44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/21/23 10:18:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important topic, and I want to recognize the work of my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon, our shadow minister for trade, who is thinking very much about how to not only advance Canada's economic interests in trade, but also apply moral values and principles to the approach we take to trade and the importation of products.
When most Canadians think about slavery, they think of history. They think of stories they have heard or read, or movies they have seen, about the Underground Railroad, the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, the American Civil War, and figures such as Abraham Lincoln and William Wilberforce. These are important things for us to learn about from our past to understand the ongoing legacies and harms that resulted from that violence.
However, we need to also immediately associate the reality of slavery with the contemporary experience. The ongoing reality is that there are people, many people, in our world today who are enslaved, who are forced to work against their will without pay, or without proper pay, and who are compelled into those positions as a result of various forms of disadvantage, in many cases because of their ethnic identity. As well, we have trading relationships with countries that are involved in the horrors of modern-day slavery.
When we reflect on the injustices of the past and wonder how people allowed that to happen or why people were so indifferent, we need to then pull that reality up to today and ask why we are not doing more. It was not everyone, but many people were so indifferent to the horrors that were happening around them at those times. We need to ask why today we are not more seized with the reality of modern day-slavery and with the actions we need to take in order to respond.
A few years ago, I visited Whitney Plantation, and it was a powerful exposition of the horrors of slavery as it existed in the United States in the past. It is very important for all of us to bring that reality forward and recognize the continuing horrors of slavery today.
There are limits to what those of us in Canada, whether we as Canadian parliamentarians or members of the Canadian public, can do to respond to these horrors, but at a minimum, we should be setting a firm standard of not being complicit. That is, we should be doing everything within our power to not be in any way supporting or enabling the practice of slavery around the world. That includes firmly saying no to the importation of any products made from slave labour.
I think there would be agreement in the House on the principle that we should not be purchasing products made from slave labour, but the problem has been the complete absence of will on the part of government to implement this. As my colleague said, we have seen no shipments of products from the Uighur region in China stopped as a result of slave labour. There was one case of a shipment that was stopped and then subsequently released.
We can compare that level of enforcement to the much stronger levels of enforcement we have seen in the United States and other countries. Any time we have a significant gap of enforcement on an issue in Canada, and we can say a similar thing about foreign interference, frankly, and there are high levels of enforcement, such as shipments being stopped and people being arrested or expelled for spying, etc. in other countries, then we need to ask if this is because Canada is not being targeted or if it is because Canada is not being effective in its enforcement.
We should not have a situation where ships containing products made from slave labour are told they cannot dock in Seattle but then have the same ships with the same products dock in Vancouver. That is not, in any way, morally acceptable.
Let us acknowledge as well that international supply chains are complicated. Saying as a moral absolute that we should not be importing products made from slave labour is something I hope we can all agree on, but figuring out the systems and processes that are going to get us there is potentially challenging and complicated. However, what my colleague has said, and rightly so, is that we should simply work with the Americans to collaborate and align our enforcement, using the information and research they have already gathered. That would make the enforcement process much simpler.
I would like to to see us go further than that. I would like to see us gathering together like-minded partners from around the world to ask if we can have a common standard, as well as common tools of enforcement to keep out products made from slave labour.
Given the research and analysis that is required, if we can have a group of like-minded partners, G7 countries, or perhaps others, saying that we will all work together to ensure the effective enforcement of rules around keeping out products made from forced labour, then it would be less resource-intensive for us to do that work. We could simply say that, if an analysis has been done collectively among allies or by a trusted agency within a country that says that there is a high risk that particular products were produced with slave labour, then those products will not be able to be sold in any of the partner countries working together on this common frame. I think that makes sense from a moral perspective and follows up with our moral obligations.
It also makes sense from practical and resource perspectives. Why would we have a different assessment from our partners and allies on whether a particular product was made from slave labour? It has been encouraging to see in the United States, which is admittedly a highly partisan environment, issues surrounding forced labour have been effective cross-party collaborations between Republicans and Democrats. I would like to see that spirit prevail in this place as well, but it requires, I think, the government to listen and respond to the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward because, the government has done nothing so far.
We have, and I give due credit, a private member's bill from an individual member of the government that deals with a specific issue around disclosure, but we have not seen, contrary to promises that have been made, government legislation on some of the broader issues around forced labour and supply chains. We have not seen what many people are calling for, which is a specific targeted approach to some of these extreme hot spots of forced labour.
In some cases, we see forced labour happening in ungoverned or less governed places. It happens outside of the law, without the official sanction of the state involved but, notably, in the case of the Uighur region in China, we see forced labour happening in a way that is coordinated as part of a genocide of the Uighur people, a genocide the House has recognized, but that the government has still failed to recognized.
When we have a state-directed genocide associated with forced labour, surely we should have a targeted approach to that specific region. I have said many times before that I support a framework that aligns with the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States, which presumes that products that come out of the Uighur region have forced labour involved in those products, unless it can be proven otherwise. If it can be proven otherwise, they are okay, but it is reasonable to presume that products coming out of that region have a very high risk of forced labour, so we should just say no to products coming out of that region, unless we can prove otherwise.
If we were to adopt measures like this, it would strengthen that alignment, that opportunity for shared enforcement, among allies.
I would continue to call on the government to benefit from the work that is being done in other countries. This is a case where it is acceptable to copy someone else's homework. When the work is being done in other countries, we can be more effective in our enforcement of keeping products made from forced labour out if we simply work with our allies.
In closing, I would submit this: If slavery were still going on in an industrial scale in North America, if there were still plantations in the southern United States, we would not be comfortable importing cotton or other products that came from those plantations. We would say no in that particular case. We should say no, as well, in the case of slavery happening in China or other parts of the world, and we should be effective in aligning our enforcement with our allies to get that done.
1502 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 10:29:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think I did a panel with my hon. friend precisely on the Indo-Pacific strategy. I told him, at the time, that the Indo-Pacific strategy sounds, in certain respects, like the Liberals are trying to talk like Conservatives, but they are still acting like Liberals.
This is the problem. If we read the Indo-Pacific strategy, sure, there are some pieces in there where Tibetans are mentioned and that is good, and Uighurs are mentioned and that is good. There are a few things in there that we can nod along to, but in terms of the substance of what the government has done, before and since it released that strategic document, the government is not following through.
What I care much more about, and what Uighurs care much more about than what is written in a strategic document, is whether products made with slave labour are being prevented from getting into Canada. That is what really matters, and the rubber has not hit the road.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 10:31:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a pleasure to work with the Bloc on these issues.
As for Bill S‑211, as I was saying, I believe that this bill is positive. It helps in achieving certain objectives, but it does not encompass everything that needs to be taken into account. There are several other measures to bring in. I had asked the government to do more in order to achieve these objectives. I will vote in favour of this bill, but the story does not end there.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 10:33:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's criticism of many of these companies. Frankly, they talk a good game when it comes to corporate social responsibility or community engagement in North America, but they completely fail to apply those principles in other countries. Some of the companies, for example, were very happy to talk about Black Lives Matter in North America, but they were not in China saying that Uighur lives matter. It was very clear, with many of these corporations, that if they were sincere about questions of racial justice and inclusion, for instance, they would understand that it is a global obligation to talk about these issues, not simply an obligation to talk about them in particular consumer markets where the discussion of those issues is more appreciated, as opposed to other places, where it would have been detrimental to their business to actually be focusing on these issues.
We need to hold governments, as well as corporations, accountable, but I think it has to come down to enforcement. The government, in order to stop slave labour, has to stop these products from coming into Canada.
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address a packed House this afternoon. The government often calls its legislation “historic” and often it is not historic. However, in a very formal sense this is a historic piece of legislation insofar as it establishes rules around national historic sites.
Just as a preface, though, to the points I would like to make about this legislation, I imagine that much has been said by Conservatives about the issue of gatekeepers, about how the government's great fondness for red tape, for regulations, for gatekeepers, is making it harder for people to go about their business.
What is a gatekeeper? A gatekeeper is a regulator, an authority of some kind that prevents people from being able to go about their business or to do things that they should reasonably be able to do. Maybe the gatekeeper allows them to get through the gate eventually but imposes additional conditions or challenges that prevent that individual from going forward in a sufficiently timely way.
I think many Canadians look at various aspects of their lives and at the way government is operating, and they see way too much gatekeeping. They see way too much red tape. Modern life, because of the bureaucratization of various things, has just become excessively complicated and frustrating for people who are trying to proceed with normal life and do things that, in times past, were not over-regulated.
Conservatives are putting forward an agenda aimed at reducing red tape, at making life easier for Canadians and at allowing development to proceed without undue barriers. We made a number of genuinely historic announcements in the past week about initiatives that a Conservative government would implement, aimed at removing gatekeepers. One of those announcements was around housing. We have said that there was too much gatekeeping, too much Nimbyism, happening at the municipal level that prevents housing from getting built. When there are all sorts of little barriers that accumulate into large barriers, we see a shortage of new housing, which in turn makes housing less affordable for Canadians.
Our leader has announced strong measures that are going to require municipalities to get that gatekeeping, that red tape, out of the way. We have also announced a new measure around credentials. For over 50 years, people with trade certifications have been able to work in other parts of the country. However, people with certain professional distinctions are not able, if working virtually for instance, to easily provide that professional support across the country.
These are some instances of gatekeeping we have committed to addressing, and that, I think, need to be addressed urgently. They are a part of this whole constellation of red tape the government is piling on Canadians. This is the reality about how the government approaches things and how we approach things.
That brings us to the discussion of Bill C-23. I welcome the applause from across the way from the member for Winnipeg North. I mentioned this before, but he recently referred to me as a “mischievous little guy”. I am very proud of that, actually. I know that if the member for Winnipeg North has considered me to be mischievous, then I have had a good day. I will do my best to keep it up.
When it comes to Bill C-23, the government is saying a number of things about the designation of historic places and sites. On the face of it they seem reasonable, saying that the government should be able to designate certain places, persons and events as having historical significance for the country. It wants to have the designation of those places with plaques erected to celebrate those places, perhaps. It wants to be consulting widely, including consulting indigenous Canadians on those designations, and thus regulate the use of those places in a way that accords with their historic status.
On the face of it, at least for the second reading vote where we vote on the principle, there is some logic in saying that, yes, there can be a framework for the designation of certain sites, recognizing their historic significance. However, the concern is that we have a government that has such a tendency to use every possible pretext for imposing additional red tape, for making it harder to proceed with development project. It is a government that talks a good talk sometimes about the housing affordability challenges but in practice has done nothing to actually get housing built, a government that is fundamentally comfortable with red tape, gatekeepers and barriers preventing people from going about their normal lives. When that is the reality of what this government is all about, then people are understandably looking at Bill C-23 and asking what tools it would provide to the government for additional gatekeeping and additional restrictions on development.
When the power is vested in the hands of the minister and the minister would be able to make these designations, which would automatically impact the use of a place, and areas around it, by the way, that could create significant problems if that power is used in a way that is unreasonable. If the government is making these kinds of designations, and if the effect of making those designations is that development projects in and around the area are not able to move forward and the existing use of a particular land or particular place is no longer allowed, and if these designations are made in a way that does not reflect proper engagement or consultation with local people in the area, that would be a significant problem.
We can look at the tool that this legislation would provide to the minister to make designations and to use those designations in a variety of ways and, frankly, I would say that it is consistent with a pattern we are seeing from this government in terms of legislation. We are seeing legislation with less and less practical detail. Rather, we are seeing a lot of legislation that enables the government to do something later on.
Right beside Bill C-23, we had Bill C-22, a bill that would provide a benefit for Canadians living with disabilities. In effect, the bill would empower the government to create aspects of that benefit but not prescribe the nature of that benefit in legislation. We had Bill C-41, a bill that would empower the government to make certain exceptions in the Anti-terrorism Act, but it did not provide specificity around places where it would apply and many other aspects of how those exceptions would function. Thus, we have this pattern with the government of taking on new powers for itself through legislation, without seeing the specifics in the bill.
The kind of rhetorical approach the government brings to these debates is this: “Just trust us. We mean well. We are going to make sure that, when we are designating these places, it is going to be in accordance with what makes sense. We are reasonable people, for goodness' sake.”
However, the problem is that Canadians do not see the government as reasonable. They do not see the government as trustworthy. What we have actually seen, particularly from the Minister of Environment, and I think from the government in general, is a lack of recognition of the important role that jobs, opportunity and development play in our country, and the need to remove gatekeepers and red tape. We have not seen from the government a proper appreciation of that, and the effect, I think, has been very negative for this country.
