Government Operations Committee on Jan. 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Johns, go ahead, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Chair, thank you very much.

I'm going to get back to the opportunity to table that motion.

I put three motions on notice. This is the first motion I would like to move, and I would like a chance to speak to this motion. It's timely today, given that the CEBA loan extension ends today. I'm going to read it into the record:

Given that 900,000 small businesses in Canada risk closing because of the government’s unwillingness to extend the CEBA repayment deadline, that the committee report the following to the House, within the first 5 sitting days following the adoption of this motion:

That it is the opinion of the committee that the government should extend the loan repayment period, including the deadline for accessing partial loan forgiveness, for at least another year to ensure small businesses can continue supporting local economies and good-paying local jobs.

Mr. Chair, could I speak to the motion now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes. Go ahead.

I've started a speaking list.

Go ahead.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

First, the deadline is today. We know there are 200,000 businesses that the CFIB has identified that just can't repay the loan and won't be able to meet the deadline today. These are businesses that closed their doors to protect public health.

You've heard me at committee, citing that the PBO costed out what the one-year extension would cost. It's roughly a 4.2% decrease of outsourcing costs to the highly paid consulting firms that are getting contracts with the government. This is outsourcing that doubled under the Conservative government when they were in power and has gone up fourfold under the Liberal government.

A 4.2% decrease in outsourcing would cover the cost of the extension. Small businesses and their workers are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They provide good-paying jobs. They're jobs with flexibility and familiarity that aren't possible in many corporate settings and jobs in rural and remote places, where other work just isn't available. They aren't giant businesses full of corporate headquarters in Courtenay or Bowser.

Many of my constituents are employed by small and medium-sized businesses. They hold up the local economy, provide essential goods and services, and give locals much greater commerce options. In every community in Canada, small and medium-sized businesses are essential to the culture and community. They sell local goods. They provide community centre services. They offer meeting places and celebration spots. They offer artists a chance to share their work and fund their passion.

During the pandemic, like I said, small businesses around the country stepped up. They closed their doors to protect public health. They lost income for long periods to save Canadian lives. They took on losses to keep their workers employed.

It's not just COVID. They've faced so many hardships in the last few years, from supply chain issues to climate emergencies like the fires in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni. Many of these small businesses were already operating on razor-thin margins. With so much lost revenue over the last few years, they need help catching up.

They closed their doors to protect public health. Many of them took on losses to keep their workers employed. Communities, especially rural ones, depend on local business, and so do the people employed by them. The CEBA program has been an absolute lifeline for these businesses, and we need to make sure that it doesn't turn into an even worse hardship for them.

Data from the CFIB, like I said, found that losing the forgivable portion puts the future of up to 200,000 small businesses in jeopardy. It found that only one-third of the businesses say they have the money to repay their loans for today's deadline. One-third say they don't have the money and they plan to borrow, which is extremely costly to them. One-third say they don't have the money and can't secure a loan. Extending the deadline would give these businesses one more year to keep reducing their principal without being burdened by ever-increasing....

If the Liberals keep refusing to extend the deadline with the forgivable portion intact, these businesses will have to find even more money to spend on interest. That will force them to make hard choices that could put their workers' jobs at risk.

The Liberals have been outright refusing this extension and the Conservatives have been absolutely silent. It seems like they both don't want to admit the truth out loud. They don't want to support small businesses right now, but they have no problem helping rich corporations live high on the hog.

Instead, the deadline needs to be extended to allow them to spend the money they need on scaling up, keeping their workers employed and making investments that benefit their local economies. We can't fully calculate the economic and social benefits of these businesses remaining open and putting that money into their businesses and communities, instead of interest payments, but we know it's huge.

I'm asking the committee to support this motion in support of small business people in their riding and doing the right thing. If they go to any restaurant in their riding, they're going to find it's having challenges recovering from COVID-19. Many businesses in the hospitality industry have not even made a dent in repaying their loans. They're just finding their feet now.

I'm urging the committee to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Johns.

The motion has been distributed in both official languages.

Mr. Sousa, go ahead.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the NDP putting forward a motion that reaffirms and describes the CEBA program—and its importance—which was brought forth to help hundreds of thousands of businesses keep afloat during a time of tremendous uncertainty during the pandemic. I have a few amendments that I have already discussed with Mr. Johns, and I would like to submit them to the clerk. I will submit them in both English and French. I would prefer to move them in a block, but I'm prepared to move them separately as well.

My first amendment is to note that businesses are still recovering from the aftermath of COVID and to note that the government has previously extended the CEBA deadline twice. I would add the words “in Canada risk closing”, and then remove “that” and add “due to the economic aftershocks of the COVID pandemic”. I would add the word “deadline” and the words “for a third time”. I can elaborate further when I read it in full.

My second amendment would be to add the language of reaffirming the value of CEBA and calling for a government response to report to the House. It would add at the end of the motion “and reaffirms the value of these programs to small business owners, and Canadians across the country, and that the committee call for a government response to its report.”

My third amendment acknowledges the actions of Conservatives over the course of the pandemic and the continued scapegoating of pandemic programs as drivers of inflation. It would add “for a third time, given the fact that we've extended it twice before, and given the Conservative leadership's description of pandemic supports like CEBA as 'big fat government programs' and numerous occasions on which the Conservative Party of Canada voted against pandemic support programs that supported Canadians and Canadian businesses”.

