A shortage of Canadian farm operators is looming as more than 40% of farm operators will retire over the next decade, according to a new report.
A report from the Royal Bank of Canada, Boston Consulting Group’s Centre for Canada’s Future and the Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph states Canada will be short 24,000 general farm, nursery, and greenhouse operators.
The report estimates that 66% of producers do not have a succession plan in place, leaving the future of farming in Canada in doubt.
The report recommends Canada bolster agriculture education in order to build a pipeline of domestic operators and workers. Further, it also suggests Canada will have to rely on immigrants to fill the shortage of workers by accepting 30,000 permanent residents by 2033.
The Trudeau government’s relationship with farmers and western provinces has deteriorated in recent months as the government has proposed a nitrogen emission reduction policy for farmers.
As exclusively reported by True North in the Fertilizer Files series, Agriculture Canada has cited the European Union’s Farm to Fork (F2F) framework as an inspiration for Canada’s own fertilizer targets, which include a voluntary 30% reduction in nitrogen emissions by the year 2030.
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers put out a scathing statement in February accusing the federal government of ideological capture and failing to base their 30% fertilizer emissions reduction target on science.
Further, Saskatchewan Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre explained in a March interview how the province is hedging against a potential fertilizer mandate by passing the Saskatchewan First Act.
“There is a cross referencing between federal powers and provincial powers over agriculture. There always has been. It’s a little bit unique, in that regard, in contrast to, for example, natural resources,” explained Eyre.
“This is important, though. The day-to-day business of farming, and use of fertilizer, has always been within the provincial realm.”
Amid scrutiny about her claims to Indigenous ancestry, the president of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador (MUN) was finally turfed in the middle of her seeking shade with a temporary leave of absence.
Vianne Timmons’ apology last month for the hurt she may have caused by invoking Mi’kmaq heritage didn’t cut it with an Indigenous-led roundtable investigating her appropriation.
Her voluntary leave of absence ended with her dismissal.
Timmons joins a growing list of academics trying to put a feather in their caps by falsely claiming Indigenous backgrounds.
It’s almost as if the coolest thing an academic can do is hijack some First Nations or Metis membership – until caught, that is.
Validity seems unimportant.
Hundreds of Indigenous scholars, administrators, students and elders from across Canada had a virtual meeting last year, for example, to talk about how to prevent people who falsely claim they are Indigenous from taking benefits that aren’t intended for them.
The National Forum on Indigenous Identity was organized by the First Nations University of Canada (FNUniv) in partnership with the newly formed National Indigenous University Senior Leaders’ Association (NIUSLA).
The event was announced after a CBC investigation into Carrie Bourassa, who at the time was Canada’s leading Indigenous health scientist, found she had falsely claimed to be Indigenous.
Jacqueline Ottmann, the president of FNUniv and co-chair of NIUSLA, said it is time for Indigenous people across the country to address this issue together.
She said while there have been pretenders around for years, the problem is getting worse because of a growing number of scholarships, grants and jobs intended specifically for Indigenous people.
“With the increase of these opportunities, it seems there has been an increase of people who are claiming Indigeneity,” said Ottmann.
A student at Memorial University says the focus needs to be on the wider issues facing the Indigenous population following news yesterday that Timmons is no longer the MUN President.
Timmons came under fire in the final months of her tenure for claims of Indigenous heritage.
Beth Jacobs, a representative on the student union and an executive on The Circle of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Students, says the issues at hand are far greater than a single person claiming to be Indigenous.
She says Timmons has been at the center of the discussion while greater issues of systemic racism, colonization, and neo-colonialism have been “dismissed.”
That has caused more harm to the community, says Jacobs, because at a time when the community is grieving and trying to process shock they have not had access to direct action.
And now, Jacobs says, Timmons is moving on without having to face any accountability. As well, they say because of Timmons’ dismissal, the Board of Regents and other areas of the province will not take accountability for systemic racism, instead pinpointing it on one person.
The Innu Nation says while the departure of Vianne Timmons from Memorial University closes the door on the issues surrounding the former president, larger issues policy issues about Indigenous peoples at MUN still need to be addressed.
This includes what they say is the “growing problem” of people and groups who wrongfully claim to be Indigenous.
The Innu Nation says the University can no longer sit on the sidelines on this issue and must take proactive steps to address it.
Earlier this year, retired senator Lillian Dyck said she was “stunned” to see reports questioning the Indigenous heritage of former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, whose career she had celebrated.
Dyck, who is Cree and Chinese Canadian, said in an interview she thought “hallelujah” as Turpel-Lafond became Saskatchewan’s first Indigenous female judge in 1998.
It was “wonderful” to know Turpel-Lafond had overcome the numerous challenges Indigenous women disproportionately face in their personal lives and careers, said the professor emeritus in psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan.
A former McGill university student successfully obtained a defamation settlement after being wrongly accused of sexual assault by a female student in 2020.
Declan McCool sought $1 million from a woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2020 as well as McGill University, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) and three of its executives, the Engineering Undergraduate Society of McGill University (EUS) and the publisher of the McGill Daily newspaper and three editors. McCool’s initial suit said their actions or inactions resulted in income loss, pain, suffering and reputational damage.
As reported by the Montreal Gazette, the amount McCool received in his settlement is unknown. However, McCool’s lawyer, Christopher Spiteri, says that he is satisfied.
McCool, who was Internal Vice President for the McGill student union (SSMU), first became aware of the sexual assault complaint on Mar. 12, 2020 – just weeks after he was acclaimed to the position.
He was interviewed by a student investigative committee on Mar. 22. The latter refused to reveal to him any details about the accusation or the accuser’s identity. The committee later concluded that there was an over 51% chance that the alleged sexual assault had taken place.
McCool was banned from all student events where alcohol was served, suspended without pay from his student union position and denounced online by three other student union executive members who “(portrayed) him as a sexual predator.” McCool also quit the McGill men’s rowing crew and was kicked out of his fraternity housing.
Meanwhile, McGill’s student paper, The McGill Daily, published articles about the issue featuring anonymous comments from McCool’s accuser. McCool says the publication did not reach out to him for comment. He was also told he could not respond to public statements made about him.
McCool launched an official appeal against the accusation on Apr. 22.
Lawyer Anaïs Lacroix was hired to conduct that appeal, and conducted interviews with McCool, his accuser and 17 witnesses over the course of the summer of 2020. McCool was finally made aware of the details of the accusation during that process.
According to Lacroix’s report, McCool and the eventual accuser met on the evening of Feb. 25 for drinks. They engaged in sexual intercourse that night and then again on the morning of Feb. 26.
McCool maintained that the sex was consensual, while the accuser claimed she was too intoxicated to give consent. None of these allegations have been tested in court.
Lacroix concluded that the two were likely equally drunk and that the woman had given affirmative and continuous consent to McCool. Amid the balance of possibilities and evidence, she said McCool did not commit sexual assault and granted him the appeal.
The Gazette notes that Lacroix’s report referenced several text messages sent by the accuser to friends that show both an intent to engage in sexual relations with McCool and possible motives behind accusing him.
In a text sent on Feb. 26 at 1:30am, the accuser said she was contemplating having sex with either McCool or another student union executive. She then texted, “Declan it is. ” Evidence submitted in the defamation suit notes that she later sent her friend a picture of McCool sleeping naked in bed with her.
“Witness testimony and evidence suggest that the complainant had expressed a desire to run for SSMU VP internal — the position that Mr. McCool was elected to,” Lacroix’s report states.
“She brought up this desire when first disclosing her allegations to a group of friends on or around March 14. Screenshots show that she brought it up again in messages to her friends dated April 12, when discussing her intention of releasing the second McGill Daily statement. She writes to the group: “What if I run for the position Declan makes the connection and tries to sue me for defamation for the sake of his position” and, “I need to think logically and like a shark.’”
At first, McCool was only given a two-page summary of Lacroix’s report. He was able to get the full report and then unseal it after going to court.
McCool’s lawyer said that “this has been an extraordinarily difficult three years for Declan. It’s time for him to get his life back.” McCool declined to provide further comment on the matter.
Meanwhile, Lawyers for McCool’s accuser and for the other defendants declined to provide comment to The Gazette. Some of the parties did however issue statements.
