Government Operations Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[David Hutton]

You would expect to see some failures by any large consulting firm. That's correct.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 50 seconds.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Basically, gentlemen, because I really don't have time to get into any other line, thank you so much for being here today. I do look forward to chatting with you about whistle-blowing, because I do agree that we need to strengthen our laws on whistle-blowing.

I think that Mr. Garon will have some questions for you about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I would like to welcome Mr. Garon to OGGO. You have six minutes, please.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much. I am pleased to be replacing Ms. Vignola, who is at the United Nations.

I would like to thank Mr. Housefather for giving me the rest of his speaking time. That was very kind.

Mr. Hutton, when I think of McKinsey, I think of U.S. Steel, which was just presented as an isolated case. I also think of Enron, the commercial papers, corruption in South Africa, the tobacco industry in the United States, corruption in Saudi Arabia, the opioid crisis in the United States, the events in France during Mr. Macron's election campaign and a company that worked for the Chinese military and the U.S. military at the same time.

Is there any indication at all that McKinsey's ethical conduct improved before the Government of Canada did business with this firm?

[David Hutton]

I've heard quite a lot of discussion about ethical screens and so on in your previous testimony. Consulting firms are profit-driven, and we cannot expect them to put in place effective ethical screens. It's just not part of their mentality. They may refuse some contracts on the basis that there's too much reputational risk, but that's purely defensive; it's not in order to protect the public interest.

The other point I'd make is that the government's own consulting screen is something that appears.... Heaven and earth get moved to avoid it from working when there's a situation like SNC‑Lavalin and it might actually kick in and cause consequences for a Canadian company.

I would think that ethical screens are pretty weak on both sides. I would also say that the most important screen you need is one around competency.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

That brings me to the issue of immigration. During the holidays, Radio-Canada reported that McKinsey had put a great deal of pressure on officials, who resisted. The firm, together with its shareholders council, on which Mr. Barton sat, pushed to gain acceptance for the Century Initiative it was proposing. It would increase Canada's immigration threshold so that Canada's population would increase to 100 million by 2100.

Mr. Barton was asked if he had thought of the social consequences of such an initiative. He answered that he had not.

When I think of U.S. Steel, opioids and all of McKinsey's work, I tell myself that I would have imposed additional criteria if I were the government.

Is there any indication that the Government of Canada did so? Do you not think that if it had, it would have boasted about it?

[Dr. Benoit Duguay]

I do not have any privileged information. However, I read the comments made by Immigration and Citizenship employees, which were reported in Mr. Gerbet's articles. Some officials said, off the record of course, that immigration is a very complex issue and you cannot barge in and tell the department what to do. That is almost word for word what they said.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

The social impact is important. The government has to consider it. McKinsey does not.

[Dr. Benoit Duguay]

It is extremely important, especially since it is a federal-provincial jurisdiction. Many people have to be involved in the area of immigration. However, at this time, I do not believe that all these criteria have been met.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Duguay, my colleague, Mr. Housefather, began by somewhat trying to undermine the credibility of the witnesses who are here by asking them if they know something that we do not. We, the members of the opposition, asked for access to the contracts. The government refused, and stated that it was waiting for the contracts to be analyzed. At the same time, senior officials admitted that they warned subordinates to be careful about what they put in writing to ensure it would not end up in the hands of MPs.

Do you not find it odd that there is an attempt to undermine your credibility as a witness when the government is doing everything it can to prevent parliamentarians from obtaining only the information that has been made public? Do you not find it rather troublesome that these types of questions about your credibility are coming from the government?

[Dr. Benoit Duguay]

If I didn't find it odd, I would not have told Radio‑Canada on two occasions that I was very worried.

I realize it, and I am very worried. That is not normal. Either there is a contract or there isn't one. If you ask for the contracts under the Access to Information Act, why are they not giving them to you? It has been the same everywhere. It was the same in Quebec. The Quebec government was asked to provide information and we were told that they could not find any information.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I gather that you believe it is normal for parliamentarians to have access to that information.

Mr. Hutton, do you have something to add? Do you find it normal that we are not being shown the contracts, that the government is being given time to manipulate documents and, at the same time, that officials are being told to be careful about what they write down?

Would you be concerned if you were an MP?

[David Hutton]

I'm not sure that I heard the question clearly, but clearly there are concerns here, and the committee is right to be looking at this.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

We were talking about McKinsey's culture of secrecy. When we asked how the culture of secrecy was evaluated and the government's role in that, we were told, among other things, that we would have to read the contracts.

How can we, the parliamentarians, do our job if we are not given the contracts? At the same time, they are trying to undermine the credibility of witnesses by saying that all the information is public, which is not true.

[David Hutton]

I think that a committee like this should have strong powers of obtaining information.

It's a common problem that the people who hold the information have the power to reclassify it, to redact it and to make all kinds of excuses.

When there's private sector involvement, there's an additional level of complication, because the private sector company may make all kinds of claims regarding intellectual property, secrecy—you name it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Johns, you have six minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to bring back the motion that I tabled at the last meeting. I'm hoping we can get some resolution.

I had a chance to talk to committee members and I believe that the only thing might be is a subamendment around the date for witnesses. I'll put that out to the committee, but I'd like to get moving on a decision on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Does anyone have a change on the potential date for the witnesses?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

We are open to this motion. We would just ask that the closing date to accept witnesses be March 20. We are amending it to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you fine with the new date, Mr. Johns?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, are we fine with this motion?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will consider it adopted, then.

Thanks, Mr. Johns. Go ahead with your questioning now.