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 - 301 - Apr/17/24

Apr/17/24 5:25:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, did he discuss new contracts? Since he claims to be unable to answer that question, will he respond to it in writing as well?

26 words

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

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

Feb/26/24 3:36:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the next petition responds to a government policy that would restrict access to natural health products, which Canadians rely on every day for their health and safety. The petitioners note that Liberals are threatening access to natural health products through new rules that would mean higher cost and fewer products available on the shelf. They note that so-called cost-recovery provisions would impose massive costs on all consumers of natural health products and undermine Canadians' access to these products. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to reverse the changes made in the last Liberal budget regarding natural health products.

104 words

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

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

Apr/4/22 5:56:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules do require me to raise issues of order as soon as they come up. Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House and raise a point of order with respect to the response that was tabled on Question No. 351. This was a question on the Order Paper that I had tabled earlier. Question No. 351 was with respect to vaccination policies for the federal public service. I asked a detailed series of questions, asking for various points of data including things like whether replacement workers had to be brought in to cover for workers who were put on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status. It included questions about, for instance, whether the government had conducted an assessment of the impact on services of work that was not done as a result of employees being put on leave. The question I had put forward had parts (a) through (v) and the response that the government tabled provided responses to some of the sub-items that were listed in Question No. 351. It did not provide any comments whatsoever on many of the items. The government has an obligation to respond to questions that are put forward. I understand that it is not in the responsibility of the Chair to evaluate the quality of the responses. In this case, the government is lucky that is not required. However, I would submit that the obligation of response does not just deal with the question overall. It should include an obligation to respond to the specific elements in each of the questions. In particular, there should be some response to all of the elements (a) through (v) in the question, including some of the specific points that were not responded to, such as what was required of replacement workers to cover for those who were put on administrative leave and whether workers were required to perform additional tasks for those who were put on unpaid leave, etc. Madam Speaker, I would ask that you review the matter and advise with respect to the government's obligation here because we are seeing in general, I think it is fair to say, a decline in the quality of any kind of responses. As much as it is not for the Chair to get into the detail of the response and to say that it was a pretty good response or not a good response, the government should not be able to, in response to questions, just put up any text that is wholly irrelevant to the question asked or respond to one part while ignoring whole swaths of the question. The House should reasonably find that this does not satisfy the government's obligation with respect to responding to questions. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to look at Question No. 351, this particularly egregious case of the government's putting forward text that totally ignores whole parts of the question, and advise whether this is the kind of approach we want to see from the government going forward.

521 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Garnett Genuis