McGill University deputy provost of student life and learning Fabrice Labeau said in a statement that the school “believes that fair investigations conducted in good faith and respecting the right to be heard of both parties is the best way to ensure the proper treatment of allegations of sexual violence. Declan McCool was entitled to due process as the respondent to one such student-led process. It is McGill’s wish that all students be treated fairly.”
Meanwhile, The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) said that it “acknowledges that as a result of its actions, Declan McCool was unable to complete his position as an elected (SSMU) executive. … The SSMU acted based on the information that was available at the time, and it resulted in unintended harm to Mr. McCool. Given the information that is now available, the SSMU would have acted differently.”
The student’s union is also revising the way that it investigates complaints “to better integrate the important principles of due diligence and procedural fairness.”
The Engineering Undergraduate Society board of governors stated that it “understands the principle of fairness, has learned from this experience and is committed to do better moving forward. Declan McCool was entitled to fair treatment. Had the EUS known all the facts at the relevant time, it would have conducted the investigation differently.”
Meanwhile, the McGill Daily, which had not reported on McCool winning his appeal or on the evidence of Lacroix’s report until Monday, issued a two-page statement from its publisher.
“McCool deserved fairness and was denied it,” says the McGill Daily publisher’s statement. “He deserved due process, a voice and complete information so as to be able to make a full and complete defence. DPS regrets any distress this situation may have caused.”
McCool lawyer believes that “everyone involved has a new appreciation for fairness, due process and getting all facts before rushing to judgment.”
“When our system and well-intentioned policies are abused, it doesn’t just irreversibly damage one person, it also undermines legitimate complaints. In this age of social media and instantaneous transmission of information, we have to do better.”
Last month, former Liberal MP Han Dong made headlines when Global News reported allegations from anonymous intelligence sources that Dong was a “witting affiliate” in China’s election interference networks. The sources claimed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and senior Liberal party officials had ignored warnings from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service about Dong, which Trudeau denied. Former CSIS intelligence officer Andrew Kirsch joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to discuss why he is not happy about the leak of classified documents from his former organization.
Over the past year, Canadian gun owners have faced increasing challenges and changes to firearm laws and regulations. Many have expressed concerns about the lack of evidence-based policies and the impact of blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights spokesperson Tracey Wilson joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to discuss the ongoing war against guns, how some provinces are fighting back, and why it is important to preserve Canadian firearm rights.
The Edmonton Public School Board plans to spend $1 million to fund a virtual school which it claims will address “systemic racism.”
According to a Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division agenda, the board will give $1 million over two years to fund virtual schools. In its first year, the program will fund 200 students.
In a report, the board says that virtual school “rethinks” the purpose of school and acknowledges that traditional conceptions of schools are hindered by a largely Eurocentric worldview.
“In order to address issues of systemic racism and the unnecessary marginalization of groups of students within our learning communities, Virtual School will center curriculum and pedagogies around Indigenous, holistic, digital, and place based practices,” the agenda reads.
It further says that virtual school will respond to challenges students face in a traditional classroom setting, like anxiety, mental health, poverty, transiency, cultural responsiveness of curricula and pedagogy. It also says that space in the region’s high schools are limiting capacity.
The Alberta Parents’ Union executive director Jeff Park said the 2019-2022 school years revealed that virtual schooling is not the right fit for every student.
“Also, the large and growing South Asian community in Edmonton would be surprised to hear many of their educational preferences referred to as ‘Eurocentric’ and associated with ‘systemic racism and unnecessary marginalization,’” Park told True North.
Following two years of intermittent remote learning, a Horace Mann report from October 2021 found that more than half of US public school K-12 teachers said the pandemic resulted in a “significant” learning loss for students, both academically and socially.
Horace Mann found that more than 97% of educators saw learning loss in their students in 2021, when compared with children in previous years. Another 57% of teachers estimated that students are behind by more than three months in their social-emotional progress.
In November, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she won’t permit schools to move classes entirely online anymore after hearing parents and students have told her they desire a regular school environment following the pandemic.
The virtual school is an initiative from the Bennett-Argyll-Metro school. The Edmonton Public School Division would provide the “student-centered, blended, hybrid” learning.
“This blended or hybrid approach will deliver virtual learning and local in-person opportunities for those who would like access to enriched experiences,” the agendasays.
