SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

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 - 281 - Feb/13/24
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Feb/13/24 6:51:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I have more respect for the charter than I believe this member of the government has. Notably, they have chosen, in the case of the Emergencies Act ruling, to appeal a court ruling. In the case of the Truchon decision, made by one judge, they chose not to appeal. I think this was clearly because the ideological minister of justice at the time was desperate to justify the expansion of the already flawed regime. Therefore, the government arbitrarily chooses not to appeal certain rulings when it likes the ruling and to appeal other rulings. This is not about what the courts have said. The government has consistently pushed an ideological agenda that goes far beyond what the courts have said, and the mental health provision has absolutely nothing to do with the court ruling. The members opposite would sometimes like to dispense with an actual substantive engagement on the topic and just say they are going to let other people make the decision. However, it does not wash, especially in the case where they chose not to appeal the ruling.
182 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 115 - Oct/21/22
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Oct/21/22 1:06:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-9 
Madam Speaker, it is a very important question. Judges obviously have to think about the wider aspects of the context. I profoundly disagreed with that decision on multiple levels. I also think decisions like that just underline the importance of the legislature stepping up and asserting its role. At times, when it has been convenient, the government tries to treat the Supreme Court as if it is some infallible body protected from error and that it is simply our job as legislators to understand the minds of our Supreme Court and work things out as directed. Sometimes, that is the tone of the rhetoric that we hear from government members. Not only is that not philosophically defensible, but that is not in keeping with our constitutional tradition. We have tools, including the notwithstanding clause, whereby the legislature can engage in dialogue with the courts in a way that disagrees and says that the legislature thinks the court got it wrong. That back-and-forth needs to proceed on the basis of rule of law of course, but it is important for us to do our job as legislators and not buy into this false narrative of judicial infallibility.
198 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 70 - May/12/22
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • May/12/22 9:48:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, I just want to be clear that I respect the authority of the Chair. We are debating a different bill tonight, and the implications for how courts might rule on what has taken place are important to put on the record in the context of a different piece of legislation that we are debating. I also want to emphasize—
62 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border