Evidence of meeting #47 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was screen.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Hardy, go ahead with your question. I'm giving you extra time. Go ahead.
Conservative
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Minister, Alto's senior executives have received bonuses. What I'm asking you is whether your wife is one of Alto's senior executives, plain and simple. If that's the case, then citizens know that your household stands to get that money. At that point, the matter moves away from general application and into specifics. We're entitled to ask questions.
Conservative
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you for what you're doing, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I understand that tempers can sometimes flare a bit in committee. However, as you said, we all have to use a respectful tone.
Mr. Hardy, I'm going to answer you by quoting the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Again, you're making allegations. I encourage you to consult lawyers if you want to know more about this.
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner says the following:
Considering that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport—
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
—as Minister of Finance you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto, you do not have an opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee.
That's what the commissioner thinks, Mr. Hardy. You are entitled to your opinion, I agree, but the Ethics Commissioner is entitled because he is the final arbiter of these matters.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, it's great to see you, as always. Thank you for taking the time to be with us.
I'll take a quick moment to comment. I don't know that I've ever met anyone who appreciates being in committee as much as you do. This committee certainly appreciates that about you.
For the benefit of this committee, I'm going to take a quick moment to rehash the timeline here with you. In March 2025, you were appointed Minister of Finance. Congratulations, by the way. You're doing a very good job.
Last spring, someone close to you received a job offer with Alto. You immediately contacted the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to inform them of said job offer. You were subsequently told by the commissioner's office that “there is no risk of a conflict of interest” and that “a screen is not required”. Notwithstanding that advice, you still chose to impose an internal screen to avoid any potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
In September 2025, you wrote to the Prime Minister, informing him of the implementation of a conflict of interest filter. In November 2025, Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, was tabled. In February 2026, Bill C-15 passed through the finance committee, with Conservatives voting in favour of Alto. Then, in March 2026, the Leader of the Opposition announced opposition to Alto, and that brings us to today.
Do I have this timeline right, Minister? Am I missing anything?
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
To the best of my recollection, you have a great chronology of events.
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
It's good to hear that.
At any point, has the commissioner expressed concern as to your approach, indicated that it's insufficient or that there's something missing?
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
No. I appreciate your question.
Mr. Chair, I would like to say again that I know it's not easy, especially when there are debates in this place. I want to thank you for the work you're doing.
What I hear from my colleague Mr. Al Soud is a recollection of events and facts, and I think that's what this committee is all about. It's about facts.
Members of Parliament are entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. That's a very clear principle that we should be applying at this committee. It's a matter of justice, and you have to abide by these rules. That's why I like your question, because you're talking about facts, and you leave the opinion aside. As I said, people know me, and people have seen me in many different positions. I've been a member of this House for a long time—I think for as long a time as the Chair, as we were elected at the same time. Whether in question period or in committee, I always submit myself to questions and answers to preserve public confidence in our institution, and everyone is doing important work.
As difficult as it may be sometimes to be a witness, as there are things you hear that may not be factually correct, witnesses come here to answer your questions, as should be the case. I've submitted myself to that many times, and I've probably answered as many questions as or—as I look around this table—more than most. I've been accountable to Canadians.
I've been accountable to Parliament. I've been accountable to committee, and I will continue to do that, because this is how our system works.
I want to thank the chair again for his work.
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
We're three rounds in now, and I'm still trying to understand what you might have done differently to somehow be even more transparent. You were repeatedly told that no screen would be required and that no conflict of interest is in question. You still chose to do a screen and to recuse yourself from any interactions pertaining to Alto.
Why did you make that decision? What principles guided that decision?
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I know, as a lawyer—as well as from having been a director of ethics—that sometimes it is my own choice to go beyond in order to avoid any perception of a conflict, despite the fact that the arbitrator....
For Canadians who are watching tonight, maybe there are different views on who's asking the questions and the lead-up to that, but the arbitrator of what the code is asking of me, as well as anyone in this room who is at the table, is the commissioner. He's the arbitrator of all that. We are not; he is.
When an MP does everything he can, proactively contacting the commissioner to ask him for guidance, and the MP asks for advice, the advice is confirmed in writing. You then put in a screen and voluntarily copy the commissioner, so he has a copy of the letter; he can tell anyone whether he's satisfied or not. He then confirms reception of that letter.
I would say humbly to this committee and to you, Mr. Chair, that when one has done everything that one can do to respect all the rules—which apply to me and all the members around this table—one should take stock of that and say someone has done what he should do. We should not politicize the rest, because that's not the role of this committee.
I appreciate that people may have different views about different things, but this is about the rules, the articles that are in the code and the arbitrator, who is the commissioner.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Al Soud.
Mr. Hardy should take us up to five minutes, and then when we come back, we'll have one more round of five minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Hardy.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just a kinesiologist. I have been here for a year. I'm not a lawyer, but there are some things I find odd, so I have come here to ask questions.
Minister, I'm glad you were talking to us about the commissioner, because the commissioner proposed that we include the appearance of a conflict of interest in the act. In fact, he even asked us to do so. That appearance is what we are currently experiencing.
You're bringing us back to what the commissioner can't do. He's asking us to incorporate this into the act, but when we put it in our report, your whole gang says that we shouldn't do it. We have just asked for a document, and your whole gang refused to give us access to the document, which is so clear, as you say. We just want to see it, but all the Liberals have just voted against that.
My final question has to do with your speech. It was drafted by an Alto employee for $12,168. My question is a bit simple, even simplistic, I imagine. How can an employee be allowed to write a speech promoting the project they're working on and be paid with taxpayers' money? I'm just trying to see how the speech can be influenced when the people writing it can influence the value of a project.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Hardy, I have enormous respect for you. I'm glad there are people like you who get involved and get elected in their ridings, but, again, you're making allegations. I would encourage you to be careful. I'm telling you this because there are lawyers—