The board already received a partial grant funding of $12,000 from Alberta Social Innovation: Community Catalyst Fund.
An EPSB spokesperson told True North the board has submitted a number of grant applications from different orders of government and other organizations seeking funding for this pilot project.
“We are still waiting for approval on a number of the applications, therefore, we cannot provide an exact breakdown of funding for this project at this time.”
Park also said it’s good that a large school board is responding to Alberta’s robust system of choice and competition by innovating and providing more options.
“If families want more of this pilot program, it will flourish,” he said.
“If families want something else, they will seek out those options. That’s the beauty of trusting parents to be their children’s best advocates over educrats at EPSB or Alberta Education.”
A year ago, Russia waged a full-scale war against Ukraine. The USA, Great Britain, Canada, the EU and Japan, as well as most of the democratic world, rallied behind Ukraine and imposed thousands of sanctions against Russia, including restrictions on gas companies from the aggressor nation. Despite economic losses in certain EU states, the “sanction democratic front” remained united for several months.
Russia began actively seeking ways to bypass sanctions restrictions, even resorting to blackmailing by stopping gas supplies to Europe. By exploiting issues with the pipeline through Ukraine and the need to repair gas pumping units with foreign equipment, Russia made every effort to turn the energy carrier into a weapon against Ukraine, Europe, and the rest of the world.
Some countries, particularly those heavily reliant on Russia for gas supplies, began to waver in their compliance with the imposed restrictions. In response to Germany’s request (which depended heavily on Gazprom for almost one-fifth of its energy balance), the Canadian government decided to grant Siemens Canada a “time-limited” exemption from the sanctions to return a repaired turbine for the Nord Stream-1 gas pipeline. The turbine maintenance work was carried out in Montreal at Berlin’s request, although Opposition politicians suggested that high-level lobbying by representatives from Montreal influenced some decision-makers in Ottawa.
When Germany requested Canada to exclude the maintenance of Siemens turbines from the sanctions, they hoped to improve Germany’s relations with Russia and adequately prepare for the winter. However, goodwill did not benefit either Germany or Europe. Russians used the exemption from the sanctions policy to establish a precedent. Exemptions and waivers may become the new normal, posing a risk of undermining the basic mechanism and function of sanctions.
It was predictable that Kyiv would react strongly to the Canadian government’s decision. However, many European and other global capitals described this decision as the “greatest concession to Putin.” Civil society organizations began active campaigns against the aggressor’s concessions, including the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), which immediately filed a lawsuit in a Canadian court over the government’s decision to transfer the Nord Stream turbine to Germany.
The case had been registered, and relevant procedural actions were ongoing. It is evident that the Liberals did not respond too actively to the Opposition’s constant demands to expedite the parliamentary investigation into this case.
Nonetheless, at the insistence of the Conservatives, the Committee thoroughly examined the issue off and on over a five-month period. It was expected that a decision would be reached in October, at the latest. However, regulatory procedures and the non-appearance of one witness delayed the issue’s consideration. The deliberate holdback was undoubtedly influenced by the explosions of pipelines, which stopped Nord Stream-1 from operating for years or perhaps forever.
But this did not absolve the Canadian cabinet of the headaches caused by an ill-conceived decision in the summer.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and the Minister of Natural Resources released a rather sly statement on December 15, 2022, justifying once again the arguments that prompted them to adopt such a permissive stance on July 9. They noted that everything was now disavowed in agreement with partners, allies, and Ukraine. The statement could be interpreted as a diplomatic way of shutting down any discussions of this topic within Canadian political discourse.
This diplomatic move is a form of acknowledgment of the inappropriateness of discussing this topic. Moreover, the turbines are no longer necessary for the dysfunctional Nord Stream. However, the opposition is unhappy with these cunning measures to prevent parliamentary investigations of the decision-makers concerned.
Genuis, G. [@GarnettGenuis]. (2022, December 15). Conservatives have called for this permit to be revoked since the beginning. Liberals filibustered my motion to revoke the permit and delayed hearings. Months later, while pulling the permit, they still try to justify this obviously terrible decision. #cdnpoli #StandWithUkraine [Image attached] [Tweet]. Twitter.
