Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to take these few minutes to have the floor to address some preliminary committee business that pertains to this study, and I thank you for this opportunity to do so.
The committee should have before them a notice of motion that should have been distributed to the entire committee. While I respect that we have witnesses here before us today who can speak to the study, I believe that it's of critical importance for us to deal with the motion, because it is central to this committee's work and the ability to adequately investigate this McKinsey connection to the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Therefore, I would like to move the following motion, which has been circulated to the members of this committee:
That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1) and (2), in relation to the committee’s study examining the role of McKinsey & Company in the creation and beginnings of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB):
a) summonses be served on Dominic Barton, past Global Managing Director of McKinsey & Co.; Andrew Pickersgill, past Managing Partner of the Canadian Practice of McKinsey & Co.; Janice Fukakusa, Inaugural Board Chair of the CIB; Michael Sabia, past Board Chair of the CIB and past Member of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth; Bruno Guilmette, past Interim Chief Investment Officer and Board Director of the CIB; and Tamara Vrooman, Board Chair of the CIB, requiring each of them to appear at dates and times to be fixed by the Chair, but no later than May 11, 2023; and
b) the Committee strongly urges Annie Ropar, past Chief Financial Officer of the CIB, and the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Infrastructure, to appear no later than May 11, 2023.
Now, after the Conservatives served this motion on Friday, this motion to compel testimony, I understand that Ms. Vrooman has now accepted this committee's invitation to appear and that Andrew Pickersgill at McKinsey has requested that his McKinsey colleague Rob Palter appear before him.
I'm happy to amend the motion, Mr. Chair, to remove Ms. Vrooman's name, and we can also discuss whether we would like to remove Mr. Pickersgill if his colleague appears before him.
Also, after Conservatives made it clear that these witnesses will answer to the committee, I understand that current and former Liberal cabinet ministers, others at the Infrastructure Bank and McKinsey executives are also currently open to coming and checking their schedules.
Let me say for the record that until Conservatives gave notice of their intention to summon these key witnesses, we had a complete lockout of all the current and former board chairs and the directors of the Infrastructure Bank, including Mr. Michael Sabia, who is currently the deputy minister to the finance minister, Chrystia Freeland. In essence, the people with key knowledge of this study about McKinsey's contracts at the bank were not participating.
I also want to restate and reiterate that this committee agreed to study this issue unanimously. We consented to this study because of the deep connections that McKinsey & Company has had with the Canada Infrastructure Bank from its inception.
We also recognize broader issues, including the reliance on external consultants by this government. The government awarded $22 billion in contracts to outside consulting firms to do work that is clearly part of the public service's core responsibilities. Overall, these high-priced consultants cost Canadians $1,400 a year to every Canadian household. These decisions have led to a demoralized public service, and this has resulted in one of the largest public service strikes in Canada's history.
The bank was created on the recommendation of the former McKinsey global managing partner, Dominic Barton. Thereafter, we know that contracts in the amount of $1.4 million—non-transparent contracts, sole-source contracts—were awarded to McKinsey. Several McKinsey people were also hired at the bank, including the current CEO.
This is a taxpayer-funded bank, and Canadians deserve answers of transparency. That is why I am, frankly, astonished that this committee has put out over a dozen invitations to key people who have worked for the Infrastructure Bank, who have served on its board or who have been ministers of this bank, and we have not seen them respect those invitations to provide answers to Canadians.
How can we, as a committee, complete this study and investigate the role of McKinsey in the creation and the beginning of the bank, when those who were around at the time and who were directly involved are refusing to come and testify at this committee? It is extremely disconcerting that these witnesses, most of whom are paid by taxpayers, are refusing to come
It is shocking that these taxpayer-funded witnesses are refusing to appear before a parliamentary committee to provide answers to Canadians with regard to the bank's business dealings with McKinsey. These are taxpayer-funded executives, board chairs and hired consultants, who are paid six-figure salaries and who don't think they even have to answer to a parliamentary committee.
That is exactly why we have a problem with this bank. This committee's study shows why Canadians have a problem with this bank. The lack of transparency of this bank on contracts, on hiring, on salaries, on its project agreements, on its financing arrangements and on providing accurate information to Parliament on the status of current projects is why we have a problem with this bank. All of those things are an affront to transparency. Canadians expect, and deserve, more from the institutions they fund.
We have already cancelled one meeting because of this lack of co-operation, Mr. Chair. That cancelled committee meeting cost taxpayers. We lost valuable time as a committee to do the work Canadians expect us to do. Accountability starts at the top. Leaders are required to show up, especially leaders who earn six-figure salaries. Those whom Canadians elect should be held to the highest standards. They earn more money than the average Canadian taxpayer who is paying their salaries. That is why it is even more discouraging to members of this committee and to elected members of the House to see this unacceptable tone coming from the top.
Why is it that we have to strongly urge the current Minister of Infrastructure to show up and answer for his leadership on this bank? Why are all of the previous ministers on this file, which has been a revolving door of ministers, not willing to answer questions about the government's flagship infrastructure policy and how it has been executed? It's clear they are afraid of transparency, and they are afraid of the hard questions. If they have nothing to hide, they should come and they should come willingly.
Let me list the current and former elected officials who have not agreed to appear before this committee to answer questions on their ties with the Infrastructure Bank and McKinsey: current minister Dominic LeBlanc, no response; former minister Amarjeet Sohi, a minister who brought in the Infrastructure Bank, declined; former minister François-Philippe Champagne, no response.
I will say, to her credit, that the former minister, Catherine McKenna, has agreed to appear, and she is the exception in this entire group of Liberal cabinet ministers. This utter disregard and lack of accountability is a trend that starts at the top. Furthermore, this lack of co-operation is an affront to the authority of this committee and an affront to Parliament.
In closing, I sincerely hope that those we have invited to testify will come to committee, because they have first-hand knowledge of the beginnings of the bank and its contracts with McKinsey. Unfortunately, at this point, we are already looking at cancelling the next meeting of this study, because of the lack of co-operation from this government and from this bank. We need key witnesses, former bank chairs and executives with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and McKinsey to co-operate to get to the bottom of this issue.
If they do not come voluntarily, it is fully within the committee's authority, and entirely appropriate, to adopt a motion to summon key witnesses to allow this committee to truly investigate the issues and keep the publicly funded bank accountable.
Those are our respectful submissions. I suspect that other members of this committee may also have something to say about my motion.
Thank you.
