Thank you, Chair.
I would hope witnesses would be diligent in the words they use as well, in particular in the correspondence between those words and the facts.
To use sanitized language, this is a point of misinformation that is of significant consequence for this file because it seems that McKinsey was effectively able to infiltrate the government and shape decision-making on many levels and benefit from that shaping of decision-making. Mr. Barton's presence in and close relationship with the government allowed that to happen. I simply cannot square the fact that he has said in his testimony at OGGO that there was a “recusal” or a screen that prevented him from any dealings with McKinsey and that it was “excommunicado”. He repeated some of that testimony verbatim today.
It is impossible to square that with the fact that we have emails in which a partner at McKinsey is facilitating a meeting involving Mr. Barton and in the process has an intimate understanding of his schedule and availability. This is an obvious problem, and again, it is a problem of profound consequence because of the influence McKinsey has been able to exert over operational aspects of government and the significant increase we've seen in the money they've earned from government.
I'm also struck by the fact that McKinsey employees or former employees continue to come before various parliamentary committees and defend the alleged ethical track record of this company when not only do we have these problems of conflict of interest, but we have McKinsey's record in the opioid crisis and its record in assisting with the fingering of dissidents in Saudi Arabia, as well as its various other scandals throughout the world.
In the time I have left, Mr. Barton, I have one more question for you.
What other clients did McKinsey work for that have approved projects with the Infrastructure Bank?