Transport Committee on May 18th, 2023

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I've sat on committees where the headset no longer works or something happens, and the committee proceeds with asking questions of the witness and they supply the response in writing.

Absolutely that's not ideal, but this is a hybrid format, which is not what we have done in the past, and we've made do. I don't see why we couldn't have our questions posed to the witness since he's here, and then allow the responses to come back to the committee. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we've done that in other committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Go ahead, Dr. Lewis.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Chair, the rules clearly show, as do the cases in our principal book, that written interrogatories are different. They produce different responses from oral evidence.

There is a right for citizens and taxpayers to question the executives who were in charge of certain functions. Written interrogatories are very different. We do not prefer that manner. We will be bringing a motion to have him come back and give evidence in an oral format.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

Can I propose to members that we move forward as Mr. Genuis has proposed, with the witnesses we have appearing before us?

Perhaps, with 10 minutes left, I can suspend for us to discuss this further, or we can resume it at the next meeting. Does it work for members to do that at the next meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll begin with the line of questioning from Dr. Lewis.

I'll turn the floor over to you for six minutes, please.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Good afternoon, Mr. Barton. Thank you for being here today.

In your testimony at the OGGO committee on February 1, you gave the following evidence. I'm going to quote your testimony. You said:

First, I want to be clear that I have had no involvement whatsoever in any awarding of paid work to McKinsey by the federal government since I relocated to Asia in 1996. In joining the public service as ambassador to China in 2019, I underwent a thorough conflict of interest process with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that my prior roles with McKinsey and elsewhere would not conflict with my public service obligations. That included a full proactive recusal that screened me from dealing with McKinsey and, of course, any decisions made by the federal public service relating to McKinsey.

You went on to say, “There were extremely strict rules and protocols put in place. Basically, it was excommunicado.” You were speaking about McKinsey. You continued, “There were very strict processes and protocols followed. If anything ever came in, it went to the deputy head of mission or the deputy.”

Mr. Housefather then asked you, “I would assume, then, that anything that came in, with respect to McKinsey.... As ambassador, you were completely excluded from this and had no part in any discussions.” You responded, “That's exactly right.”

We have this testimony you gave at OGGO, and it was false, indeed. Mr. Sabia, the former chair of the CIB, testified here at committee on Tuesday that you participated in a McKinsey seminar that was led by McKinsey while you were ambassador. You have now confirmed this information today.

Mr. Barton, it is very concerning that you didn't reveal this in your testimony to OGGO. Why did you not reveal this meeting, Mr. Barton?

[Dominic Barton]

Thank you very much for your question.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, that request came from Michael Sabia. In fact, to be specific about it, I think he wanted to hear from me and Mark Wiseman. I responded in order to help on that.

I was actually only able to be there for about half the meeting because I had a dinner that night. It was Michael Sabia who was asking me for the meeting. If Michael Sabia, who was the chair, asked for the meeting, in my capacity as a former growth council member, I thought that would be good to do.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My question was why you didn't reveal that at OGGO. You said it was excluded. It was “excommunicado”. You did not reveal that meeting until after Michael Sabia came to this committee. It was revealed that you participated in this meeting with McKinsey while you were the ambassador to China. The emails clearly confirm that this took place.

For clarity, you're confirming that as the ambassador to China at the time, you had the time to participate in a McKinsey-led workshop at the height of a diplomatic crisis when the two Michaels were unlawfully detained in China. Is that what you're confirming to me, sir?

[Dominic Barton]

No, I'm not confirming that aspect of it. What I'm saying is that Michael Sabia asked if he could get my views as he was taking on the chair role. That's what I responded to.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That was at a time when we had a diplomatic crisis with the two Michaels. Is that correct? It was in June 2020.

[Dominic Barton]

Absolutely, and I'm happy to talk in more detail about that, or you can talk to the two Michaels about it, but having a conversation with Michael Sabia in my role I see as no issue whatsoever.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I believe it was the very same month that you participated in that McKinsey workshop, in June 2020, that China formally charged the two Michaels more than 18 months after their arrest.

Why would you think it was important as the ambassador to China to carve out time from helping the two Michaels come home to participate in a McKinsey workshop with the Canada Infrastructure Bank? This is the very company that you were supposed to have recused yourself from and that you knew was a conflict to associate with. Why was this seminar so important?

