SoVote

Garnett Genuis

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Conservative

Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
Alberta
Voting Attendance: 67%
Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 292 - Mar/20/24

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

Mar/20/24 9:56:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, tonight, we were actually supposed to have a take-note debate on the agreement on security co-operation between Canada and Ukraine, something that I think we all agree on. This member is intent on sowing division and being hyperpartisan, so let me point something out to the member. He pointed out that President Zelenskyy may have disagreed with the position we took on a particular trade deal. Let us talk about a disagreement between President Zelenskyy and the current government. Early on in the conflict, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned by the Government of Ukraine, an extraordinary step. The ambassador was summoned as a sign of the Ukrainian government's displeasure with the Liberal government's action. What was that action? It was the Liberal government's decision to grant a waiver of sanctions regarding those Siemens turbines. It was the Liberal government trying to facilitate the export of Russian gas that was fuelling Russia's economy and Russia's invasion. The Government of Ukraine was deeply concerned that Canada was undermining global sanctions unity and was pushing toward a reality of Swiss-cheese sanctions that would be ineffective. The government should be ashamed of what it did, and it was only the Conservatives pushing back that led to the change. Will the member apologize for his shameful role in allowing that exemption in the sanctions?

232 words

Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23

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

Dec/12/23 12:15:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course, different sovereign states disagree from time to time about policy. Last summer, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned, and the President of Ukraine publicly and repeatedly expressed his extreme displeasure over the fact that this government granted a sanctions waiver for a turbine that was to facilitate the export of Russian gas. This was a very serious issue for the Government of Ukraine. One does not summon an ambassador lightly, but that is what the Ukrainian government did. The member is sort of on his high horse about how, somehow, we should never disagree with a country that we are friends with. Of course, Canada supports Ukraine; Conservatives support Ukraine. However, this member is now saying that we should do exactly what the government wants. I want to ask the member: Where was he last summer? Did he make any statements about the sanctions waiver? What, if anything, did he have to say when the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was summoned by President Zelenskyy to express his displeasure?

174 words

Context: House Hansard - 179 - Apr/18/23

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

Apr/18/23 6:45:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, members will be familiar with the over $100 million in contracts the government gave to its friends at McKinsey. The government said, though, not to worry, as all the rules were followed. It just so happened, it said, that as it followed all the rules, those contracts ended up getting awarded to McKinsey. We see massive increases in spending on the public service, as well as massive increases in spending on contracting out of public services. In other words, we have more public servants and we are contracting more work out of the public service at the same time. When Dominic Barton, a friend of the Prime Minister, was leading McKinsey, we started to see this increase, and the increase has continued. It is a significant increase in contracting out, specifically contracting out to McKinsey. What was the government's response? It said those were independent decisions, the rules were followed and Dominic Barton is not really the Prime Minister's friend anyway. Actually, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have spoken previously about the significant close access they had to Dominic Barton and about that being a key factor in their decision to appoint him as ambassador to China. In their dealings with this shady company, they said all the rules were followed, until they said the rules were not followed. This is new. Members might not have heard that, because they quietly released a press release on the day President Biden was here. Everyone was talking about President Biden's visit and they thought it was a great opportunity to release a press release quietly on a Friday in the middle of Biden's visit. They said they were actually misleading the public the whole time and that, actually, the Treasury Board rules were not followed. I will quote the press release. It says, “However, there are indications that certain administrative requirements and procedures were not consistently followed.” In other words, in response to my question and various other questions, the government House leader had been saying that the rules were followed in the awarding of these contracts and that we can rest assured that more than $100 million was given in contracts to McKinsey in accordance with Treasury Board rules. Now the government has revealed that the rules were not followed. We are left with this question: Why is it that the government gave over $100 million in contracts to its friends at McKinsey, a company that has been implicated in causing the opioid crisis and had to pay over half a billion dollars in compensation for causing the opioid crisis in the United States, a company that did a report for the Saudi government, which enabled it to identify and target dissidents who were active on social media, and a company that has been involved with corrupt officials all over the world and has worked closely with sanctioned entities in Russia and with state-owned and affiliated entities in China?. Why did the government give over $100 million in contracts, and why did it break the rules in the awarding of these contracts in the process? Why were its clear administrative requirements and procedures not consistently followed? Will the government apologize? Will it apologize for having misled the House for weeks about whether the Treasury Board rules were followed, and will it come clean about why it broke the rules in awarding these contracts to this company with a terrible global reputation?

582 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis

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

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Garnett Genuis