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.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
They would be along the lines of the most senior person from McKinsey in Canada, Dominic Barton, and other witnesses noted by this esteemed committee.
Mr. Jowhari.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I'm going to break this into two pieces.
One is current senior executives of McKinsey, which is not an issue, because this is about McKinsey and we want senior executives who are, at the end of the day, accountable, to be down here. There's no question about that.
As far as specifically naming one individual goes, I would suggest that we possibly have a side meeting when the list of all the witnesses is there and we collectively decide who we want. We are naming one specific individual who's an ex-McKinsey...and I understand that. I've read all the news. I have all the briefings. I understand why you're asking that question, but all I'm saying is let's not start establishing a precedent that we need to name a single witness in our motion. We've worked collaboratively before. I'm committed to making sure that we continue to do that. We will put forward a list of witnesses, and the list of witnesses will always follow the rules that we set at the beginning of this committee, i.e., that there will be proportional representation of witnesses, as we agreed, based on the percentages that we agreed on.
I can probably guarantee you that you're going to have that name coming in from all the committee members, but I just don't want to set the precedent of naming one individual only. As you can see, we are naming the senior executives of McKinsey and we're not limiting it to Canada; we're expanding it to senior executives. Naming one individual sets a precedent that I am personally not comfortable with.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks.
I'll go to Mrs. Vignola, but I will note that there has been a precedent set. As recently as two or three months ago, one of my motions specifically—when I was sitting in a better chair—called for J.D. Irving to appear. That was adopted by the committee, so we have done it. I understand what you're saying, but we have done it in the past, just very recently.
Ms. Vignola.
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In short, you made a suggestion about paragraph a). Currently, this paragraph has two subparagraphs on witnesses. I’d like to add a third subparagraph to propose a meeting lasting at least two hours with McKinsey’s representatives. If possible, we can add Mr. Dominic Barton’s name to the motion. If it’s not possible, if that creates a problem or precedent, we could specify that his resume shows that he was Canada’s Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, if memory serves.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Perhaps I'm belabouring the point, given Mr. Jowhari's response to Ms. Vignola's intervention, but all you have to do is go back and look at the motion we adopted when we agreed to study the ArriveCAN app. We listed ministers and their names. We listed the proponents of GC Strategies. If we believe that there is weight behind the request, because it's in the motion and this is something we are all agreeing to, then I would concur with Ms. Vignola that we should include, if not the person, then certainly the position that we want to hear from.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The clerk, I think, is almost ready to read back what I'm sensing is committee approval.
2:40 p.m.
Simon Larouche Legislative Clerk
Four amendments have been noted by the clerk.
Do you wish me to go back to the four amendments, or just the latest?
2:40 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I might ask for some clarification, given the last comment of Ms. Vignola. She mentioned a time frame of two hours. What I have is that “the most senior representatives of McKinsey & Company in Canada be invited to appear” be added to paragraph (a).
I don't know if anything else should be....
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I think the consensus from the committee—taking into account what Mr. Jowhari is saying—is that we're also naming Mr. Barton, and we're also adding in “and other witnesses as compiled by the committee”.
Mr. Green and Ms. Vignola, are we comfortable with that?
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay, Mrs. Vignola.
We limit it to the highest-ranking at McKinsey, and to Mr. Barton and other witnesses as decided by the committee. I think I'm sensing consensus with all that, so it's agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
It looks like we'll start on the very first meeting when the House is back in session. I assume, then, that the committee is agreeing that we'll start off with this study. I'm suggesting that for witnesses in the first round, understanding that things will be in flux.... I'm asking you for special witnesses by Tuesday of next week, so that our clerk has time to start sending out invitations, knowing that sometimes it does take a few days of advance notice to receive them—for example, for the bureaucracy, as noted here, to coordinate for the ministers—or to extend other invitations, and that, once received, you'll allow our clerk, me and our analysts to get back to you and to coordinate the meetings and the invitations.
Are we comfortable with that?
I have Ms. Kusie and then Mr. Jowhari.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Given that this story is moving so rapidly and we are finding out new information by the day, it seems, I have had some preliminary conversations with some of the members of the committee, and I just thought I would check the will of the room to meet potentially next week. Given the urgency of it, I thought I would throw this out there as a possibility, recognizing that it might be more difficult to get witnesses, but just given the urgency of the situation and the weight of the situation, perhaps you could check with the room as to whether there is an interest in meeting next week, please.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks. I understand that it's not the will of the room, I'm afraid.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I just want to get an understanding of when the suggested first date of this study is going to be. That's all.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It would be on the first Monday that we're back in session. I think we're back at 3:30 on January 30.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Also, it's Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. for witnesses, understanding as well that we may need to add some or adjust as we go, but if we could add that so we could allow our clerk to start filling in pieces as we go forward.... Are we comfortable with that? Is there anything else from anyone? Do we need to read the amendments through, or are we comfortable as we decided them?
Perfect: All are approved as we walked through and approved them. If there's nothing else—
Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc