SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 179

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2023 10:00AM
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 179 - Apr/18/23
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Apr/18/23 6:53:11 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, here are the facts. The government broke the rules in the awarding of contracts to McKinsey. It admitted it broke the rules. It put it in a Treasury Board press release that it put out on the Friday of President Biden's visit. It admitted it broke the rules, albeit in a way that was specifically designed to avoid public notice. That is why we need to have the ministers back to committee to question them about exactly why the rules were not followed. We hear bluster from the member across the way, saying, “These opposition politicians, they're always criticizing us. They're always engaging in personal attacks. Why are those members of the opposition criticizing the government?” This is a case where his own government admitted it flagrantly disregarded the rules that were in place, so of course it is the job of the opposition to criticize the government in cases where it especially has admitted breaking the rules. Why— An hon. member: Oh, oh!
172 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border