Information & Ethics Committee on June 11th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, April 20, 2026, the committee is commencing its study of the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto.

I would like to welcome to the committee the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who is with us for the first hour today.

Minister, you have up to five minutes for your opening statement. Go ahead, please.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, it is a pleasure to be with you today.

As the chair mentioned, I am here today to outline the measures my team and I have taken to prevent any potential conflict of interest regarding the federal Crown corporation responsible for developing the high-speed rail project.

Earlier this year, news articles reported that someone close to me had been hired as an employee of that Crown corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government of Canada that reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Transport.

However, the relevant facts date back well before the publication of those articles. On July 3, 2025, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was informed that someone close to me had received a job offer from the aforementioned Crown corporation. I then contacted the office directly, and was told that the circumstances in question did not give rise to any risk of a conflict of interest. Several months later, further correspondence with the office confirmed these findings.

Despite these repeated confirmations that no conflict of interest existed and that no screen was required, I nevertheless chose—out of an abundance of caution—to implement and maintain a screening process to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and to assure Canadians who are watching us of the integrity of the decision-making process, as evidenced by the letter dated September 10, 2025—a copy of which was duly sent to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

I acted in the same manner as I do in performing my duties as a member of Parliament and as a minister—that is, with rigour, integrity and in accordance with my obligations. I have had the honour of working with some of you for over 10 years, particularly with you, Mr. Chair. I hope and believe that you will all agree that, like all of you, I have always demanded impeccable ethics from my team and myself.

Nevertheless, despite the proactive measures taken and the unequivocal response from the Commissioner of Conflict of Interest and Ethics regarding the absence of any risk of conflict of interest, this matter has given rise to unfounded accusations, even slander and partisan posturing.

In light of these allegations, I would like to reiterate several important facts. The plan for a high-speed train serving the north shore of the St. Lawrence River and the Mauricie region is not a recent development. Five years before I was elected as a member of Parliament, and 15 years before the events that led to my appearance here today, economic stakeholders in the Mauricie region were already promoting the project. For example, in 2010, the Trois-Rivières Chamber of Commerce and Industry publicly supported the initiative, which was considered a flagship project for our region's economic development. Funding for this project was also announced by former Prime Minister Trudeau in February 2025, while I was serving as Minister of Industry—well before the events and circumstances being discussed today.

As soon as someone close to me received a job offer from this Crown corporation, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was notified. I contacted the office directly and subsequently received written confirmation on April 7, 2026, stating that no conflict of interest existed and that no ethical screening was therefore required.

Given that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport and that, as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority over human resources matters at Alto, you are not in a position to promote the interests of any specific Alto employee. There is therefore no risk of a conflict of interest, and a screen is not required.

Despite this, I chose to impose an internal conflict-of-interest screen so as not to participate in decision-making regarding the Crown corporation's project, except for decisions of a general nature permitted under the Conflict of Interest Act.

I believe we can all be proud that Canada has one of the most robust conflict-of-interest systems in the world.

In closing, I would say that this committee plays a vital role within this system and makes a significant contribution to maintaining Canadians' trust in public officeholders by ensuring they are held to the highest ethical standards.

However, I urge you to exercise caution. Preserving that collective trust also means refraining from politicizing the act or the work of this committee. We cannot allow partisan considerations or broader opposition to major projects that shape the country to divert this committee from the important work it must do to fulfill its mandate.

I am confident that committee members will be able to examine this issue fairly, objectively and reliably.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Minister.

Before we start, Minister, you know that members have a finite time to ask their questions—five or six minutes. I expect the question and response to be of equal time.

I don't want or need any interruptions unless they're related to the Standing Orders or standing rules. As has been practised on this committee, just because you don't like a line of questioning, that doesn't mean you interrupt.

Mr. Barrett, you have six. Go ahead, sir.

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

I have a point of order, Chair, before it's my time.

