Garnett Genuis

[Public Services and Procurement, November 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way began by telling us that his mother used to say common sense is not that common anymore. I want to assure the member's mother and all Canadians that we will soon be restoring common-sense leadership in this country. Right now, if we listen to the announcements coming from the government, we would think common sense has gone out of fashion, but after the next election, we will have a government that once again listens to the common sense of the common people.

What we hear from the government to defend the outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars that we have seen throughout government contracting is that we can always do better or “better is always possible”, as the Prime Minister used to say. The fact is that things have gotten so much worse in the last nine years and better is indeed possible. It is necessary and it is what Canadians are demanding.

Will the member agree that it has been nine years of failure and we need a new common-sense government that will fix these challenges?

[Public Services and Procurement, November 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, here in the House of Commons, Conservatives have repeatedly made our priorities clear. We stand for the common sense of the common people. We stand for the common good. We defend the interests of everyday, extraordinary Canadians, who work hard and play by the rules. They are people who expect their tax dollars to be treated with respect and who expect a government to uphold the idea of a common citizenship aimed at securing the common good together, rather than elites who try to divide us.

The sad reality is that, for nine years, we have been governed by a radical NDP-Liberal coalition that has sought to advance the interests of well-connected insider elites at the expense of the common people. That is no more evident than in the case of the government's cozy relationship with the elite insider consultants at McKinsey.

I am following up tonight on a question I asked about the government's close relationship with McKinsey and work done by the Auditor General on that. This work revealed that, in about 200 million dollars' worth of contracts, most did not properly follow the rules. The government was clearly making efforts to support McKinsey.

How this came about was that Dominic Barton, who is closely associated with the Prime Minister and people in his inner circle, was given the role of senior economic adviser to the government. In the context of that role, he had access to the Prime Minister to provide advice and so on. At the time, he was the managing partner for McKinsey. At the same time, consultants at McKinsey who were working under him were selling to the government.

Consultants were able to take advantage of this relationship to sell management consulting contracts to the government. That preferential relationship really benefited McKinsey. It allowed McKinsey to do more business under the Liberals, by massive amounts, than it ever had before. From the beginning, the government was serving the interests of well-connected, elite insiders. It has come to do so more over time.

What did Canadians get for these hundreds of millions of dollars that were sent to McKinsey, which the Auditor General said did not follow the rules? We received advice that could and should have been offered from within the public service.

Meanwhile, who are these consultants at McKinsey, the people the Liberals have chosen to be preferred beneficiaries of these advice contracts in government? McKinsey has a sordid record of involvement in scandal all over the world. Most notably, McKinsey advised Purdue Pharma on how to supercharge sales of opioids and, effectively, supercharge the opioid crisis.

This is another example, frankly, of how insider elites were able to cash in at the expense of common people. Many everyday people were prescribed opioids as a result of the false overpromotion of these products by Purdue, which was aided by McKinsey. In fact, they were disproportionately working Canadians; maybe because of physical labour, they were more likely to have workplace-related physical pain. This led to addiction, resulting in so much pain and suffering, which continues today.

The elite insiders at Purdue and at McKinsey were able to cash in, and they are still benefiting from government policy. Purdue produces Dilaudid for government-funded so-called safe supply programs, and McKinsey has benefited greatly from contracts with the government.

Why is the government so bent on supporting McKinsey instead of advancing the interests of the common people? It is a real shame.

[Petitions, November 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I will present today is similar to that presented by a colleague. It raises concerns about proposals for the radical further expansion of what is already the most extreme, most liberal euthanasia regime on the planet.

The petitioners are deeply concerned about a proposal to allow involuntary euthanasia for infants. They believe that killing children is always wrong, and they call on the House to reject these dangerous, violent, extreme proposals for further expansion of this regime.

