming to committee. We need to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. No one is debating that. That doesn't provide any answer as to whether we need to also hear from the CEO of Alto.

Mr. Sari went on to say that the CEO of Alto is a CEO involved in a high-speed rail project and that he couldn't provide any relevant information on matters of ethics. In fact, Mr. Sari said he had no idea what questions he could possibly pose to the CEO of Alto. Give me a break. Respectfully, Mr. Chair, give me a break. We're not asking the CEO of Alto to come as some sort of expert on ethics. We're not asking him to come before this committee to provide his interpretation of various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Sari characterized him as coming in that capacity, to speak on matters of ethics. What is he talking about? What planet is he living on? What planet are those members living on? That's not why we want to hear from the CEO of Alto.

I want to hear from the CEO of Alto for a few reasons. The first is that the Minister of Finance has declared a conflict in respect of Alto and quite appropriately so, given that his partner is a vice-president. The Minister of Finance claimed that he set up an ethics screen, that he acted proactively, yet for a minister who set up an ethics screen, who was being so proactive, it was all very secret. No one had heard of this ethics screen. He never spoke about this ethics screen. He never spoke about this conflict until he got caught, and then all of a sudden, there was an ethics screen, and then he said he acted proactively.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

No one caught out the finance minister. I would ask that Mr. Cooper withdraw the comments he just made. That's how the Ethics Commissioner responded.

With all due respect, I would ask him to withdraw his remarks. Out of respect for the people listening to us, it's important to provide them with accurate information that is consistent with what the Ethics Commissioner said.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Sari.

I'm listening intently to Mr. Cooper, and I find that he's speaking specifically to the subamendment and what questions he actually wants to ask Mr. Imbleau. I find this to be very relevant to this discussion, and I'm going to ask him to continue.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Then the finance minister said that there's this ethics screen. No one had heard about it before. Then the minister's spokesman said, according to a National Post article dated April 6, 2026, “The minister fully respects the screen, meaning he is neither implicated in nor party to any discussions, decisions, or votes related to Alto.”

The problem with that statement from the minister's spokesperson is that not one part of that, other than that there is an ethics screen in place, is accurate. The minister has repeatedly involved himself on matters pertaining to handing billions of dollars to Alto. He has introduced legislation. He has spoken to and defended that legislation. He has voted on that legislation. He included it in the budget. He even incorporated into the budget bill legislation the high-speed rail network act that was specific to Alto, that was to advance the Alto project.

The minister went before the Senate finance committee, and when he was challenged by Senator Carignan about the Alto project, he bragged about how he personally delivered the goods in relation to the Alto high-speed rail project, a company, of course, which his partner is a VP of, and of course, a company that he admits he has a conflict with in light of his partner's position at Alto.

Therefore, contrary to his assertion, or his spokesperson's assertion, he did have discussions. He did involve himself in decisions. He did involve himself in votes related to Alto. Based upon the statement of his spokesperson, respecting the screen means you don't have discussions, you don't have decisions, and you don't have votes related to Alto, but he did. Therefore, by the words of his spokesperson, he violated the ethics screen that supposedly was in place, but no one had ever heard about until he got caught.

Mr. Chair, why have—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Finance has never been caught out. Let's not make inaccurate statements. Mr. Chair, I would ask that you make sure that what is being said is accurate. I repeat: It's important for the people listening to us that the facts presented be accurate.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Facts.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Just because something is written on paper, that doesn't make it true. Just because it's posted on X or in a video doesn't make it true. The facts are the facts that were established by the commissioner.

There you have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, well, I appreciate that. I think we're trying to get to the facts here, Monsieur Sari.

Mr. Cooper, on the subamendment, I would appreciate that you return to Mr. Imbleau's presence as proposed in the subamendment, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

This is what I'm getting to. What I just said goes to the very heart of why we need to hear from Mr. Imbleau. Mr. Sari says something about getting back to the facts. Well, I just quoted the minister's spokesperson. Is he saying that the minister's spokesperson didn't say that with respect to the ethics screen? Is that what he's saying? I'm just quoting him.

I don't know what he's talking about other than I guess he just decided he wants to delay things further, run interference yet again. It's all part of the game, all part of the charade, all to cover for the minister. That's what this is about. That's what the Liberals are doing over there. They have no interest in getting answers, none whatsoever.

Now, going to the subamendment—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have another point of order, Mr. Chair.

We're not here to defend anybody. I've said this a number of times: I respect my colleagues opposite. I'm not here to defend anyone; I'm here to defend ethics.