Are we able to get unanimous consent from the committee to work through bells if they ring during the minister's appearance? I expect that he has a limited amount of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do we have unanimous consent to work through the bells?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, we'll do that.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for raising that point.

Go ahead, sir. You have six minutes.

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

Minister, thank you for joining us today.

This is the second time we've had the opportunity to discuss this issue. You appeared at the committee of the whole. I asked you questions. I regret that the responses weren't answers to the questions. Today, I'm hoping that we can drill down and get those responses.

In September 2025, you wrote a letter. It was reported that you wrote a letter to the Prime Minister because you believed there was a risk of a conflict of interest. To be clear, I'm not asserting that you said there was a conflict or that one did occur, but you wrote that letter to the Prime Minister.

Is that correct?

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

As I said at the outset, I have always complied with all the rules under the act. In fact, I decided—perhaps because of my legal background and out of an abundance of caution—to implement a screening process precisely to ensure that I comply with the rules and that we take all necessary measures under the act.

I was even prepared to implement a screening process precisely so that I would not be involved in specific decisions related to the project.

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

That being said, you went on to participate in votes in the House related to Alto. You went on to introduce a bill that included measures specifically related to Alto. It was the implementation legislation for the High-Speed Rail Network Act. There's no recusal publicly posted with respect to cabinet decisions or discussions, so we're left to understand that you didn't recuse yourself.

You've said to us today that you're operating with a keen eye to follow all the ethical rules and guidelines and even to exceed them. If that's the case, and you were of the view in September that a conflict would exist if you participated in decisions, discussions or votes in spite of the response from the Ethics Commissioner, why did you proceed to do the very thing you had said that you—not the Ethics Commissioner—believed would create a conflict?

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

As I said very specifically, Mr. Chair, I did that with an abundance of caution, being very mindful of the law and the exception in the law. I wanted to make sure that I did not participate in the decisions with respect to this project.

I wanted to refer to the principle of general application. I know my colleague, Mr. Barrett, is a solicitor. I think a barrister would know it.

The principle of general application contained within the Conflict of Interest Act allowed me to participate in parliamentary debates and votes, including those related to the budget and the budget implementation act. I think you even received testimony in front of this committee that this is a principle that exists not only in the federal law but in provincial law. It's widely accepted.

I not only complied with all the rules under the act, but I also went beyond to provide to Canadians the kind of transparency that would let them know I respected the act and the letter of the act within the exception permitted under the act, as well as that I had a filter to make sure that I was not directly involved in decisions.

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

Minister, I'd like to know what the precautions you took actually prevented you from doing. You did go on to do those things that you believe to be of a general application, but your department went on to hire one of the many Alto executives to participate in the preparation for your budget presentation and preparation of your budget speech.

It's a small world. It's a small country in terms of our population, comparatively. My goodness, that leaves people questioning how an Alto executive ended up working for you and helping you prepare your budget speech and your budget presentation. I couldn't imagine how they could find the time to even do that while they're preparing this massive project, for which these same executives are collecting massive bonuses without having laid an inch of track.

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

As I was saying, I followed all the rules.

As I also explained, out of an abundance of caution, we put a screen in place. This is a well-known measure that is properly enforced by the Clerk of the Privy Council. The measure actually goes beyond the legal obligation under the act. I did so voluntarily, because I believed it was the right thing to do.

The employee in question had no decision-making role—she had a role in French-language communications.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 30 seconds.

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

For my last question, what did the screen prevent you from doing if you were able to discuss or to vote on the matter? If there were all of these Alto-related intersections with your responsibilities, what did the screen that you said was invoked out of an abundance of caution prevent you from doing?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give a very quick response.

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

I will try, Mr. Chair, under your direction.

The screen, as I said, is a mechanism that is well established by the Privy Council for ministers and others not to participate directly in specific matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister. It's always a pleasure to see you again.

I have been vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics for a year now. The past year has certainly been a lot of work.