[Petitions, November 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the first petition I am presenting is from constituents concerned about the penalties associated with paper filings of tax returns. The petitioners note that tax filing is a requirement for most Canadian citizens, regardless of their ability to use or access online platforms. The paper filing has been available for decades, and the recent decision that CRA will no longer print line-by-line instructions in the paper package and will impose financial penalties for paper filing of certain taxes, including business filing and HST returns, unequally disadvantages vulnerable Canadians.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to remove all penalties associated with paper filing and to make available print copies of the line-by-line instructions for tax filing for anyone who requests it.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member opposite has a security clearance, but let us talk about how we got here. All of the opposition parties voted to order the production of these documents. Parliament is sovereign. A majority of members of Parliament voted to order these documents. The member, representing a minority of the House, does not like the decision the House has made, and that is fair enough; I do not always like decisions the House makes either. However, the House has ordered the production of these documents, and the government should recognize the supremacy of Parliament in our system of government.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let me seize on the idiom the member used. What is going to come first, the chicken or the egg: the study proposed at committee or getting the documents? The chicken needs to lay the egg, that is, the documents are needed first, and then the study can be done. If we send this to a committee without having the documents, the committee will be severely limited in the work it can do.

It is an established principle that Parliament has a right to order the production of documents. We are prepared for this privilege question to end right away, today, in five minutes, if the government hands over the documents. For the public accounts committee and other committees that have been studying this issue to properly do the work, the government needs to be responsive and forthcoming in adhering to what Parliament has asked for. In this case, that means documents that the law clerk can provide to the RCMP and allowing committees to proceed with the work they need to do.

It is very clear where we are right now. As soon as the government hands over these documents, we can proceed to other business. The government has refused to recognize the long, well-established privileges of Parliament and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in our system of government. By the way, the government has failed to recognize that principle on a broad host of other cases as well. Starting with the Winnipeg labs documents and in many cases since, the Liberals have failed to show respect for this institution.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the future of this Parliament, I believe it is time now for a carbon tax election. It is time to put to Canadians what we have put forward, our proposal to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, as well as the Liberal government's record of failure over the last nine years.

Right now, the Liberals have refused to hand over documents that Parliament has ordered. This is why there is a focus on this question of privilege. We are stuck on this question of privilege because the Liberals refuse to hand over documents that the House has ordered. This could end right away if the government would hand over the documents.

Moreover, as we have seen, the green slush fund demonstrates the cost, the corruption and the crime that have been growing in this country over the last nine years. With costs up, crime up and time up, we should go to a carbon tax election now and have a Conservative government that will really get things done in this place.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in broad strokes, the member's description of the OGGO committee's agenda is simply incorrect. I know he has not been a member of OGGO for a very long time, but I understand he may be back. I look forward to giving him the opportunity to get reacquainted with the committee's agenda and working with him again at that point.

Here is what happened with respect to the studies on outsourcing for McKinsey, Deloitte and other companies. The committee ordered various documents related to the outsourcing to McKinsey. We wanted to pursue the government on those documents because the documents we ordered were not provided. However, the NDP folded like a cheap suit and would not work with us to demand that we get those documents. On the one hand, the NDP refused to follow up to get the documents, but on the other hand, it tried to shift us over to another company.

The Conservatives would say, no, let us do the work; let us look at every instance of outsourcing, but let us get the documents we asked for. We cannot say we do not need these documents and then jump to something else right when we are in the middle of pursuing one particular issue. The NDP should stand with us in ordering the production of these documents. Then we can get the work done.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, right before we concluded on Friday, the member for Louis-Hébert asked me a question about the Conservatives' dollar-for-dollar rule. It is a question I am very pleased to address because the Conservatives believe we need to fix the budget. That means when a new spending commitment is made, we need to be able to identify where the money will come from. This is unlike the Liberals, who continually make new spending commitments and have no plan for where to get the money for them, other than through higher taxes and higher inflation.

The Conservatives, when we have made announcements, have been clear about where the money would come from. The member for Louis-Hébert was asking in general, for some of these proposals, where the money would come from. I will shed some more light on some of the key areas. We have seen a dramatic increase in spending on outside consultants providing advice to the government that could be provided by the public service. We have seen incredible abuses in the procurement system. One of many areas where we can very easily save money is in outside consulting and procurement, by ending all of the abuse we have seen there.

