Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Housefather has made a valiant attempt to help and defend the witness, but I want to clarify and underline our position, which is that there are not different lines. There is the same line. The line is that the witness, Mr. Barton, led McKinsey for about a decade, and during that time, McKinsey was involved in myriad ethical and moral scandals around the world, which the witness appears to have been largely unaware of on his testimony.
At the same time, he was working with the Government of Canada and advising the Prime Minister on a series of issues that would have had relevance to some of those same clients. The advice that he was giving to the Government of Canada would have had relevance to Chinese state-owned enterprises that McKinsey worked for, private sector clients, various companies that were regulated by the Government of Canada. It is not different lines, as Mr. Housefather suggests. It's the same line.
I obviously don't hold Mr. Barton accountable for the current activities of McKinsey or anything following his departure, but I think it is appropriate to hold the leader accountable for the things his company did or didn't do, which include providing advice to Purdue Pharma, advice that included paying bonuses to pharmacists for overdose deaths. That was something that came out of the culture that existed at McKinsey, sir, while you led McKinsey. However, you said you don't know about McKinsey's work on opioids, so let me ask you quickly a number of other questions about what you were or were not aware of.
Were you aware of McKinsey's work for the Saudi government during your time at McKinsey?