I want to now speak on the issues of indigenous consultation that are in the bill. The legislation—
1294 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, thank you for announcing to the House that I will be delivering the late show later this evening. If, after this speech, the member for Winnipeg North and others feel they have not heard enough, they can certainly stick around.
Just to preview a little, I will be speaking at that time about the Liberal McKinsey scandal, about the fact that the government—
Some hon. members: Which one?
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, I have to say there are so many scandals that it is hard to keep track. We are going to need to publish a scandal almanac so we will know exactly which one at all times.
This is the scandal in which the Liberal government gave over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey, a company with a very shady record of activity around the world that includes, most concerning to many Canadians, giving advice to Purdue Pharma on how to supercharge the opioid crisis. Stick around for that, Madam Speaker. I will be speaking to that later tonight. You may not have a choice. There will be someone in the chair, regardless.
On the issue of Bill C-23, I was speaking about the government's engagement in terms of consultation with indigenous Canadians. I think, sadly but very clearly, what we have seen with the government when it comes to engaging with indigenous communities is that it has always been a one-way street. If there are indigenous organizations or communities expressing opposition to development projects, the government says it has to listen and it has to really elevate the voices on that side of the debate.
On the other hand, if we have indigenous communities, organizations or nations that are supportive of development, that want to see development projects proceed, then the government very clearly does not listen. It tries to elevate one perspective that exists within indigenous communities while ignoring another.
Let us acknowledge that, within any community of people, there is going to be a diversity of perspectives about the best way to proceed on certain issues. Development projects can be one of those contentious areas where there will be differences of opinion.
The government takes a very one-sided approach to its supposed commitment to consultation. What sticks out to me most in this regard is some time that I spent in northern territories and meeting with indigenous leaders there who talked about development restrictions the government had imposed with absolutely no consultation. It was sort of a phone call to a premier right before an announcement was made. That is how the government stopped development projects, yet it talks increasingly as if proponents of projects, those proceeding with development projects, have to get to something near unanimity.
If we realize that, in the process of talking about consulting indigenous Canadians, the government is actually interested in listening to only one side of the equation, then we realize that it is not about meaningful consultation but about the government trying to find people within indigenous communities who share its perspective and ignoring people who have a different perspective.
I fully acknowledge the diversity of views that exist in any community on development projects, but I know, certainly with people I talk to, indigenous peoples living in my riding and others across the country, there is a sizable constituency out there saying that natural resource development projects in particular contribute to jobs and opportunity growth, and that is very positive for these communities.
In the process of that consultation, it is important to ensure that the government is hearing from the full spectrum of opinions. However, what we then often see is that, when the government is creating consultation mechanisms, it preserves for itself control of who actually participates in that consultation mechanism. There was a bill that the government put forward recently creating an indigenous advisory council. In that context, the minister would be able to do the initial appointments. On the one hand, it was saying the government wants to consult with people from indigenous communities, but on the other hand, it would choose the people it is consulting.
That obviously takes away, to some extent, from the meaningfulness that could have been realized if representatives were not selected by the government that was then going to consult with them about a specific issue. I flag this because this legislation, Bill C-23, speaks about setting aside seats for first nations, Inuit and Métis representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, but the process of appointment retains substantial control over those appointments in the hands of the government. It is saying it would appoint from these communities, but it is going to be the one doing those appointments. That is something important to flag in whether this would be effective.
As I said, Conservatives are supportive of the principle of having certain sites with genuine historic significance being thus designated, and of having particular frameworks around the protection of those sites once they are thus designated. We are supportive of that in principle. We will be supporting this legislation at the second reading stage, which is where we are at, and this is where we consider the general concept of a bill in principle.
The rubber is going to hit the road when we get to the committee study on this legislation and when we work through how to ensure the government is not able to use this legislation to such a general extent as to be able to put a halt to development projects anywhere and to use the designation of a place as having historic significance to block development. It is worth saying, sort of as a bit of a coda, that almost any place is probably of some significance to someone, so the broad enabling power this legislation could give government is something we need to be very careful of.