[Privilege, November 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House do not allow us to say the name of a current member of Parliament, but they do allow us to say the name of a former member of Parliament, so I think I was getting a bit ahead of myself by using his name.

The time will come. The time is soon coming. They cannot put it off forever. As one former British parliamentarian said, “even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.” We will have an election, and when we have an election, Canadians will have an opportunity to be heard on the record of the failing government.

I was referring to a quotation saying that even turkeys cannot keep Christmas from coming forever. Canadians will have affordable food, including turkey, once again. These are our priorities on this side of the House.

What are the priorities of the Liberals across the way? They are willing to paralyze Parliament to protect themselves from the proper investigation of their corruption scandals. Conservatives have put forward a motion, a motion that was adopted because all opposition parties voted in favour of it, to order the production of certain documents regarding the government's SDTC scandal.

Let us just break down what this scandal is. For Canadians who are less familiar, what is the green slush fund scandal? This is hard to believe, but we had a group of insiders, appointed by the Liberal government to a panel, and they were responsible for handing out money, taxpayers' money, to various companies. They decided to give those funds to their own companies.

It is like a group of us were sitting around the table saying, “We will first vote some money for my company, then we will vote some money for your company, and then we will vote some money for your company.” In some cases, the person, while their company was being voted on, would step out of the room, but in other cases, they did not. We have instances of people actually voting in favour of giving money to the company they owned. They said they were in favour of that.

This is the essence of the SDTC scandal. There was $400 million. We had people sitting around a table, who were appointed by these Liberals, charged with handing this money out, and deciding to give that money to themselves. It is outrageous.

In times past, this would have been the major decisive story. Today, there are so many scandals, it is almost like it is a strategy. These Liberals thought, if they were to be the cause of as many scandals as possible, maybe there could be dispersed attention on them. With this alone, this green slush fund scandal, it is incredible what these Liberals and their elite insider friends thought they could get away with.

It is part of a culture of corruption that we have seen under the NDP-Liberal government. The members think they can get away with anything. Having tried to buy off the media with subsidies, they think they can do anything and not be held accountable for it. However, Canadians are waking up. Canadians are hearing about these stories, and I know Canadians are demanding accountability and change because cost is up, crime is up, corruption is up and time is up. It is time for an election to throw out these carbon tax, conflict of interest Liberals and replace them with a common-sense Conservative government.

Let us talk about a few of the other scandals that are going on. I want to share a few comments about the indigenous procurement problem, the Liberals' indigenous procurement scandal. This really is one of the biggest scandals we have seen yet from a Liberal government. We have a situation with government contracting and the policy in place that says there is a 5% target, meaning that 5% of government contracts should be going to indigenous companies.

The problem is that these Liberals have allowed many non-indigenous companies to take advantage of that program by pretending to be indigenous. We have various arrangements that have allowed this to happen. We have some who are outright pretending to be indigenous. We also have instances of abuse of a joint venture, and then we have instances of shell companies. An example of abuse of a joint venture might be a company with 200 people in it, which is a fully non-indigenous company, and then that company being in a joint venture with a company that has one person, and that company is considered an indigenous company.

Therefore there is a joint venture in which the vast majority of the work, the benefit and the profit are going to the obviously much larger partner, but it is entering into a so-called joint venture, which allows it to officially be labelled as part of an indigenous joint venture even though virtually all of the work and the benefit are going to the non-indigenous part of the partnership. This is the abuse of joint ventures that we are seeing, which effectively allows non-indigenous companies to take advantage of the program.

There was an instance reported in The Globe and Mail with a private company called the Canadian Health Care Agency, which was in a so-called joint venture with an individual who was actually one of its employees, so the person was an employee at the larger company. By all indications, it was not a real joint venture. The employee was being taken advantage of by being identified as having a separate company in a joint venture, and that allowed the non-indigenous company to take contracts that were supposed to be part of the 5%.

There is also the use of shell companies. An example of a shell company would be having one company that has been identified as indigenous that is getting government contracts then subcontracting the work to non-indigenous companies. There is a rule that is supposed to prevent this; a subcontracting rule requires that one-third of the subcontract be to indigenous companies if it has been received as part of the indigenous procurement set-aside.

However, we have asked for documents on the verification of the subcontracting rule, and it is pretty clear that nobody is actually enforcing it. There is a bit of the Spider-Man meme going on, with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of Indigenous Services saying, respectively, “I am not doing this; this is indigenous” and “I am not doing this; this is procurement”. Then nobody seems to be enforcing the subcontracting rules.

There are various structures: abuse of joint ventures, outright pretending and shell companies. As a result, the AFN appeared before the government operations committee on the Liberals' indigenous procurement scandal, and AFN representatives testified that most of the contracts within the indigenous procurement set-aside are actually going to shell companies. Therefore, before Liberals get up and say that it is just Conservatives saying this, I point out that indigenous leaders said it. It is not just the AFN; leaders from first nations, Inuit and Métis communities have repeatedly highlighted how non-indigenous, elite insiders are taking advantage of the program that is supposed to benefit indigenous businesses.

It is a crying shame, but it is typical of the Liberals. They did not care about the results for indigenous peoples; they cared only about being able to look like they were checking a box to say that they cared. They want to say to look at the number, at the target and at the box they are checking, but in reality, when the government operations committee started going into it and started inviting indigenous leaders to speak before the committee, we found that according to the testimony, most of what the Liberals are saying is part of the 5% target is not going to indigenous communities at all. It isn't even going to indigenous businesses.

In fact, when we challenged the Minister of Indigenous Services on the issue the first time, in March, she said that the purpose of the program is just to identify indigeneity. It is not about economic development, effectively. She completely changed her tune six months later. However, when the program is allowing shell companies, elite non-indigenous insiders, abusive joint ventures and outright pretenders to take advantage of the program, clearly the benefits are not going back to indigenous peoples, and the Liberals do not seem to care. They want to trumpet the box-checking exercise rather than answer clear, necessary questions about the impacts of the program on communities.

I speak to indigenous leaders across the country, and they talk very much about the importance of economic development, of autonomy, of giving back control over resources and over opportunities and of putting in place policies that allow indigenous communities to survive and prosper. One key piece of feedback we have heard is that there are various policies in procurement that actually make it very difficult for new entrants, including indigenous- and minority-owned businesses, to get contracts. The Liberals have so constrained the procurement system as to protect the privileged access of elite insiders.

We saw this with the arrive scam scandal as well. According to the Auditor General's report, we had an instance where GC Strategies sat down with people inside government to discuss the terms of the contract. According to the procurement ombudsman, there were overly restrictive requirements that said, for instance, one could only bid on a federal government contract if one had done a certain number of federal government contracts before. How does that make any sense? If one has a business that can do the work, maybe a new business or a business based somewhere else in the country, started by someone who does not have the same insider access or history with the federal government but can actually do the work, or maybe it has done work with other levels of government and has been successful in procurement processes across the country, but wants to bid on a project here in Ottawa, the government could say that it is sorry, but because it has not done business with the federal government it is out. It is an entrenched protection of privilege for elite Liberal-connected insiders.

These are huge amounts of money we are talking about. In the Liberals' indigenous procurement scandal there are a number of players. Dalian Enterprises received over $100 million in contracts. The Canadian Health Care Agency received over $100 million in contracts. A majority of those who got contracts under this set-aside were shell companies according to the AFN. We are talking about massive amounts of money that the Liberals are finding ways to funnel to their friends and to other well-connected insiders.

That is the Liberals' priority, getting money to elite insider NDP-Liberal friends. Our priorities are restoring common sense, bringing it home, axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. When the carbon tax election comes, Canadians will be able to decide between our priorities and theirs.