PACP Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, January 30, 2023
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
(1105)
[Translation]
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting No. 46 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The committee is meeting today to discuss its business. A notice of motion was given by Kelly McCauley, to whom I now give the floor.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I'd like to bring forth my motion that I put on notice last week. I'll read it into the record.
I move:
That the Committee report to the House of Commons that it asks the Auditor General to undertake a value for money and performance audit on the work done by McKinsey & Company on behalf of the federal government and Crown corporations since 2015, including the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), and also on the effectiveness of BDC spending more broadly since 2021.
The reason I'm bringing this motion forward is that there are a couple of issues. We've heard in the press, of course, about the massive increase of contract money to McKinsey and their tight links with the current government. There's taxpayers' money going to a company linked to rather unsavoury practices, for lack of better words and to be polite, such as the spread of fentanyl and the marketing of opioids through OxyContin, and their rather unsavoury ties with despotic regimes around the world.
I think we owe it to Canadians and to taxpayers that the Auditor General bring forth information on whether this money was spent well, but also, in the broader scope, why we are employing companies that, again, have such unsavoury business practices. We saw the $150-million fine, I think it was, for the marketing, through Purdue—the pharmaceutical company—for OxyContin.
We'd just like to have the Auditor General look into this for us.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Genuis, you're passing to Mr. Fragiskatos.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor and then I'll go back to Mr. Genuis.
Thanks, Chair.
Would the member be open to a small amendment? Instead of “since 2015”, we could say “since January 1, 2011”.
There is agreement. Okay, very good.
Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is still yours. Is there anything else?
It's a friendly amendment. I see no opposition.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Mr. Fragiskatos, could you just repeat the additional words for the clerk?
Sure thing.
It is, as I see it here in the third line, “and Crown corporations since January 1, 2011,” followed by “including the Business Development Bank”.
Mr. Chair, my grandfather had an expression that it's always best not to gild the lily. I think we should at this point proceed to a vote or to adoption.
That's remarkable restraint by my colleague, who is not always known for that.
Is there any opposition? Actually, I'll call for a recorded vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Thank you very much.
Before we move into an in camera discussion of some of the reports we've been studying, is there any other committee business that anyone else would like to raise?
Seeing none, I'll suspend so that the clerk and the technical crew can move us in camera. Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer