Ottawa, ON – Today, Michael Barrett, Conservative Shadow Minister for Ethics and Accountable Government, wrote to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, calling on him to investigate the newly disclosed conflicts between Carney’s Finance Minister and the Alto high-speed rail project he advanced: 

Dear Commissioner:

I am writing to ask you to investigate my concerns that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, may have breached his obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act in relation to the interests of Anne-Marie Gaudet, Vice-President, Environment of Alto.

The prospect of a Finance Minister making decisions as part of the federal government’s budgetary process which present distinct benefits and advantages for his partner and her employer – and acting and voting in Parliament to give those effect – is a very troubling development. An investigation is absolutely essential here, including to validate the existence and application of his unpublished – and only now revealed – “conflict of interest filter” in addition to all of his parliamentary engagement on this matter.

Ms. Gaudet’s relationship to Mr. Champagne

While Ms. Gaudet is not referenced in Mr. Champagne’s various disclosures published on your website, she has had a long, close and public association with the Minister:

  • A pre-budget profile of Mr. Champagne, entitled “Man of the moment: François-Philippe Champagne prepares for make-or-break budget”, published by The Globe and Mail on October 31, 2025, refers to his downtime: “His partner, Anne-Marie Gaudet, works in Quebec City during the week. Whenever possible, the couple spends weekends together at their home in the Grand-Mère sector of Shawinigan….” [my emphasis]
  • The news website Politico’s Ottawa Playbook summary for July 3, 2023, entitled “Champagne for breakfast”, describes Ms. Gaudet as Mr. Champagne’s “partner”. The Minister is quoted speaking of her grounding influence in his life, “There’s very few moments where you’re not the minister, that you’re just the average guy — although I would say my partner is pretty good at reminding me that when I come home.” [my emphasis]
  • Shortly after taking on employment at the Port of Québec, Le Journal de Québec described Ms. Gaudet as “aussi la conjointe du ministre fédéral François-Philippe Champagne”, in its January 18, 2021, article, entitled “Une embauche au Port fait sourciller les opposants”. The newspaper attributed to Mr. Champagne the fact that he had consulted your predecessor about the need for a conflict of interest screen in those circumstances: “Le ministre Champagne a répondu au Journal qu’il a demandé, même si le commissaire à l’éthique ne le jugeait pas nécessaire, qu’un filtre soit créé afin d’éviter toute perception d’un traitement de faveur.”
  • A subsequent Radio-Canada article, “Laurentia : l’embauche d’une ex-fonctionnaire fédérale par le Port de Québec dérange”, published January 20, 2021, quotes Mr. Champagne and the voluntary measures he chose to implement at the time: “‘Même si aucun conflit d’intérêts n’est survenu […] et que le commissaire aux conflits d’intérêts et à l’éthique n’avait pas déterminé qu’un filtre était nécessaire, j’ai demandé à ce qu’un filtre anti-conflits d’intérêts soit créé afin d’éviter toute perception d’un traitement de faveur et de prévenir une situation de conflit d’intérêts dans l’exercice de mes fonctions,’ indique le ministre. Cette mesure a pour but que M. Champagne ne participe à ‘aucune décision ou discussion, débat ou vote autres que ceux de portée générale ou qui le touchent au même titre qu’une vaste catégorie de personne’ à l’égard de Mme Gaudet.”
  • Radio-Canada’s April 18, 2019, article “François-Philippe Champagne officiellement dans la course pour les prochaines élections fédérales” features a photograph of Mr. Champagne “accompagné de sa conjointe Anne-Marie Gaudet” on stage at the nomination meeting where he was confirmed as the Liberal Party’s candidate in Saint-Maurice—Champlain for the 2019 federal general election.

Subsequent to the first news about Ms. Gaudet’s current employment coming to light, Mr. Champagne is reported to have provided the Toronto Star with a letter, said to be addressed to the Prime Minister, which refers to her as “someone close to me” for whom the minister was “proactively applying a conflict of interest filter”.

For this letter, I will assume that Ms. Gaudet is Mr. Champagne’s common-law partner. In the alternative, I believe that the facts are beyond doubt that she would be the Minister’s “friend”, for the purposes of the Act, namely someone “who [has] a close bond of friendship, a feeling of affection or a special kinship with the public office holder concerned”, according to the definition assigned by one of your predecessors, at page 15 of the Watson Report.

Ms. Gaudet’s interests furthered by Mr. Champagne’s support of Alto

In August 2025, Ms. Gaudet became employed by VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc. (a subsidiary of the Crown corporation VIA Rail Canada Inc.), which carries on business as Alto, as a vice-president of the company.

