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—