Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to address a couple of things that are happening.
First, we have this kind of manufactured disagreement between two coalition partners. If these issues around small business were priorities for the NDP they could have or should have put these things forward as part of their coalition deal. It would be a welcome change if this government started paying attention to the concerns of small businesses. We know that small businesses have been treated brutally under this government.
The disdain this government has shown goes back to calling small businesses tax cheats. The Prime Minister's own words, in fact, suggest that many small businesses are simply, in many cases, wealthy Canadians trying to avoid taxes. He knows a thing or two about wealthy Canadians trying to avoid taxes normally, but in this case he's dead wrong, of course. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and small businesses, taxpayers and Canadians of all backgrounds have experienced the pain associated with the radical economic agenda of the NDP-Liberal government.
Of course I have a great deal to say on that subject. I would also add that the proposal from Mr. Sousa to require a government response to this report is not about actually getting a government response. It's about inserting a 120-day delay before this issue can be considered by the House in a concurrence motion, which Mr. Sousa or whoever made this recommendation to him knows.
The idea that there's some urgency for us to pass this today, that this committee needs to vote on this motion today is not going to impact the timeline, because if the government were going to extend it, the government would need to extend it. The government has, by all indications, chosen not to do it. This is not a government that listens to small business. The best we could hope for through this process would be that this would be reported to the House. It wouldn't be reported to the House substantially after the deadline. Certainly, if Mr. Sousa were successful with his amendment, the earliest time the House could pronounce itself on this matter would be months and months from now.
This is being done at a time when, unfortunately, our ability to ask critical questions to very senior public servants who are under a cloud of significant suspicion has been limited. I'm happy to debate this government's economic agenda and how poorly they've treated small businesses, but we have an urgent matter related to the ArriveCAN situation. It's an urgent matter that follows not only $54 million spent on an app but also the RCMP investigating some of the related contractors, with middlemen receiving large amounts of money for no work. It's also senior public servants accusing each other of lying and apparent retaliation for testimony given at parliamentary committees.
In that vein, Mr. Chair, I want to identify not just that I think it is time as part of these hearings that we hear from ministers. I know I can't move a motion and I don't think you need a motion for that, but significant questions have been raised in this discussion among public servants that need to be answered by ministers. I hope you would choose at some point soon to invite the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to appear before the committee and help us unravel some of the contradictions we've heard among senior public servants. Also, we'd like to find out to what extent they have been privy to the conversations around ArriveCAN and some of the retaliatory actions taken against public servants.
I also hope at some point we will be able to hear from the minister at the time, Mr. Mendicino.
Mr. Chair, over the course of this hearing I have been reflecting on things related to the issues around retaliation against public servants.
I would like to raise a question of privilege. You can advise me on the appropriate procedure around this, Mr. Chair. My view is that it is a critical privilege of committees and of parliamentarians to be able to call witnesses and hear from witnesses, and for those witnesses to be able to present their information without being subject to retaliation and intimidation. When witnesses are subject to retaliation and intimidation, it limits the rights and privileges of committees because it constrains our ability to actually hear and receive accurate and truthful testimony.
It's clear to me from the series of events we have seen, if not direct, intentional retaliation, certainly a strong appearance of retaliation, which will cast a chill on the ability of this committee to hear from public servants. We want to be able to have public servants come before the committee and simply tell us what they're hearing. I think now that is going to be constrained as a result of the fact that senior public servants have retaliated against those who have given direct and frank testimony. I think this is a matter that does touch on the privilege of members of Parliament, so I want to put that on the record as well.