I would be happy to move these amendments as a block for the sake of time, but I'm also prepared to do them separately, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Johns, be really quick, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

If Mr. Genuis is fine, then I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Genuis has raised a question of privilege. Privilege issues have to take precedence, and unfortunately it does adjourn the debate. We will take up this motion on Mr. Sousa's amendment at our next meeting, but privilege issues have to take precedence.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just have a point of order.

If the matter of privilege is dealt with, then we go back to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll resume debate on Mr. Sousa's amendment after we have dealt with the issue of privilege.

Mr. Genuis has raised a question of privilege. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 1060, describes my role as chair of the committee in entertaining a question of privilege.

The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power. If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege during a committee meeting, or an incident rises in connection with the committee's proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, the committee Chair allows the member to explain the situation.

I will do that in a moment.

The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege. If the Chair determines that the question does relate to parliamentary privilege, the committee may then consider presenting a report on the question to the House.

Mr. Genuis has referred to allegations that the campaign of retaliation and intimidation against the two individuals who have appeared as witnesses at our committee, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, is in connection with the evidence they have given to committee. Bosc and Gagnon, on page 115, explains that.

Just as prima facie cases of privilege have been found for the intimidation of Members and their staff, the intimidation of a committee witness has also been found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

I'm satisfied that Mr. Genuis has raised a matter that relates to parliamentary privilege. Accordingly, I invite him to move the motion and speak on it. However, before I do, I will suggest that we dismiss our witnesses, Ms. O'Gorman and Mr. Ossowski, so that we can attend to this privilege issue.

Witnesses, thank you for joining us again.

Mr. Genuis, please go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just out of respect for the discussion that was going on previously, I hope we can deal with this issue quickly, but it is a very serious one. I hope we can get some consensus. I would simply propose that we ask the chair to prepare a report that lays out the simple facts of the case and to report it to the House.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. The CEBA loan extension deadline is today. The member talked about urgency, but he's not talking about small businesses and the urgency they have. They're sweating it out. I had a constituent of mine call me crying yesterday about the deadline and the impact that it's having on his mental, financial and physical relationships and health. It's a matter of urgency. I know the Conservatives do not support small businesses—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I understand what you're saying. We will get back to the motion immediately, hopefully, if we can dispose of the question of privilege.

Unfortunately for this case, under our rules, the question of privilege and the issue around the intimidation of a witness have to take precedence, but the rules do state that as soon as we can deal with this as a very simple motion from Mr. Genuis, we will return immediately, and, hopefully, today—because we do have resources and we can continue for a bit longer on Mr. Sousa's amendment—to your very important motion, and I do take note of the date of January 18.

We have Mr. Sousa on the question of privilege.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

We had Ms. O'Gorman come forward requesting an in camera opportunity to discuss these matters a bit more openly, and now we have a situation where we've just sent her away. It's interesting that we want privilege when in fact it was broken when she was prepared to appear to discuss this matter.

I'm a bit concerned now that we are in fact manipulating and prejudicing the integrity of the investigation. I think it's unfortunate that these procedures are taking place. We have motions before the House. The fact that something is taking precedence over the other is I think a bit confusing for all who are watching and trying to understand, because of some of the urgency that's being brought forward. I need clarity as to what is taking place here. Why did we let go of someone who is appearing before us at the request of the committee and we didn't finish off that discussion? Why are now putting forward something that may provide the way that may very well hurt the integrity of the investigation and jeopardize the procedure?

Why we aren't giving Mr. Johns the respect he's requesting in respect to his amendment that he put forth prior to Mr. Genuis and the amendment that I put forward as well, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Sousa.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We just spent an hour and 57 minutes asking questions of witnesses here today at this committee at an emergency meeting on a constituency week. It's not like we're not giving this issue a priority. We are giving it a priority. We met yesterday, another day where meetings weren't scheduled in a constituency week. I have 31 communities in my riding. I'm missing events all over my riding because this issue is an emergency.

I bring forward another emergency with a deadline of today that impacts 200,000 businesses across this country and the Conservatives want to play games. That's exactly what's going on here. I would move that we call a vote on the question of privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We can get to that after we finish our speaking list.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Just very briefly, Mr. Johns, I agree with part of what you said. Let's proceed to complete this matter, and then we'll immediately return to your issue.

If I believe there is a breach of privilege, I am required procedurally to bring it forward immediately. I didn't make the rule that it takes precedence, but we'll complete this and then we'll go to the next. It's an important issue. I'm done. Let's proceed to a vote if necessary or simply adopt it and move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's back to you, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I absolutely want to come back to this. Mr. Chair, if he felt his privilege was being breached, why didn't he bring it up before? Why did he have to wait until there was going to be a discussion and a vote on extending the CEBA loans and a call from this committee on the government to do such a thing with a deadline? Why did he have to wait until this motion was brought forward?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Seeing as we do not have any more on the speakers list, we will go to a vote.

Before we do so, can I get you, Mr. Genuis, just to reiterate the motion?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I move that we ask the chair to prepare a report that lays out the simple facts of the case and report it to the House.