Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to study a potential conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, François-Philippe Champagne, regarding his role in government decisions and votes related to Alto, the high-speed rail Crown corporation. The committee heard from the minister and, later, from Konrad von Finckenstein, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, accompanied by legal counsel Michael Aquilino and director Lisa DeMoor.

Minister Champagne testified that he proactively contacted the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in July 2025 after someone close to him received a job offer from Alto, and was told there was no risk of a conflict of interest and no screen was required. He stated that, out of an abundance of caution, he nonetheless implemented a voluntary conflict-of-interest screen to avoid any appearance of a conflict, and that he complied with all rules under the Conflict of Interest Act, including the principle of general application which allowed him to vote on matters like the budget implementation act. He argued that Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to the Minister of Transport, not the Minister of Finance, and that he had no decision-making authority over its human resources, so there was no opportunity to further the interests of any specific Alto employee.

Commissioner von Finckenstein confirmed that his office concluded there was no conflict of interest because Alto is a Crown corporation under the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Finance has no control or authority over it, making any potential benefit to an Alto employee too remote. He noted that the minister voluntarily set up a screen without being required to do so, and that because it was not a measure imposed by the commissioner’s office, it was not published in the public registry. He stated that the advice given to the minister is confidential unless the minister chooses to release it, and that he would release the screen if the minister asked him to.

The committee also heard procedural debate and a motion from Patrick Bonin requesting that the minister produce and make public the letter and ethics screen he referenced, which was defeated.