As you mentioned earlier, the Alto high-speed rail project was one of the promises in our election platform. It was included during the 2025 campaign.

As you also know, my riding is south of Mirabel, so I'm very familiar with what's happening with Alto. I could go on at great length about the potential impact of the Alto high-speed train—and I've already done so. This train will run through my riding. The vast majority of Canadians support this project. We need to find a way to properly address people's concerns.

You said earlier that Canada has one of the most robust conflict-of-interest management systems in the world. Several witnesses testified to that effect here before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That's a fact.

I'll ask a question, and then I'll let you answer and explain. Take as much time as you need to provide whatever explanations you wish. Can you explain to the committee why you felt it was important to take a proactive approach and consult the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules were followed?

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

First, I would also like to thank you for your leadership on this major project, Ms. Lapointe.

Many questions have been put to me. As for the high-speed rail project itself, let me read you the following: “The Trois-Rivières Chamber of Commerce is calling on elected officials and organizations in the Mauricie region to take action to ensure the high-speed train runs along the north shore.” This is an article published by Radio-Canada on February 15, 2010, so this widely known project has been in the public eye for a very long time.

In my part of the country, we were even talking about this project five years before I was elected to Parliament. A great deal of information about this major project is publicly known. If you visit the Transport Canada website, you'll see the mandate entrusted to the Crown corporation for one of Canada's largest infrastructure projects, if not the largest.

I've been a member of Parliament for over a decade. I have always acted with the utmost integrity. As an MP and a minister, I believe we must comply with all the rules. For my part, I chose to go a step further—namely, to apply a conflict-of-interest screen so that the decisions directly affecting this major high-speed rail project would not involve me. I believe that was the right thing to do. I am a legal expert, a lawyer, and I served as chief ethics officer for five to eight years while working in London before entering politics. I would say that when it comes to ethics, I have specific knowledge of the processes and principles that must be put in place—both in the public sector and in large corporations. In the public service, it is the trust of Canadians that matters. I did this because I want Canadians to have faith in our system.

As you said, our legislative framework is among the strictest and most comprehensive in the G7 and the OECD. With that in mind, I understand the decision of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As you saw, his response to me was quite substantial. I'll quote his reply to an email: “There is therefore no risk of a conflict of interest, and a screen is not required.” That message, dated April 7, 2026, was in response to my request for confirmation.

Compliance with the law is obviously first and foremost, but as minister, I decided to go a step further by stating that we will implement a screening process. As I mentioned to Mr. Brassard, your committee chair, this process has been well established for several years now. I've been a cabinet minister for about 10 years. I've seen filters like these applied at various times, and I believe it's the right thing to do. The committee should have complete confidence that we will act in an exemplary manner on this issue, in the best interests of Canadians. That is why I'm pleased to answer my colleagues' questions today.

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

You chose to take precautionary measures to avoid any potential perception. You referred to Canadians' perceptions and trust regarding the Alto case. Could you explain why this approach was important to you?

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

It's because ethics is a fundamental value for me. As I told you, I was previously the chief ethics officer as a lawyer at a major international firm. This is a matter of public trust. The role of the committee chair—Mr. Brassard—is to preserve the public's trust in our institutions, our procedures, our processes and our deliberations.

That is why I said at the outset that we should not politicize this committee, the law or the committee's work, because the public interest is at stake. For some, my tenure on this committee is more recent, but for others, it goes back over 10 years—even 12 years. Maintaining public trust in our institutions is important. When things are done right, it should be acknowledged. Before you is a case in which a member of Parliament is complying with the law—and, moreover, is applying a screen even though he is not required to do so. I think this kind of approach should be celebrated rather than criticized.

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

Thank you very much for your candour.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe and Mr. Champagne.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you often mention the screen you have in place. Could you explain to the committee exactly what this screen consists of and what it prevents you from doing? Could we have some concrete details, or is there nothing written down anywhere?