Information & Ethics Committee on May 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I see that we have Ms. Church on Zoom today.

We're going to be dealing with some committee business today. I have a couple of items to discuss. For the first item, members will recall that on Monday, April 20, the committee adopted the following motion:

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; and that, for the purpose of this study, the committee invite the following witnesses to appear during the week of May 25, 2026:

1. Konrad von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for one hour; and

2. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, for one hour.

Both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the minister were invited to appear this week. While the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the minister were invited, the Ethics Commissioner did confirm his appearance for this Thursday. Over several interactions with the minister, we have a response that he can appear only on June 11. That is contrary to the motion that was passed by the committee, which was that both appear during the week of May 25.

I need to understand from the committee what direction you want us to take—when I say “us”, I mean the clerk and me—in terms of where we're going to go with this.

The question I put before the committee is this: Despite the motion that was passed, shall we accept June 11 for the minister, and shall the Ethics Commissioner be rescheduled for June 11?

It was my understanding that it was the intent of the committee to have both the minister and the Ethics Commissioner appear during the same two-hour period—one for one hour and the other for the other hour.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, and then we'll have Mr. Cooper.

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

The date we arrived at to have the minister appear wasn't conjured up. The date was chosen on the advice of Liberal members, and the committee passed the motion inviting the minister to come. As for an alternative to accepting that the minister is not coming this week, there is no alternative. The committee can't make the minister come before committee.

The committee did pass that motion. It's a very unfortunate choice that the minister made to create the expectation with members of his party that he would be here and then to inform the committee that he would not honour the obligation he has.

Is it an imperative? Should there be consequences should he not appear? No, that's not a power that committees have with respect to ministers. However, I think it is not a good sign.

We have a motion passed by the committee to deal with a matter about a conflict of interest. We had designed a single meeting. The date was all but prescribed by Liberal members, presumably on advice from the minister's office. The integrity of that plan should be retained as much as possible. The date that was included in the motion passed by committee is not going to be honoured. The intent to have a single meeting, of course, should be respected. We should put this together for a single meeting, when it does occur.

This was a matter that generated an incredible amount of public interest, which is how it found itself in front of the committee for consideration. Members of the committee agreed to this, including Liberal members, who had the ability via the minister's office to offer a date much farther into the future than the original motion intended. That was a compromise at the time. We're now being asked to compromise on our compromise.

It just cannot pass by us without mention. It's a silent shrug that we hear often. We heard often in the week before the House adjourned, three weeks ago, the government House leader and many ministers say that they respect committees, that committees are important, that committees are powerful and that committees set their agenda.

Well, here we have a standing committee that said the minister must appear, but the minister is not appearing. It's an affront to what we do. We don't have the teeth as committees to do more than ask the minister to appear and then, once the motion passes, to ask that he come on another day.

This is not how this place is supposed to work. I don't think it is consistent with what Canadians expect from their government and ministers of the Crown that when a standing committee asks that a minister appear and the committee asks members of that party to arrange for a date that works for them, they let other circumstances dictate a different set of actions beyond what the committee has agreed to. This shouldn't continue. The minister ought to know, and I believe he does know, that this is contrary to what his government has said, and it's contrary to the committee motion that was passed.

I'll say one more time that the motion was for them to appear at the same time on one-hour panels, so unless we're blowing this whole motion up—to answer your second question—should the commissioner appear this week or next, the intention was for them to come together. We really shouldn't be redesigning the motion in its entirety at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

To address several of your points, obviously the obligation on our part—on my part and the clerk's part—was to advise the minister's office, which was done on several occasions, that the motion had indeed passed. We were under an indication that he would make himself available the week of May 25.

The question before us is about June 11. Do we reschedule? Should we reschedule? Should the clerk and I reschedule June 11 as a time for the minister? He's indicated that he's available that day, and I think that all indications are that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is available that day too. That's the question before us.

Mr. Cooper, what are your comments on that? Then I will go to Ms. Church.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed, but to some extent hardly surprised, that we see the minister bailing out on coming to committee. There are serious questions about a conflict of interest surrounding the minister in terms of his role in directing billions of tax dollars to the Alto project, notwithstanding that his partner is a vice-president at Alto.

For 17 hours, Liberal MPs across the way filibustered a motion to bring the minister to committee to answer questions about this apparent conflict of interest. For 17 hours, they blocked and obstructed the work of this committee. They ran interference for the minister.

That motion provided that the minister appear on May 5. After 17 hours of obstruction from the Liberals, they finally said that he could come on May 25. When the Liberals said, after 17 hours of obstruction, that the minister could come the week of May 25, we took them at face value that they had confirmed with the minister that he was indeed available during the week of May 25. Now it's the week of May 25, and we suddenly find out that the minister can't appear. Is he too busy to come before a parliamentary committee to answer questions about an apparent conflict of interest involving billions of taxpayer dollars?

He'll come on June 11. How do we know he's going to come on June 11? What is to say the minister won't come up with another excuse to say that he's too busy to come to committee?