Alto’s main line of business, a new high-speed passenger rail service to be developed and constructed between Toronto and Québec City, featured prominently in the 2025 federal budget which Mr. Champagne tabled in the House on November 4, 2025, and the subsequent implementing legislation, Bill C-15.

In addition to summarizing Alto-related decisions taken previously – namely, the referral of the project to the Major Projects Office, the application of the new “Buy Canadian Policy” to its work, as well as the February 2025 decision to allocate $3.94-billion in new spending, through to 2029-30, for the “co-development” of high-speed rail – Budget 2025 made a further, significant announcement concerning Alto, at page 12 of Annex 5: “In Budget 2025, the government proposes to introduce legislation to accelerate the development of Alto high-speed rail.”

That budget commitment took on legislative expression in clauses 191 to 194 of Ways and Means Motion No. 7, to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, which was laid before the House on November 17, 2025. Following the adoption of that motion the next day, the resulting Bill C-15 was introduced with the same measures, also as clauses 191 to 194. Both Ways and Means Motion No. 7 and Bill C-15 stood in the name of the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Mr. Champagne.

Bill C-15 has subsequently received Royal Assent and the provisions in question, sections 191 to 194 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2025, No. 1, enacted the High-Speed Rail Network Act and make related amendments to other statutes. As previewed at page 42 of Annex 6 of Budget 2025, this legislation is geared “to streamline approval processes and reduce regulatory uncertainties for the Alto High-Speed Rail project.”

Its implementation would undoubtedly have positive effects for Alto and those associated with its plans and vision; conversely, had it failed to secure government or parliamentary approval, the interests of Alto – including its employees, such as Ms. Gaudet – would most likely have suffered seriously going forward.

The federal government’s decision-making process for budgetary measures – and with a view to facilitating budget secrecy – is typically kept to a very tight circle: namely, decisions are made by the Minister of Finance with the concurrence of the Prime Minister, as supported by their political advisors as well as officials in the Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office.

Given the indispensable role a Minister of Finance plays in the federal government’s budget process, on top of his involvement as a Member of the House of Commons in its parliamentary stages, I believe Mr. Champagne has breached several of his obligations under the Act.

Decisions as Minister of Finance

Subsection 6(1) of the Act prohibits public office holders from making decisions, or participating in the making of a decision, which they know, or reasonably ought to know, would provide an opportunity to further the private interests of a relative or friend. I believe that Mr. Champagne could have breached subsection 6(1) of the Act on at least two occasions in exercising decision-making authorities of the Minister of Finance:

  • Firstly, Mr. Champagne decided to include, in his November 4, 2025, federal budget, a commitment to advance legislation to the benefit of Alto.
  • Secondly, Mr. Champagne decided to include the High-Speed Rail Network Act, to the specific benefit of Alto, in the first tranche of legislation to implement his November 4, 2025, budget, placing that measure before the House as part of Ways and Means Motion No. 7 which was tabled, on his behalf, by a ministerial colleague on November 17, 2025.

As referenced earlier, Mr. Champagne has since provided media outlets with a copy of a letter which is said to have been addressed to the Prime Minister providing him notice of a proactively applied “conflict of interest filter”; this letter does not appear on your website’s published disclosures for Mr. Champagne, a choice which the minister’s spokesperson has attributed to you. With respect to the letter, the National Post has curiously reported that it “is marked Sept. 10, 2025, although the date is written in a different font than the rest of the letter.”

Perhaps these two particular decisions were correctly “filtered” away from Mr. Champagne, but that is a matter which I suggest you should verify through investigation, especially given that the balance of my concerns demonstrate that no filter was being applied.

Debating and voting

Subsection 6(2) of the Act prohibits public office holders, who sit in Parliament, from debating or voting on questions which provide an opportunity to further the private interests of a relative or friend. I believe that Mr. Champagne may have breached subsection 6(2) of the Act on 12 separate occasions:

  • On November 4, 2025, Mr. Champagne moved and spoke in favour of Ways and Means Motion No. 2, to approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, which included the commitment to support Alto with special legislation, immediately after tabling Budget 2025 in the House.
  • On November 7, 2025, Mr. Champagne voted in the House against an amendment to his budget motion which would have, instead, seen the House “reject the government’s budget statement”. Had that amendment been adopted, it would have led to the failure of the budget and its commitment to support Alto (as well as, likely, a dissolution of Parliament, preventing its further consideration).
  • On November 17, 2025, Mr. Champagne voted in the House in favour of his budget motion, providing the House’s endorsement of the government’s budgetary policy, including its support of Alto. Furthermore, under the House’s Standing Order 83(2), its adoption enabled the House to proceed, at a later date, to the consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 7.
  • On November 18, 2025, Mr. Champagne was present in the House to move for its concurrence in Ways and Means Motion No. 7. Though the motion was not a debatable one, parliamentary authorities equate the act of moving a motion with participation in debate; House of Commons Procedure and Practice (4th edition), at paragraph 12.46, states, “If the mover chooses not to speak, they are nonetheless deemed to have spoken. In fact, by nodding, the member is considered to have said, ‘I move,’ and this is taken as the equivalent to speech in the debate.”
  • Immediately after Mr. Champagne moved Ways and Means Motion No. 7, it was put to the House for a vote. While it was adopted by the House on division – that is to say, without a recorded vote – Mr. Champagne was present in the House for that “voice vote” and, as such, participated in that vote
  • Next, after Ways and Means Motion No. 7 was adopted, Mr. Champagne moved the necessary motions for the introduction in the House and first reading of Bill C-15, which included the High-Speed Rail Network Act to the exclusive benefit of Alto. As mentioned above, the act of moving a motion is equivalent to participation in debate.
  • On December 8, 2025, Mr. Champagne voted in the House against an amendment, at the second reading stage of Bill C-15, which would have, if adopted, seen the House “decline to give second reading” to that bill, thereby killing the legislation and its measures in support of Alto.
  • On February 5, 2026, Mr. Champagne appeared before the House’s Standing Committee on Finance in relation to its study of Bill C-15, where the minister spoke in defence of the government’s budget and its budget implementation legislation. Paragraph 16.61 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice (4th edition) notes that a committee is formally seized with debate on an early clause of a bill when witnesses appear.
  • On February 25, 2026, Mr. Champagne voted in the House against Motion No. 44, to delete clause 191 (which contained the High-Speed Rail Network Act) from Bill C-15. (The vote also applied to Motions No. 45 to 47, to delete clauses 192 to 194, setting out statutory amendments consequential to the High-Speed Rail Network Act). In doing so, Mr. Champagne voted on a measure directly touching upon Alto without it being part of a broader proposal of budgetary policy or budget implementation legislation.
  • Later that evening, Mr. Champagne was present in the House to move for its concurrence in Bill C-15, as amended in committee, at the report stage. As mentioned above, the act of moving a motion is equivalent to participation in debate.
  • Mr. Champagne’s motion to concur in Bill C-15 at the report stage was immediately put to a vote in the House and his vote was recorded in favour of it.
  • The following morning, February 26, 2026, Mr. Champagne was present in the House to move the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-15. As mentioned above, the act of moving a motion is equivalent to participation in debate.

Influencing others’ decisions

Section 9 of the Act prohibits public office holders from using their positions to influence another person’s decision so as to further the private interests of a relative or friend. I believe that Mr. Champagne may have breached section 9 of the Act by appearing before parliamentary committees on two occasions in defence of Bill C-15:

  • Firstly, on February 5, 2026, Mr. Champagne appeared before the House’s Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to its study of Bill C-15, where he spoke in defence of the government’s budget and its budget implementation legislation.
  • Secondly, on March 10, 2026, Mr. Champagne appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, in relation to its study of the subject-matter of Bill C-15, where he spoke in defence of the government’s budget and its budget implementation legislation. During the minister’s appearance, the Committee’s Chair, Senator Claude Carignan, asked about the proposed High-Speed Rail Network Act limiting certain rights of, and eliminating recourse for, some of Mr. Champagne’s constituents in respect of the Alto project, and specifically, “How do you explain that to your constituents?” Mr. Champagne did not demur nor did he cite a conflict of interest preventing his response; instead, he proclaimed, “Now we are delivering the goods”, before entering into further back-and-forth with Senator Carignan on the Alto-benefiting provisions of Bill C-15.

Failing to recuse

Section 21 of the Act requires public office holders to recuse themselves from discussions, decisions, debates and votes on any matter which provides an opportunity to further the interests of a relative or friend. Based on the events which I have recounted above, it would appear that Mr. Champagne may have breached section 21 on at least 14, and possibly 16, occasions.

If Mr. Champagne did recuse himself from deliberations or decisions during the budget development process, it would seem that he may have failed to make the public declaration required by subsection 25(1) of the Act.

This requires an investigation

An investigation is absolutely essential here, including to validate the existence and application of his unpublished “conflict of interest filter” in addition to all of Mr. Champagne’s parliamentary engagement on this matter, to determine whether the minister breached any of his obligations under the Act and to assure Canadians of ethical rigour in the federal government’s budgetary process and Parliament’s consideration of these proposals.

Should your investigation reveal other facts which I have not addressed, including any which were not capable of public observation, I would encourage you to broaden the scope of your examination to address whatever facts you uncover.

Thank you for your timely and thorough consideration of these concerns. I look forward to hearing from you that you will be investigating them further.