Conservatives have called for this permit to be revoked since the beginning. Liberals filibustered my motion to revoke the permit and delayed hearings. Months later, while pulling the permit, they still try to justify this obviously terrible decision. #cdnpoli#StandWithUkrainehttps://t.co/cizZ1OpSJg
It is important to discuss the recent situation involving Canada’s decision to grant a sanctions exemption to Siemens Canada, which has been widely criticized as a concession to Putin’s Russia. This serves as a warning to politicians in Western countries who may be tempted to make similar concessions in the face of the aggressive actions of Russia. The enemy is always seeking loopholes to undermine the strong progressive and democratic alliance that supports Ukraine, and the Canadian precedent is a confirmation of this fact.
Furthermore, there are ongoing negotiations to ease sanctions on Russia’s export of mineral fertilizers and oil and gas supplies, which only serves to underscore the multidimensional nature of this hybrid war. This makes it all the more important to emphasize the role of checks and balances and parliamentary oversight in developed democracies, as demonstrated by the actions of voters, their representatives, and Ukrainian associations in Canada.
Canada has always been a steadfast partner, friend, and ally to Ukraine, and this remains true today. No amount of manipulation or pressure from Russia or its allies will lead to a change in policy from Ottawa. Together, we will continue to defend democratic values and support Ukraine in its fight against aggression and evil on all fronts.
Daryna Ostrovska is a Policy and Communications Advisor to Conservative MP Garnett Genuis.
Defence Minister Melanie Joly is condemning a tweet from Russia’s Canadian embassy that called new NATO member Finland a “nuclear target.”
It’s like a Cold War 2.0, a reminder of the mid-1900s when fear of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union was top of mind, with schools having ridiculously naïve drills where students “hid” under their desks while a huge nuclear plume supposedly hovered nearby.
Finland earned the wrath of the Kremlin when the Scandinavian country officially joined the NATO military alliance on Tuesday, a move triggered by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
The tweet, from the Russian embassy’s official account, accused outgoing Finnish prime minister Sanna Marin of abandoning the country’s long-standing policy of non-alignment.
“[Marin] succeeded in converting neutral Finland that enjoyed good relationship (sic) with all countries including Russia into another potential nuclear target,” the tweet reads.
“The Russian regime’s nuclear rhetoric is reckless. We will never hesitate to call out their dangerous propaganda,” a spokesperson for Joly’s office said in an email to the CBC.
.@MarinSanna succeeded in converting neutral 🇫🇮Finland that enjoyed good relationship with all countries including 🇷🇺Russia into another potential nuclear target. And has left her office. Have the Finns benefited from that in general and in terms of security in particular? pic.twitter.com/DRElxv7kGF
The embassy’s statement falls in line with Moscow’s increasing use of nuclear rhetoric which NATO recently condemned as “dangerous and irresponsible.”
On Sunday, NATO criticized Russia for its “dangerous and irresponsible” nuclear rhetoric, a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
“NATO is vigilant, and we are closely monitoring the situation. We have not seen any changes in Russia’s nuclear posture that would lead us to adjust our own,” a NATO spokesperson said.
Asked if the statement by Canada’s Russian embassy could lead to Canada expelling Russia’s diplomats, Joly’s office said they didn’t want a tit-for-tat that would lose Canadian diplomatic staff in Moscow.
This brings us to NATO funding.
As all this was happening, NATO Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg casually lit the room while welcoming Finland into the group by talking about funding.
He especially wanted to look at 2% of GDP as being enough for member states to contribute into the alliance, which he obviously believed wasn’t enough.
“We will also address how to ensure that allies are investing enough in defence, and we will start preparations for the summit in Vilnius, where I expect allies to agree a more ambitious pledge, to regard 2% of GDP for defence not as a ceiling but a floor, a minimum, that we should all meet,” Stoltenberg said
In late March, for example, NATO published an annual report that shows Canada’s defence spending amounted to just 1.29% of GDP in fiscal 2022-2023.
The pressure on Canada to focus on funding the needs of its own military, as opposed to the overall alliance, is growing — especially since Russia’s full-on invasion of Ukraine last year.
Canada’s latest talking points are that Canada has the sixth largest defence budget in NATO and the country is among the top contributors to the alliance’s $4.8 billion common fund, the budget that pays for the headquarters, joint operations and major construction investments.