[Dominic Barton]

As I said, it was Michael Sabia who asked for the call, and I did it. I had a dinner that I actually had to do, so I joined it with, I think, half an hour left. Nothing changed in terms of my appointments or roles as ambassador. I think you're exaggerating things there. Again, I'm happy to do a half-hour call if Michael Sabia wants some views on things.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

How many seminars of this nature did you do, since you said you were happy to do that?

[Dominic Barton]

That's the one. That is the conversation I had.

There may have been other times that Michael Sabia called me. I can't remember. We could look through that. The Infrastructure Bank was I think a very important initiative and—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'd be happy if you could look through that and if you could report back to the committee on how many times you had requests of this nature from Michael Sabia and you communicated with Michael Sabia pertaining to McKinsey and the Infrastructure Bank while you were ambassador to China.

[Dominic Barton]

I just want to clarify. It's not related to McKinsey. Michael Sabia would call me.... I've known him for a while, and when he was taking on a new role like this, he wanted to get input. He called other people as well. That was the context.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Did you report this interaction to the Ethics Commissioner?

[Dominic Barton]

I didn't feel the need to, because this was a conversation that Michael Sabia requested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barton, and thank you, Dr. Lewis.

Next we'll go to Mr. Chahal.

Mr. Chahal, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today and providing testimony.

I'm going to start off with Mr. Barton.

Through our previous discussion, it was determined that the former Conservative government's P3 infrastructure program invested about $1 billion, and so far we've seen about $27 billion invested by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, as identified by Mr. Cory previously. Mr. Guilmette today talked about the $100-billion deficit in infrastructure across Canada.

Mr. Barton, given your extensive work with governments—Conservative governments, as you identified, in 2010 with former finance minister Jim Flaherty, and once again in 2013 with former prime minister Harper on the Canadian advisory committee on the public service—you have had a lot of experience over the years with federal infrastructure and abroad. Could you please comment on Canada's infrastructure gaps and why attracting private investment in public-private partnerships is essential to addressing the infrastructure gaps that Canada faces?

[Dominic Barton]

Sure.

First of all, I would echo a lot of what Janice said at the outset, and also Bruno, in terms of the gap. That gap was estimated at anywhere between $100 billion and $1 trillion at the growth council. There was quite a wide range of it. As was mentioned—I think Minister Morneau was able to say a couple of things at the beginning—this approach of having infrastructure banks has been done in many different parts of the world. Australia is one example in particular, but there are many others.

Interestingly enough, Canadian pension funds participate and actually invest Canadian pension money in these infrastructure projects. I think Canada is world class in the investment on infrastructure. From the growth council work, we saw a very significant gap. It related to everything from commuter-related services to green energy. It related to resources and the need to build pipelines and so forth that are required to get products to the coast. There was a whole range of areas that were identified as opportunities.

The view would be that we don't need to have the government putting money into this. We can attract private capital, much like Australia, Chile, Brazil, the U.K. and other places have done. Canadian pension funds are major investors in U.K. infrastructure. If we could attract that capital to help us in closing the gap, it very much was seen as a win-win. It would be great if we could spend more on ourselves, if you will, as opposed to it all going outside and attracting the money. I think that was the basis of it.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you for that.

Previously, a number of our witnesses, including Mayor Brown and Mayor Sohi, who are current mayors, identified the important investments in their regions on zero-emissions buses and the importance of them. I think for Edmonton, Brampton and Calgary, to use those as examples, that was about $1 billion. That equals almost the same amount that the Conservative government previously invested in infrastructure through their P3 program.

The $20 billion so far is an incredible amount to help fix the gap that you've just identified, Mr. Barton. What suggestions do you have for the Government of Canada to further address the infrastructure gap we have?

[Dominic Barton]

It may be better to hear from some of the executives in the group on where that is, because I'm a little out of date, but I think there are a significant number of projects. You mentioned green energy and wind and solar renewables. That's a very significant opportunity across the country, but there's also basic transport infrastructure to get our agricultural products out. There are some significant investments there. I think there's quite a long list.

I think the thing the CIB does well is it assesses, from those many different projects, where to invest. I think the great thing about having private capital is that it ensures the CIB can stand on its own two feet. It ensures that it's not just being subsidized; it will be able to continue and earn returns. I think the bank plays a really important role in that by ensuring high-quality projects, and the more that are done, the more cases are laid out, and I think there's a significant opportunity there.

I'm happy to hear, frankly, that it's getting close to $30 billion, but I think quite a lot more is needed. Hopefully we'll see more of that over time.