Transport Committee on May 18th, 2023

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Right.

Again, many of these questions are questions I'd love to ask Mr. Morneau. It's unfortunate that he wasn't able to join us.

In a 2017 article in the Globe and Mail, the interviewer asked you about conflict of interest, and you “agreed that potential conflicts must be avoided in these types of discussions.” It says here that you also said that “the nature of the work meant that any recommendations were the product of wide-ranging debate, rather than the opinion of any single member on the committee.” Here it's referring to the advisory council.

Does the fact that recommendations are the product of a group discussion, versus something coming from an individual, guard against perceived conflicts of interest?

[Dominic Barton]

I actually think it does. Again, just to the debate, we had very serious debates on pretty well every single issue that was there. We had a group of very strong-minded individuals.

I cannot underscore enough the importance of that debate and discussion. There were people who, for example, thought that the infrastructure target should be much more significant than it actually was. There were people who felt that, again, the brownfield approach was actually more important than was setting up the bank. We had all different types of views that were being put forward on, actually, every single recommendation.

The only time there probably wasn't as much debate was when we talked about some of the key sectors, like agriculture, that we thought were important to help support, but—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We have only a few more seconds. I am not an expert in managing conflict of interest or in governance, but I've never heard that ensuring discussions are in a group context is an effective way to manage perceived conflicts of interest, so I am a bit surprised by that.

My last question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 10 seconds, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The chair is cutting me off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes. Unfortunately you have eight seconds left, so you don't have time for another question.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll wait until the next round.

Thank you, Mr. Barton.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. You do have a round coming up, so you can hold your questions for then.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Barton, I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on February 1, where you testified. In your opening remarks, you mentioned that your appointment as Canada's ambassador to China went through a rigorous process. In fact, you said:

— 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.

A few months later, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates learned from the documents it received that there had, however, been communications, which is information you shared with us today in your presentation.

In particular, there have been email exchanges between McKinsey staff and the Canada Infrastructure Bank staff. These emails are clear. An attempt was being made to organize meetings of the working committee. On June 17, 2020, Zak Cutler of McKinsey sent an email to Annie Ropar of the Canada Infrastructure Bank in connection with organizing a working committee meeting. It seems that Annie Ropar's schedule was tight and that she was not available before June 23, 2020. The email also mentions that, since a certain Dom—meaning you—was alone, Mr. Cutler wanted to limit participation to Ms. Ropar and a certain John, while not offending anyone in a somewhat delicate situation. It seems that Mr. Cutler wanted to make sure that you would be able to speak freely.

Earlier, you said that this meeting had taken place. However, on February 1, you mentioned that, as ambassador, you had followed all the rules and that you had no connection with McKinsey. However, we have had access to some nice little emails between McKinsey and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The emails say that you will be there, but that care must be taken. Are you confirming that you lied on February 1?

[Dominic Barton]

I totally disagree with you.

Again, that was a request from Michael Sabia. I did not see that at all as a McKinsey thing. I recall that as a request from Michael Sabia. I didn't see any of those emails, so I don't know what they said or where they were, but I didn't receive the emails you're talking about.

What I received was a request from Michael Sabia to speak with him. I think the sensitivity relates to the fact that there was a reset going on and Michael wanted to have an open, candid discussion about where things were going.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Barton, you talk about Michael Sabia. We have emails here from Zak Cutler talking about a certain “Dom” and whose schedule says that he is available on June 23 between 8 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. You say that you are not aware of this, that you simply received a request from Michael Sabia and that the people from McKinsey know your schedule and availability. Do not take us for fools. You did it on February 1, but perhaps you should not continue today.

On February 1, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather asked you a series of questions to clear your name. It was obvious that this came from the Prime Minister's Office. I will quote one of his questions: “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 replied that it was completely accurate. Today, you are telling us that it was Michael Sabia who invited you, but that it was the people from McKinsey who corresponded about your schedule.

