Information & Ethics Committee on June 11th, 2026

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

Okay.

Did Alto or its executives receive $2.8 million in bonuses, even though not a single railway line has been built? Is that a fact? Can I have that fact?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm here to speak about the issues that the committee asked me to address. I've followed all the rules. I've said so a number of times. I've repeated this in the House. So that people at home understand us, I would say that these people on the other side asked me questions for almost an hour in the committee, about a week or two ago. I answered all their questions. I'm doing this again today. I think that this shows transparency, Mr. Chair. I've provided fact‑based and evidence‑based answers to all the questions asked.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Minister.

We're going to suspend to attend the votes. We'll be back, and the Liberals will have five minutes when we get back. That concludes the first hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting back to order.

The minister said that he was available for another two minutes to answer questions from Mr. Bonin and Ms. Chagger.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes to ask the minister your questions.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Please forgive me, Mr. Chair, but my earpiece just broke.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I haven't started the clock.

Minister, you will have the floor for two minutes and thirty-five seconds.

You have the floor, Mr. Bonin.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Minister, I'd like to come back to one point.

You often refer to the fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner stated that there was no risk of a conflict of interest regarding Alto's internal management. That's what you said.

However, the issue is not Alto's internal management. Rather, it is whether there are any government policy matters related to Alto that could give rise to conflicts of interest. That is what matters.

You clearly asked the commissioner whether you had a conflict of interest regarding Alto's internal management. At the very least, you received an answer on that point.

However, did you ask the opposite question? Did you ask whether there could be a conflict of interest—or the appearance of a conflict of interest—because your wife is a senior executive at Alto and that could influence the handling of policy matters within the government?

Did you ask him that?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You are making allegations, Mr. Bonin. I urge you to exercise caution.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No. I'm asking you if you asked him.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We must stick to the facts.

First, the premise of your question is incorrect, because that was not the question put to the commissioner. The question was: Is there a conflict of interest? The commissioner answered the question, and he will have the opportunity to speak on the matter.

He did not say that there was no conflict of interest; he said that there was no risk of conflicts of interest and that a filter was not required. These are the words of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, dated April 7, 2026, at 4:36 p.m.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The full statement, Minister, is that the commissioner says there is no risk regarding Alto's internal management. That is what he says.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I don't think that's what the commissioner said.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As for me, that's what—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I will read to you in full the words he spoke.

In response to the question posed to him, the commissioner replied that there was no risk of a conflict of interest. I think that answers your question. He says that not only is there is no conflict of interest, but also that there is no risk of a conflict of interest. That is why he says that, in this case, a filter was not required.

The question that was asked was much broader, but the commissioner is obviously sticking to the law. The commissioner is the arbiter of the Conflict of Interest Act, and that is the answer he provided following the consultations I had with him.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to come back to the screening tool—the filter—that you say you've put in place to ensure that your management is transparent and free of conflicts of interest.

Mr. Sabia has submitted the Prime Minister's screening tool, which is specifically designed to ensure that a screen, a filter, has been put in place. Do you still refuse to submit your own screening tool?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Champagne, please provide a brief response.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

As I mentioned, I have referred this to the Ethics Commissioner, and I will leave it to him to determine, in accordance with the law, what is appropriate to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Sari, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before putting my question to the minister, I’d just like to say that I’m pleased to serve on this committee. One of my goals, as an elected official and as a member of the House of Commons, is to restore the confidence of the citizens who elected us in our institutions and to ensure their transparency. I believe our job is, first and foremost, to earn that trust and not to undermine it by trying to create sound bites.

I would very much like the minister to explain the facts to us again. I found him to be very proactive in his approach to handling this matter.

Minister, I’d like you to talk to us once again about the facts. For the sake of our listeners, for the good of our institutions, and for the sake of transparency, could you remind us of the facts? Making allegations or reporting statements that are false does nothing to promote greater transparency regarding our institutions.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you for your question.

I will try to be as candid as possible, while sticking to the facts.

I believe, as the chair said, that the Ethics Committee is a special committee of Parliament. The trust of Canadians is important; that is why I have reiterated that I have complied with all the rules under the Conflict of Interest Act. To shed some light on the matter, I even took the time to explain certain provisions of the act that, given the questions that were asked, may have been less well known or understood by some members of the committee.

My goal was simply, and with humility, to shed some light on certain matters. I’m saying that there are allegations, and we must distinguish between facts and opinions, allegations and evidence. A committee like the Ethics Committee demands a high degree of rigour, because we analyze and make statements; there are also insinuations, and that’s why I stick to the facts. I am very precise in my answers, because I believe that Canadians have the right to expect that from people who come to testify.

As I said, the act is clear. For my part, I decided to go beyond what the Conflict of Interest Act requires: I put a screening process in place; this is a well-established practice with the Privy Council Office for individuals in ministerial roles. So, I have complied with all of that. I even notified the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

You know, people who follow our work understand that when you follow all the rules and go above and beyond expectations, at some point you cross a line and it becomes the politicization of an issue. People who may have a different opinion on certain matters may want to speak out, but there are other forums for doing so. If people disagree—for example, with a specific project—the Ethics Committee is not the forum to voice that disagreement.

That is why tonight I have stuck to the facts—to what I have done—to give Canadians the perspective they need to understand the situation. You, the members of the committee and the chair, play an important role in building trust. If there are people who have different opinions about projects, that’s possible and that’s fine. However, those people have other places, other forums, to voice their views. Today, I was testifying about the actions I have taken.

I thank the members of the committee and the chair for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight and inform Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have one minute and 30 seconds.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

It's important that we really appreciate your being here, for more than an hour. That means a lot. You came here with evidence—because you know the importance of this topic—which raises the level of transparency. You were proactive. You've done everything right, and you've raised the bar once again to ensure that you represent your constituents and Canadians well. That means a lot to me.

I agree with you. People cannot make up their own facts. Clearly, both opposition parties are making allegations, and that's unfortunate.

I want you to let members hear anything that you think is relevant, because I know these are the messages you've been sharing. You've been open. I'm not really sure why you're here when we have a country to run. I want to give you the last word.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 45 seconds.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I want to start with you. Thank you for your statement.

Thank you, Chair, for your leadership and your chairmanship of the committee.

Thank you also to the opposition members. What I was asking for today was to be treated fairly. That's what every Canadian would expect. I came here with evidence and with facts. I want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to present them to Canadians so that they can have the facts.

I also want to thank the commissioner, because he's ultimately the arbitrator of these things. I want to thank him and his team for the work that he's doing on behalf of Canadians.

Again, Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to put the facts on the table. I appreciate that.