This is part of a game by these Liberals, a game to obstruct committees and to shut down accountability. This is what they did, of course, when they filibustered. This is what they did when they brought forward their undemocratic motion to stack committees. This was part of the Prime Minister's strategy as he picked off certain MPs to cross the floor in undemocratic floor crossings. We have one of those floor crossers on this committee, who I guess is AWOL yet again. What a surprise.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I have missed serving alongside Mr. Cooper on committee, so I'm glad that we are back together again. He knows my enthusiasm.

I believe that House rules would be echoed in committee, and we don't really talk about the absence or presence of members.

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

Who's not here?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Whoever he was referring to or who he's concerned about.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Chagger. I've taken your point.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

The question before us—and the direction that the clerk and I need—is, are we going to direct the Ethics Commissioner to appear on the same day on which the finance minister, Mr. Champagne, has said he can appear before the committee, notwithstanding the motion that said he was to appear the week of May 25?

Ms. Church, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back to all my colleagues around the table after the two-week parliamentary break. It's a pleasure to be back at the ethics committee.

Far be it from me to try to get in the way of some of the theatrical outrage we're seeing on the other side at the moment. Where I wanted to come from was just to remind the table, and come back to the fact that, when we debated this motion, we did so in good faith. It's entirely reasonable, and Canadians understand, that from time to time there are businesses—businesses of state and international affairs—that come into play, particularly with ministers of cabinet.

It's important for the committee's record and for anyone watching that we also make sure it's known widely that the Minister of Finance in this case is actually going to be appearing for four hours tomorrow night at committee of the whole in the House of Commons. A four-hour appearance is very significant.

We know that between now and June 11, he is appearing at three other committees, including at the finance committee for a Conservative motion on June 4. I raise this only to say that the minister is making every effort to be as accountable, transparent and available as one would expect a minister of finance to be, while balancing, of course, the immense responsibilities that come with that role.

This is not intended to be an affront to anyone. This is not intended to thwart the good work of this committee. It is simply a recognition that from time to time, as the weeks and months pass, there are scheduling changes that we have to be able to deal with. Although we believed we had a date set out ahead of time, and all offices had worked very effectively to land on that date, there are important matters of business and of state arising that we need to adjust to.

I anticipate that all the members on this committee are going to be very active tomorrow in the committee of the whole with the finance minister. We look forward to having him at the committee here in a couple of weeks to finish out the motion on Alto.

From my perspective, certainly, I'm not averse to having both appear together.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Ms. Church.

I'm sensing from the interventions I've heard so far that there is a desire and direction on the part of the committee to ask the Ethics Commissioner to appear on June 11, along with the finance minister, because he's already indicated that he can.

I'm sensing that, but if I'm wrong, tell me.

A couple of more people want to discuss this, and we'll allow their opinions to be heard.

Ms. Chagger, I'm trying to focus here. I hear some chatter on that side. Keep it down, please.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Gourde, go ahead.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister is proposing a date of June 11. The government would need to guarantee that the House will still be sitting on that date. There are rumours that the session could be cut short on June 10.

Would the committee still meet if the government ended the session on June 10? We can continue to meet over the summer, after the end of the session. You never know. There have been instances where the government has ended the session earlier than expected. If the session ended on June 10, the minister would be off the hook until the fall.

Would the meeting with the minister and the commissioner still take place on June 11 if the government were to end the session on June 10?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's highly speculative at this point. My understanding is that the House is scheduled to rise on June 18.

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

It could be the 19th.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's highly speculative. I am going to proceed on the basis that the House will rise on the 19th. Everything we do from this point forward will be on that basis. If a decision is made among the parties to adjourn early, it's nothing I can affect, so I'm going to proceed on that basis.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that you are powerless when it comes to the government's decision to end the session, but committees don't have to stop meeting over the summer. If the session ends early, will the committee still be able to hold a meeting on June 11 to hear from the minister and the Ethics Commissioner, so that the committee's work can move forward? Everyone will be in Ottawa anyway. We're not going to bring people back if the House rises.

I just want to make sure that, if we agree to have the minister come on June 11, the meeting will take place. It's already unfortunate that he delayed his appearance, but it's all the more unusual that he chose that date, given all the rumours. We are in what feels like a week of rumours in Ottawa, and one of them is that the business of the House will end on June 10.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

According to the Standing Orders, the committee has the power to sit even when the House is adjourned. We can do that. However, I believe, as I've already said, that the House will adjourn on June 19. If its proceedings finish before June 19—you mentioned June 10—the committee still has the authority to hold a meeting, provided that it decides today that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner will appear on June 11.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Al Soud, you have the floor. Go ahead. Again, the question is on the Ethics Commissioner.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick note.

I've had the privilege of subbing in on many committees so far, and I'm a permanent member of three. Anyone who's seen him in action knows the minister has never been shy to testify or appear at committee in the past. As Ms. Church said perfectly, the minister is going to be appearing on three committees in the span of 10 days, including a committee of the whole for four hours, so there's clearly no attempt to escape accountability here.

I'll also make a point the members know well: Things happen and life comes at us all, and from a variety of directions. I've been a member of this committee for slightly over a month now, and it feels like I've heard more rants turned into clips than anything, rather than having the privilege of partaking in actual business. There is nothing here that stops us from hearing from the witness who was initially planned, then hearing from the minister when he's available. Frankly, I think of it in that context. That is what makes the most sense.

I put that out there. I hope the committee will agree on that front.