Evidence of meeting #47 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
That's correct, Mr. Chair. It's in the fourth line of paragraph (a), and it would replace “for at least two hours” with “for at least an opening statement and two rounds of questions”.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
In the interest of fairness and compromise, I like the two-hour response from Mr. Green, but given the opportunity for opening statements and an hour or at least three rounds of questions, nothing is belaboured. Then the second and third opposition parties would have a total of 11 minutes each for questions over three rounds. I think that's enough.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's a good point. That's what I was expressing. We would get six minutes, and the second round would be five minutes, but then the other two parties would have only two and a half.
I'm looking after you, Mr. Green and Mrs. Vignola.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mrs. Vignola brings sweets, so you had better step up, Mr. Green.
Are we comfortable with an opening statement and a full hour? I think we can get through three in an hour.
Are we comfortable with that, Mr. Housefather?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I am, Mr. Chair.
It would be an hour and twelve to do three rounds, but I'm comfortable with the end result of an opening statement and three rounds of questions. If that's the consensus of the other parties on the committee, I'm okay with that, too.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's the opening statement and three full rounds. I see consensus.
(Amendment agreed to)
Thank you.
Was there anything else, Mr. Housefather?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
There's nothing more from me, Mr. Chair, but I just want to point out one thing. I'm not proposing to amend it, but I believe that because only McKinsey was in the motion that came to the committee, it would be beyond the scope if I proposed to amend it to add something else. I just want to let Mr. Green know that.
On the last part, number (viii) in paragraph (d), where we're asking McKinsey for its complete client list of all organizations, personally I don't care, but I think it's going to be pretty upsetting to McKinsey to be asked for all its clients around the world. I am wondering if we want to clarify whether that is just in Canada or worldwide. Again, I think it's a burdensome thing for any contractor of the government to be faced with having to provide its client list, potentially, to a committee. If the opposition parties all believe it's important, I'm not going to propose an amendment. I just want to point that out, and I think we should check whether the scope is Canada or the world. Thanks.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
When we're talking about, as I mentioned before, the issue of our country's brand and our government's integrity, we have the mixing of these contractors with our public service, so the public doesn't know where one ends and the other begins. We know who works for our federal public service. They're accountable for their actions to their employer, the Government of Canada, and ultimately to taxpayers.
This is a company that has a dubious record on the world stage. I'm not going to itemize or offer new examples, although there are several. I think it's very important for Canadians to know who the government is doing substantial business with. We've seen some examples today of who McKinsey is dealing with worldwide. Frankly, if it's not willing to share with Canadians who it's doing business with, well then perhaps it's not interested in doing business with the Government of Canada.
I think this is a question of accountability. I think it's eminently reasonable for us to ask for this, and I look forward to the response.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
As I said earlier, I want to get answers. Naturally, I would have preferred two hours to ask questions, but thank you nonetheless for proposing three rounds. That will give us 11 minutes for questions. It’s never enough to ask all our questions, but it still presents several advantages, including the opportunity to ask follow-up questions and get the answers we otherwise might not be able to obtain ourselves.
The big question, the one on clients, is interesting. I understand it might be pointless, because McKinsey will not want to give us a list of their clients, but it is important for us to have it. Indeed, it would allow us to finally determine if the government really is working to achieve the objectives people elected them for, or the objectives gently whispered into their ears by foreign influence. The people elected us, and we are the ones who have to make decisions. We can use consultants, of course, but if they are the ones who establish national objectives at the end of the day, that's a problem, especially because the ones we are discussing are foreign. No one wants Canada, especially not Québec, to become an American suburb. I want to protect my language and interests. As I said earlier, we want to know if Quebecers and Canadians paid twice for the same service. If we use foreign experts, when we already have experts here at home, it’s not very logical.
Now, to come back to the issue before us, I’d like us to ask for the client list. I see a significant gap in the motion, unless I have read and reread it incorrectly. We are asking for McKinsey’s documents, but we are not asking its representatives to appear here. We must do so to hear their answers. It would be hypocritical not to include them in our list, because we are talking about them. We want to know who makes the decisions, but we have to ask McKinsey’s representatives that question as well. We therefore must add them to the list, including Mr. Dominic Barton, to get answers to our questions.
That would be an amendment, to be added to those already proposed.
I would now like to ask a question out of simple curiosity. Given the current rumours, should we specify the names of ministers we want to meet? For example, in the motion, we should perhaps specify that we want to invite Mr. Sean Fraser, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, to make sure he’s the one who appears, in case there is a change in the department and the new minister doesn’t know anything.
I'm making the suggestion, but I’d like to get your opinions first.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure whether it's necessary to do that, because all the members can submit a witness list, and in their witness list they can ask for the minister to show up. If they want to name him, I don't think there's an issue, but....
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I think you have a good point there.
Back to your comment that it would be good to have the minister for two hours, that would be my preference as well. I'm going to suggest that if we reach the point where one hour's not enough, perhaps we could get a motion from the floor to bring him back.
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Do you agree that, in the motion, we should add McKinsey’s representatives to the list of witnesses summoned before the committee? Personally, I can only invite one witness, given my position within the committee. Since the McKinsey firm is at the heart of the motion, I’d like us to name its representatives so that they come and testify before the committee.
Currently, we are asking them to provide documents, and we are asking for documents about them, but we are not summoning their representatives. They must come.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's a fine point. I'm going to make the assumption that we can provide for that in witness lists provided to the clerk. The assumption is that we're not limited to just those specified here. Is that clear for you, Madame?
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
It’s clear, more or less.
I’d have liked for the McKinsey firm and Mr. Dominic Barton to be named in the motion, like the ministers. I understand we will each have to provide a list of witnesses, but as I said, I’m entitled to ask for just one witness. So, if I’m the only one to ask for Mr. Dominic Barton, I cannot ask for other witnesses that I would have liked to hear from. It would be more logical to name them in the motion. That would let us list other witnesses we would also like to see.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have not sat on this committee for as long as many others have, and I have only the most recent precedent of the study that we introduced on ArriveCAN. In that one, we saw that we needed to have a very detailed motion in order to get the information we felt was needed to demonstrate to Canadians that we were leaving no stone unturned. I'm wondering if you could advise what the precedent would be for including the names of some other witnesses in a motion to ensure that we have the weight of the motion behind the request for individuals to appear.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
To address this, Mrs. Vignola, would you be comfortable with this? At the end of (a) we can add “witnesses from McKinsey, witnesses as proposed by OGGO, and specifically Mr. Barton”.
I'll go to Mr. Green and then Mr. Jowhari.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Having been privy to similar types of studies, I think it's important, when dealing with corporations, that we're requesting the most senior person in the country. What we don't want is for them to send a lawyer who doesn't have access to the information and who stonewalls the committee.
It's listed here that the senior partner in Toronto for McKinsey is Ms. Baghai. I don't know if that's the case, but I would ask that the request go to the most senior person in Canada or their global equivalent, a senior-ranking executive who would have the information, not some legal team that's going to come here and stonewall the committee.
I'll share with you that on other committees I'm involved in—and I'm sure Mr. Barrett and others who've been involved in them would attest to this—if a legal team is sent, we can forget about getting any kind of useful information. It ends up being a waste of our time, quite frankly.
The demand would be that somebody from McKinsey come, somebody who has a senior enough position to be able to speak to the matters at hand. That would be my only addition.
I support just going ahead and naming them right now, naming McKinsey and naming Dominic Barton, and then allowing our other witness suggestions to be free and clear of those.