How limited is its use going to be? Is it going to be so broad as to be open to the Minister of Environment? He, let us be clear, has a particular animus for the energy sector and development in that sector and he, at one time, illegally climbed onto the roof of the premier of Alberta's home to protest that premier's policies. We see, rightly, condemnation of instances where politicians in protests are targeted in their homes, but the Minister of Environment has never addressed his record on this. We know he has a particular approach when it comes to development in this sector, so giving such significant enabling powers to the government, to the Minister of Environment in particular, raises some red flags. That is why the rubber will hit the road at the committee stage of this bill.
Finally, the approach of Conservatives is to recognize that, reasonably, there is a role for government, but we want to do everything we can to get red tape and gatekeeping out of people's lives; make people's interactions with government simpler, clearer and more predictable; reduce their taxes; and give them more control over their own lives.
Our goal as a party is to realize a fuller vision of human freedom, where people can live in strong communities and strong families, independent of government overreach and government bureaucratic control, and independent of the bureaucratization of every aspect of their lives. That is the vision our leader has articulated about removing gatekeepers, defending freedom and recognizing that strong individuals, families and communities are the fundamentals of life far more important than government.
While we recognize some value in the principle of this legislation, I can assure members that we will continue to be vigilant to ensure the government, to the extent we are able, is blocked from overreaches into people's lives, that we fully realize that vision of human freedom. I suspect it will take a new government, a new Conservative government, to bring us to that point, but for the time being, we will use the opportunities we have in opposition to do precisely that.
1350 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with some aspects of the member's characterization of my speech. Part of the obligation of members of Parliament is to provide a broader and deeper analysis of the principles involved, and I think I have done that. Maybe the member can take some time this evening to watch the speech again on CPAC. He might enjoy that. Perhaps it will be edifying to him and those he watches it with. I know the member for Winnipeg North does this on a regular basis.
An hon. member: All the time. I have your speeches on repeat.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, if that did not make it on the record, the member for Winnipeg North shared that he has my speeches on repeat when he goes home. Unfortunately, it has not had the desired effect. You would think that if he were really watching and listening, he would—
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned human trafficking. I believe she is one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and I want to thank her and all members who are involved in that group, including my Conservative colleague from Peace River—Westlock. This is a very important issue, and it requires additional action.
I agree with the point the member is making about Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. It has been easy for the current government to reach for acts of recognition. Acts of recognition are very important, and I do not want to dismiss those at all, but they are not as important as the substantive changes that happen on the ground. Making designations and apologies, and putting a plaque on a historic site, are things that are very meaningful, but they do not have the same level of impact as clean drinking water, and jobs and opportunities in all parts of the country, which are areas where the government has fallen behind. It found it easy to make steps of recognition and harder to actually deliver the results.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a few respects in which, respectfully, my colleague attributed views to me, either directly or indirectly, that I do not hold. I, for instance, do not oppose, and in fact I would support, the inclusion of indigenous representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. I did make the point that the appointment process for those individuals remains one that the government is able to control. I suggested that maybe, when we talk about indigenous representation on certain boards, we should think of ways for that appointment process to ensure those individuals are in some way selected by the community, but I certainly agree with the principle of representation.
The issue I have with this bill is not about the powers it would give to indigenous communities. It is actually about powers it would give to the minister because the minister would have extraordinary powers under this legislation concerning the designation of sites and setting regulations for their use.
When I was speaking about gatekeepers, I was speaking about powers that are vested in the hands of government to arbitrarily block or control development in ways that are contrary to what may well be what local indigenous people want as well. I hope that clarifies that the issue is with the powers of the ministers. That is the concern we have. We are supporting the bill in principle, but these are issues we are going to raise at committee.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will say that the announcement our leader made last week was quite historic. It was so historic that the place where he made the announcement might one day be designated a historic site. The important point about that announcement was that, in the current situation, we are seeing so much gatekeeping at the municipal level. We need a federal government that is prepared to stand up and say, across levels of government, on the funding the federal government provides, that we need to ensure barriers are removed and housing is getting built.
