SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 200 - May/18/23

May/18/23 6:37:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 6:37:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 31, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

40 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/18/23 6:38:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am following up on a simple question that I asked the government earlier, which was whether it believes that McKinsey is an ethical company. We have not gotten a direct answer from the government on that, and I do not think it is a difficult question at all for reasons that I will explain later. Does the government think McKinsey is an ethical company? I ask the Government of Canada whether it thinks this private company is ethical because the number of contracts to McKinsey have gone up dramatically under the tenure of the government. McKinsey has received over $100 million in contracts from the government during the time the Prime Minister was in office, and this has happened in the context of various close relationships that existed: Dominic Barton, the global managing partner of McKinsey, advising the Prime Minister's growth council and recommending the creation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank; many McKinsey people going to work for the Infrastructure Bank; and McKinsey analysts doing so-called pro bono work for the growth council that therefore allowed McKinsey to infiltrate government and then get all these contracts. There is a long-running close relationship between the government and McKinsey that led to McKinsey getting over $100 million in contracts, and the government has since revealed that not all rules were consistently followed, in fact, in the awarding of contracts to McKinsey. There was a failure to follow the rules, there were clearly strategic efforts by McKinsey to integrate itself into the operations of government and there were people from McKinsey who were given prominent positions within government, like Dominic Barton, head of the Prime Minister's growth council and, subsequently, ambassador to China. While he was ambassador to China, although he no longer worked for McKinsey, McKinsey was involved in facilitating a meeting with the Infrastructure Bank that he attended. There were all of these suspicious interactions or integrations between the government and McKinsey. It is important to then ask this question: What is this company that has exercised such outsized influence over the direction of our country? I am asking this question today in the context where we just had an opposition day motion debated on the opioid crisis. We have this horrific opioid crisis in this country, and part of the reason we have an opioid crisis is that Purdue Pharma, working with McKinsey, fuelled that crisis. McKinsey gave Purdue Pharma advice on how to supercharge opioid sales, recommending things like paying bonuses to pharmacists in cases where there were overdoses and having online pharmacies that would circumvent the checks on addiction that traditional pharmacies put in place. These were the kinds of things that McKinsey recommended, and McKinsey has had to pay out significantly for it. It reached a settlement of over half a billion dollars in the United States. In the United States, McKinsey is being held accountable and being forced to pay compensation to victims of the opioid crisis. In fact, Republicans and Democrats, in equal measure across various states, have pursued McKinsey for this. However, in Canada, the Liberal government has a close relationship with McKinsey and has given it over $100 million in contracts. We have found out lately that the government is joining British Columbia's class action lawsuit against McKinsey over its role in the opioid crisis. In response to significant opposition pressure from members saying that these bad actors need to be held accountable, the government is finally saying it is going to take a step in that direction and join this lawsuit. However, it still has not been willing to say it is going to reform the integrity regime so that McKinsey does not get contracts in the future. What sense does it make for the government to continue to pour out largesse on McKinsey, hiring it for contracts of dubious value and spending over $100 million of taxpayers' money in the process, but it will not answer the simple question of whether it thinks McKinsey is ethical?

673 words

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

May/18/23 6:42:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this evening, I am pleased to speak about the procurement process in the federal government. This is a process that is run by a professional, non-partisan public service that Canadians can be proud of. Canadians can rest assured that public servants are held to the highest standards when they enter into contracts. Canadians can also be assured that public servants are guided by best value when they evaluate proposals and make contracting decisions. These contracts help the public service deliver the programs and services that Canadians rely on. The central document guiding the public service in the contracting process is “Directive on the Management of Procurement”. This directive came into effect in May 2021. The directive replaced the previous contracting policy, which had been in place for 33 years. After a one-year transition period, the contracting policy was rescinded. This directive was part of the government's plan to modernize policies on managing the assets and services the federal government acquires. The government is proud of this achievement. The directive is principle-based and focused on outcomes. It supports business owners, who are a critical partner in the procurement process, by outlining roles and responsibilities. It also places an emphasis on socio-economic, indigenous and environmental objectives, and I will get back to that point later on. The directive sets out guidance and obligations for the professional public service to follow when procuring goods and services. Fundamentally, the directive ensures that the procurement of goods and services continues to be done in a way that is fair, open and transparent. Canadians can be assured that these principles are the backbone of all government contracts. This is demonstrated in the objective of the directive, which says, “The objective of this directive is that procurement of goods, services and construction obtains the necessary assets and services that support the delivery of programs and services to Canadians, while ensuring best value to the Crown.” This objective is backed up with six results the directive intends to achieve. For example, procurement must support operational outcomes while demonstrating sound stewardship and best value. I would like to get back to the point I made earlier about the emphasis the directive puts on socio-economic, indigenous and environmental objectives. In 2019, the government made a fundamental change in procurement policy. It redefined “best value” to mean a balance between competitive pricing and best outcome. This means that public servants who evaluate bills are able to consider the socio-economic and environmental returns of their contracts. This extends throughout the life cycle of the good or service being purchased. This represents a fundamental shift in procurement, where best value is not always the lowest price but the optimal balance of resources and outcomes. This includes outcomes from a socio-economic perspective and outcomes for the environment. The directive reflects this policy change by enabling departments to use their procurement processes to support environmental, indigenous and socio-economic considerations, as appropriate, to achieve the best value for Canadians. To achieve this result, and all six expected results, the directive creates the new role of senior designated official. Each department will appoint a senior designated official who will be responsible for establishing a departmental procurement framework that consists of processes, systems and controls that will guide procurement in their department. The senior designated official is also responsible for developing guidance regarding procurement officials within their organization. This includes identifying competencies, building capacity and establishing professional development for these officials. The government has considered procurement carefully and taken a comprehensive approach in “Directive on the Management of Procurement”. Canadians can be assured that the professional, non-partisan public service is guided by a modernized directive on procurement that ensures that contracting is fair, open—

637 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 6:46:23 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

9 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/18/23 6:46:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for speaking from the heart tonight. However, in all seriousness, the words he read had nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked, which is not entirely unusual from the current government but is particularly obvious in the case of what has just transpired. These things used to annoy me. Now, I think we just have to laugh at the absurdity of the exercise. I will give the member another chance, I suppose. My question was this: Does he believe that McKinsey is an ethical company? If it is not ethical, should the integrity regime be reformed to ensure that companies that are responsible for fuelling the opioid crisis and that are being sued, finally, by the government for that, should not also be accessing massive amounts of government procurement? Is it an ethical company? Should the integrity regime be reformed?

150 words

Mr. Darren Fisher

May/18/23 6:47:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that under the directive on the management of procurement, as I said, professional, non-partisan public servants must maintain the integrity of the procurement process. Departments must obtain the best value in their procurement decisions, which has been redefined by our government to allow a comprehensive assessment of socio-economic and environmental returns throughout the life cycle of the good or service. The directive on the management of procurement is to establish guidelines and controls to guide the professional, non-partisan public service in achieving these goals.

94 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 6:48:03 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29, at 11 a.m. pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 20. (The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)

43 words