Government Operations Committee on Jan. 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure there are a number of amendments, so I don't want to speak at too great a length about this particular one.

There is a risk that the farther we go back, the more we will start to dilute the work the committee is going to be able to do with an awful lot more information. Why is it that we're looking at these contracts with McKinsey in particular? I think Mr. Green spoke to the ethical questions with respect to the connections in particular between the Prime Minister and Dominic Barton and McKinsey. Also, there's the morality of the Government of Canada dealing with a company like McKinsey. Brand “Canada” is something I know we as Canadians are all very proud of. I'm very proud of it. When the government throws in with companies like this, not just by continuing to do the business it has always done with them but rather by increasing it by many orders of magnitude year after year, then is this a message that the Government of Canada approves of the ongoing involvement of this company in some of the things my colleague, Ms. Kusie, outlined?

We're talking about election spending scandals in France and corruption scandals in South Africa. We're talking about helping countries like Saudi Arabia identify, hunt and target individuals who are critical of their government so they can punish them and their families. Of course, something we're all aware of is the opioid crisis we're facing in Canada and in North America, and McKinsey's role in working for Purdue Pharma in supercharging opioid sales and availability. They're basically giving Purdue the road map to light an inferno that continues to engulf communities and sweep up and take lives right across our country. That is specifically why we're talking about McKinsey. The rise in the numbers of consultants hired by this government is astronomical when you look back.

I don't think there's a limit on the comparisons that could be made, but it's important that we consider why it's McKinsey in particular. Why is this example of outsourcing the one that finds itself in front of this committee? In some of the initial reporting by CBC in early January, there were public service whistle-blowers. I'm not talking about any of the other service providers. We're not talking about things that took place 10 years ago or under previous governments. I want to quote from the CBC article:

“We had a few presentations on very generic, completely vapid stuff. They arrived with nice colours, nice presentations and said they would revolutionize everything,” one of the sources said.

“In the end, we don't have any idea what they did,”.... [It was] “nice marketing” that “isn't science.”

We were spending $100 million, and the bureaucrats don't know what they were doing. We do know, from those same whistle-blowers, that McKinsey had a hand in transforming policy, not just in management consulting.

It's important that we keep our eye on the prize and remain focused in what we're doing here. I hope we're able to maintain that focus as we move through the amendments that are being proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Barrett.

Do we have a consensus on the date changes proposed by Mr. Housefather?

(Amendment agreed to)

We'll consider that adopted, with all the dates changed to January 1, 2011.

Mr. Housefather, do you want to continue with your suggested amendments?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. Let me just interrupt.

There's always the issue, unfortunately, of limited resources. Right now, we're at 2:16. I'm getting signals from our clerk that we're probably good for about another hour to another hour and 20 minutes, just so everyone's aware.

Please go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just to set everybody's expectations, I do not think the amendments I have are complicated or controversial. I have only two more.

The next amendment basically just relates to the time frame of production of documents by the departments, agencies or Crown corporations in paragraph (c).

Because these have to be translated before they get to the committee—when they come from the Crown and the departments—given the volume of documents that are presented and requested, I do not think having them show up at the committee in three weeks is going to be possible. My request would be to amend “three” and have “five weeks of the adoption of this order”, but to have them provided on a rolling basis.

Basically, Mr. Chair, we would say that “within five weeks of the adoption of this order, on a rolling basis, and notwithstanding any non-disclosure agreements,” so that we get the documents as soon as they're translated. The last ones would come in five weeks. We don't want to say that they have to translate all of them in three, because I don't think that is going to be possible.

I would, Mr. Chair, distinguish between paragraph (c) and paragraph (d), where we're ordering McKinsey...because my understanding is that McKinsey will provide us with documents in only one language and we will have to translate those as well. I think three weeks is fine for those. It's only in paragraph (c), where they get translated before coming to the committee, that I'm asking for three weeks to be changed to five, but with the clarification that they be provided on a rolling basis. I think that's a reasonable suggestion and that would make it easier for the departments to get us the information.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We seem to have consensus.

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Just for clarification, I wasn't sure that I caught the exact reference that Mr. Housefather made. The only change was in (c), “in both official languages and within three weeks of the adoption,” so the only change is that it would say, “five weeks of the adoption and on a rolling basis”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

My understanding is that it's as they become available and in five weeks at the latest. That was in the first part of (c).

Was there another part of that, Mr. Housefather, that you were referring to?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

No, Mr. Chair. It's exactly what Mr. Barrett just said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's just the one change to five weeks and then as they become available after being translated.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I just think, Chair, for clarification, that all parties, everyone involved, would be well served if that instruction came from the chair to the responding entities with respect to what our expectation is. We've seen challenges with departments that don't respond or that say it will be a lot of trouble. They come back after the deadline and say, “Well, now we could start to furnish you with them on a rolling basis.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's a very good point.

What I'm going to propose to the committee is that I will work with the parties and our clerk to come up with precise language in a letter regarding our expectations. We've just seen, unfortunately, with GC Strategies, that despite our best efforts and despite the committee having asked for all documents, the documents they provided were short of invoices. To avoid that, again, I will work with the parties and with the clerk to come up with an encompassing set of requirements—I'll provide it in advance—in terms of what we are going to ask for.

Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just so I'm understanding the change that is going to be made in paragraph (c) and, I'm assuming, (d), it would read, “to provide the clerk of the committee on a rolling basis, in both official languages, within no more than five weeks....”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, it would not apply in paragraph (d). It would be only for (c) because in (d) they don't provide it translated, so we should get it in three weeks so we can translate them. It's only for the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll ask for the same thing—that as they are translated, they be released to the committee.

Are we comfortable with that?

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, my—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see that.

Madam Clerk, you're muted.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

I apologize. I was just looking for clarification.

Do you want to make the language “on a rolling basis” or “as they become available” for precision in the translation of the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think “as they become available”.

[The Clerk]

Okay. Do you mean “within five weeks of the adoption of this order, as they become available”? It's just a final call for the language, to make sure we don't have various versions floating around.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do you have something, Ms. Vignola? No. Okay.

That's an excellent point. Thank you. Having two clerks is like having two referees on the ice at the same time. It's wonderful.

Are we comfortable with that?

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Housefather, it's back to you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

My last simple amendment relates to the amount of time for which each minister is invited to appear. Normally, as you know, ministers are invited to appear for one hour, and then we have the officials for the hour after. I'm not sure we're that interested in the officials.

My suggestion is that I can amend this one of two ways: to say “at least one hour” instead of “at least two hours”, or “for an opening statement and then at least two rounds of questions”, which I think is the more reasonable thing, because I think the committee is probably concerned that the minister is there for only one round of questions.

I propose that it be amended to say, “each be invited to appear for an opening statement and at least two rounds of questions”. That would mean the minister would be there for two rounds of questions. I think that is fair, and normally it wouldn't be for two hours.

That would be my other amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm looking for anyone who wishes to speak to that.