There are a variety of different factors that influence the price of housing, but a key one surely has to be the supply of housing. If there is not enough housing supply, then prices are going to be pushed up. I will say that it was a historic announcement by our leader, and it will be proven to have a very significant impact. Conservatives have been proposing a number of different measures around improving access to housing for a long time, including opening up federal lands and other such measures. Our leader is taking this as an important step further with these historic proposals.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:50:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the government's relationship with McKinsey in a follow-up to a question I had asked. This has been an important issue for me and an important issue for the opposition.
Why is it important? Well, there are a number of reasons. First, the government has spent over $100 million on contracts for McKinsey, work that public servants have told the media that, in many cases, could have been done inside the public service.
More broadly, we are seeing a significant increase in spending on outside consultants by the government at the same time as we are seeing growth in the public service. The government is spending more inside the public service, and it is spending more to contract out activities as well, so there is a basic fiscal probity question at play here, but there are also some other issues that I think are very important as we look at the government's relationship with McKinsey.
One is that Dominic Barton, the managing partner of McKinsey, was leading the Prime Minister's growth council, having special access through that growth council to ministers and the government at the same time that McKinsey was pitching services for sale to the government. We know from emails that a Mr. Pickersgill, who was working for McKinsey, was supplying analysts for the growth council at the same time as he was sending emails to the government requesting work. We have seen those emails, so, very clearly, there are questions of conflict of interest.
There are other issues of conflict of interest. The fact that the Minister of Defence, yesterday, at the operations committee, was asked if it is acceptable for McKinsey to do work for the Canadian Department of Defence at the same time as it is potentially working for other departments of defence for hostile actors around the world and learning things from our Department of Defence that it may be using in those other interactions.
The Minister of National Defence did not know, or was not willing or able to tell the committee, which other departments of defence around the world McKinsey was working for, but we were told by the deputy minister not to worry because the information and the issues that McKinsey are working on are not that secret. Really, they are just talking about operational structural details, which it is not getting access to national security. They are just operational aspects of the work of government and so forth.
On the other hand, the minister was unwilling to provide basic information about these contracts to the committee unredacted. What we heard from the Minister of National Defence and her department was effectively that the information is not so secret that we need to worry about what McKinsey may be learning and using in its engagements with other hostile powers, but at the same time, the information is so secret that it could not even be shared with members of a parliamentary committee, despite the order to produce that content.
A final issue I will raise tonight is the fact that McKinsey worked for Purdue Pharma and gave them advice specifically on how to supercharge opioid sales. That is not an issue of something happening beyond our borders. The opioid crisis has affected so many Canadians. I think that every family has, in some way, been touched by the opioid crisis.
McKinsey specifically advised Purdue Pharma on how to turbocharge its sales engine. That advice included, for instance, how to circumvent traditional pharmacies by operating mail-in pharmacies to circumvent the controls that were being put in place in traditional pharmacies. That advice included paying bonuses for overdoses that occurred. This was advice that McKinsey provided to Purdue Pharma at the same time that McKinsey was working for the Government of Canada, and at the same time that Dominic Barton was leading McKinsey and leading the Prime Minister's growth council.
Why is the government willing to do business with McKinsey? Why is it comfortable with the risks this poses in fundamental ethics, the opioid crisis issues, as well as the conflict of interest issues?
We have repeatedly raised the broader question of all the money that is being spent on these outside consultants. The government's relation with McKinsey stinks, and it needs to be addressed.
729 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:58:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the all-important question of whether the Prime Minister and Dominic Barton ever worked out together, I think this is a bit of an exercise in absurdity.
What we know, factually, is that Dominic Barton has basically told the committee, “This Prime Minister guy, we are not friends. We barely know each other. I did not recognize him in an elevator once.” The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said precisely the opposite over and over again.
In fact, there are various clips I have shared, and others have shared, where the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have spoken very specifically about how accessible Dominic Barton is and about how they have a connection. In fact, to the issue of who has whose phone number, the Deputy Prime Minister said, at the time that Dominic Barton was appointed ambassador, that we need an ambassador who can call the Prime Minister at any time on the phone. This is a connection that Dominic Barton has with the Prime Minister that has been built up over time.
Who is telling the truth, the government or Dominic Barton? It is clear that there is a cushy relationship, that McKinsey has, through “pro bono” work, sought to integrate itself into government and use that integration to push its business forward. That is the problem. Over $100 million of contracts have come out of this close integration of relationships and it needs to be scrutinized.
251 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
