Mr. Chair, this is unacceptable. It's part of a pattern of delay. That's all it is.
Let's not minimize the seriousness of the issue at hand, which is that the minister has an apparent conflict in respect of Alto. It's not me who is asserting that he has a conflict, although I certainly assert that. The minister himself conceded that after he got caught being involved in decisions related to Alto and said that, well, he had set up an ethics screen. He then said that he acted “proactively” in setting up the ethics screen.
Of course, he had never announced anything about the ethics screen. He never said anything about the ethics screen. No one knew about the ethics screen, but he said there was an ethics screen. Why was there an ethics screen? It's because he said there was a conflict. No wonder there was a conflict, because there is a conflict when you have a partner—his partner—who is a vice-president at Alto.
The minister's spokesperson said in the National Post on 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.” That's except for the fact that we know this isn't true, because the minister introduced legislation related to Alto. He spoke to that legislation. He voted on that legislation. He included provisions for funding for Alto in the budget, and he advanced the Alto project through a budget bill.
Contrary to the minister's spokesperson's statement, the minister did in fact participate in discussions, decisions and votes, all related to Alto, in which the minister has an apparent conflict of interest. It underscores why we need to hear from him.
He has put this committee in a very difficult position. I guess, to some degree, what choice do we have, Mr. Chair, other than to take the minister at his word that, yes, he will finally appear on June 11? It shouldn't have come to this. We should be hearing from the minister this week, but if he's not available, then, being practical, what solution is there?
I just wish to underscore that it shouldn't have come to this. It's unacceptable that it has come to this, and it does appear to be part of a pattern by the government to avoid accountability.