Do you maintain your position that you were never aware of anything, that you were not in contact with McKinsey and that the firm has nothing to do with the Government of Canada regarding your involvement?

[Dominic Barton]

What I'm saying is that McKinsey was not managing my agenda whatsoever. The request I received was from Michael Sabia to speak with him. I will respond to him when he asks if it's on the growth council. I have no issue with that.

I don't know what they found out.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Barton, there's something I'd like to know. You were the Canadian ambassador, you had an obligation to respect very clear ethical rules, and now you're telling us that you had no correspondence with the people at McKinsey.

How could the people at McKinsey know that you were free between eight and 9:15 in the morning on June 23? Is there Canadian embassy staff working with McKinsey to provide information about your schedule?

[Dominic Barton]

I would ask Michael Sabia about how that was set up. I have no idea what they were doing or where it was.

The request I received was from Michael Sabia. I'm not on any of those emails. I don't understand where that was—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Do you know Antonino Piazza?

[Dominic Barton]

No, I don't.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

He works for McKinsey, in the Montreal office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barton.

Thank you very much, Mr. Paul‑Hus.

Next we have Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. O'Connell, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for being here today.

Mr. Barton, let's follow up on that line of questioning, because Mr. Sabia was a witness here the other day and was asked a similar line of questioning about that email chain and the sensitivities. I'm paraphrasing here because I don't have the blues in front of me, but he said that to any normal person reading that exchange, the sensitivity was around not having too many people invited to a meeting so that you could have a candid conversation. The sensitivity was around not offending anybody they would not ask to attend the meeting.

Does that seem like a fair reading of that situation? That's what Mr. Sabia testified to.

[Dominic Barton]

It does.

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

Earlier in questioning around this particular meeting, it was described as a “McKinsey seminar”. To be clear, this was a request, as Mr. Sabia testified to, to get your input on or thoughts and ideas around the Infrastructure Bank. As you talked about, there was a period of regrowth, restructuring or relooking at how best to move forward. He said he was seeking opinions and advice.

Was McKinsey involved at all in that meeting?

[Dominic Barton]

I have no idea. What I remember is hearing Mark Wiseman. He spoke quite a lot. It was then just a conversation with Michael Sabia.

That's all I recall. I don't actually recall the details, except that it was, I think, at the most half an hour, because I was coming from a dinner that I wanted to finish before joining.

I certainly didn't see it as a McKinsey seminar. It was a conversation with Michael Sabia and Mark Wiseman about him taking on the new role as chair.

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

Thank you.

That was exactly how Mr. Sabia described it as well. It was simply about asking for input.

You mentioned at the outset, Mr. Barton, that you also provided advice to then minister Jim Flaherty and previous prime minister Stephen Harper. Minister Flaherty was the finance minister between 2006 and 2014. I note that McKinsey was awarded contracts during that time.

Were you ever questioned by Minister Flaherty or his staff about conflicts before McKinsey was ever awarded contracts while you were also advising Minister Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper?

[Dominic Barton]

No. I wasn't even aware that McKinsey did work at that time with him. Again, what he was asking for was advice on how to improve the productivity of the Canadian economy, how to expand our trade relationships and—

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

Actually, that sounds very similar to then minister Morneau's requests for economic growth and that advice as well. It seems that governments of both political stripes have asked you for your opinion on that.

At the same time, I think between 2011 and 2018 there were something like 24 McKinsey contracts, so they went across governments, and you were asked by both for your thoughts on how to grow economic prosperity in this country. However, it's interesting that you're only being questioned as if you had some conflict during the time there was a Liberal government and not when you were providing the exact same advice and requests to Minister Flaherty and then prime minister Harper, when McKinsey also did work with the federal government. You're not being accused of some sort of conflict of interest during that time. I find that quite interesting.

Did anybody from the PMO in Prime Minister Harper's days ask you about your work with McKinsey and if other government departments should perhaps not engage with it, given that you were advising the prime minister and Minister Flaherty at the time?