Yet it still falls short of the once agreed-upon 2% of GDP, which the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed off on but also failed to meet.
In a French-language speech delivered in Montreal last Tuesday, France’s Ambassador to Canada Michel Miraillet trumpeted his country’s recent boost in military spending and proposals for deeper European military cooperation.
He suggested Canada needs to demonstrate a similar commitment to global security.
“The same goes for Canada and its weak defence effort, nevertheless, somewhat forgetful of the memory of its past commitments, of the courage shown in all major conflicts, as in peacekeeping operations,” Miraillet said in remarks quoted by The Canadian Press.
This week on the Alberta Roundup with Rachel Emmanuel, Rachel discusses Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s legal notice to CBC News.
Rachel also covers rising crime statistics in Calgary and Edmonton, and Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek’s response to a tough question about her record on defunding the police.
Finally, Rachel has an important update about election tabulators being used in the upcoming provincial vote.
The Liberal government has a dubious track record when it comes to national security in general, but recent testimony from the defence minister on the McKinsey Scandal revealed yet another potential vulnerability. Our defence department is casually contracting with a third party who also works with hostile regimes. They should stop.
McKinsey is a global management consulting company that has received over $100 million dollars in federal government contracts during the tenure of the Trudeau Liberals. These contracts raise many important questions, and the Government Operations Committee is studying them. The Minister of Defence testified before the committee recently about contracts between her department and McKinsey.
McKinsey’s work with the federal government raises many concerns, but there are some particular issues associated with their work for the defence department.
A central part of McKinsey’s selling proposition is that they simultaneously work for multiple clients across an industry. The tradeoff associated with hiring McKinsey is that, while they will keep strictly proprietary information secret, they have probably learned general best practises through working with your competitors that they may use when working with you and they will probably learn general best practises through working with you that they might use in their work with your competitors.
This kind of learning and sharing might be fine in certain situations, but it can be a serious problem when government work is involved. McKinsey has, for example, simultaneously done work for regulators and for entities that they regulate, such as working for pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical regulators in the United States in the years leading up to the opioid crisis. Regulators should not want entities that they regulate gaining a privileged understanding about their organizational culture by hiring a particular group of third-party consultants.
Indirect ‘learning’ through third party contractors like McKinsey is a particular problem when national defence is involved. If McKinsey is working for the Canadian military and for other militaries at the same time, then indirect learning may be happening in this case as well. We therefore need to know which other militaries McKinsey is working for at the same time, and whether the same analysts who serve our military are also serving the militaries of hostile foreign actors.
I asked these questions to the Liberal Defence Minister and she could not answer. It is well known that McKinsey keeps its client lists hidden, but this is vital information for at least her and her department to know. Are the people advising our military on organization and structure simultaneously working with our strategic foes? We know that McKinsey has worked with state-affiliated entities in Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, but we do not know the full extent of those engagements. Neither, apparently, does our defence minister.
After I repeatedly asked Minister Anand which other countries retained McKinsey to do work for their departments of defence, the Chief of Defence Staff chimed in to try to help. He acknowledged that he also did not know which other defence departments McKinsey had worked for, but said: “when these companies work with our allies, we can garner that sort of expertise to help us out ourselves.” This was a striking comment, insofar as it was an admission by the Chief of Defence Staff that McKinsey is able to learn information working for a defence client which they then apply in their work for another defence client. Surely we can find consultants or other methods that help us learn about the approaches of our allies without worrying that those third party consultants are also working with Moscow and Beijing. With McKinsey, we are flying blind.
Trying to help further with the government’s defence, the Deputy Minister declared: “The nature of the work is not sensitive. It’s HR, benchmarking and data.” The problem with this claim is that the government has still refused to release details of these contracts to the committee trying to study them. The government implicitly acknowledges that lessons learned through working with our defence department could be applied in other ‘client engagements’, dismisses concerns by saying that the information is not that sensitive, and still will not share the apparently “not sensitive” information with Canadian Parliamentarians.
This testimony further underlines that the government’s relationship with McKinsey stinks. We need to continue to fight to access all of the necessary documents and get to the bottom of what is happening.
