SoVote

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

Feb/6/24 7:43:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservative priorities are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. When it comes to our plan to axe the tax, let us be clear that increasing the cost of transportation is not a bug associated with the carbon tax, but a designed feature of it. The purpose of a carbon tax policy is to increase the cost of transporting people and goods, supposedly to deter that transportation. The problem is that people still need to eat and to get around, and in the process, they end up paying more without the supposed impacts on emissions. That is why Conservatives are proposing to axe the tax, and we are opposed to the intentional policy of the NDP-Liberal coalition to increase prices on the transportation of food, people and other goods. Can the member speak to the importance of, and the benefits associated with, our proposal to axe the tax?

158 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

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

Feb/6/24 7:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has been gripped by the arrive scam scandal: the way the government spent $54 million on a glitchy app that did not work and the fact that it chose GC Strategies, a two-person company that did no actual IT work and simply subcontracted all the work. How did this happen? Who was responsible? Who had the relationships with GC Strategies? Who created the procurement system that allowed a two-person company that does no IT work to get this contract and, essentially, to simply be able to receive and subcontract the work? This is the work the government operations committee has been trying to get to the bottom of. The government is now intimidating witnesses who spoke out at committee. Here is what happened. Supposedly there was an ongoing internal investigation within the government into what happened in the context of the ArriveCAN procurement. The investigator in this case is not independent; this is an internal investigation. The so-called investigator reports through the existing chain of command within CBSA. He effectively reports to people who could be under a cloud of suspicion in the context of the investigation. On November 7, 2023, two witnesses, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, came before the government operations committee. In response to questions, in particular from Conservatives, they gave devastating testimony. They identified people inside the government who, they said, were lying and were covering up information. They identified conversations that happened between the minister's office and the senior public servants that were filtered to them. While other public servants were very reserved and limited in their responses to questions, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano gave very direct and very forthright responses that were critical of actions taken by others, especially more senior people within the chain of command. Surprisingly, almost immediately after that, on November 27, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano received a letter saying that they were the subject of internal investigation. They had not been notified of this before. Coincidentally, apparently, they were told they were under investigation immediately after they offered critical testimony at committee. Then the government went further and suspended these senior public servants from their jobs without pay, even though the internal investigation has not been completed. There is an ongoing internal investigation not complete, yet two people have been suspended without pay. This is very suspicious. The government is under a cloud of suspicion over this procurement, so it has an internal investigator; however, the internal investigator has not even completed the investigation but has submitted interim findings that apparently point the finger at people who have been critical of the same senior public servants to whom this investigator in fact is subject, and they have been suspended without pay. This very clearly, given the timeline, looks like retaliation against public servants who have spoken out about the arrive scam scandal. There is a big problem here. There is the underlying issue of corruption in the arrive scam contracting, $54 million to a company that did no actual work but just subcontracted all of the work, but then there are people who have provided testimony about it, not the testimony the government wanted to hear, apparently, who are suddenly suspended without pay. How does the government justify retaliating against witnesses who criticize it?

560 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/6/24 8:00:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the midst of this gross corruption scandal, we continue to get bureaucratic non-answers from the NDP-Liberal government. I had a very simple question that was not answered, so I will ask that simple question again. Why were two senior public servants suspended without pay in the middle of an investigation only after they had offered testimony critical of more senior public servants and the government? Why were they suspended after their testimony?

77 words