Information & Ethics Committee on June 11th, 2026

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to quote the Ethics Commissioner to correct statements that have been made today. This is what the commissioner wrote on April 7, at 4:36 p.m.:

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 matters of human resources at Alto, you do not have the opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee. Therefore, there is no risk of conflict of interest and a screen is not required.

Those are the Ethics Commissioner's words.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

The commissioner's words clearly state that you have no decision-making authority over human resources matters at Alto. That isn't the only issue, though. The problem is that you are part of a government that makes decisions, and that the Alto project potentially represents billions of dollars and involves expropriation superpowers. That proximity could influence public policy or, at least, give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's what we are talking about right now.

Do you not see why people might have questions about the fact that your wife is a senior vice-president at Alto and you are making major decisions that could benefit Alto, particularly when it comes to expropriating property? Billions of dollars in cheques could potentially be signed. Do you not get that? I understand the commissioner told you that you have no authority over human resources at Alto. Nevertheless, can't you, personally, see how the average person might perceive this as a conflict of interest?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have one minute left.

Minister, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Bonin, again, those claims are not true. You're probably not a lawyer, so I would encourage you to check with a lawyer, because the allegations you're making are baseless.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm talking about the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's not an allegation.

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

I'm telling you. I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that the allegations you are making are baseless.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You were in the papers—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Bonin, let the minister answer. This makes things difficult for the interpreters.

Go ahead, Mr. Champagne.

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

Mr. Bonin, I am here before the committee with respect. As I said, I want to stick to the facts. That's why I am choosing my words carefully. I am a lawyer.

First, I am telling you that baseless allegations have been made.

Second, the act is very clear about the necessary measures. For instance, I urge you to read subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Act. They should inform your consideration of this matter.

Mr. Chair, you're signalling that I should hurry up, so I will come back to this later.

Mr. Bonin, as I told you, I followed all the applicable rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Cooper, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you moved, spoke on and voted on measures to advance the Alto project through the budget implementation act in various ways and means motions.

You spoke about matters of general application. I want to look specifically at the February 25, 2026, vote. You voted, in the House of Commons, against motion number 44, which was to delete clause 191. You voted against that specific motion.

Is that correct?

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

Mr. Chair, as I said, I comply with all obligations under the act, and—

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

The answer, Minister, is that you voted against a motion that was very specific: deleting clause 191.

Now, what was in clause 191? It was to delete the High-Speed Rail Network Act from the budget implementation act.

Minister, just to confirm, the High-Speed Rail Network Act dealt exclusively with Alto.

Is that correct?

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

As I said, I complied with all the rules under the act. You are well aware of what the Conflict of Interest Act says, especially subsections 6(1) and 6(2).

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

Minister, clause 191 dealt specifically with the High-Speed Rail Network Act, and that act dealt exclusively with Alto.

You said that the ethics screen was in place to prevent you from making decisions about, discussing or voting on matters related to Alto, with the caveat that this did not extend to matters of general application. Motion number 44 was not a matter of general application. It was very specific. It was specific to advancing the Alto project—nothing more and nothing less.

Isn't that right?

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

Again, as I said, I complied with all the rules. I believe you're a lawyer, so I urge you to consult the act, as well as the relevant case law and doctrine.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, members are allowed to participate in a parliamentary debate or vote on a matter of general application. That principle is established not only federally, here in Ottawa, but also provincially. I believe it's a best practice.

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

Minister—

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

If I'm not mistaken, the committee has heard from witnesses on that.

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

Minister, if that isn't specific or doesn't relate exclusively to Alto....

What could be more specific than a clause to delete advancing the project?

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

As I said, I followed all the rules in the act. I urge my colleague, whom I think is a lawyer, to read the relevant provisions, doctrine and case law, as well as the principle of general application, which allows parliamentarians—

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

Minister, I would add that it's not—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Minister. I understand the answer.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

It really begs this question: What good is your ethics screen if you can vote on matters that specifically and exclusively relate to advancing the Alto project?

By the way, your spokesperson, John Fragos, is quoted in an April 6, 2026, National Post article.

He stated:

The minister fully respects the screen...meaning he is neither implicated in nor party to any discussions, decisions, or votes related to Alto.

That is simply not true. You voted at least 13 times on matters related to Alto. You qualified that by saying that it was a matter of general application, but you can't explain how you voted against motion number 44, which was not a matter of general application.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Minister, I'll give you time to respond to that. You have 55 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cooper, as I said, the principle of general application set out in the act allows members to satisfy their obligations under the act, without preventing them from voting in Parliament.

Indeed, the people of Saint‑Maurice—Champlain have the right to have their say on this issue. In fact, your interpretation of the act disregards the relevant case law and doctrine, and the expert opinions the committee has heard. The people of Saint‑Maurice—Champlain have the right to have a voice on this issue. That is why I complied with my obligations under the act, but also the exceptions provided for in the act, doctrine and case law.