He quoted the Minister of Finance's spokesperson, but he interpreted it in his own way. He said that the minister was caught in the act, which is not true.

I'm not saying that his comments are off topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I understand.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

What I'm saying is that he's putting forward facts that aren't true.

There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Points of order are not necessarily because you don't like what somebody is saying. I get that. It has to be relevant to the issue.

I am going to ask Mr. Cooper to deal with the subamendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Chair, going back to the ethics screen and the statement by the minister's spokesperson and what we know to be the minister's actions, including his involvement in various discussions and decisions, this speaks to the need to hear from the CEO of Alto.

We need to know what discussions, if any, the minister had with the CEO of Alto because that does go to the heart of whether there was a conflict. If there wasn't a technical conflict, at best, I think there are ethical questions at play in terms of the appropriateness of the Minister of Finance being involved in such discussions around advancing billions of dollars to the Alto project, given the role of his spouse.

At the end of the day, billions of tax dollars are at stake. This is a $90-billion project, after all, and Canadians deserve to know—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can we go back to the subamendment, which seeks to invite Mr. Imbleau?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Sari, I'm going to be frank here.

Mr. Cooper is talking about what he believes to be very relevant and specific questions that need to be asked of Mr. Imbleau. He's mentioned that several times. If he wasn't on that topic, I would tell him. I'm listening intently to what he's saying, and there are specific questions related to this that he feels he needs to ask Mr. Imbleau.

The subamendment that we're dealing with is having Mr. Imbleau come to committee and answer those questions. Mr. Cooper, in my opinion, is very on topic right now on that subamendment.

I would appreciate, unless it's an egregious issue that Mr. Cooper is talking about, no further interruptions.

Please continue, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

To your point, I'm speaking very specifically to the subamendment and why we need to hear from him to understand exactly what discussions the minister had, if any, relating to money that was directed towards Alto to advance the high-speed rail project because, as I said before Mr. Sari ran interference yet again, is that when billions and billions of tax dollars dollars are at stake, Canadians deserve to know that personal relationships such as having a partner serve as VP at the company that is benefiting from those billions of dollars are not influencing those decisions.

When it comes to the CEO of Alto, let's be clear what the government and what the finance minister.... He delivered the goods, as he bragged about doing. He delivered for Alto $597 million for the 2025-26 preconstruction work, such as design, environmental work and consultations. Alto was also allocated $3.9 billion over the next six years for the project's co-development phase and $125 million over the next few years for the project to get over various hurdles related to approvals and coordination.

The notion that the CEO of Alto was completely in the dark, had no idea, had no role, had no discussions, no involvement with billions of dollars coming to Alto is inconceivable. It speaks to why we need to hear from him, why he's a relevant witness.

There was another argument put forward, I don't think by Mr. Sari but by Ms. Church, as to why we shouldn't hear from him, despite what I would submit are very good reasons to hear from him. The argument was that as he's the CEO of Alto, he's so busy getting a high-speed rail project built at speed, so to speak, as Ms. Church put it, that it would be a big waste of his time.

Well, I mean, really? We have a potential conflict of interest. At best, there are serious questions about the minister's judgment in his involvement in this matter and a CEO of a taxpayer-funded company, a $90-billion project paid for by taxpayers, and he's too busy to come before this committee and answer questions? Well, I'll tell you, the CEO of this company that is receiving billions and billions of tax dollars can damn well spend an hour or two before this committee to answer questions. He damn well better come before this committee, because we need to hear from him.

I would just say, it being hour 16, that the Liberals should, if there's nothing to see, if everything was above board, if the minister is in the clear, then what better way? What better way to hear from the Ethics Commissioner, to hear from the minister, and to hear from the CEO, who is obviously very much involved in the billions of dollars that Alto is receiving from this Liberal government?

With that I will leave it there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Saini, on the subamendment about Mr. Imbleau appearing before committee, go ahead please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Is it common when there's an ethics screen that it has to be announced publicly? Mr. Cooper keeps bringing up that this is a mandatory thing. I think as long as the Ethics Commissioner is aware of it and a member presides by that ruling, that's the most relevant thing.

The other thing I am having difficulty with, similar to Mr. Sari, is when we keep saying that the minister got caught. There is no such information that was public to say that the minister was caught. The minister voluntarily went to the Ethics Commissioner, stated the facts and moved on. This discussion is not going anywhere.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to move that we adjourn this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

Mr. Saini has moved a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Do we have unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting?

[An hon. member]

We would like a recorded vote.