Information & Ethics Committee on April 17th, 2026

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that we will soon be considering Mrs. Church's motion. I also understand that when a motion is introduced with the expectation of obtaining unanimous consent from the members, it is because there have been prior consultations with members on the other side. I do not know when these discussions took place, but it was certainly not a minute before the start of the meeting.

I probably would have spoken less at length about the need to invite Alto's CEO if I had known from the outset that there was a consensus. When the chair asked if he had the unanimous consent of the committee, I was the only one who did not give my consent.

After 17 hours of debate, I am very surprised that we agreed to exclude one of the parties. I think the time had come to stop making compromises. For my part, I would like to hear from Alto, the Minister of Finance and the Ethics Commissioner.

I understand that the Conservatives accepted this compromise, but I would have liked us to discuss it further. I also understand that I was the only one who did not give my consent.

I just wanted to say that I find it very disappointing that we are giving up after 17 hours of debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

We're on the subamendment as proposed by Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Barrett, did you have a comment on the subamendment?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a question.

Chair, having heard Mr. Thériault's comments, I'm just wondering how Mr. Thériault would like to proceed. I appreciate his well-articulated position, but instead of proceeding through a series of subamendments and amendments, there is a compromise that's been proposed by Ms. Church. I'm just wondering if there's a mechanism for us to advance Ms. Church's proposal, even if it would include giving Mr. Thériault the obviously unanimous consent not on its first attempt, but if there would be a way to do that even with Mr. Thériault having the opportunity, if he wishes, to formally register a dissenting vote, or if he is satisfied having expressed very clearly that he doesn't support the removal of the third witness, which I respect and appreciate.

If he has obviously expressed an intention not to do what we just saw for the last week, which is to have a filibuster, I'm just wondering if there's a way to get to a resolution, while respecting that he doesn't agree per se with the unanimous adoption of the proposal by Mr. Church.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that, Mr. Barrett.

Since UC wasn't granted, we are going to have to go through a series of processes.

Frankly, it's not up to anybody on the committee to determine that. We're going to have to deal with the subamendment first. If there's no other discussion, then we can vote on it. A member of the committee can vote for or against that. We're going to have to deal with the amendment immediately after that.

I see some hands going up to speak to the subamendment.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

May I reply, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'm wondering if we could adjourn.

It's difficult, because I'm not looking to blindside Mr. Thériault.

I'm wondering if it would get us to the outcome that everyone is looking to have, which is the conclusion of debate, although we don't all unanimously agree on what that outcome would look like.

I'm wondering if we could adjourn debate on this motion and then hear Ms. Church move her motion.

Mr. Thériault has not had the opportunity to be part of the conversation in person. Would he prefer that we move forward with subamendments and amendments to the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

My preference is to deal with it in a manner that's procedurally accurate, and that is to—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

—adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Well, you can move to adjourn the debate if you like.

The question then becomes if the motion that Ms. Church proposes is actually in order.

I understand that we're in committee business at that point.

That's something I'd have to clarify with the clerk. I'm prepared to do that right now.

Why don't you give me a minute to deal with this, and then we'll come back.

Is that fair enough?

Okay.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back from the suspension.

We are still on the subamendment.

Mr. Hardy, I saw your hand up.

You have the floor.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've been here now for more than 17 hours, with the Liberals engaging in a monologue aimed at preventing the adoption of my subamendment. I said it last week, and I'll say it again today: This is costing taxpayers a fortune. What we are witnessing here is a lack of respect for those who pay taxes.

I believe Canadians have a right to know. They expect the opposition to play its role, to ask questions and to hold the government accountable for its decisions. They also expect us to be their voice in Parliament. Not everyone thinks the same way. In my view, it is extremely important that what we do here be clear and transparent, and that our goal be to properly inform the public.

It is clear that the Liberals do not want the motion as proposed by Mr. Barrett to proceed. However, we've already made three compromises. We agreed not to report to the House that we are conducting this study, to remove the reference to the minister's wife, and to limit the appearance to Alto's chief executive officer alone. I believe our good faith has been evident from the outset. That said, it seems that this is still not enough for the Liberals. They appear to have a very specific objective.

It has to stop at some point. We must stop wasting the House's time and taxpayers' money.

I therefore seek unanimous consent to withdraw my subamendment, in order to allow the committee to move forward in everyone's interest and, at the very least, to have the opportunity to hear from the minister and the Ethics Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

The proposal, by unanimous consent, is to withdraw Mr. Hardy's subamendment.

Do I have unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Hardy's subamendment?

I have it on this side. I have it on this side.

Mr. Thériault? No? Okay.

As there is no one else who wishes to speak to the subamendment, we'll go to a vote on Mr. Hardy's subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 0)

We will now go to a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Saini.

Just for clarification purposes, I would mention that the amendment would have the same effect as what Ms. Church had proposed in her motion and that is to delete line 2, which would be the executives and Mr. Imbleau from Alto.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas, 4; nays, 1)

We are now back to the main motion as amended.

Ms. Church, I see your hand up.

Go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion.

First, I would like to strike “to appear by May 8, 2026”. Then, where it reads “1. Konrad von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”, I'd like to strike “two hours” and make that “one hour”. Where it says “The Minister of Finance and National Revenue”, I'd like to strike “two hours” and make that “one hour” and that the committee hear these witnesses the week of May 25.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment to the motion is striking “by May 8, 2026”, changing the amount of time for the commissioner to one hour, the amount of time for the minister to one hour in the week of May 25. That is very similar with the exception of “by May 8” to what was circulated to the members of the committee before I suspended.

We're on the amendment proposed by Ms. Church.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Seeing none, do we have unanimous consent on the amendment?

No, Mr. Thériault?

Okay. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the vote on the amendment proposed by Ms. Church.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 4; nays 1)

We're now back on the main motion as amended.

Is there any other discussion?

I'm going to call the vote on the main motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

I don't see any other business.

Madam Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I would like to go back to last Thursday's meeting. At that time, I had raised a point of order regarding Mr. Majumdar. Mr. Barrett then intervened and interrupted me. You hadn't given him the floor; I had the floor. Moreover, his tone was aggressive. He interrupted me and did not respect the interpreters.

After the training we have received on Parliament Hill, particularly on harassment and intimidation, I cannot accept such a situation. It's not respectful to me or to the interpreters.

I will never accept being interrupted in that way or having someone raise their voice to intimidate me.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

When that intervention took place, the microphones weren't actually applied because we were listening to the witnesses, and I did try to control it as best I could, if you recall. I was actually threatening to suspend the meeting because of the disruption that was going on. Okay? It was coming from both sides, just to be clear.

I don't have any other business.

This meeting is adjourned.