Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 708
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, thank you for giving me some time, Viviane.
Mr. McAleese, I just want to echo Madam Lapointe's comments. I don't think attacking other witnesses is very appropriate.
By the way, it's nice to see so many Anthonys on the panel.
My first question is for Rogers. I want to ask a question about the NDA that Globalive talked about. I used to be the general counsel for a multinational. I'm very well aware of what NDAs are normally signed at the beginning of the process. Is it true that you asked Globalive in that NDA not to engage with government, and to identify to you and give you veto power over any investors in the transaction?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Staffieri, I understand very well that they sign standard NDAs. What I'm saying is that the elements identified by Mr. Lacavera in his testimony are not standard in the NDA at the beginning of this type of process. Is it true that the NDA required them not to speak with government, and to identify to you and give you veto rights on investors? That would not be in a standard NDA.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Did the other bidders sign your standard NDA with no changes?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to members of the committee for giving us a chance to have a bit of a break to discuss the motion that we had not seen, even though we had asked for it on Monday and again on Tuesday. I'm hoping, in the context of the study, that we will all work together across party lines co-operatively. That would include sharing things like the motion in advance. That didn't happen in this case, and I'm a bit disappointed.
I want to say, just as a precursor, though, that I think this committee has a really important.... The chair has mentioned many times that this is the mighty OGGO and how this committee is very important—and it is. It's very important that parliamentarians have an oversight role over government. This committee has a very important oversight role, and the study on McKinsey is an important part of our oversight role in the context of our study on outsourcing, which is a much broader question: What should be done by the public service, and where is it reasonable?
In some contexts, it is reasonable to give contracts outside. We can use this as part of that overall study to look at that specific issue and come up with recommendations that hopefully this government and all future governments may take into consideration and adopt with respect to when we outsource and when we don't.
I also agree with what Ms. Kusie said, that there's another question we could look at that would be a policy question: When should a company's actions abroad that become in the public domain—where we know there are settlement agreements and we know there are allegations going on in other countries—lead to us having an internal discussion about whether that company's standing offer should be cancelled or suspended and whether or not our current policies go deeply enough into researching what is happening with companies that may be on our list abroad?
There are a lot of policy issues here that we can work on together. I'm not of the mind that there's anything inherently wrong in terms of how the government engaged McKinsey or what occurred in respect of any of these contracts, but I'm happy to engage in the discussion and look through them all, so that we can all, with our own clear heads and based on the information we receive, find out. The goal here is to ensure that Canadians are well informed.
I have a couple of amendments, Mr. Chair. I'll make them separately, one by one, so that there's no confusion.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I will speak very slowly.
The first amendment, Mr. Chair, would be to change the dates. I would replace all places where it states “November 2015” with “January 1, 2011”. I would also replace all references to “2015” with “2011”.
In some places there's a month and a year, and in some places there's just a year. In all the places where there's just a year, I would change it to “2011”. In all the places where there's a month and a year, I would change it to “January 1, 2011”.
I would just like to repeat it in French: replace all the instances of "2015" with "2011", and replace every instance of "November 2015" with "January 1st, 2011".
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is basically to give us an overview. We've been talking about the contrast between how McKinsey dealt with the previous government and how it dealt with this government. I think it would be useful to also have one term of the previous government to see what the contracts were and the assorted information that's being requested on McKinsey going back the four previous years. I don't think it would be much more work to deliver this information in addition to what's already been requested, which is pretty voluminous.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I do, Mr. Chair, but I don't want to confuse unnecessarily by making them part of one amendment. Should I go to the next after we've dealt with this one, or would you rather I give you all of them right away?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Just to set everybody's expectations, I do not think the amendments I have are complicated or controversial. I have only two more.
The next amendment basically just relates to the time frame of production of documents by the departments, agencies or Crown corporations in paragraph (c).
Because these have to be translated before they get to the committee—when they come from the Crown and the departments—given the volume of documents that are presented and requested, I do not think having them show up at the committee in three weeks is going to be possible. My request would be to amend “three” and have “five weeks of the adoption of this order”, but to have them provided on a rolling basis.
Basically, Mr. Chair, we would say that “within five weeks of the adoption of this order, on a rolling basis, and notwithstanding any non-disclosure agreements,” so that we get the documents as soon as they're translated. The last ones would come in five weeks. We don't want to say that they have to translate all of them in three, because I don't think that is going to be possible.
I would, Mr. Chair, distinguish between paragraph (c) and paragraph (d), where we're ordering McKinsey...because my understanding is that McKinsey will provide us with documents in only one language and we will have to translate those as well. I think three weeks is fine for those. It's only in paragraph (c), where they get translated before coming to the committee, that I'm asking for three weeks to be changed to five, but with the clarification that they be provided on a rolling basis. I think that's a reasonable suggestion and that would make it easier for the departments to get us the information.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, Mr. Chair. It's exactly what Mr. Barrett just said.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, it would not apply in paragraph (d). It would be only for (c) because in (d) they don't provide it translated, so we should get it in three weeks so we can translate them. It's only for the translation.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, my—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My last simple amendment relates to the amount of time for which each minister is invited to appear. Normally, as you know, ministers are invited to appear for one hour, and then we have the officials for the hour after. I'm not sure we're that interested in the officials.
My suggestion is that I can amend this one of two ways: to say “at least one hour” instead of “at least two hours”, or “for an opening statement and then at least two rounds of questions”, which I think is the more reasonable thing, because I think the committee is probably concerned that the minister is there for only one round of questions.
I propose that it be amended to say, “each be invited to appear for an opening statement and at least two rounds of questions”. That would mean the minister would be there for two rounds of questions. I think that is fair, and normally it wouldn't be for two hours.
That would be my other amendment, Mr. Chair.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's correct, Mr. Chair. It's in the fourth line of paragraph (a), and it would replace “for at least two hours” with “for at least an opening statement and two rounds of questions”.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I am, Mr. Chair.
It would be an hour and twelve to do three rounds, but I'm comfortable with the end result of an opening statement and three rounds of questions. If that's the consensus of the other parties on the committee, I'm okay with that, too.
Results: 1 - 15 of 708 | Page: 1 of 48

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data