Madam Chair, I will be saying how much I appreciate the amendment that was brought forward by my friend and colleague, Mr. Turnbull. I have been clear that I think it would be really important to hear from the and the .
I will also make the same point that I have repeatedly made, namely, that there is nothing more important than the COVID-19 pandemic, and that is where our sole focus should be. Canada is in the third wave of COVID-19. We are in a race between the variants and the vaccines, and our health system in Ontario is literally on the verge of collapse. Ontario field hospitals are being readied, but it's not just beds that are needed. Critical care staff are needed. We are hearing that this is absolutely unprecedented. This is the—quote—“nightmare scenario” we were all afraid of, yet this committee remains focused on a political motion.
Our country reported over 9,200 COVID infections on Friday. That was the new single-day high since the start of the pandemic. We have had the highest number of COVID-19 cases, and yet there is a partisan motion.
Worldwide, more than 2,850,000 people have lost their lives, and all of us, we have lost them. Globally, new COVID-19 cases rose for a sixth consecutive week, with over four million cases reported in the last week. The number of new deaths also increased by 11% compared to the previous week, with over 71,000 new deaths reported.
Far too many health care workers have died in the pandemic and millions have been infected. The pandemic has taken a huge toll on their physical and mental health, with devastating effects on their families and communities. Anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress have all increased, and yet we have a partisan motion.
The pandemic is exposing, exploiting and exacerbating inequalities. COVID-19 pushed an estimated 120 million people into extreme poverty last year. Gender inequalities have increased with more women than men leaving the labour force. Rich countries are vaccinating their populations while the world's poor watch and wait.
Health inequalities are not just unfair; they make the world less safe and less sustainable. Yet there is a partisan motion.
Here in Canada, we have had over one million COVID-19 cases. COVID-19 has claimed the lives of more than 23,250 Canadians. That's another 1,250 Canadians since I updated this committee on March 6—in fact, when I was repeatedly interrupted at this committee.
Madam Chair, I cannot imagine what could be more important than talking about COVID-19, the race between the variants and the vaccines and what this committee could actually do to ensure preparedness for pandemics going forward. The numbers of deaths are not just numbers. They were our grandparents, mothers, fathers, loved ones, neighbours, colleagues, lifelong friends, mentors and heroes, and they matter to so many more people.
All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks of COVID-19 in hospitals right now, the number of health care workers who have developed COVID-19 and the number of health care workers who have ended up in ICU. All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks in essential workplaces, in marginalized communities and in congregate settings.
A century after the 1918 influenza, poverty, hunger, well-being, gender, racialization and economic status still play a role in who gets sick, who gets treated and who survives COVID-19.
Non-emergency surgeries are on hold in Ontario hospitals as COVID-19 takes hold despite a backlog of postponed surgeries from the past year approaching 250,000. Ontario has not ordered such an across-the-board postponement of non-emergency surgeries since the first wave of the pandemic hit the province in March 2020.
Dr. Kevin Smith, the CEO of the University Health Network, has written, “This is going to be the most extraordinary and demanding time most of us have had in our working lives. It comes to us after a very long year which has left us feeling battered and drained.”
They are battered and they are drained. In the words of one physician, “It's never-ending high stress and I'm actually afraid. I've never been afraid, but it's different with the variants. You have no idea what we see, the fear from the patient, the fear of families saying goodbye over Zoom, the fear of our families when we come home. It's unrelenting.” But here we are focused on a partisan motion.
Let me be clear. We are still fighting the pandemic. Canada's cases have increased 82% over the last 14 days. In Ontario more COVID-19 patients are in the ICU than at any other point during the pandemic. The expectation is that we are locked in for a 5% to 7% daily increase in hospital admissions for the next two weeks. The number of new variant cases more than doubled in the last week.
An article states, “Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam said the rapidly spreading variants have now likely replaced the original virus, as more young people are getting sicker". This article is a few days old now, but it states that to date, “more than 26,000 cases linked to variants of concern have been reported” in Canada.
The variant initially reported in the United Kingdom accounts for more than 90%. For the variant first identified in Brazil, there have been more than 1,000 cases in Canada after doubling in the last week alone. The variant from South Africa is also picking up momentum, with cases in Ontario and Quebec. The article goes on to sate:
Hospital admissions are also on the rise as health-care staff try to keep up with overflowing ICUs. Experts say the number of COVID-19 patients in ICUs continue to test hospital capacities with patients battling the disease.
My friends, we've done really good work in the past. Together we have done really good work. We did important work that allowed remote voting so that MPs weren't travelling back and forth to their communities and potentially spreading the virus. We did really important work in saying what was needed should there be an election during the pandemic. Now we have to step up again. We have to step up and do the work that's incumbent upon us. We need to look at the House of Commons' response so that we can make recommendations for when the next pandemic comes along. We need to do that work.
I'll come back to the motion that's before us. The original motion prejudges the need for prorogation. Mr. Turnbull's amendment refocuses the study on prorogation with research, evidence and facts, and reinviting our and the .
The prorogued in order to take the time needed to take stock of Canada's situation: How are Canadians doing? Where were we in the pandemic? How was the pandemic affecting jobs and livelihoods? How had wave one affected our seniors, and particularly those in long-term care? Where should we go as a country after looking at the science, evidence and facts and hearing directly from Canadians?
I remember last spring when our Conservative colleagues wanted in-person Parliament with MPs travelling back and forth to Ottawa, possibly spreading the infection. They wanted in-person voting in Ottawa rather than electronic or remote voting.
When dealing with a new disease, it's important to acknowledge that not everything is known. It's important to exercise precaution. With a new disease, new science and data, information will likely change. There will likely need to be adjustments and guidelines, policies and recommendations. If we look at what was known last January versus what is known today, there are a lot of differences: the role of aerosols, the role of indoor versus outdoor spaces and the role of masks. Scientific knowledge evolves over time, and decision-makers have to be open, flexible and willing to change course. Decision-makers must stay humble in the face of the new virus.
Colleagues, we're in the third wave. It is incumbent upon us to do our work so that in the future the House of Commons—Parliament—can be better prepared.
If the were here, we could ask about the evidence. We could ask about what consultations were taken during prorogation. It is for this reason that I am supporting my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull and his amendment.
I'm here to represent the constituents of Etobicoke North. We are a caring, strong and resilient community. Many of our community members are essential workers.
I'm also here to debate the amendment at hand, which is to invite several ministers to appear in front of this committee. I support the amendment, as I said, but I would like to give further arguments as to why I think it's important to reinvite ministers.
Speaking for my constituents, I will first talk about COVID-19, as this is what is first and foremost—
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm not exactly sure what point Ms. Vecchio was attempting to make about relevancy. I'm just going to continue.
When we talk about having people appear before committees, we have seen throughout the last number of months standing committees calling for and receiving a wide spectrum of ministers attending. Using the finance committee as an example, I think is a positive thing and hopefully will contribute to part of the discussion that is taking place when we talk about ongoing committee meetings and who we're going to be hearing from and so forth. I want to emphasize that committee because it's something I was just talking about yesterday in the House, as it was information that was provided to me.
We had, as I indicated, the . There was the former minister of finance. We had the . We had the . We even had the Clerk of the Privy Council.
We've had endless other representations heard in committees from private citizens and organizations. In fact, on government supply—and this goes in part to what you were talking about in your explanation, Madam Chair, and I appreciate it—there was a great deal of information provided. It seems to me that we have more than one committee attempting to do the same thing that other committees are doing.
In this situation, when you talk about what was taking place in the finance committee, which was the WE Charity issue, and what PROC is looking at and follow some of the debates that occurred back then, there are some common themes.
There were 5,000 pages of documents provided to the finance committee—5,000 pages—dealing with WE Charity and the Canada summer youth program. There were documents that were also provided by the Prime Minister's Office. There were clerks who made presentations.
The has been very strong on the issue of what's taking place in standing committees and in recognizing that standing committees operate on their own and that it is the standing committee that will ultimately determine what its agenda is going to be. I believe that is why it's so important that we protect as much as possible the interests of that independence of standing committees. I believe what we have seen is an infection of sorts coming from primarily the official opposition, whose intent is to play partisan politics even more in our standing committees than we have seen before.
I've had opportunities to participate in PROC discussions in regard to the Canada Elections Act and the calling of witnesses, and who it is we should be listening to, and reports. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe we even submitted some form of a minority report from the past.
My concern is, at the end of the day, what is it that the official opposition is attempting to achieve. We have indicated from day one our expectation of dealing with the coronavirus. That is where our focus has been. I would like to pick up on that, Madam Chair.
Yesterday we had a very special celebration. The was there. I know Ms. Duncan was there also, as were you, Madam Chair. Today is Vaisakhi and I would like to say happy Vaisakhi to all members of the committee, but also to the broader population and those who are celebrating. Vaisakhi is a very special celebration in our Indo-Canadian community, but many others, including me, also acknowledge the importance of Vaisakhi and celebrate it.
A part of that celebration, as it was noted yesterday, is giving back, that we, as people, have a responsibility to give of ourselves to the community as a whole. What was so nice about yesterday's event is that it highlighted two things. It highlighted the richness of Canada's diversity and it allowed us to recognize that important issue that all Canadians are facing today: the coronavirus. That is what members of the Liberal caucus have been trying to get the focus on, whether it's in PROC or on the floor of the House.
At the celebration, that's what it was for me. In recognition of Vaisakhi, the said a few words, but more importantly, listened to what health care workers from across Canada had to say about the pandemic and the impact it was having on Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Ms. Duncan, Ms. Sahota and I were there, but I think all members of PROC would have benefited from listening to what was being said,
We were blessed to have had so many wonderful people not only wish us happy Vaisakhi but share with us their point of view as to what was taking place on the ground, and some of the things that we need to be working on. There were a couple of them that really touched me and made me think that we need to spend more energy and more time talking about them.
Ms. Duncan, I look to you and recognize your science background. We had the one doctor who talked about the backlogs of cancer patients that have been created because we've been so focused on the pandemic. The costs to our health care and our resources are so significant that we have not been able to do some of the things we've been able to do in the past in dealing with things like cancer detection. What is going to be the impact of that?
I appreciated those thoughts. Those are the types of issues that we need to be focusing on. We can all choose some very specific things. To use a few examples, I think, is good.
I'm genuinely concerned that there could be an election, and if there is an election, we have legislation that should be talked about.
I understand that we have a motion before PROC today that's talking about witnesses, that's talking indirectly about prorogation and why that had taken place. This is all related to it. What's taking place today is related to why prorogation was absolutely necessary back in August, which is the reason PROC is where it is today. I would argue that it is happening in that fashion because the Conservative party has chosen to politicize.
That's why I think it's good to bring up some examples of what real Canadians are saying. Towards the end of the discussion yesterday.... It didn't get anywhere near as much time as I and I'm sure other members would have liked to see. I know Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who is a former minister of health, is very passionate on the issue of mental health. Imagine the impact the pandemic will have on mental health. And you wonder why we wanted to refocus the House of Commons with a new throne speech.
You can only talk so much within the first hour or within one hour, and unfortunately, that was the limit we had yesterday in recognizing Vaisakhi and listening to those front-line health care workers who worked in emergency room settings and community settings. I can tell you that, even though it didn't get as much time, I believe that we have our work cut out for us on the mental health issue. It's absolutely critical that we reflect on the impacts that the pandemic has been having.
You see, prorogation ensured that the House of Commons would refocus its attention, because the first throne speech that we presented talked more about the economy, going forward and the previous four years when there were a lot of things that were done. The throne speech we heard back in September, I believe, allowed all of us, all political entities in the House, to recognize that there was a need for us to pay attention to what was the first priority for for all Canadians.
I was really encouraged yesterday when the indicated that we are now on track to get 44 million doses of vaccine by the end of June. We need to recognize that the population of Canadian is 37.5 million, or maybe a little more than that. Depending on how provinces prioritize and how they administer the vaccines, Canada is in good shape today for a wide spectrum of reasons.
When it comes to the ultimate answer of vaccines, we have reason to be optimistic and hopeful. I think that's the type of thing for which all of us, whatever political affiliation we may have, can take some responsibility and start encouraging even more people to get engaged with the whole vaccination process.
I look at the types of actions that we have seen from the government that encouraged the prorogation. We often talk about day one, when it first became very clear that we had something that we needed to deal with, that there was no choice in the matter.
I can remember getting ready for budget 2020. We had the pre-budget consultations, which are fairly extensive in themselves. We were getting ready to present that budget on the floor of the House. Then we started to hear more about the pandemic. We started to hear from the health experts from the World Health Organization, from non-profits, from the private sector, from provinces, and the list goes on.
The made it very clear that the priority of the Government of Canada would be to have the backs of all Canadians, to be there in a very real and tangible way. There was a high sense of co-operation. There was very much a team Canada approach that we saw first-hand. We saw people of different political parties, different levels of government coming together and working out what was necessary in order to get us started on this path. Even the official opposition back then recognized the value of it.
We, with the support of so many, created programs that were absolutely non-existent prior to that time. We went from nowhere to a program that served almost nine million Canadians in every region of our country. Everyone knows it as CERB.
That was the beginning. As we started to move more and more into it, we saw the need to hit the reset button. That was a decision that the ultimately had to make. I support that decision. I support that decision because it reflects what Canadians expect of the government given the time. There was so much that was taking place.
I can remember how fluid things were and how things were changing. First the message seemed to be to wash your hands and keep your hands clean and to make sure that when you're speaking, you're not spitting—either intentionally or unintentionally, obviously—on others. That's how the coronavirus passed. Masks weren't compulsory anywhere. They weren't being made compulsory.
Remember we were talking about staying below the curve. Everything was about the curve. We talked so much about the curve. Do you remember the need for sanitizers for your hands? The educational component was so high at the beginning. People had no real idea what they needed to do. They really did not.
For the first number of weeks going into months, it was about education. It was about coming up with the support programs. It was about remaining under the curve. With the team Canada approach that was almost completely universal, we made a difference in a significant way.
Because of the experiences through that first wave, we were better able to deal with the second wave. Three weeks into it, how many people could have gone to a store and bought hand sanitizer? Do you remember the rush on toilet paper? PPE was very scarce. We were fighting to get PPE. We didn't have the stuff being produced or manufactured here in Canada. It was that first wave that woke everyone up. It was so encouraging to see that high sense of co-operation.
I said that we were just getting started on the debate on the 2020-21 budget. We were anticipating it. The House was going to be sitting and going ultimately into a budget debate, but then it was agreed amongst all the political parties that we needed to come up with some sort of a hybrid system. Even before then, we recognized that we needed to take a break and extend that break because of the coronavirus.
How many of us back in March last year anticipated that we would be doing what we're doing today? Very few really understood it. Today, because of the education, because of the programs that were put into place, we are in a much better position.
There should have been no surprise about the need to prorogue. That was something I would have thought was almost a given. Quite frankly, it was a bit disappointing to see the resistance toward it. If you go back, my belief is that sometime between June and July, you started to see at least a different attitude coming from some members, particularly in the opposition. We started to see more partisan politics being brought in at the national level.
That is why we needed to prorogue the session. I wish that the non-partisanship that we saw back in April, May and most of June 2020 would come back. We would be able to accomplish so much more if were able to see that happen.
I support the idea of having studies done at PROC on House procedural matters, including prorogation. I wouldn't have a problem arguing that this is probably one of the best examples that one can give for proroguing a session. I couldn't think of a better example, other than a war maybe, but beyond that, it would be pretty tough to convince me.
I would have no problem at all comparing what our did in terms of the prorogation and the justification for it, to the last time under a different administration when the session was prorogued. I wouldn't have any problem at all doing a comparison of the two. I suspect that most Canadians would support what was done by the current Prime Minister.
Read through the throne speech. Maybe later on tonight I'll get the opportunity to go through the throne speech, and you'll see very clearly what's in that throne speech. The focus of that throne speech was about being there for Canadians in real and tangible ways.
I go back to when I emphasized the importance of education. Very few of us had any real understanding of the depth of what it was the world was getting into with the coronavirus. The death, sickness and costs to society have been enormous.
Are there things we could have done better? I'm not arrogant to believe we have been absolutely perfect. There has been, at times, a need for us to make adjustments. We have done that. We have listened and made adjustments where it has been necessary.
I mentioned the creation of programs. There is a suite of programs out there as a result of the coronavirus.
We continue to make changes all the way up to legislation that was being debated yesterday for Bill .
When we talk about being there, working together and trying to provide the supports that Canadians need, there are the two extremes. I started off a few minutes back talking about how we were working so well together back in April, May and most of June. Contrast that with what's happening today.
Look at Bill . It's an excellent example. I don't know if it's because minority governments typically last 18 months and some people are getting the itch that they have to see something happen because of that. For me and I know for my colleagues, our focus continues to be on the pandemic.
I mention Bill , because I think it's a great example of how the opposition has not responded well with the new throne speech. We prorogued Parliament. We came in with a new throne speech. Committees, including PROC, started to meet and they wanted to do X, Y and Z. We're saying that we want to continue to focus, as we should, on the pandemic and fighting and minimizing the negative impacts of the pandemic.
Bill , as many will recall, was necessary because of the fall economic statement made by the back in November of last year. The legislation was tabled in December, I believe. Think of what is in that legislation. There are things to support Canada's middle class through the child benefit program, for businesses and the government's ability to borrow. There are things there that are absolutely essential.
Government has called the bill on many occasions. It gets talked out or things will be brought up to prevent it from being debated. The only reason it passed—and I remember back in January getting it out of second reading—was that the opposition parties were shamed into seeing why they weren't passing this necessary legislation. I hope to expand on that later.
I can tell you that when we look at prorogation and you talk about wanting witnesses, or talk about who you should be calling, I think the is someone who would be able to provide a lot of detail as to why it is so important that we remain focused on the coronavirus and the impact it's having on our society. We should be taking advantage of the work that has been done by so many and looking at ways we can improve upon it.
Our often talks about building back better. That's not just a phrase; that's a reality. We can do that. The opportunity is there. It's real. It's tangible. I'm even hopeful that we're going to see some of that—more of that—in the upcoming budget on the 19th.
I think we have an opportunity, in whatever capacity that we play, whether it's sitting in PROC and determining what it is we should be talking about, or the agenda of PROC and how we might be able to assist the process, or in some other capacity. If you believe that the pandemic is the number one concern of Canadians, as I do, as Liberal members of Parliament do, you can still be a viable, strong and healthy opposition. I believe there is a need to refocus.
I've been a parliamentarian for 30 years. I spent over 20 of those years in opposition. I've said on several occasions before that being positive and creative didn't hurt me when I was in opposition. There are still many different areas in which one can explore and contribute. Canadians aren't stupid. They will recognize the value of hard work.
Earlier I referenced the CERB program. I said it was a program that started from nowhere—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think it's important that when we talk about programming and we talk about witnesses, whoever the witnesses might be and whatever the agenda—prorogation and the need for prorogation—we need to take into consideration what has been taking place in the last 12 months.
That's why I quickly made reference to CERB. I think it's an important part of the discussion and the debate, and it could even be something that might be raised with people who would be appearing before the committee, if in fact the committee is genuinely interested in what Canadians want Parliament to be talking about. That's why I believe that, in going to use CERB, looking at what it is that the government has done that justified it calling for a prorogation is really important.
We have, for all intents and purposes, provided a wide spectrum of programs. Those programs were put in place in good part in those months that followed the alarms going off on the coronavirus. Then, once we got into the summertime, what became very clear was the need to make changes to these programs, because they were not perfect.
I would recognize they were not perfect programs. That is one of the many reasons there was justification for prorogation. Going forward, if you're going to be dealing with the issue of prorogation or changing the rules or anything of that nature, there is a responsibility of committee members and others to understand what led to prorogation. It is why members, in particular those of the Liberal caucus, have chosen to talk about the coronavirus as the number one issue facing Canadians today.
I'm hoping that helps Ms. Vecchio understand why I'm talking about the program.
Madam Chair, I indicated that out of the suite of programs, the one that really comes to my mind is the CERB, because of the numbers and where it came from. It came from virtually nothing to a program to service just under nine million Canadians.
Why were programs of this nature so important? If you check with what people in our communities had to go through, one very quickly understands the importance of government having to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That's what CERB was. Imagine, if you will, where concerns are being raised, whether it's in the province of Ontario, the province of Manitoba, or any other province or territory, for that matter. There's a need to have people stay at home, to not go to work.
If people can't go to work, and they work at store X, they will likely lose their income while they're not there. In a situation like that, we need to recognize that the same principle doesn't apply for utility bills or mortgage payments or the need to buy groceries.
That is the reason the government had to bring forward a program that would support Canadians. That was the essence of the CERB. It allowed Canadians to have a disposable income during a very difficult time. It was absolutely critical for the Government of Canada, and I think most parliamentarians to support the need for that particular program.
That's the best example I could give for individuals. Then there are the small businesses. When you stop and think about the damage to the economy and the impact on the economy, is it any wonder that the would have given that extra consideration going into the need to prorogue the session. We've never faced that sort of situation in our past, where many businesses are being forced to shut down. It's not an option. Businesses were having a very difficult time. Once again, the government needed to respond. Much like with the CERB, of course there were going to be some modifications to the program.
The Canada emergency business account was there to protect the long-term interests of Canadians as a whole. Let me explain. When we take a look at Canada's economy, we need to recognize that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Even my Conservative friends will acknowledge how important small businesses are, and I appreciate that. These programs that we're having to reflect on in terms of being able to justify prorogation made a difference in a very tangible way. Let me give you some details on that, Madam Chair.
Imagine, if you will, that you are a small business, and you are being told that you're going to have to reduce your business expectations because of the coronavirus. As a result, you're now going to have to lay off some people. Those people who you're laying off are going to be falling on some hard times. You might not even be able to start up again quickly. What could government do to support situations of that nature?
The wage subsidy program literally provided support to tens of thousands of businesses across this country. It enabled businesses to survive and employees to keep their jobs. By doing that, when the time is right and we're in a position to recover, we will see us in a better position, because there will have been fewer bankruptcies. It's the same thing with the rent subsidy program.
Every government program that prevented a company from going bankrupt, or that assisted employees in keeping their jobs, made a huge difference. They continue to do so in Canada's ability to build back better going forward and to keep those jobs.
In fact, after the second wave, I remember the in the House talking about how Canada, as a whole, was having far greater success than other countries around the world, in particular, the United States, in recovering the jobs that were lost because of the coronavirus. We were very successful because we came up with programs to support small businesses.
By supporting small businesses and people through programs like the CERB, the federal government was in a good position to protect our long-term interests. At the same time, the government has been there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way during this very difficult time.
I am not going to be able to stick around for much longer, but I did want to pick up on a couple of other points. When I talk about small businesses, there is one other aspect in which the government played a very important role. I could very easily have talked about other aspects of supporting small businesses, like the emergency business account, the credit availability account and the regional relief and recovery funds. There are different programs that have been put into place.
There's one thing on which I want to provide a brief comment. It's not just the Government of Canada, but there were other stakeholders, beyond the national government, the provincial governments and territories, indigenous leaders, non-profit organizations, for-profit organizations. Some of these companies have been absolutely incredible.
I talked about how this thing got under way in the first place, going back to March 2020 and how much PPE was actually being produced in Canada. Do a comparison today, and look at the companies today that are providing PPE for Canadians. There's no shortage today at all. It's there, and it's very real. I'm talking in particular about things such as masks for the public and hand sanitizer.
If I were the PS for procurement, I could probably go on and on, but I'm sure could speak endlessly on this issue regarding the number of companies, and how they contributed to take back industries that we had lost, and how we've stepped up.
When you talk about the situation that we were thrown into, that's what has impressed me the most.
Prorogation was necessary because it ensured that the focus of the House of Commons would be on the pandemic and minimizing the impacts of the coronavirus. All we needed to do was to take our lead, as the did, from what Canadians were saying and doing. Whether it was the individual, the private company that retooled or the non-profit organizations that stepped up to the plate, I hope to be able to expand on a number of these things later tonight when we talk about the immense contributions made that sent a very clear message. That message was very simple, that as a Parliament, we needed to be focused on the coronavirus and minimizing the negative damage that was being caused by it.
I am very proud of the 's decision to prorogue the session. I'm quite happy at any point in time to have a discussion about when a session should be prorogued. I would welcome that sort of a discussion, but I think it's important that, as parliamentarians, we be aware as to why the Prime Minister prorogued. It's there. It's real. It's tangible. From my perspective, I couldn't think of a better reason to do it. I believe Canadians see that and we are starting to see results.
It's important to recognize that we are not out of it. The third wave is here. It's real. It's killing people. Our hospitals are filling. We need to be aware that the third wave is here and it's real.
That said, one of the most important things the Government of Canada had to do was to acquire vaccines. We made that very clear. Months ago, we set the target of six million doses by the end of March. We exceeded that. We got close to 10 million. We will get close to 44 million by the end of June. Vaccine doses are coming.
That does not mean that we should lose our focus. We still have to do what we can. That's why I hope in the next go-around to be able to talk a little more positively about some of the things PROC could be doing, while reflecting, of course, on the amendment. I will be sure to read through both the motion and the amendment prior to this evening in case I might have deviated somewhat.
I can assure members that I really do appreciate the time that has been afforded to me this morning, and I look forward to being able to return later this evening.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Kent.
Maybe, Mr. Kent, the delay in translation didn't allow you to really see the link I'm trying to draw, but there is a very important link here, because if you look at our amendment, it's about, as you said, hearing from the and hearing from the about COVID.
If you look at the initial motion by my colleague Ms. Vecchio, which is really about the reasons we had to prorogue, this is all linked together, so maybe you'll allow me to continue. Maybe I'll do it in English for a little way and then I'll come back, because I want Mr. Kent to really see the link as I try to draw that link clearly.
COVID is the issue and prorogation is a reason why.... I'll go into that afterwards, but this announcement was on an investment from the federal government that we're doing in all provinces, not just Nova Scotia. I'd like to say it's just Nova Scotia, but that wouldn't go well with you, Mr. Kent, and I could understand that. This is a federal government announcement, part of the $2 billion for education, to try to create space—outdoor classrooms. Again, as I was saying, we need to pivot now. This challenge, this crisis, is allowing us to better understand the gaps.
I'm a former teacher, Mr. Kent, and in my profession, we've been talking for probably 30 years—I'll be honest with you—about how important it is to teach outdoors and to have students actively participating and learning in the outdoor space, and here we are, finally. We've done something. It has been minimal to now, but here, finally, we officially are creating spaces and parks, or benches or seating areas, areas in which to play and learn at the same time. The announcement was a contribution of $5.6 million to help us through COVID in education, Mr. Kent, as you can understand. The province is coming in with, I believe, $1.6 million as well. So that's $7.2 million.
What's so important about the announcement is that, for one thing, we were able to do it in person, which COVID has stopped. In Ontario, it would be a dream, maybe, to get that done, but we were able to do it and keep our distance and wear our masks. Elbows were the closest way of touching, I guess. There were no handshakes, as you can understand.
It was so important. Because of this COVID challenge, this will create official space for every elementary school in the province of Nova Scotia. This is what I said to the people in the audience. For every elementary school in the province of Nova Scotia, they will have outdoor learning spaces, which they will choose with the school advisory councils and the school boards, to ensure that learning outside will be an integral part of learning in general.
That is extremely important. When we talk about young people, I want to stress that what we're seeing in this challenge, this crisis, is that there are more young people in Ontario and Quebec who seem to be experiencing COVID-19 challenges, more challenges than we have seen in the past. This is something that we really have to think about, because we saw a big gap in long-term care in terms of how we need to deal with that as politicians, as representatives of the people.
This thing about parties—Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green—is not what it's about. This is a team Canada approach. We need to do the right thing, and to do that, we need to have our share with us some of the key things that we have done, that we are doing and that we need to do. That's extremely important by itself.
Now that I got that announcement by, I want to talk about prorogation, because that is actually the motion that Ms. Vecchio brought to the table, which is important. It is very important.
I'll be very honest with you. When the announced that we were going to prorogue Parliament, I stopped for a second and thought, “Why would we do that? Is it the right thing to do? Is it what Canadians would want us to do?”
I thought about that and the answer was very clear right away. I can tell you all that it doesn't matter which party and it doesn't matter which stripe, I would have agreed with any prime minister that prorogation was an absolute necessity.
I don't think anyone listening today would disagree with that. I know some of my colleagues might want to punch holes in that argument, but think, really think about what prorogation means. It means to restart, reset, refocus. Yes.
I guess the only other reason that might be as important would be a war. We had no choice.
As I have said before, I'm an educator by trade. All of us in all our professions, and I know, Ms. Petitpas Taylor in her work prior to being elected, at one point or another would have had to contribute to strategic planning, to setting an agenda, to setting a vision, to setting the steps that are necessary to achieve the outcomes we're looking for. We would have done consultations with all stakeholders to set that plan. I like to call it the map. Who's responsible for those achievements?
Well, my friends, we had no choice, because we as a country, prior to this prorogation, prior to this pandemic, prior to this challenge, were on the road of great success in a short period of time.
My friends, what I mean by that is in the four and a half or five years prior to COVID....
I still remember, as we all do, many of us, from different parties. I think, Ms. Vecchio, you might have been there, and Mr. Kent might have been there at the airport in the waiting lounge. We were going home on March 13. I thought we would be back in a month. We all thought we would be back in a month. We didn't realize the challenges that lay ahead. We just didn't foresee. Who could have foreseen at that time?
That's why we had to reset. We knew that we would have to have another look at the priorities we had laid out following the 2019 election. We would have to make sure that we were not trying to continue the great economy we had prior to March 13. You all know that Canadians had hired, and over one million new jobs had been created by Canadians. You all know that we had the lowest unemployment rate in the history, and they say in 40 years but there were no statistics prior to that. The economy was steaming ahead. We had lifted over 900,000 Canadians out of poverty. Those are major numbers.
The success was clear and we were on that track. It was a very positive track. Then we were faced with a cement wall, a crisis never experienced before. I say that but I have to share with you a very important story that is directly linked, Mr. Kent, to this very important discussion.
I'm from Nova Scotia, as you know, but I'm also from Cape Breton, which is an island off the mainland. You all know that, I think. What you may not know is that I'm actually from an island off the island of Cape Breton. It's a very small island
[Translation]
called Isle Madame. Mr. Therrien may visit my island one day. Some members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages had a chance to spend a few days there during the committee's trip.
I mention Isle Madame, which Mr. Therrien will soon be visiting, because a Samson family monument was erected in Lévis, Quebec, to celebrate Canada's 100th anniversary.
I want to speak to you about something very important.
[English]
In 1918, my friends, we were faced with a major pandemic. Millions and millions of people lost their lives. What I want to share with you—because this is similar, there are a lot of similarities—is that the island I'm from, Isle Madame, was actually the island hardest hit by the 1918 pandemic, per capita, in Canada. As I told you before, of course, we only had 6,000 people on the island. Now we're down to 4,000 and some.
[Translation]
Mr. Therrien, 99% of them are Acadians. The remaining 1% became Acadian indirectly, being anglophones from Newfoundland who married islanders. They were ship's captains and fishermen.
As you know, the Acadians were farmers before the expulsion. Then we became fishermen because we weren't allowed to return to our fertile lands in the valley. We were sent to live near the sea instead because we were considered poor at the time. We weren't allowed to communicate, but we were allowed to fish. Remember, and Ms. Petitpas Taylor and others can confirm this, lobster was considered a poor man's meal at the time.
[English]
Today, it's probably the richest meal on the table, or close to it, and guess what? The land is next to the ocean and the water is probably the richest as well, so the tables have turned.
We experienced challenges then. In those days, there were 10, 15 or 20 people in a family. I've seen families from that generation who lost 50% of their kids to the 1918 pandemic. This is serious.
They had their community and they had their family but government was not as present as it is today. That's why the struggle was even worse. Today, we have been able to support individuals and families.
Let me get back to prorogation, because that's what this motion is really about, and I don't want Mr. Kent to tell me that I am not linking this yo prorogation, because it is crucial. Again, there's no question it was a need that any government should have and would have done—I know that—and we did it because we had to.
You know, I had to do a little bit of homework, because I wanted to see the government prior to our government. I wanted to check what the government of our friend Mr. Harper did. Some of you may have been in that government, but most of you were not. Did he prorogue Parliament? Let's look at the importance that lies in prorogation. Well, I found out that, in 2008, the Harper government asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. You ask why. Well, let me share that with you.
It actually happened shortly before, not after, not during—you guessed it—a vote of confidence that would have defeated the Conservative government, the minority government. It would have probably been a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP at the time, supported, I might add—for Monsieur Therrien, it's important—by the Bloc at the time. He prorogued. Now, I have to weigh that with proroguing in a pandemic, one of the biggest challenges in the world, the 2020 pandemic: prorogue to set a new agenda or prorogue to hide from a vote of confidence. I think this one would win.
Let's go to 2009. Let's go to the next year because—you guessed it—there was another prorogation. The government of the day, the Harper government, said, “We're faced with an economic challenge. We know there was a recession in 2008. We know that. We're not going to deny that because we're team Canada here; we're working together.” The Harper government decided to prorogue to consult with Canadians, with the business community, to see if maybe we should do some adjustments, some resetting, some refocusing of our priorities. Well, that's better; that's much better, I have to say. Between 2008 and 2009, this one is better. It's still not as difficult and challenging as when you don't really, truly know what's coming at you, when it's directly linked to health, but, hey, the economy is up there. It's not as high as the one that we did in 2020, but it has more merit. I know that Mrs. del Vecchio will be pleased to know that this one is much better. I can understand the prorogation there.
Now I'll go to 2013, if you'll allow me. Yes, you guessed it again: the Conservatives, the Harper government, decided to prorogue again. Let's look now, because I want to go back to the question of Mrs. del Vecchio.
Am I pronouncing del Vecchio right? I want to make sure. She's a good colleague of mine.
:
It's Vecchio. There you go. Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
In 2013, Parliament was shut down by the Conservative government through prorogation—part of this motion—to avoid questions on the Senate expense scandal, a particular senator and the PMO. That one I think is going to go back down to maybe even lower than the first one that the Conservatives did in 2008.
The motion is asking what was the reason we brought this prorogation to the table. I think I've drawn a pretty clear picture that the reason was we needed to refocus, to reset, to re-examine what would become the priorities, and how we were going to help Canadians in crisis.
That was the big question. The economy, as I described to you earlier, was booming like it hadn't been for a long time and all of a sudden everything crashed. Let's not forget the main problem, the health and security of Canadians. With that came the economy. We saw millions of Canadians lose their jobs in weeks, in two or three weeks.
Prorogation you say. Absolutely. If anything, we probably should have done it a little earlier, but it had to be done. It had to be done because we needed to be out there supporting Canadians.
I don't know if you can imagine, but I just cannot imagine coming home, looking at my family.... You know, I have five grandkids now in five years, so things are going well. They're working hard. I love spending time with them. Actually, I get to spend a little bit more time with them these days than I would because I've been in Ottawa for a stretch of 10 weeks out of 11, as you know. But just try to imagine.
Let's just stop. This is not political. I'm speaking to every Canadian now, I believe. Imagine anyone who shows up at home, walks through the door.... Some may have not wanted to go home for a long time because it's depressing. It's challenging. But imagine someone arriving home, looking at their family and telling them, “I was laid off.” That in itself is scary. I just can't even imagine having to live through that. But that wasn't even the scariest, because the scariest is we are in lockdown.
I don't know if you heard what the Premier of Nova Scotia said. It went viral. You must have heard it because it's profound. He said, “Stay the blazes home.” Stay the blazes home. I'm telling you, he was serious. When he said that, it wasn't on day one. It was probably on day 30. Do you know why he said that? He said that because people were not respecting the health recommendations.
People were not social distancing. People were still gathering in big numbers. That, we know, cannot happen when this pandemic is still storming away in its third wave, with variants and variants. We hear it every day. They know it in Ontario. They know it in Quebec. They know it in western Canada, in B.C.
So, here you are. You arrive home, having been laid off. Nine million Canadians, in the end, had to go on CERB—nine million. I didn't teach math in high school, but we know that's about a quarter of the population of this country—9,18, 36; we're up at 37 million and something.
This was a crisis, but that's not the worst. The worst is we're in a pandemic. We don't have a vaccine. It takes years and years. Ms. Petitpas Taylor was minister of health. She knows how long it takes. It's scary when you know that you need something to help Canadians in their health, and you don't have it.
That's why our government right away focused on PPE, focused on investing in vaccine research, and asked companies in this country, “Can you help us? Can you find ways to help us through this pandemic? We need gloves. We need masks. We need gowns. We need and we need and we don't have.” This is the amazing team Canada. This is what Canadians are all about.
It's amazing. Thousands of companies within Canada—thousands—raised their hands to retool, to help, because the pandemic isn't just in Canada. The pandemic is across the world. We needed Canadians to come together. It wasn't a question of whether you were Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative.
I say the only time politics counts for Darrell Samson is on election day. After that, I represent everyone, every citizen in the great riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Sackville is rural-urban, somewhat. For those who fly into Halifax, between the airport and downtown Halifax, or if you're going to Halifax, or to half the province, you're going to pass through my riding. If I put up a blockade, you won't get in.
It was so important. It was amazing how Canadians came together to help with what we needed, but we also needed the financial support. Stay the blazes home. Keep your distance. Wash your hands. Don't gather in big groups. But if you're staying the blazes home, and you're doing what you can, you also need some money, food, shelter. That's another reason, which was crucial for Canadians.
I cannot thank doctors and the health professionals enough. If I did it every day, still it would not be enough.
I have to tell you that I also learned that the individuals stocking the shelves at Sobeys, Superstore, IGA, or Provigo—je crois que c'est à Québec—those people.... At the heart of the challenge, I think in April, May and June last year, people were scared. They're scared today, but there's hope today. Financially, they've been supported somewhat for now. Health-wise we have vaccines coming, but last April, May and June, people were scared to go outside. We needed food and we would make our way to the IGA, or whichever grocery store. I looked in the eyes of the individuals stocking the shelves or the cashier, and I thanked them.
Sometimes challenges are opportunities. We get to better understand and to see when there's a challenge. You look back at all the things you took for granted, and it makes you really focus on what it's all about. It's a lot bigger than politics; I'll tell you that. It's about Canadians; it's about communities; it's about a country working together to ensure that we have the successes that we should.
I could talk about the small businesses, because they, too, are struggling. Even with all the help, they're still struggling, but guess what? Communities are coming together. Instead of cooking these days, they're saying, “My son owns a little restaurant bar on that little island I described to you way back. He's only 26 years old. He called and said, 'Dad, now don't forget. You have to go out to eat three or four times a week. You have to help the small businesses, the small restaurants'”. That's how people are thinking today: local community partnership. That's what the focus has to be about. We all need to be thinking of ways that we can contribute together through this challenge.
Prorogation was absolutely necessary, and thanks to that prorogation, we have reset our agenda. I don't have any secrets to tell, but on Monday another big piece of the pie will come out, and I know.... I don't know what's in it. I told you I don't have all the secrets, as much as you might think so, or even as much as I would like to. I don't, but I have a feeling. I have a feeling there's going to be some more help for Canadians, not just in Nova Scotia, not just in Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, but right across the country, all the provinces, all the territories. I know that we will be there as we should, as Canadians expect of us.
Our has been out daily updating Canadians and sharing with Canadians what's happening, because as an educator, as I said to you before, one of the most important things you can do is to communicate. Communication is the key.
I can't thank Ms. Duncan enough for her communication work through this pandemic. Every night we were online talking about how we could help Canadians. The public servants came and worked non-stop. We've got to be talking about these things, but we've got to be talking about what we do next, how we get there and where we are going. Those are crucial.
For the business community, as I said, the emergency business account really helped a lot. It didn't help all businesses—we can do more—but that was big.
There was also the wage subsidy. People say the wage subsidy helped their businesses. Yes, it did. That was the priority, but it also helped the individuals. Do you remember when I was talking to you earlier about going home and telling your family you lost your job? Now you could turn around and say, “Well, the government, who can afford it more than we can, can help Canadians and can help us.” The government funnelled some funding for the wage subsidy to keep people working and to keep industry going.
Then there are the seniors. This has been very, very tough on seniors. We've done some key things to help them. There's more to be done. That's why we need to be talking about building back better.
We don't have all the answers, I don't have all the answers, but together we will find all the answers. That's what it's about. This committee is so important to help us move that agenda forward.
Let me stop for a second and reflect with you on Bill , which we might be able to get done in the next day or so. I'm hoping, with all the individuals across this country and 338 MPs working together, to get the supports out as quickly as possible to Canadians, to individuals and to families.
One of the key economic stimulus mechanisms in Atlantic Canada—to stimulate the economy because of some of our challenges—is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. ACOA offers business development assistance to support and stimulate the economy. They need some funds to help them do their job.
We did have a system, the RRRF, through which we were helping companies that may have been missed. As I said earlier, Ms. Duncan and many of our colleagues helped us to talk not only about the programs and the initiatives we were bringing forward but also about how they were working.
We had MPs from right across the country. The parties didn't matter. That's an example of working together to make life better. We were all saying, “Yes, that's a nice program, but this group is falling through the cracks. We're not helping this group enough. What can we tweak to improve our programs?”
You know, I think that may have been my proudest time as a member of Parliament. I felt so connected to my community because they were sharing with me the challenges, and I was sharing those challenges with other MPs across this country. We were sharing this with government. We were sharing this with bureaucrats and we were tweaking programs and initiatives, tweaking them continually, to support Canadians. Think about that. That's what it's all about.
I was elected the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook to make life better for individuals, for families, for communities. We know, and we don't talk about it enough, that there are so many organizations out there doing so much for Canadians.
[Translation]
We're dragging our heels on Bill C‑14; "on se traîne les pattes," to use that Acadian expression for Ms. Petitpas Taylor. We aren't moving very quickly to provide aid to Canadians.
We can't afford to play politics, particularly during a pandemic. The fact that debate on Bill C‑14 has been dragged out and the bill itself challenged [Inaudible—Editor]…
:
I want to thank my colleague for that, because I was going to land there soon. I'm glad that she helped point that out for all Canadians, because that's what team Canada is. You see how quickly she wanted to make sure that I didn't miss a step. She wanted to support me in my intervention and that's what it's about. She was coming to support us, because we're working together to achieve the same success, because Canada is a great country. Canadians are great people. We are proud of our country and we must continue to work together.
[Translation]
As my colleague noted earlier, yes, we'll finally be voting in a few hours. I hope all my colleagues and all parties can join with us in voting for Bill because Canadians have neither the time nor the appetite for partisan politics or strategies, at any time. They want us to work together for the welfare of Canadian citizens.
I want to get back to seniors.
I have to say that isolation is particularly hard on seniors. It's hard on us too because we like to see our fathers, mothers and grandparents, but we're afraid to visit them because we know we're in the midst of a pandemic and don't want to increase the risk of infection. These are tough situations as well.
Yesterday one of my constituents called me to discuss the difficult situation he was facing. He told me he hadn't seen his niece for more than a year because she had health issues, being acutely sensitive to environmental factors in particular and perhaps COVID‑19. He lives 10 kilometers away from her. Situations like these are really trying for many Canadians.
As I said a little earlier, there are two tunnels.
The first tunnel concerns the health and safety of Canadians and the second the economy and support for individuals, families and entrepreneurs. We know that women have been the hardest hit economically; they have found the situation even harder, considering the greater and tougher challenges they've had to face. That's also the case of young people. We've doubled funding for student summer jobs. That will help a lot.
In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook alone,
[English]
we just about doubled student summer jobs. This is crucial. Students need to work. They need to make money to continue their studies, and we need to support them.
We need to support them. That is why our government doubled our funding. I'm so proud of the support. Last year we didn't know if we could even get those jobs going or if companies would be able to function, but they found their way.
We work together, as we must continue to do today and tomorrow. It's crucial that we do it.
Getting back to seniors, we had to invest in certain areas to support them. I have so many stories. Down in Preston, a group of young people got together and brought some groceries to families. We had Beacon food bank, the Red Cross and the United Way. These organizations play such an important role. If government had to pay them to do work, we wouldn't be able to afford it. They volunteer and do so much outreach.
Transportation for seniors is crucial. I spoke to a few seniors the other day. Some of them haven't been out for months. They are just waiting now. They are hopeful. They are feeling much better today than they were feeling a month ago because the vaccines are coming out.
Our government announced that we would have six million vaccines by March 31. I hate to say it, but some parties on the other side said, “That's not going to happen. It's not possible. There's so much need across the world that we'll never get six million.” My friends, we got well over eight million vaccines. It's 10 million this week, and I think we're at 12 million next week. We're ramping up, and it's because of all of you and your support.
I know the opposition has a role to play, and you've played that role. It's important to give us suggestions, and to give us your comments and your opinions, but at the end of the day, we must govern. We must make decisions as government, and those decisions are very important.
Going back to Bill , we're going to see some help in it for Canadians, but my friends, more good news will be coming on Monday. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, but I know that we have been consulting with Canadians. We have been listening. We've been having those conversations, putting the time in that's so crucial to help Canadians, and now we will be able to deliver a budget that will continue to support Canadians.
If we had not prorogued Parliament, if we had not reset the agenda and refocused.... We've been doing that, to be quite honest with you, for a long time. Yes, we prorogued, but we're still working and focusing on where to put our priorities. That's what the fall economic statement allowed us to do, to start building that blueprint and start putting into action some key things that we've seeing through Bill .
Monday will be an important day for Canadians as we continue to support all Canadians right across this country. You know the old saying, from Newfoundland to Vancouver, and then the territories of course. I can't believe I skipped Nova Scotia and Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, but it's all provinces, all Canadians.
You know, when we're Canadian, we have to make sure.... When it comes to long-term care, we learned through this pandemic that there are gaps. We need to build national standards together. I have to say, that's where we need you to share with us what standards are necessary, to make sure that we continue to support and protect seniors. It's crucial.
I'm Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Veterans are also struggling through this pandemic. It has been extremely difficult for them. It is our responsibility to care for, to support, to help and to work in partnership with our veterans community. I know that we work very hard to support organizations that support veterans across this country. It was very important to help those organizations stay afloat. I'm talking about the Legion, which is another organization that is so important.
I don't know if you know, but there are 1,382 Legions in this country. I'm sure that each and every one of you, if we took a poll right now, could tell me how many Legions you have in your riding. As I said earlier, I wasn't a math teacher—I've been in the profession of education for 30 years—but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if there are 1,382 to 1,400 Legions across this country, and there are 338 members of Parliament from all sides, all parts of this country, on average, you have three Legions in your riding. I have five. Some may have two.
These Legions, these people volunteering in Legions are playing a major role in supporting our veterans and our communities every day. Legions were shut down. They couldn't raise money. The poppy fund was getting weaker and weaker as we moved about. We had no choice. It was simple. Government had to come to their support as quickly as possible. They're one organization.
There's VETS Canada. They reach right across this country, and they're supporting veterans on the ground every day. There's also True Patriot Love. There are so many great organizations out there, and we were able to get them some support, financial support. There was $20 million for all those organizations, about $14 million of which went to Legions because, as I said, they cover a lot of turf.
I want to thank all of you here today. It's because of you, all parties, team Canada, that we were able to deliver that funding and continue the supports on the ground for these individuals. It's very important.
I understand we're going to vote on Bill today. I would like to think it will receive unanimous support because there are important investments in individuals, in Canadians, in this bill. It's already late, but together, as team Canada, we're going to get there because we need to get there.
I could go on for another hour if you want and talk about where our investments need to be when we talk about building back better because it's crucial. This is what the committee is supposed to be talking about. How can we work together to put forward the programs and initiatives and to create the investment environment?
Mr. Long is a businessman. As he knows, government is not to lead. We are to create that positive environment for the business community to prosper. We need to get out of their way to some extent for them to do that, and this is what we can do together.
I would love to continue on. Maybe I'll get another chance sometime, but I have another meeting. This is my first reflection with this committee in which I've had a chance to talk about this important motion and the amendment. We should be focused on building back better, working together for all Canadians.
[Translation]
To all Canadians from Newfoundland, the Atlantic, Ontario, Quebec, the west, British Columbia and the territories, I say: together we can change things.
I'll conclude with the expression I used for 11 years as executive director: "Every problem has a solution; together we can change things."
Thank you very much.
:
Okay, my apologies. I hope I didn't take out the ears of our wonderful interpreters.
Also, MP Samson, I want to acknowledge the two wonderful Legions in my riding of , Legion branch 69 and Jervis Bay Legion. They do wonderful work in our community. You are right. I believe you said there are 1,300 Legions across the country. My respect goes out to each and every one of them, and I'm certainly glad that, as a government, we were able to step in and help them, and when we help them, they help others. It's certainly a win-win for all of us.
It has been an interesting day. I gave a lot of thought to this meeting, the meeting we're in now, and the situation we're in. I did some preparation, obviously, and certainly saw some news of the day where the came out with his climate plan. I looked at that with great interest. Certainly it looks like some parts of our plan are there.
I remark at the use of green screens now. The leader of the party was out in space at one point, and then he was over a lake, and then he was going through the forest, and then he was in the woods. It was remarkable to see. He was all over the place. Those presentations sometimes are difficult with green screens in the background.
I know certainly the did his supposed climate plan at what almost looked like Camp Crystal Lake from Friday the 13th. It was this small, little lake where he did his presentation. Not to harken back to movies, but I was always reminded of the movie Friday the 13th when he made his announcement.
I want to build on MP Samson's speech. I never say that I was a businessman; I still am a business person. I've had great success. I've been lucky; I've been fortunate. I've taken risks. I remember leaving a somewhat secure job. I had a $10,000 line of credit. I had two weeks' vacation. I remember sitting with my wife, Denise, and totalling up that I had about 10 weeks to make my business work, otherwise.... Denise at that point was home with our youngest son, Konnor, who was just two, and our oldest son, Khristian. I remember taking that risk. I remember being that entrepreneur. Sometimes people will look at entrepreneurs like they're just these risk-taking people, but that's how Canada was built. It was built by entrepreneurs and small business owners.
To link where I was as a small business person to where I am now, I love what I do. I thank God every day for the opportunity I have been given to represent my riding, my beautiful riding, its people and those who are in need and to be an advocate for them.
Being a small business owner, I had to meet payroll. I had to balance budgets. I had to run a deficit at times. I had to strategically invest. I had to do those things. I wanted to take those skill sets to Ottawa to contribute to our government and help with policy decisions and add my voice, whether it be in the New Brunswick caucus, Atlantic caucus or national caucus.
You know, I wouldn't say I've become disillusioned, not at all, but then you fast forward to my committee work. I love what I did at HUMA. I see MP Vecchio, who was a big part of our team in HUMA in the first Parliament. We travelled the country. We developed a report, if you will, a study on poverty reduction, which certainly was part and parcel of our poverty reduction strategy and our national housing strategy. I also sat on the ethics committee with MP Blaikie.
Committees can do great work. Look, I was the first person who was skeptical of committees: “Oh, yeah, committees, whatever. You go up there and you sit and you....” No. No. I tell my constituents that—no. We do work for Canadians in those committees, the work of Parliament—great work. We help with legislation. We help with bills. We study. We are the second sober thought at times.
Chair, we just talked about getting together in a more relaxed environment, maybe have a barbecue for some togetherness and fellowship. There's no committee that probably holds more esteem than PROC. It's a committee that a lot of MPs hold in the highest esteem.
Here we are. I understand that politics is politics, and the job of the opposition is to challenge the government, make government better, to hold government accountable. I get it. I get it absolutely.
I was elected in 2015. I guess I'm five and a half years in. I don't feel like a veteran. Some people call me a veteran, but I don't feel that way.
I think we need to step back, and we need to understand why we are where we are. MP Samson covered many, many topics and many, many issues. His speech was wonderful. I appreciate that. But in the end, to circle this back, we are here today and we're talking about MP Turnbull's amendment. Chair, correct me if I'm wrong here.
As I said the last time I spoke, this is like Inception. Have you ever watched that? You're at one layer and then you're at another layer and another, and then you're about four layers back, and then you have to try to crawl back up the ladder and get back to reality. Again, we're talking about MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion.
For those Canadians who are listening, and I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Canadians who are really tuned into this.... No, I can't say that with a straight face. As I did last week, and the week before and the week before that and the week before that, before I speak sometimes I like to just clear my head, so I'll go out. I'll turn the camera around and I'll show you. There's a route just outside my office door here into the mall. It's called Market Square. I just talk to constituents. I have my mask on and am obviously socially distanced. I talk to them about the issues of the day and what they want and what they're concerned about, and their hopes and dreams and their fears and concerns.
Their concerns are about a once-in-a-generation pandemic that we are in the midst of. They talk about COVID-19. They talk about vaccinations. They talk about our government delivering vaccinations to the tune of.... As for the numbers, as MP Samson said, we're ramping up. We have our foot on the pedal. We're full steam ahead here.
I apologize if I'm off, but we were supposed to deliver six million vaccines by the end of March. I believe we exceeded that by.... I think we were at eight, and then we were at 9.4. That number continues to grow and grow.
Later this afternoon I will be getting my AstraZeneca vaccine. I'm thrilled about that. As leaders in our communities, every one of us should absolutely fight back against vaccine hesitancy. I tell people that the best vaccine you can get is the first one available to you. My wife, Denise, and I will get the AstraZeneca vaccine later this afternoon. We're thrilled about that opportunity. We're going to continue to promote that and make sure all Canadians are vaccinated.
In fact, as we have said, we will make sure and certainly Premier Higgs in this province will make sure that.... Obviously, we're going to provide vaccines to Premier Higgs, but we're going to make sure that everybody can get their first vaccine by the middle of June. I think that will be a wonderful accomplishment. That's what people are concerned about. That's what people want us to be seized with, getting them through the pandemic, offering them support through the pandemic.
I'll be the first to tell you that I've gained a whole new appreciation for what a strong government can do for their country, their constituents and their citizens in times of crisis. Boy, have we as a Liberal government delivered for Canadians. We've been there when they needed us. We've had their backs.
I remember coming home on March 15 last year not knowing what we were going to face. I talked about that earlier. I don't think any of us from any party, whether it's MP Kent, MP Nater, MP Van Bynen or MP Simms.... I'm looking at the list here. I don't think any of us were really prepared for what we faced when we all came back to our constituencies in March—the fear, the uncertainty, what we saw going on in other parts of the world.
And we delivered—CERB, CEBA, commercial support for rent and rent support, loans, interest-free loans and working with banks on mortgage deferral. Then there was the CRB, expanded EI, caregiver benefits and sick leave. We have delivered programs for Canadians, and I'm proud of that. I know that Canadians are appreciative of what we have done as a government to be there for them.
Getting back to my being out in the—
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Once again I want to thank my friend and colleague Mr. Long, from Saint John, who really has become a regular member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Thanks very much, Mr. Long, for your help in the past few weeks.
We very much miss Mr. Turnbull and hope he'll be back with us soon.
As we all know, our friend can't be with us because he's in the House.
Getting back to the motion we're debating today and the amendment Mr. Turnbull introduced some time ago. I've been very clear about my position on this from the start. I think we're actually ready to begin drafting the report on this study. I'm going to recap what we've heard to date from the many witnesses who've appeared as part of this study.
I've prepared a brief list. We heard from Kathy Brock, Prof. Hugo Cyr, Duane Bratt and , who spent a great deal of time with us discussing the prorogation. We also heard from expert Allen Sutherland, Barbara Messamore, Prof. Philippe Lagassé, Lori Turnbull, Ian Brodie and members of the Privy Council.
So many witnesses have appeared. I genuinely think we're ready to draft the report.
Having said that, I'll be flexible. I really want to reflect on this today and share my thoughts about why we should consider the amendment proposed by our friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull. Those of us who know him can say he's attempting a mediation because he wants to come up with wording we can all agree on. He makes some good points and I want to share my thoughts on the subject.
We should absolutely invite the and the to appear before the committee. There are probably many questions we could ask them about the situation to ascertain their views. We could also ask them for their thoughts on the prorogation and why it occurred. After all, the government believes that its ministers are responsible, effective and transparent, that they set a high bar for openness and that they answer questions asked by members of the committees.
Although I'm speaking directly to Mr. Turnbull's motion, I want to make clear once again that there's nothing more important than addressing the global crisis caused by COVID‑19. As I mentioned when we were debating Ms. Vecchio's motion, I'm hearing nothing about prorogation in my riding right now. However, people are extremely concerned about rising COVID‑19 case numbers and this global health crisis that has affected us all.
While we discuss politics, we have to acknowledge that millions of people around the world have contracted COVID‑19, and Canada hasn't been spared. Many lives have been lost and we really must recognize that this crisis has caused suffering around the world. We can see exactly what's happening in many provinces that have recently been harder hit. I consider myself lucky because there are 158 active cases here in New Brunswick today. We're a small province, so that's definitely troubling, but we're managing the situation well compared to other regions. However, we have to be vigilant because the situation can change quickly. So many lives have been lost as a result of this crisis. When we look at the number of deaths, we also have to acknowledge that they aren't just figures; they represent our grandparents, our immediate families, our neighbours and so many others.
My heart goes out to those who have lost family members, friends and people close to them. I honour all the healthcare workers for their dedication and sacrifice and all the other essential workers who have made it possible for life to go on.
Those workers put the interests of their neighbours, their community and their country ahead of their own needs, and they do it every day. In addition to thanking them for their heroic efforts in combating the COVID‑19 pandemic, every one of us will strive to slow the spread of this virus. Since the COVID‑19 pandemic is an unprecedented global health crisis—especially now that we're seeing the consequences of the third wave—that has shaken the foundation of our economic, political and social security, it should our main focus and that of this committee.
However, as regards the amendment before us and my thoughts on the matter, let me explain why I think we should reinvite our Deputy Prime Minister. She is a remarkable woman, and I'm sure she played a key role in the prorogation discussions that took place between the and members of the cabinet. I believe she could tell us what they were thinking and their reason for deciding to prorogue Parliament. I think we already have the information we need, but if committee members want to hear more, I'm sure the Minister of Finance would be the right person to tell us more and answer our questions.
Our government understood from the start of the pandemic that COVID‑19 was truly disrupting all our lives. Who would have thought last year that we'd still be working on Zoom? I bet everyone of us thought at the time that we'd all be back in Ottawa sitting together in the committees as one big family. In the end, we're still isolating at home. Office buildings are empty, streets are quiet, and schools in many places are closed.
We in Acadie really can't complain because we're starting to resume our routines and lives. However, cases are increasing for my colleagues from Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and they're facing a truly serious third wave. We have to continue following public health guidelines and encouraging people to get vaccinated, since that's what will help us get through this crisis.
However, I must say I'm very proud of Canadians and our communities. People have really adapted. Our government had to strike a balance between health and the economy. In some public debates, people said we had to choose between health and the economy in responding to the pandemic. But that's a false choice, as the Minister of Finance has said on numerous occasions. We have to understand that health and the economy are joined at the hip. As we often say, health and the economy go together.
We promised to be there for Canadians during the pandemic until order was restored in society. That's a promise that we made and will keep. Our government had a number of general objectives: to protect the health and safety of Canadians, to provide them with the economic support they needed to self-isolate at home in an attempt to slow the spread of the virus and, lastly, to protect their jobs and livelihoods.
We asked Canadians to do some extraordinary things, to stay at home, because we wanted to prevent the virus from spreading. Most Canadians have listened to us. We have to be there to help them and to support them through these incredibly trying times.
We shut down the borders to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We provided the provinces and territories with $19 billion in funding under the safe restart agreement. We purchased personal protective equipment and screening test kits and pre-ordered and delivered vaccines, and we're still delivering them.
The most important things we can do to slow the spread of COVID‑19 are to vaccinate, test, conduct contact tracing and self-isolate. I think testing and contact tracing were the magic bullet in Atlantic Canada. They really were our key to identifying and isolating infected individuals.
Our provinces are definitely smaller, but I believe those screening efforts are part of the magic solution that has protected Atlantic Canada. Our government purchased vaccine doses and tests and provided contact tracing.
I also think that, if we invited , she could explain to the the committee the government's thinking on the prorogation and its purpose and describe those discussions to us.
The most extensive vaccination campaign in the country's history is under way here in Canada. According to Canada's top vaccine coordinator, we should have access to enough COVID‑19 vaccine by the end of June to give every Canadian a first dose. Mr. Fortin frequently tells us we're on track to take delivery of at least 44 million doses of vaccine by the end of June and should have more than 100 million doses of various vaccines by late September.
Consequently, with vaccines being deployed, there's light at the end of the tunnel. Once again, we can't put all our eggs in one basket. We're eager to get the vaccines, but we also have to keep following public health guidelines, since vaccines alone won't get us through this crisis. We have to keep following those guidelines.
When we needed help from the men and women of our armed forces in the spring, they came in and took care of our seniors. My friend and colleague Mr. Lauzon spoke passionately about the work they did and the services they have provided to Canadians during the crisis.
The long-term care homes were hit hard by the first wave of COVID‑19, and more than 70% of COVID deaths occurred among persons over 80 years of age, approximately twice the average for the other developed countries. It was truly tragic to witness the damage this pandemic caused initially and unfortunately once again during the second wave.
I'm thinking of the many long-term care homes in my community of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. The seniors who died weren't just numbers. Seniors are people we know. I regularly visit long-term care homes every year as a member of Parliament. The people there love to chat and hear what we're doing and what our policies are. They want to know if and when pensions will be increased. We often dance with them. They aren't just numbers; they're our friends, our neighbours. I miss them and they miss me; we all want to gather again soon and spend some time together.
We owe everything to our seniors, who have helped build this country, including safe and dignified care. I realize we're here to discuss the budget that was announced yesterday, but I was very pleased to learn that $3 billion will be invested to assist long-term care homes because we acknowledge that those institutions need more help.
The lives lost in long-term care homes are the greatest tragedy of this pandemic. Many of us have expressed our concerns on numerous occasions. We must make every effort to ensure that our seniors receive necessary services and attention. Although long-term care is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction, our government will take every possible measure to support seniors in cooperation with the provinces and territories. Our government will work with Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to penalize specifically those whose neglect of the seniors under their care would put those seniors at risk.
Our government will also cooperate with the provinces and territories in establishing new national long-term care standards to ensure that seniors receive the best possible care. I won't repeat the comments made by my colleague Mr. Lauzon, the parliamentary secretary to the , since he's given us a very good recap of everything that has to be done to correct the situation.
Once again we must emphasize that the creation of national standards for care facilities is a necessity. We have to introduce additional measures to assist people, and, I would say, not just to provide them with long-term care, but also to assist them in living at home as long as possible.
I know our seniors here in New Brunswick tell us that if they had a choice whether to live at home longer or to move into a seniors' residence, they would prefer to stay at home. I'm sure that situation isn't unique to New Brunswick, that it's the same across Canada. In New Brunswick, we conducted a pilot project with the province's assistance two years ago to establish programs enabling seniors to stay at home as long as possible. We could invite Minister to come and tell us about their options in that regard. This is clearly a valid option if we want to protect our seniors in this manner.
Some significant measures were outlined in the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered following the prorogation and extensive consultations. I'm sure a lot of my colleagues held many consultation sessions, as I did, in our communities during the prorogation period. People told us about their priorities, particularly during a global pandemic. The priorities outlined in the 2019 Speech from the Throne were similar to those in place during the pandemic, although there were also some differences. Priorities changed. The prorogation period helped us self-evaluate and assess the government's priorities. I think it might be a good idea to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister on where we stand in implementing those priorities.
Seniors are an integral part of all our communities, and we must do everything in our power to protect their health, rights and well-being. We must value their experience, knowledge and talents, and we must address the challenges they face in society.
To preserve jobs and livelihoods, the government put strong measures in place to protect businesses and workers. I think Ms. could tell us what she thinks of those measures if we invited her to appear before the committee.
We had to take those strong measures because the virus could only be slowed down and stopped by limiting social contacts, which meant restricting economic activity. That meant shutting down workplaces and limiting the number of persons served in restaurants. As we can see now, contacts need to be limited further to address the pandemic as a result of the third wave now under way in many provinces.
It also meant isolating people at home after work, if they were sick or if their children were sick. It would simply have been unfair to ask businesses to shut down and workers to stay at home without compensating them for lost income.
Less than a week after our country shut down, the government announced a recovery plan including $27 billion in emergency assistance for workers and businesses and $55 billion for tax payment deferrals. We provided billions of dollars to assist businesses in obtaining [Technical difficulty—Editor] and keeping workers on their payrolls, while enhancing federal benefits and support programs for individuals who had lost their jobs.
I'm sure you remember very clearly the daily calls and conversations we had with officials in the departments responsible. As a parliamentarian, I was pleased to see all the political parties working hard together to develop the best possible programs. At first, the programs obviously weren't perfect. We didn't have all the answers, but together we modified those programs to meet Canadians' needs. Once again, Ms. Freeland could tell us what she thinks of them if we invited her to come and speak to us.
The funds released would help Canadians pay their rent and buy groceries and assist businesses in continuing to pay their employees and suppliers.
I did a quick search yesterday, focusing solely on New Brunswick, to see what spending or investment is being provided here, just to give you an idea.
If you look at the Canada emergency business account, as of April 15 of this year, 11,870 loans had been made to businesses for a total value of $626 million.
For the Canada emergency rent subsidy, as of February 24, 1,364 tenants in New Brunswick, representing 10,282 employees, received total funding of $11.59 million. That's a really impressive number.
As for the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support, as of February 14, we had received 3,210 applications, which were approved for total subsidies amounting to $7.4 million.
:
I'm going to repeat, this time more slowly, the investments that were made in New Brunswick under the financial assistance programs for the businesses and people of our province.
Starting with the Canada emergency business account, as of April 15, 11,870 loans had been made to businesses for a total value of $626 million.
As for the Canada emergency rent subsidy, as of February 24, 1,364 tenants in New Brunswick, representing 10,200 employees, had received total funding of $11.59 million.
For the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support, as of February 13, we had approved 3,210 applications for total subsidies amounting to $7.4 million.
As for the Canada emergency wage subsidy, as of March 7 of this year, we had approved 55,000 applications for a total of more than $1 billion in subsidies. That helped protect 91,000 jobs in our small province of New Brunswick.
Now let's look at the figures for the Canada emergency response benefit. As of October 4, more than 165,000 New Brunswickers had applied for it. As you can see, that helped the population, one fifth of which received funding under that program.
With respect to the Canada recovery benefit, as of April 11, $209.8 million had been allocated among 27,000 New Brunswickers.
Lastly, thanks to the Canada recovery sickness benefit, as of November 11, $5.5 million had been allocated among approximately 6,000 New Brunswickers.
I'm citing those figures from a few searches that I did last night. When you look at the support the federal government has given to the provinces and territories and to the people in our communities, you can see that a lot of thought went into this. A lot of investments were made. If we invited the , she could come and see us, and we could ask her questions on the subject. She could tell us what she thinks worked or didn't work and tell us what changes were made to all those programs along the way. I think she could broadly clarify certain points for us.
The funding provided helped Canadians meet their basic needs. Our government put several programs in place to ensure people would be supported.
I speak to my fellow citizens in the beautiful region of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe every day to see how their families are doing. I ask them what additional assistance they need. We generally hear that the CERB was really a lifesaver. It helped people pay their rent and pay for their groceries and transportation. Most importantly, it made it possible for our fellow citizens to stay at home when we asked them to do so to prevent the virus from spreading.
Our government also introduced the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which supported three million Canadian workers so they could stay on employer payrolls.
It should also not be forgotten that our local businesses are the heart and soul of our communities. They're run by our friends and neighbours. We can support them by ordering meals from neighbourhood restaurants and buying local. I think the pandemic clearly showed how important it is to support our local merchants.
These economic programs are good reasons to invite the to come and speak to us directly. She could give us an overview of the thinking and discussions that took place during the prorogation period.
Our government also realized that parents were concerned about the costs associated with raising their children, which is why we invested in families.
We increased the Canada child benefit for 2020‑2021. The maximum annual benefit will rise to $6,765 per child under 6 years of age and to $5,708 per child 6 to 17.
We subsequently invested $625 million in emergency federal support to ensure the safety of child care services, the number of available spaces and affordable access to those services. We aren't here to discuss the budget introduced yesterday, but I was very pleased to hear that our 's priority is to make the necessary investments in a national plan for affordable child care centres. We can thank Quebec and our Quebec colleagues Mr. Lauzon and Mr. Therrien for that. Quebec has outstanding childcare services and has developed a plan that we can follow. We've learned a great deal from Quebec. The province is progressive and we have to take a look at what's worked well for it.
Our government also understood that additional support was needed for food banks and food organizations. Without that support, COVID‑19 would have had an additional impact on vulnerable communities. We know that many Canadians rely on food banks and local community organizations to feed their families and for support during tough times.
I'd like to take a moment to thank the organizations in my community of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe such as Food Depot Alimentaire, the Peter McKee Community Food Centre and the United Way Greater Moncton and Southeastern New Brunswick for their efforts in providing our families with healthy and nutritional food.
I like to talk about Moncton's community organizations when I have the floor. Food Depot Alimentaire provides healthy and nutritional food to thousands of families in our community with the help of volunteers. This week is volunteer week. We have to thank all our community organizations and their volunteers for their hard work.
I'd like to talk about the United Way Greater Moncton and Southeastern New Brunswick organization. I think I raised the subject when we debated Ms. Vecchio's motion. We're fortunate to have a seniors program in Moncton. People at the United Way prepare meals for our seniors and deliver more than 600 meals every week. Volunteers prepare the meals and deliver them as well. We're glad we invested in helping them continue that important work.
Since our government also understood that young Canadians were facing unprecedented challenges, we doubled the Canadian student grants and created the Canada emergency student benefit. We wanted to ensure that students had the assistance they needed to continue their education. Students received that necessary assistance thanks to the investments we made.
Vaccine equity is another subject that our could discuss. The world needs vaccines to help reopen our societies and defeat this virus.
We know the third wave is vicious. More transmission means more variants, and the more variants there are, the more likely it is they'll elude vaccines. As long as the virus continues to spread, people will keep dying, business and travel will remain disrupted and economic recovery further delayed.
The global vaccination campaign is the greatest moral test of our time, but many low-income countries have yet to receive a single dose. Canada has agreed to increase funding for vaccine deployment in low-income countries. It has also committed to providing $75 million more to the international vaccine-sharing program as other wealthier countries step up their own commitment.
The , could also come and discuss that subject. That would help us answer certain questions. She could give us her thoughts on the subject, particularly during the prorogation.
This new commitment raises Canada's total contribution to $940 million, which will help provide vaccine doses to other countries. It would be good to hear the 's thoughts on how the world should come together to produce and distribute enough vaccine for everyone. This means that global manufacturing capacity must at least be doubled.
We have to understand that this is very important and that it really counts. The unfair distribution of vaccines is a moral outrage and both epidemiologically and economically self-destructive. The only way we can put an end to this pandemic, recover and restore our economy is by working together.
We know that the speed and extent of our economic recovery will be directly proportionate to our ability to limit the economic damage caused by the coronavirus.
Another compelling reason to invite the to meet with us would be to hear her discuss the economic recovery. We were in a sound fiscal position when we entered this crisis: Canada's net-debt-to-GDP ratio was the lowest of the G‑7 countries when COVID‑19 hit.
What investments will help make our economy stronger and assist us in laying the foundation for a green economy, an innovation economy and an equitable economy that supports good jobs for all Canadians? We want to emerge from the pandemic healthier and wealthier and with a greener economy. For the moment, we're still focusing on combating the pandemic. The health and safety of Canadians are still our priority. We're doing everything in our power to ensure the health, safety and solvency of Canadians.
The could also offer us her thoughts on lessons learned. That would be another reason to invite her. On that subject, my friend and colleague Kirsty Duncan has introduced a motion that we could consider.
Let me be absolutely clear: we will have ample time to consider our response in future, but, to date, what thoughts have we had about preparation? I think we all have to be ready: governments, private sectors, government organizations, non-governmental organizations and international organizations. When you aren't prepared, you suffer serious repercussions, devastating economic consequences and a raft of new inequalities and vulnerabilities. A virus can quickly erase all economic progress.
I'd also like to suggest that we hear what the has to say about the other global crisis we're facing—climate change—but let's set that issue aside for the moment, since we're considering the health crisis and COVID‑19 today. However, we could nevertheless ask her for her thoughts on that subject.
The final reason why we should invite the would be to ask critical questions about what issues affect and concern people in our community. I'm sure that Mr. Lauzon, Mr. Therrien, Ms. Vecchio, Mr. Morrissey, Ms. Duncan, Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Long and Mr. Nater are all aware of issues that concern the people in their communities. If the Deputy Prime Minister were here, we could ask her questions about the post-COVID‑19 economic recovery.
My priority is still to serve the people in my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, an exceptional community of people who want to help each other. We have to be there for them. I want them to know that we're getting through this difficult period together and that I'll always be there to assist and support them in these tough times.
The pandemic has hit seniors, persons with disabilities, women, girls, indigenous peoples and racialized persons. We must understand that systemic racism is real, that unconscious prejudices are real and that these phenomena also occur in Canada.
It has now been a year since George Floyd died. We're discussing the issue of unconscious bias, and I think that event encourages us to assess what's happening in our communities. We can see that the pandemic has triggered feelings of hate, scapegoating, alarmism and xenophobia around the world. Once again, we have a lot of work to do on this subject.
We need to support all those who experience racism and whose human rights are violated. Canadian MPs met and adopted a motion condemning the rise of racism and racist attacks against Asia in North America and expressing our unanimous horror at the shootings that occurred in Georgia. Because COVID‑19 seems to have come from Wuhan, China, people have used shocking and appalling language to designate the inhabitants of that region and we've seen an increase in discrimination and violence against Asians as a result.
In July 2020, Statistics Canada data suggested that Asian Canadians were more likely to report that they had observed a rise in racial or psychological harassment during the pandemic. The largest increase was observed among persons of Chinese, Korean and South Asian decent. According to figures from a separate report prepared by the National Research Council Canada and released in September 2020, the number of racist incidents reported against Asians is higher in Canada than in the United States on a per capita basis.
We must promote inclusion and a sense of belonging among people to guarantee the safety of all Canadians. Since the mission of the is to help build a country where every individual has an equal chance of success, to defend all the dynamic diversity in Canada and to promote greater inclusion, I think this would be a good opportunity to ask her questions on that topic. We must work together to build a fairer future for all of us. We must always combat racism and prejudice and promote respect, compassion and equality.
Madam Chair, I see I've spoken at greater length than anticipated. I would like to discuss other thoughts as part of this debate, but I'm going to yield the floor to my friend Mr. Lauzon or Ms. Duncan. I don't know who's next on the list.
Madam Chair, thank you once again for the opportunity to make some important points on the subject.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, for her compassion, caring, her commitment to community and for her important speech.
It's important for people to know she's our former health minister. Her expertise is so appreciated. I would really like to thank her for her important comments regarding vaccine equity.
I will also thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Wayne Long. I not only appreciated his speech, but I also have very fond memories of seeing Mr. Long in his community and his joy of serving was so apparent.
I want to say how much I appreciate the amendment brought forward by my friend and colleague, Mr. Turnbull. I have been clear that I think it would be really important to hear from the and the .
I will also make the point that I have repeatedly made, namely, that there is nothing more important than the COVID-19 pandemic and that is where our sole focus should be. I think there are absolutely more important issues this committee should be studying. In fact, I have a motion calling for the review of Parliament's response to COVID-19 identifying lessons learned and putting forth recommendations so that future parliaments are better prepared for a pandemic.
As I said, there is nothing more important than the COVID-19 pandemic right now. This is where our sole focus should be.
Canada is in a third wave of COVID-19. When I was preparing last week, cases had increased by 82% over the previous 14 days. We are in a race between the variants and the vaccines.
While this committee does not oversee pandemic response, and we must be focused as a country on the response, we absolutely have a role to play in pandemic preparedness for the future. It is incumbent upon each of us to ensure that the House of Commons is prepared for the next pandemic, because in all likelihood, there will be a next time. COVID-19 is not going to be the last pandemic. Going forward, the House of Commons, Parliament, governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and international organizations must all be better prepared. When we are not prepared, we face not only deadly impacts, but also devastating economic consequences and new inequalities and vulnerabilities.
All of us on this committee, all of us in our communities and right across this country have been touched by the pandemic. We have to learn from the crisis. We can't forget what we have all been through. We need to prepare for the future. This includes our work at this very committee.
The job of the procedure and House affairs committee is to study and report on, among other things, the practice of the House and its committees, the internal administration of the House, and services and facilities for members of Parliament.
All of us need to be asking about the House of Commons' response to COVID-19. This is not partisan. It's real work that needs to be done, just as we have done real work on studies on remote voting, and how to promote democracy and public health and safety should there be an election during the pandemic.
Undertaking this study, as I have raised before, is important. Past crises have shown that once an outbreak is under control, organizations tend to turn their attention to other pressing concerns. If this committee does not do this study now, when will the study be done? What happens if an election intervenes? It is our committee members who have direct experience and it is our members who should be asking questions.
The point is we need to review the response to see what action was taken, when action was taken and what recommendations we can make to be better prepared for next time. We need to think of the thousands who work here in the parliamentary precinct. They are our colleagues, our friends, who work to maintain the people's house. We need to be thinking of protecting our democracy during a pandemic or another disaster.
Let me bring it back. Canada is in a third wave of COVID-19. We are in a race between the variants and the vaccines. Our health system in Ontario is literally on the verge of collapse and our health care professionals are exhausted, yet this committee remains focused on politics.
Our country reported 9,200 COVID-19 infections two Fridays ago, the single-day high since the start of the pandemic. Yesterday, Ontario reported over 4,400 cases of COVID-19, while the number of hospitalizations topped 2,200. It was the sixth straight day of more than 4,000 new infections in the province—six straight days of more than 4,000 cases—yet we have a partisan motion in front of this committee.
Worldwide we have seen increases in the number of new cases of COVID-19 for the eighth week in a row. More than 5.2 million cases were reported last week. That is the most in a single week so far. Deaths rose for the fifth straight week. More than three million deaths—let me repeat that—more than three million deaths have been reported by the World Health Organization. It took nine months to reach one million deaths, four more months to reach two million, and three more months to reach three million. Big numbers can make us feel numb, but each of these deaths is a tragedy for families, communities and countries, yet this committee remains focused on politics.
More than 900 million vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, but there is a stark gap between vaccination programs in different countries, with some yet to report a single dose. Eighty-three per cent of the shots that have gone into arms worldwide have been administered in high- and upper-middle-income countries. Only 0.2% of doses have been administered in low-income countries. This, unfortunately, is not surprising. When HIV emerged 40 years ago, life-saving antiretrovirals were developed, but more than a decade passed before the world's poor got access.
While vaccines are a vital and powerful tool, they are not the only tool. Physical distancing works. Masks work. Hand hygiene works. Ventilation works. Surveillance, testing, contact tracing, isolation, supportive quarantine and compassionate care all work to stop infections and save lives.
It is important for people to understand that young, healthy people have died. We still don't fully understand the long-term consequences of infection for those who survive. Many people who have suffered even mild illness report long-term symptoms, including fatigue, weakness, brain fog, dizziness, tremors, insomnia, depression, anxiety, joint pain, chest tightness and more, all of which are symptoms of “long COVID”.
Far too many health care workers have died in the pandemic. Millions have been infected and the pandemic has taken a huge toll on their physical and mental health, with devastating effects on their families and communities. Anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress have all increased.
One nurse said she's tired of seeing young people die. She keeps hearing that more people are getting sick, so more beds are needed. She's tired and she says it's demoralizing.
Another nurse says the daily scenes unfolding before her eyes—more acutely COVID-19, more acutely ill COVID-19 patients and young people fighting for their lives—weigh heavily on her. There's no escaping the hospital, even when she's home with her family. She tries not to burden them with her worries. She explains, “Sometimes when I sleep, I just keep thinking. Those things are going through my mind, and I just want to shut it down, just shut off for a minute.” She says, “We are not only taking care of the patients. We have to take care of our staff. Everyone's burned out.”
Heads of hospitals are worried about the number of people who are getting sick, their colleagues in cardiology and neurology, and the cancer rates that will follow, yet this committee has a partisan motion.
The pandemic is exposing and exacerbating inequalities. COVID-19 pushed an estimated 120 million people into extreme poverty last year. Gender inequalities have increased with more women than men leaving the labour force. Rich countries are vaccinating their populations while the world's poor watch and wait. Health inequalities are not just unfair; they make the world less safe and less sustainable, yet there is a partisan motion in front of this committee.
Here in Canada we have had over one million COVID-19 cases. COVID-19 has claimed more than 23,600 Canadians.
I cannot imagine what could be more important than talking about COVID-19 and the race between the variants and the vaccines. The numbers of deaths are not just numbers. They are our grandparents, mothers, fathers, loved ones, neighbours, colleagues, lifelong friends, mentors and heroes, and they matter, and they matter to so many more people.
All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks of COVID-19 in hospitals, the number of health care workers who have developed COVID-19 and the number of health care workers who've ended up in the ICU. All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks in essential workplaces, in marginalized communities and in congregate settings. All of us should be pushing for vaccine equity.
Throughout the pandemic, racialized communities have been hit hard. In the spring of 2020 in Ontario, the most diverse neighbourhoods were hit hard. Hospitalization rates were four times higher. ICU admission rates were four times higher. Death rates were twice as high. Data from the fall in Toronto show that 79% of reported COVID-19 cases were among those who identified with a racialized group. In Toronto, the neighbourhoods with the highest populations of racialized people had the lowest vaccination rates, despite the disproportionate impact of the disease on these communities.
A century—a century—after the 1918 influenza, poverty, hunger and well-being, gender, racialization and economic status still play a role in who gets sick, who gets treated and who survives COVID-19. Here in Ontario, surgeries are cancelled as the province braces for more COVID-19 patients. Cases of more transmissible coronavirus variants are surging in Ontario, and strained hospitals are forced to cancel elective and non-urgent surgeries. Cataract, joint and cancer surgeries are all cancelled despite a backlog of postponed surgeries from the past year approaching 250,000. One emergency doctor says, “If alarm bells are not ringing now, I don't know what it will take.”
The system is straining to keep up. Dr. Kevin Smith, CEO of Toronto's University Health Network, said, “This is going to be the most extraordinary and demanding time most of us have had in our working lives. It comes to us after a very long year which has left us feeling battered and drained.” They are battered and they are drained, but this committee is focused on partisan politics.
Let me be clear. We are still fighting the pandemic. In Ontario, more COVID-19 patients are in the ICU than at any other point during the pandemic. Canada's chief public health officer has said that the rapidly spreading variants have now likely replaced the original virus as more young people are getting sicker. Hospital admissions are also on the rise as health care staff try to keep up with overflowing ICUs. Experts say the number of COVID-19 patients in ICUs continues to test hospital capacities with patients battling the disease.
Coming back to the amendment, the original motion prejudges the need for prorogation. Mr. Turnbull's amendment refocuses the study on prorogation with research, evidence and facts and reinviting our and the .
The prorogued in order to take the time needed to understand what Canadians needed during the pandemic. How were they doing? Where were we in the pandemic? How was it affecting their jobs, their livelihoods? Could they put food on the table? How had wave one affected our seniors, particularly those in long-term care? Where should we go as a country after looking at the science, the evidence and the facts and hearing directly from Canadians?
When dealing with a new disease, it's important to acknowledge that not everything is known. It's important to exercise precautions. With a new disease and new data, information will likely change, and there will likely need to be adjustments in guidelines, policies and recommendations. If we look at what was known last January versus what is known today, we see there are a lot of differences. Science evolves over time, and decision-makers have to be open, flexible and willing to change course. They have to stay humble in the face of a new virus. If the—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank Mr. Nater as well. I'm so careful, and I'd just like him to know. In fact, last night I checked the blues that were available on the PROC website to make sure I wasn't repeating anything, so I really hope that I have not.
In terms of new figures, I was talking about the importance of jobs. Of course, we saw that in the budget yesterday. I think it's really important that we hear from the , because she talks about a resilience agenda. What does that mean for health care? What does it mean for our social systems? We entered the pandemic in a strong fiscal position. It allowed us to take quick and decisive action supporting both people and business. The biggest danger we could have had would have been not doing enough.
I'd like to talk about addressing the gaps in our social system. For me, one of the most important things, the worst tragedy, was what happened in long-term care. It broke my heart. It broke my heart. Before I ever entered politics, I used to take the children I taught dancing to into the seniors homes in Etobicoke North. They knew these seniors for many years. To see what they have lived through.... I've known these seniors in these residences through politics an additional 12 years. I will be afraid to see, when we go back, who we have lost. They deserve to be safe and respected and to live in dignity.
I want families to know this: I know your loss. I know your terrible pain. I know it first-hand. I will absolutely raise long-term care again and again and again.
I'd like to recognize Monsieur Lauzon's leadership here. We've all heard about his caring and compassion for seniors. He's the parliamentary secretary to the minister. I'm glad to see in the budget another $3 billion for long-term care. We will be investing $12 billion over five years to increase old age security for seniors aged 75 and older.
If the came to our committee, we could ask her questions on behalf of our seniors. I know that the seniors in our Etobicoke North community, for example, our Humberwood seniors, our Sri Lankan Tamil seniors, our St. Andrew's seniors, to name just a few groups, would be really eager to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to talk a bit about how COVID affected congregate settings and particularly people with disabilities. I've been a lifelong advocate for disability rights. I've worked with and learned from—learned from—persons living with disabilities all my life. I've worked with children with autism spectrum disorder. I've worked with adults with developmental delays. We saw with the pandemic that the disease spread quickly in these residences.
If we look at the survey on disability, we can see that more than six million Canadians identify as having a disability. That's important for this committee to know. When we look at employment, only 59% of Canadians with disabilities from age 25 to 64 are employed as compared with 80% of Canadians without disabilities. They also earn less. It's 12% less for those with milder disabilities and 51% for those with more severe disabilities. They're more likely to live in poverty.
I think it's incumbent upon all of us to build a fairer future where we all have an equal opportunity to succeed. If I look back to the last Parliament, our government undertook the most inclusive and accessible consultation with Canadians with disabilities and brought forth historic legislation.
There's more work to do. Our government will bring forward a disability inclusion plan and a new Canadian disability benefit modelled after the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. I think it would be really important to hear from the on these initiatives.
Next, I'd like to talk a bit about health. I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Madam Petitpas Taylor and her tremendous work when she served as the minister of health for Canada. I hear regularly from the medical and research community that really recognized how she listened and what she achieved for our country. I will just highlight her work on the food guide, healthy food choices, and financial support for thalidomide survivors. Of course, I could go on.
Over the last many months, it's become clearer that we need a resilient health care system. Everyone should have access to a family doctor. We've seen with COVID-19 that our system has to be more flexible to be able to reach communities. I know from helping families in my own community that it's been really hard. It's been hard to reach a doctor during the pandemic. Many doctors are not operating. If they were operating, it's hard to get an appointment. If you could get an appointment and then you needed to see a specialist, that took more time. I'm really concerned about what we're going to see in the future in terms of cancers being diagnosed later, and heart and neurological issues.
I'd like to talk a bit about hearing from the when it comes to mental health initiatives.
I'd also like to hear from the about how we build safer, stronger communities and the importance of having a home. No one should ever have to survive a Canadian winter on the street. Everyone needs a home. It's one of the most important issues to our community. That's why I fight so hard for affordable housing. It's something everyone deserves. It's also a key driver of the economy.
Another issue that's really important to the people of Etobicoke North is ending gun violence. It's something I've fought for since I arrived in Parliament. I remember back in 2013, a group of grieving Somali mothers came to see me in my constituency office. They gave me a list of 50 young Somali Canadian men who had died violently, largely in Ontario and Alberta. Many of their deaths remain unsolved.
In 2012, it was that terrible summer here in Toronto when we had 33 Toronto shooting deaths that took the lives of Somali Canadian men. When I go to a meeting and 100 people are there—obviously, this is during non-COVID times—it's common for four mothers to come up to me and say that they are the parent of one of those young men. These are Canadian-born young men. Grieving mothers, community elders and imams say these were the children who were supposed to bury them. No one asks about their pain because no one wants to know.
Positive Change writes in their brochure, “50 sons, brothers, grandsons, friends lost. Together let's stop the violence”. It's really important that we do more. I think it would be important to hear from the on gun violence.
What matters to my community is having a job, having a home, having a safe community and addressing inequality and health care. What I hear from the youth in our community is that we're in a climate emergency. The global response has been inadequate, and we must urgently change course. It's important for people to understand that we've really faced three global emergencies this past year. There is the pandemic. There is the climate crisis. There is a crisis of injustice. The young people in my community—and we see youth leading around the world on climate change—want us to speak up for planet Earth. I think it's really important. We have to increase the level of ambition.
Earth Day is this week. There's also an important meeting taking place, a virtual Leaders Summit on Climate. We have to increase the level of ambition. We have to increase the action that will happen at COP26 this year in Glasgow.
Canadians understand that climate change threatens our health, our way of life and our planet. They want to see more action. I'm really pleased to see that our government is committed to that action. We saw that in the budget yesterday, with billions invested. I would like to hear from the about Canada's climate action and what more needs to be done.
Madam Chair, I've been speaking at length. I'm just going to finish by really bringing home that the sole focus of this committee should be the pandemic. It should be pandemic. It's what I hear in our community. It's what our community members are concerned about. I serve a wonderful community. It is the place where I was born and raised. It's very difficult, because our community works hard. Many are on the front line. They want to see members of Parliament fighting for them. They don't want to see politics.
Right now in Ontario our health care system is crumbling. The hospitalizations have increased. The ICU admissions have increased. Patients are being shipped around the province to make room for sicker patients. You can see the numbers increasing in other provinces. It's not just Ontario. We're seeing the numbers increase in other provinces.
I will make a plea to our dear colleagues on this committee. I so appreciate working with everyone. I think we have a good committee, and I think we've done good work. We did good work on remote voting. We did good work on putting in place recommendations should there be an election during a pandemic. I absolutely hope there is not an election during a pandemic. We do have work to do, real, meaningful work. There will be a pandemic in the future, and it is incumbent upon us to study Parliament's response and to make recommendations.
With that, Madam Chair, I will say thank you to my colleagues and friends and I will pass the floor to the next member.
:
Madam Chair, to be quite honest with you, I say—and I don't mean this as an understatement—the pleasure is all mine.
I want to thank Ms. Duncan for her interventions and for going through her experience, all of which you've just described aptly.
I want to say hello to my colleagues. It's been ages since I've seen you amongst the squares that unfold in front of my screen.
Yes, I see you too, Wayne. It's nice to see you as well. I included you in that, by the way, if you had any trepidation about that.
This is something I want to get into, because I took great interest in it. You may not believe me, but it is true. I'm taking a great interest in this and I'll tell you why.
When I was first elected in 2004, I think sideburns were a thing. I'm not sure we've progressed further in fashion since then; nevertheless, that's quite some time ago. I was so naive, so green towards the whole process of parliamentary procedure—this is an actual, true story—that I got to Ottawa for the first time and was standing in a lineup of about 50 people. The security guard came along. In those days you had various security guards. You had one set for the House of Commons and you had different security guards for the Senate.
A Senate security guard walked by, and I said, “Excuse me, sir, I'm just waiting to get in here, but do you know how long this will take? I have a meeting.” He said, “Who is your meeting with?” I said, “My meeting is with the Speaker of the House.” He said, “Are you from his area?” I said, “No, I'm from Newfoundland.”
We got to talking. He said, “What do you do?” I said, “I just got elected. I'm a member of Parliament—not sworn in yet, but I just got elected.” He just sighed and said, “Come with me, sir.” I said, “What did I do?” He said, “Sir, you can go wherever you want.” I said, “Really? I can go anywhere I want? I can walk in and see Paul Martin, the prime minister?” He said, “But not there.”
It was quite a journey. When I got in there he asked, “Are you okay?” I said, “Yes. Can I ask you a question?” He said, “Go ahead.” I said, “Where's the House of Commons?”
I was in the lobby of the western side of Centre Block. I didn't have a clue where the House of Commons was. Not only that, I also didn't really have much of a history of how it works. All I know is from question period, when you get up and ask a question and someone gets up and answers the question. Neither of the two relates to the other. What was asked and what was answered would seem to be madly off in different directions.
Of course, everything has changed since then, right?
I was looking for a reaction. I see it.
At the time, I was thinking to myself that I knew nothing about how this place operates, how this place works. I never undermined its importance. I just thought to myself, "How does this all work?"
I sat down with as many rules and procedures as I could and talked to as many people as I could. I'll never forget one individual. He was sitting in front of me in the House of Commons. He was a Liberal, like me. His riding was Peterborough, which I think is 's riding. His name was Peter Adams. He had a very thick English accent. He taught me so much. He has passed away since then. I haven't thought about him in ages until this very moment. He took on the role of mentor to me and several others. He walked me through a lot of things.
I realized that many things happen in the House of Commons that are not written down. It's based more on tradition than anything else, which we inherited from the U.K. parliamentary system. I'll get to that in a moment. I know you're dying in anticipation, but I'll get to it in a moment.
Shortly thereafter we went to an orientation session. It was one of the first times they had instituted an orientation session for new parliamentarians. These things are fairly regular now, but in 2004 they weren't that regular. They were just starting out.
I was sitting down with three other members of Parliament. Two of us were Liberals and two were Conservatives. We got to know each other. It was then that I realized we were members of Parliament representing areas of Canada, and with a lot of the same goals, because before you come into Parliament, what you think of partisanship and what you think of debate.... It's like something that is altruistic, in the sense that you're constantly debating the other. It's not like that. There is a lot that happens that you don't see on the screen, and I mean that from a CPAC perspective, not from Zoom.
I'll never forget the person I sat next to. As I said, we were all members of Parliament, but there was a guy named there. You probably know him. I remember having a long discussion with him. He, being from Saskatchewan—from Ottawa but representing Saskatchewan—and I being from Newfoundland, we shared stories about people we knew in either province and so forth. There was another MP there, Mike Savage, who's now the mayor of Halifax, and another guy by the name of Jeff Watson. Some of you know him. Jeff was in Essex, in southwestern Ontario. I think he lives in Alberta now.
Nevertheless, I was talking to Andrew and Jeff, and I realized that they had such wonderful families and great kids. I spoke to their spouses, their partners, who were wonderful people. You sort of get into the context of why we're there in the beginning, and it's not to be a Liberal or a Conservative or an NDPer, but to further your goals as a Canadian. Sometimes I worry that we're losing sight of that in this virtual world.
Now, you might be thinking that's probably not apropos to the conversation at hand, but I only say that to preface my comments by saying that I would like to get into how Parliament has evolved from a human dimension, as well as the rules and procedures that we're doing, because, quite frankly, we are talking about one of those tools that we have in the tool box, which is known as proroguing the House. People will know what proroguing is—not very many—but they know what it is as in the superficial meaning of the word “proroguing”. Far fewer, probably, know how to spell it, me included. I've been saying it for years and never knew how it was spelled, to be quite honest with you and, let's be honest, we're all honest.
It's a concept that I think is a tool we can use and which I think is a functional one. I think it's something that, as Canadians.... It evolved from a country outside of our own, but nevertheless, we've grasped this concept because we think it's one that is good, among many other traditions, customs and procedures of the House that we go through.
All that is to say that I'm glad to be a part of this, because I want to look at this from the functional aspect of what is proroguing of the House and, in a general sense, how our House operates, so that we can handle and pass laws in the most efficient way we know, and how the system has evolved.
Should the system be fixed? Yes, it should be. I looked on the screen here and I saw Mr. Nater earlier, who taught me a lot about the Magna Carta, stuff that I didn't know, from a session that went on and on—someone give me another word for “filibuster”. Okay, it was a prolonging of a discussion that we had. It was the prolonging of a discussion primarily by the Conservatives and also the NDP and Mr. Christopherson at the time, which I found rather enjoyable. I actually found it to be really good. It was quite informative, with characters like Mr. Nater and Mr. and others who talked about how the Magna Carta had such a deep impact. We're talking about a thousand years ago.
Just by way of quick facts, do you know why the House of Commons is green and the Senate is red? The Senate is red because it signifies royalty, the Crown, the Queen, the King and all throughout the history of the last thousand years. We all know that red means the Crown. The green in the House of Commons signifies grass. No, not that grass.
Let's back up for a minute. When the Magna Carta was signed, it was done outside. There was no place inside for people who were commoners. There was no institution that would sanction the fact that commoners were getting together inside to debate issues. They had to do it outside, so naturally, the green represents the green grass outside where they debated. Now, of course, loosely based on the modern sense of debating amongst our peers, you probably looked to Iceland and the Althing, way back when. Nevertheless, the Magna Carta was signed around the time of Runnymede. That's why you see the green representing the outside, where the commoners would have to gather to debate.
Going back to the basics, the Magna Carta gave us the power of the individual to live in this country, to live in this world and to make sure they had human rights. Essentially, the role of the Crown was not to be against the people they served, if I could put it that way. Obviously, it's more complex than that. I'm just simplifying it the best way I know how.
Over the following thousand years, all of this evolved into the common rules and procedures that we have now. During a debate we had a few years ago over prolonging the discussion, we'll say, of House rules, one of the things we talked about was how unique times can create different measures and rules by which we govern ourselves. This was not even taking into consideration what was around the corner—the situation we find ourselves in a year and a half later.
If someone had told me when that was happening in 2018 that I would be voicing the opinions of my constituents with a “yea”, “nay” or “abstain” in the House of Commons by using this, I would have said, “That's insane.” I never would have thought about it.
I remember a member of the European parliament who came over from Germany. She had spent 25 years in Brussels, I think. She was a very smart person, very experienced. I'm president of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, so I invited her and her colleague—
:
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
I'm sorry, Ms. Vecchio. To be quite honest, you sounded a lot like my lawyer. I'm sorry. That was just an aside.
I'm sorry, Ms. Vecchio. I will lace up my running shoes and quickly run to the point in just a few moments. Before I do that, I want to sum up by saying that we find ourselves in a situation where so much has changed.
Anyway, to quickly finish that story—and I promise, Ms. Vecchio, I will finish it quickly—what she said was that she witnessed question period and then voting, because we had a vote after question period. In terms of question period, she said, “I really like question period; it's real 21st century stuff.” I asked what she meant. You have to understand that in European parliaments, most of them just stand up for 10 minutes, do their spiel, vent their spleen and then sit down. Each one does that, but there's no debate. She loved the back and forth. She thought that was real 21st century stuff, but she said, “I have a concern.” I asked her what it was. She said, “You debate like it's the 21st century, but you vote like it's the 19th century.” It's a good point. All we do is stand up and sit down every vote. There was no electronic vote then. Everyone else was doing electronic voting except for us, until this came along.
The point is that so much has changed in the House of Commons. How we conduct ourselves.... I see you all in a square that's so big in front of me, and I've been seeing that for quite some time, for almost a year now, if you look at the Zoom technology.
Our schools are this way. Broadband Internet used to be a wonderful tool to help with schooling in rural Canada. In rural Canada, broadband Internet is now the school. That's the school now, and not even just in rural areas but in urban areas, especially for those of you in Ontario and Quebec who are going through this latest situation. My heart goes out to all of you. I won't talk about that too much because I feel that Ms. Duncan did it so emotionally and appropriately that I would not serve it justice. It was quite something to behold.
The change that is thrust upon us has to take into consideration everything in the House of Commons. Why prorogue? What does it take? We used to joke that proroguing the House means that it's the old control-alt-delete of the political system, but actually, control-alt-delete is more of an election. This is more like the F5 refresh in terms of what is happening, what we have been doing and we're about to do.
Sometimes a government will exhaust itself to the point where we've done what we said we were going to do. Now, whether you believe that is a matter of debate, but nevertheless.... You're going to do all that you want to do, to a point where you say, “We've done that and where do we go from here?” Well, that calls for a Speech from the Throne. It calls for a direction. It calls for an indication to the people of where you want to go. That's the original purpose of this, but that's the government's decision.
What if the sands beneath us change and start to move? What if external factors dictate that life is not normal anymore, if what we knew as normal is no longer normal? Society has changed dramatically to the point where, when someone asks me, a politician, what's going to come of all this.... Who knows? Who knows what changes will come? What are the long-term effects of this? I don't know. How do you judge what the forest will look like if you're still amongst the trees?
I think that for us at some point we have to step back to a certain degree and try to refigure. The Speech from the Throne following the 2009 election had a distinct direction to it, whether you supported it or not. Whether you didn't like the direction or liked the direction, it had a path, but now the environment in which we walk has changed so dramatically that the path has to take a different way. Not entirely different.... It doesn't have to go backwards, but it has to change.
You have to think about what it takes to indicate to the country that things have changed, and now we have to think about that. Normally I would say to you to think of the budget from yesterday, but I won't get into the budget today. I won't talk about it because I know that's not what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the motion and the amendment and so on and so forth. I think that I'm glad to be here because prorogation was the original factor by which we find ourselves in this prolonged discussion about what it is that we want to do and where it is that we're going.
Those are my thoughts on the changing of the House. I know that we all want to change the way we operate in the House of Commons in a way that's befitting of our current circumstances. I'm even willing to say that we should go beyond what has affected us through this pandemic and say that now that we have made some changes, finally, such as voting through my phone, we can make other changes to the House.
There's Mr. Blaikie. He has some good ideas. I think he has one great idea that he'll probably bring up later, but this is something that we have to discuss. I'm glad we're doing this, because we're talking about prorogation as one of those things.
Prorogation is not our invention, but it's certainly something we practise. Earlier, I mentioned the path that we're on now, the circumstances and how the ground beneath our feet that has shifted and therefore we have to make.... That's why I think prorogation was justified in this particular instance. I know that others would say to you that the circumstances of the situation with the WE Charity, as was said earlier, were dictating that, but I have to disagree, not based on the fact of where I sit in the House, but only because I think that this is one of those times.
The question is, would prorogation exist outside all the factors that you're talking about regarding the issue with WE Charity and others? Absolutely, it would. It would be completely justified. If you look at.... I'll only mention this about the budget. Look at it. Look at the face of it, at all the things in that budget that were affected by the pandemic. You may not agree with the actual substance within that budget, but on the topics, just look at the index. Look at the table of contents. There's not a lot about the table of contents that you can disagree with, no matter who you are, because these issues have to be handled.
The extension of benefits such as the wage subsidy or the CEBA, these things.... This is something that is providing a great benefit to this country, but these things do have an expiry date, and that has to be talked about. These sorts of measures were not to be talked about before the pandemic struck. We tried with EI from the very beginning. We went into the benefits, the CERB. Going into the CERB, we had to create this new dimension in financial arrangements with our constituents. The pandemic dictated all of that.
How does that relate to prorogation? Well, I think that all leads into a refresh of the House. Some of you might say, then why didn't you just call an election? Yes, well, I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador. Not so much.... How would I say this without being insensitive? We just had an election in Newfoundland, the likes of which I don't even know if the Commonwealth has seen before—not just Canada, but the Commonwealth. That's in the sense that voting in person got shut down the day before we went to the polls. Then you had to mail in your vote. We may end up with a challenge based on the charter and the right to vote. Who knows? It's possible. A lot went awry. Without pointing fingers at anybody in this particular situation, I'm sure that will unfold, and rightly so.
There's a lot to learn from this. The ultimate refresh is the election. It may have worked in other places. I've read about what they've done in British Columbia. I think they did some really good things. In New Brunswick, there were some good things there too. There are things that we will address down the line.
How many times did we debate about voting online? How do you accomplish voting online in a national election without trusting the system completely? That's a hard thing to do. Voting by phone.... Basically, voting remotely is what we're looking at. My goodness, in the House of Commons, we're already doing it. I'll never forget it when I first got into this thing. I was still saying, “Pinch me. I can actually vote on my phone in the House of Commons.”
:
Thank you very much. To say that I am as excited as you are is probably the understatement of the day, from my own perspective, of course.
I want to start by thanking everybody and by referring to the amendment by Ryan Turnbull that considers the witnesses in this particular case.
I'll get back to the witnesses in this particular case, or the amendment that attempts to do it, but I would like to go back to the issue of prorogation. As we discussed, I think it's very important to put this in the context of what prorogation is all about, what it was meant to be, what it has become. Whether it has veered off and gone madly off in different directions is another issue all unto its own.
Many parliamentary scholars around the world, but certainly in the Commonwealth, can debate quite extensively as to why we have prorogation. I think we do have it for the right reasons, for the grand reset, to use the vernacular. I mentioned this the last time, so to go back to what I said earlier, the grand reset is obviously an election, but for people like me when you're involved in parliamentary procedure so much—and I am sure I'll get a thumbs-up from Mr. Nater or Mr. Blaikie on that one as we delve into it.
I joked last time, but I'm somewhat serious as well, when I talk about how we look at how we've evolved over a thousand years of how we do democracy. Certainly for the Commonwealth nations, and this Westminster democracy that we have, goes back to the age of the Magna Carta, the original reason why we did this. The commoners massed outside every castle that you could think of in southern England. They wanted to bring power to the people through their own representation.
I think it was more at the time if you read the tea leaves, read through the language that was written at the time. Certainly if you read the Magna Carta you will see that there was an element of protection from absolute rule of the monarchy. There was some protection for them as well, and protection for others. It was the first time we were able to do several concepts a thousand years ago, which was the separation of what was royalty and what was the power to the people, and the protections for the common people who are subjects of the Crown.
On the other side, you had elements such as those who were being accused of doing something absolutely nasty that wasn't bearable by the commoners of England to be judged by one's peers, also spoken of in the Magna Carta and other documents. We all came from that, of course, as we know. Advance several years and you come to the Statute of Westminster where we find ourselves.
Basically, the Statute of Westminster tells us that we have a right to run our own affairs, but we still are attached to the Crown, to the Westminster traditions. I say traditions because even though we have a playbook that's about this thick, we still rely on a lot of customs and traditions when we go about our day in Parliament, whether it be in the House of Commons or in the Senate.
Of all the tools in the tool box, prorogation is actually quite prescriptive. Think about it. As I mentioned, sometimes you can take the interpretation and put it madly in different directions, but I think that prorogation has a prescriptive way about how we can accomplish something in Parliament when something comes to an end and we want a restart to do something else.
You can argue its existence from here to Sunday because why would you need that when all you need is an election or you just bring in different bills once the other bills are done? What prorogation does, specifically sparked by, of course, the Speech from the Throne, is that it indicates to the average citizen where you want to go. What's wrong with that? To me that's responsible government. It doesn't even have to be part of Westminster to say to the people, “This is where we want to go, this is the target we're trying to reach”.
As we know, since the word is thrown around so much in any democracy, whether it be here, or in any other democracy like that in the United States of America, South America, or throughout the rest of Europe, accountability is key to an informed decision to vote.
The right to vote is of course in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a basic and inherent right to express oneself democratically to the people one wants to lead. Some might say, “I don't want to be a leader. I don't want to be in a position where I make decisions for the masses, but I sure as hell know who I want to do it. I know what I'm looking for when that direction is laid out amongst my peers who are seeking my vote.”
That being said, prorogation does several things. It stops and starts and it's a little more.... I think in a general sense the basic principle is that the people will look at us and say, “Where is it you want to go, exactly?”
They go about doing their daily business, and whether they introduce government bills, private members' bills, motions, committee work, studies or reports, all of this stuff that's contained within both the House of Commons and the Senate comes from a vision and direction put forward by the government. I was going to say the party with the most seats, but that's not exactly right. It comes down to a very essential concept, which is the party that commands the confidence of the House and the majority of the seats. That's what you have to do.
If you think about it, we could be in a situation in which within the ranks of one particular caucus we could be choosing the prime minister and the minister of everybody. It doesn't have to be the party with the most seats; it just has to command the confidence of the House. You can rely on people outside of your own caucus to give you that confidence.
You may recall how several years ago—I forget the date now but it was probably six or seven years ago—when Cameron was elected in the United Kingdom, he didn't have a majority. He had a minority. He had two choices: he could reach out to another party to make an agreement to govern for the next four years or he could just go about the daily machinations of governing and see what happened. Every day the House is sitting you're subjecting yourself to seeking the confidence in the House to pass legislation, particularly on confidence measures such as the budget or whatever is deemed confidence at that time.
What they did, obviously, was to reach out to those in receipt of the bronze medal, the third-place team. That would have been the Liberal Democrats. What was interesting, and what taught a lesson to a lot of people, was that you would think because the Conservatives had the most seats then, they had the prerogative to seek support from another party within the House of Commons to find themselves with the majority of seats and votes to keep them going.
Interestingly enough—at least I find this interestingly enough but I don't know if you do—there were also negotiations between those who had won the silver medal, the second-place team, which was the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats.
The first shot went to the Conservatives to reach out, and things were looking like “Well, we'll see.” I guess when the Liberal Democrats looked at it they said, “Well, to a certain degree I feel somewhat intoxicated with power being in third place. I may have the bronze medal, but I feel like I'm on top of the podium.” At that point they were the kingmakers.
In this particular case, things weren't going that well, so they reached out to the Labour side. How does second place team up with third place to be first? If you deal in an absolute world, you think that doesn't make sense, but it actually does, because second place combined with third place gets most of the seats in the House of Commons. You have the confidence.
A year later the Liberal Democrats said, “You know, it's all wonderful and grand, but this place is a little bit much for us. We're going to take the side door and walk out.” That means in a confidence vote if only the Labour Party would be a government, then they would lose confidence and then the Queen would have to decide whether.... Okay, she has a choice. She can either pick someone else or just go to an election.
The whole point is that when you look at things like prorogation, you look at setting out a direction in which the government wants to go, after the House has chosen who that government is going to be.
Let's go from the U.K. back to Canada. Back in Canada we had a situation where the Liberals had a conversation with the NDP. I say that like I was outside of it, but I was in on it, for complete transparency. We still did not have that confidence. We still did not have enough seats, but we had an agreement with the Bloc at the the time. The Bloc said, “I'll tell you what. We won't be part of your little game, your party, but what we'll do is stay out here, and we promise we won't take you down.”
The prime minister of the day did not like that very much. I'm trying to stay away from my opinion of the whole thing. I'm just trying to lay out what happened. Prime Minister Harper sought prorogation. Now we have a conundrum. What are we going to do?
Now you have to go to the Governor General and say, “I think we need a reset.” The Governor General naturally says, “Why would you want that?” The prime minister says, “Well, we want to reset. We don't want an election, but we just want to reset and probably do something a little different. We want to present a new vision of where we're going. Maybe it's not so much new, but a revised vision as to where we want to go.”
Some prime ministers went so far as to say that they were going to prorogue over several months, because people need to be comfortable. The MPs need to be comfortable with watching the Olympics. You'd probably think that what I just said is absolutely absurd, right? It's true. The Vancouver Olympics were happening; therefore, we need to prorogue Parliament. Listen, I'm not going to cast judgment, although the tone of my voice probably does.
Let me just back away from the tone of my voice by saying this. If this is nefarious at worst, and somewhat innocent at best, no matter where it lies, the argument was really about prorogation. What is it used for and why?
If you're going to use something like this, you better come with your game face, because this is something that's highly prescriptive, as I mentioned earlier. It is something that is incredibly useful for us as parliamentarians in our parliamentary democracy.
There are several other episodes of prorogation. Let's go from that one to the one we just had recently. This is where I may get a little bit more opinionated about how I feel about this particular prorogation, only because of what is happening right now.
Preceding my intervention at the last meeting, I congratulated my colleague, Ms. Duncan, who laid out what had happened over the past little while, which was the pandemic. She is a medical professional, so she's going to do far better than I am at doing this. Not only that, she also illustrated how in her riding and in her sphere of influence COVID-19 was affecting everyday life.
What she talked about, and it may sound bland, but you'll know what I mean when I say this is an understatement. What a game-changer for governments. What a game-changer for everybody. For those cited in the Constitution, national, subnational, federal, provincial and municipal governments, what a game-changer, right?
Ask every premier across the country. Yes, I'm in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's true our case numbers are not as dramatic compared to others. Just before I got on this call, I heard that this is not a good day for Nova Scotia. For Ontario and Quebec, to my colleagues who are on Zoom and outside of Zoom, I wish you all the best with staying safe.
Let me get back to prorogation. What I just illustrated was a change in vision by a particular government.
Yes, when a government finds itself in a position where it's close to exhausting its former mandate that it brought to the people, and it finds that it wants to do something that is essential for the country but may not have been laid out before, it does this. But again, this is the prerogative of a government that finds itself in a position where it wants to do something different and doesn't feel completely comfortable just doing this by sheer dint of its own personality and by saying, “Hey, look. We can do this. We're the government.”
What we have here is a different scenario. This is where the ground has changed beneath our feet in a major way. This is the stuff that we talk about when we change what we do because of a major war. In a sense, this is a war against the invisible enemy that is this virus. We're battling on all fronts. We are nurses. We are doctors. We are truck drivers. We are teachers. We are....
Just yesterday, I spoke to a gentleman who works as a technician to hook up Internet service. You might ask how he is a front-line worker: He's now bringing school to kids. Remember, the Internet for these small communities was a great tool for schooling, and now it is the school. Given what we're going through, it is the school now, so that person is vital in a way that we could never have imagined before any of this happened.
Has the ground changed beneath our feet? It sure has and, if nothing else, this will be probably be the most important thing I want to say today: If you cannot bring in what parliamentary procedure describes as a reset in prorogation, if you can't do it now, then when? When do you do it? It's a fundamental question.
Some people might say that it's not necessary. I know that great scholars, people smarter than I am, might say that, but you know, I go back to the experience that I've had. I've been here almost 18 years now. I've probably been here longer than some of the gargoyles that exist above the West Block, for God's sakes. In saying that, I've seen a lot of this come and go, and whether you think prorogation is used for nefarious reasons or for the right reasons, I've now come to realize that prorogation has to be used when it's absolutely necessary. This is a third dimension to it that I never thought of before, until now.
There have been several headlines going back to the few times that Prime Minister Harper did it, or back when Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien did it, and prorogation got lost in an argument of who gets the advantage here. It's like a game of chess. Whose side gets the advantage of doing this? I think this prorogation is bereft of anything that is strategy, which is being talked about here—I'll be honest with you—and, sure, I realize that's the side you would expect me to take, being on the government side, but, hey, listen. There was a time when prorogation happened during the Conservative years that I agreed with too. I disagreed with many of my own colleagues and my own party as a result of that. We're not doing this over so that we can be comforted in watching the full extent of the Vancouver Olympics. We're doing this because we're at war. There have been way too many lives lost in the last little while for us to get into this.
I respect the fact that you want to get to an issue that is of importance. I'll go back to Ms. Vecchio's motion and the amendment to follow about the situation with the charity, with the individuals involved who you want to bring here, such as the , and as the amendment points out, the Kielburger brothers. Look, I have as many questions as anybody else in this call—I do—and I am respectful of that, and I'm respectful of your initiative to get to the bottom of this.
Let's recall now that from 2006 to 2015 I was in opposition. I know how this works. I'm not in the middle of a filibuster; I'm in a prolonged conversation on what's going on.
We've all had our share of doing the things that we do for the good of the country. Some people might think it's not. We accuse each other of not doing so. Some people look at me and ask why I would be involved in a prolonged conversation that they would call a filibuster, so on and so forth, but it is a part of democracy. Every modern democracy has it, and when we look at this, you probably think, “Why would you be involved in these sorts of things when outside of this realm of Zoom there is some nasty stuff going on?”
Well, yes, that's right. There is, but I can tell you that we all come to this particular—I was going to say this committee meeting, but this committee Zoom meeting—from a virtual perspective only to say that we truly believe in what we're doing, all of us, and I don't doubt anybody. I'm not going to undermine anyone's argument as to why they want to bring certain witnesses in whom we've already heard, or there are delays to all of this because of the shenanigans that take place in the House of Commons. Many of these shenanigans that existed in the real world now exist in the virtual world. Well, that's fine because that's who we are, as parliamentarians.
This stuff isn't going to end, but only to argue your point, what bothers me a lot these days is that instead of fighting an argument with a counter-argument that bears, in my mind, complete logic, like why this prorogation should be now, you just want to shut people down. However, let's be honest. We have a right to talk our way through this, and we should.
When I first got into politics, a person with a great deal of experience told me that now that I was in politics, now that I was starting in politics, his advice to me was simple and based on math. I asked, “What's the math? If you get more seats, you get to be government?” He said, “No, it's not that. This is very simple math. This is called a 2:1 ratio.” I asked what was the 2:1 ratio, and he said, “You have two ears and one mouth. Play to the ratio that you have. Try to listen more than you speak, and as time goes on, you might find yourself in a position where you've done far more good than not.”
To paraphrase Shakespeare, you could just keep on going and it could signify nothing, or it could signify something that you're proud of at the end of the day.
Now, would I be proud of all this? As I mentioned earlier, I was in opposition. Am I proud of all the stuff that I tried to pull? No, but I'm proud of the fact that I did my best, and at the end of the day, I'm proud of the fact that I think I represented my constituents in the best way possible, and not just my own constituents but every Canadian who wants to live in a better place.
Let me go back to the prorogation issue again, because, to me, that's the essence of what prorogation is about. We are talking about two different things on two different planes when it comes to getting answers to questions on something that happened. You want these questions to be answered on one side, and then on the other side you have parliamentary procedure and why we use the tools that we have.
That said, prorogation started off long before we were around and long before I came around, and that's quite some time. However, as far as prorogation is concerned in this country, it has a base to it.
I'm going to read some of the very base of what prorogation is all about. I got here in 2004. I think it was 2010 when I learned how to actually spell “prorogation”. I kind of knew what it was, but I didn't even know how to spell it, for goodness' sake.
It is:
a prerogative act of the Crown taken on the advice of the Prime Minister, results in the termination of a session. It is possible to prorogue a session of Parliament by proclamation when the House is sitting or during an adjournment. Both the House of Commons and the Senate then stand prorogued until the opening of the next session.
Now, there is the timing. Sometimes you could go months, to the full extent until you get the expiration of something like the Vancouver Olympics, or you could do it the next day, because that has happened too.
The time period in the most recent prorogation I think was reasonable enough—a few weeks—to allow the government to basically reorganize its priorities, to the point where we put ourselves forward as to where we want to go.
Remember now, we're in the middle of a pandemic in this. I'm going to be quite honest with you. If the Conservatives were in government and prorogued at the time that we did and then reassembled with a Speech from the Throne, I'd be at a loss to say that it was nefarious, by any stretch of the imagination.
It's a pandemic. I don't know how I can say this more often, in the fact that we're at war. On governance, look at what we've done over the past little while: CERB, wage subsidies, all this stuff.
Let's take CERB as an example, which was needed by so many of my constituents. This was not only more money, it was a new concept. We originally started with EI and realized that the system wasn't working. To say that we had to change gears to go from EI to CERB is an understatement.
If you had said to me before the last election that we would need a whole new system by which we provide benefits to people who are in trouble, completely outside of EI, and it would be delivered through the Canada Revenue Agency, I would have said, “Good Luck. Three studies and eight years later there maybe would be a modicum of it.” We had to do it. I am just outlining the challenges we faced at that time.
As an individual MP sitting in your office taking calls from people, it was “Do I qualify? Do I not? What do I do?” This was at a time when these programs were coming out very quickly. To say that the government had to be nimble is also an understatement.
The wage subsidy is probably an even better example. You had so many companies that were slipping through the cracks that couldn't qualify, you had to manoeuvre it in such a way that these people now qualified. That was not because we felt it wasn't working for us, but because it had to work for them. The intent was to get most people covered. To do that, to be nimble, is an understatement.
I'm saying that because it paints the picture that invoking prorogation was appropriate.
With regard to the effects of prorogation, our House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
Prorogation of a session brings to an end all proceedings before Parliament. With certain exceptions, unfinished business “dies” on the Order Paper and must be started anew in a subsequent session.
Again, you look at the situation that we were in. Some of the stuff on the Order Paper, yes, was very important, and so on and so forth, but then you have to come back to it. Keep in mind that a lot of this could be brought back from the former session, which any government or anybody calling for prorogation can take advantage of as well.
Bills which have not received Royal Assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated” and, in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed. On occasion, however, bills have been reinstated at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session.
I heard someone describe prorogation as—and pardon my language; it's not my language, but pardon me for quoting it—“a guillotine”, or “slice it right down the middle and that's it, done.” That's not necessarily it. It's more like the big hand that comes and says, “Okay, you stop right there.” Some of it can be brought back. I'll continue:
On occasion, however, bills have been reinstated at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session. This has been accomplished either with the unanimous consent of the House or through the adoption of a motion to that effect, after notice and debate. The House has also adopted provisional amendments to the Standing Orders to carry over legislation to the next session, following a prorogation
I'm looking to see if I lost anyone. No, you're still there. Then again, we're parliamentarians, so there you go.
I see Ken McDonald waving from way back in his office, somewhere in the deep, dark corners, in the beautiful riding of Avalon. Good to see you, Mr. McDonald.
I'll continue:
Since 2003, prorogation has had almost no practical effect on Private Members’ Business.
So the sanctity of a private member's bill remains despite the prorogation:
As a result of this significant exception to the termination of business principle, the List for the Consideration of Private Members’ Business established at the beginning of a Parliament, and all bills and motions in the Order of Precedence, as well as those outside of it, continue from session to session.[
There's the sanctity of that too.
One person I'll give credit to for doing a lot of this stuff is Paul Martin, who brought in a lot of changes to our procedures, good ones too. Consider, for instance, private members' bills. Did you know that when we vote on a private member's bill we start in the back row? Why do we do that, you ask? I'm glad you asked, Wayne Long. The point is that you won't be influenced by the front bench of your party, so the back row gets to go first.
As an aside, we used to say that the worst place to be was in the opposition or in the backbench sitting up in the corner and you had to vote first.
:
Yes, I can, all the way from my little corner here in Grand Falls—Windsor, Newfoundland.
It's funny you mentioned that because if you look at all that has been done and the changes that we've made, I think we can make more, when it comes to the rules of the House of Commons. I do. Now I may go too far with it, but I think we've made some changes. That's another thing that's going to happen. That's another reason why we say the ground has shifted beneath our feet.
The last time I voted in the House of Commons—this is probably too much information— I was running on a treadmill in Sandy Point, Newfoundland and Labrador. I used this to vote. Yep. I voted. It's my right to vote. It's my responsibility to vote on behalf of my constituents. It was transparent. It was posted up there, and I realized that, my goodness, life has changed for us dramatically.
As I mentioned earlier, we used to vote like it was the 19th century, stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. It's fine if you like that, but it creates some long times in the House of Commons. You take people who are young parents, it's not easy when you have to be seconded into one little place and you have to stay there for hours doing the voting when you can now do this. Now that we've caught up with technology, that's great. If someone had said I could vote in the House of Commons on my phone after the last election, it was not even close to being possible. In the House of Commons, we don't even have a clock to tell you how long you have left to speak. We're probably the only place that does that.
Anyway, I'll even help the opposition by saying I've gone off topic, and I'll bring myself back. Sorry.
Ms. Vecchio, I apologize. I know it's your motion. Let me just get back to where I was.
Let's go back to prorogation again because I think that's the fundamental part about this. Members are released from their parliamentary duties after prorogation until the new session starts. The committees resume activities and are reconvened. We have to go through the process of committee work again, which makes sense. The government has a different direction or their policies are taking a different direction, then you have to dissolve the committees and put them back because the whole point of committee is to analyze legislation. So that needs to be reconfigured. That I get.
I'm glad private members' bills are okay because if you think about it, a private member's bill is something that you hold deep within your heart as a true piece of legislation that should be passed. Truly, it should be a law of this country or a motion to say that we should do good by this country. I don't think that changes much. Let's say you want to extend sick benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. I had a private member's bill which did that many years ago. Fortunately, it's done now. But at the time, that doesn't change. If 15 weeks doesn't cut it, we need more in the EI system to allow for people who are off work because they are sick through no fault of their own.
You're probably thinking now—and I'm just presupposing here—if this is prorogation in Canada, how does prorogation work for the people who invented it, the U.K.? Ken McDonald, I'm glad you asked because I know you're asking me. I could see your face in anticipation.
As for prorogation in the United Kingdom, constitutional law usually used to mark the end of a parliamentary session much like our own. It's part of the royal prerogative. It's the name given to the period between the end of the session of the U.K. parliament and the state opening of parliament that begins the next session. That's basically the same as ours. Nothing changes there. That's all part and parcel of where we got it from.
But it's very different in the origins of prorogation. The Queen formally prorogues Parliament on the advice of the Privy Council, the Privy Council, of course, being the cabinet. Prorogation usually takes the form of an announcement on behalf of the Queen. She did it recently. She prorogued parliament in her nineties. God love her. As with the state opening, it made both Houses...of course they have the House of Lords and House of Commons. MPs attend the House of Lords chamber to listen to the speech.
All of that is much the same. What happens to bills still in progress during prorogation? Prorogation brings to an end nearly all parliamentary business. I suspect—I don't know, but perhaps Mr. Nater could tell me the difference here as he's more of a scholar about this stuff than I am—they go further when it comes to prorogation and the determination of government business of the day, like the bills and so on and so forth. At least that's my impression. It's a serious thing, taken way back when.
Recently in the U.K., they went to the Supreme Court over the prorogation that was put on by Mr. Johnson at the time. It became very contentious, to say the least, because they were all bordering on the idea of minority parliaments. They twisted themselves into pretzels over how they were going to do this. That's when the Supreme Court got involved.
A session of parliament runs from the state opening of parliament. In the past, this has usually been November through the following November. They used to take longer periods of time to do this, up until recent memory. This is how they did things in the U.K.
At the origins of what was prorogation in the U.K., early prorogation ceremonies had four key elements. First the speaker made a speech mainly concerned with a subsidy bill. Now this is how they describe a subsidy bill. This is for sheer entertainment purposes. It's really kind of funny. They call it a bill “for the better support of Her Majesty's household”. I found that rather amusing.
Then there was the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper, another official of the royal household. The person who was involved had a title and the person was the Lord Keeper. I'm not sure if it exists, but if you asked the average British person what a “lord keeper” is, you'd probably see the best goaltender in soccer in all of the U.K. Otherwise, the Lord Keeper actually has a title and is part of Her Majesty's household that deals with this sort of thing.
The Lord Chancellor either prorogued or dissolved parliament, according to the sovereign's instructions. The sovereign was customarily present on these occasions and, from the 17th century onward, usually made the speech before prorogation or dissolution. Well, how about that?
There were two elements of it, which we used to do as well, if memory serves, where you had a speech at the ending and then you had a speech at the beginning. Of course, the speech at the ending was probably more towards justification. I would assume that now with modern communications it's quite evident why or at least you have to explain why you are doing this prorogation. What's more important, though, is when the House begins and you have the Speech from the Throne.
That's not the only reason you prorogue, but that's the most important part. You have to lay out for the country exactly what you're trying to do and where you want to go. Where you want to go really reverse engineers an answer as to where you've been and why you've done what you've done.
Personally, I've never witnessed a speech at prorogation within the context of, say, a Speech from the Throne, but I wouldn't feel it's really necessary. I say that for any party that's in government. I think that's probably a bit much. In saying that, it is quite something.
At this stage you're probably wondering one of two things: one, when will he be quiet, and two, what do they do in Australia?
Let's go down under, shall we? What do they do? They, of course, have the same system as we do. That being said, let's get to it.
Listen, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.
There's quite a bit to unpack, but I will say this. One thing I will unpack in the beginning is where we find common ground.
First of all, let me just say this, as probably a large disclaimer to put out there. I was not in on the conversations to prorogue, how to communicate to prorogue or why you would want to do that, so I'll speak from my own logic and from my own little corner of the world here in central Newfoundland, as I feel I should.
First of all, I will give kudos to the for showing up in front of committee prior to this.
My apologies in advance to my Conservative friends. Listen, I had great respect for Prime Minister Harper, but as I have said before, and I will say again, Prime Minister Harper going to a committee.... He wouldn't go near a committee if he had to walk through it to get home, but we do have a current Prime Minister who did show up to that committee. I gave him kudos for doing that. We found out a lot from that, I think.
Let me go back to the proroguing issue. If there's one thing that I can probably reverse course on in what I'm thinking, given the conversation we're just having here, it's the old tradition of formally speaking on the proroguing itself and then bookending it with the beginning of the next session when you do your speech, so that basically you have a clear communication as to why you're proroguing.
Should the rules change around proroguing? I don't disagree with you at all, quite frankly. I think it is a tool to be used, but it's also a tool to be communicated, by which.... This is a serious thing, and if you do it, you have to justify it. On the element of bringing it forward for PROC—I should not talk in Commons speak—for the procedure and House affairs committee, I mean, to be involved in that decision, you know something...? That's not a bad idea. Again, I speak on behalf of my own self. I think that is something we should consider, because if you do this, the justification is there, and the transparency should be there for someone who wants to do something like this.
Mr. Blaikie, let me also talk about the timing of this. Again, this is from my own perspective. Let's pretend I'm prime minister. Don't be worried, anybody, as that's not likely to happen, but if I were, some of the elements.... I forget some of the timing you illustrated. I don't condemn the logic that you come from on this one when it talks about the fall, when it started and when it should go ahead. A lot of that is well founded. For me, there would be a decision on this and that, and on this day and that day, but one thing is that the proroguing of the House around the time we did, just before the House was scheduled to begin, I think was a good time to do that.
I say that for this reason. The functions of pandemic policy—the CERB, the wage subsidy, the rental alleviation, all the other elements that were involved in these new programs that were created because of COVID-19—I think had to play out further from the spring and into the summer. In other words, we as policy-makers had to get a better grounding in what we were dealing with, in what was working and what was not, before we decided to prorogue and have a Speech from the Throne that illustrates how we're going to go ahead in the future. To me, that's why you do it in the fall instead of the spring. It's hard to gauge where the forest lies when you're still going between trees.
That's basically what we were doing, especially on things like the CERB and others, and how the CERB, which was created outside of EI at that point.... I think we were going through a lot of that stuff before we found solid ground, enough of it to say, “We need to prorogue the House and do the reset and now is that time.” Anything later than the fall probably would have stretched out too far, I think, only because the session would have started the same way it had ended before, which was that there was a lot to do, but what do we do about the pandemic?
I take your point seriously. I think the timing of proroguing was logically...I won't say it was spot-on, as we say in Newfoundland, but it was within that window, I think, that served Canadians well.
Another point when you talk about the justification aspect of proroguing the House and doing this great reset, is if you have a private member's bill. I'd love to see it. That's something we could consider. But, again, I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, because I really love talking about procedure in our House of Commons. Not only is it something we use today to make the country better, but it's something we give our children to govern themselves. Conversations like this need to happen especially in this committee, which is an overarching and loving way to say I miss you guys, because I was on this committee in the last session.
Anyway, Mr. Blaikie, thank you for that. I greatly appreciate it.
Getting back to all things down under, I was going to talk about Australia. I need a show of hands of who wants to hear about Australia.
In Australia it's much the same. They talk about the same arguments in the past, some of which they used in a nefarious way, and in ways they're not supposed to used. You basically take a fundamental concept of resetting policy and being transparent to the people to allow them to see where you are going, but others say that you're being strategic for your own selfish purposes.
In Australia, a new parliament begins with the opening by the governor general on the first day the two houses meet after a general election. To prorogue parliament means to bring an end to a session of parliament without dissolving the House of Representatives or both Houses. Australia has a House of Representatives and a Senate.
The Australian upper chamber is an elected one, which is very interesting. I don't know if anybody knew that. It is done on a proportional representation basis. You're actually seeing people involved in this process whose upper chamber is also elected. How that affects the idea of prorogation, I don't know. I do know that when there is a conflict between the two houses there is a dispute mechanism. That is very interesting. It's something we may want to think about in the future now that we have a largely independent Senate. It's not elected, but it's a largely independent Senate. That is one of the great things that the did in the past five years or so.
Prorogation has the effect of terminating all business pending before the Australian Houses of Parliament. It does not meet again until the date specified in the prorogation proclamation. From that, I gather they do a lot more than we do. It may be, in essence, the true guillotine we spoke about earlier where they just cut things off and it's a complete and utter reset without actually calling for an election. However, some of the experts can dispute what I just said.
Do the Australians say how long the prorogation of parliament lasts? There is little direction for how long parliament should be prorogued. However, House of Representatives Practice states that the recess involved need only be very short, for example, over a weekend. How about that for being prescriptive? That's right. That's quite a weekend, isn't it? You end on Friday and start up again on Monday. Talk about a ruined weekend for a lot of people. That just ruins your weekend altogether.
The Australians do it much like we do. The Senate is not able to revive bills through the upper chamber that originated in the House without a request from the House, so maybe that's.... That's fairly recent for us, perhaps in the last 30 or 40 years about bringing bills back after a prorogation. It seems that in Australia, that has happened for quite some time, which is right. I agree with that, by the way. That's essential. I gave the example of private members' bills earlier where they are not touched. It's not even a question of bringing them back. They are there. To me, that is quite respectful for every individual member of Parliament.
There is no limitation on the Australian Senate introducing new bills and debating them, which is what we do. Their Senate may also add any other business it wishes to address, such as motions, orders and committee business, following prorogation.
That being said, what happens to committees? Practice differs between the committees of the House of Representatives and committees of the Senate and the joint committees. That is something that is different.
Committees of the Australian House of Representatives, which is their version of the House of Commons, generally continue to exist following prorogation, but do not meet during that time. Their committees for the most part stay intact. Committees of the House and joint committees appointed by—
Sorry, I'm reading really fast. My apologies to the interpreters. I tend to do that from time to time. That's a lesson for all of us. When you're reading from something, you should probably make a mental note to slow down. This is just a note to self for me.
House of Representatives Practice states:
Committees of the House and joint committees appointed by standing order or by resolution for the life of the Parliament continue in existence but may not meet and transact business following prorogation.
They may not meet, but they still exist. It's still there. That's a key difference.
Senate committees may continue to operate and meet following a prorogation. This is due to the Senate’s status as a continuing House, and due to resolutions or Standing Orders that allow for their continuation.
That's Australia.
To summarize, it's much like our own system. It seems they keep more things intact, except for some of the bills. I think they take a lot of the bills out, but it's certainly something in the spirit of things. In the spirit of it, it's much like the U.K., which is much like ours.
All this to say, prorogation is a pillar of our democracy that not only has survived through time but has survived to place. It's one of those fundamental things of the U.K. parliamentary system that has been transferred to other jurisdictions and has remained relatively the same. Some of the traditions that were brought to us change. In the U.K., they have standing committees for legislation, but they also have standing committees, which they call select committees, that are on a more permanent basis. These are committees that do reports, and whenever a major bill is passed, they set up a new committee around that one.
Our standing committees do both. We function in parallel. We do reports. We do, as it were, the issue of the day. We have hearings on that, but we also, of course, of prime importance, study legislation.
Let's go to New Zealand.
I'm kidding. I won't get into what happens in New Zealand. That's no offence to anybody from New Zealand. Their system is very similar to ours. They have a different voting system where they do something along the lines of a mixed member proportional system.
I'm glad you brought up New Zealand for this reason alone: I don't know if they still do, but they had designated seats for the Maori, for the indigenous people, which is a very interesting concept. The last time time that has been floated here was during the Charlottetown accord way back when, when the idea was introducing the concept of indigenous representatives for the Senate, I think. That's very interesting, but I know New Zealand has gone further with it with their indigenous representatives. That's all I have to say about them right now.
I see that my time is winding down. First of all, I thank everybody for their patience. Ms. Vecchio is just brimming with glee that I'm going to be quiet for a while.
I'm just kidding. She's not saying that at all. That's just me having fun.
Thank you for putting up with me, and I thank Mr. Blaikie as well for bringing this up. He made some very good points.
Chair, the floor goes back to you. Thanks for the time.
:
Madam Chair, you're absolutely right. It scares the you-know-what out of me. I walked in, got my coffee, looked at that and shook my head, scared.
Then we have Premier Ford doing a press conference, I guess a virtual whatever-you-call-it. He's obviously isolating right now. He was talking about his challenges and what's going on in Ontario. Again, it's horrifying to see what's happening in Ontario. You go from that and see the numbers in Quebec and then Alberta, and then we obviously have concerns here, too, now in Atlantic Canada. Our numbers are low. Thank God our numbers are low.
The variants are here; they're growing. The reason I'm bringing all this up is that we are in a—I don't want to say once-in-a-lifetime but—once-in-a-generation crisis. That's where we are right now, all of us. I know that everybody at PROC today is inundated with calls from constituents, from people who are scared, people who are concerned about what the future holds for them. That is what we should be seized with as parliamentarians. We have work to do, important work as government, and there's important work to be done as opposition. All of us, every one of us, needs to be pulling in the same direction.
Of course, as government we need to be challenged and we need to sometimes maybe readjust and think about some of our policies or what have you with unintended consequences and so on and so forth, but they're the kinds of things that we can be doing together. They're the kinds of things that this committee can be doing together, making sure that, even though we have disagreements, we will do the right things for Canadians.
For us to be literally stuck.... Let's just call a spade a spade. That's where we are right now. We're stuck. We're not moving forward. I've talked about the movies I've seen—Inception or Friday the 13th or the one I would mention today would be Groundhog Day. This is just the same thing again and again and again.
I won't pretend to be anywhere in the same ballpark as MP Simms and what he brings to the table with respect to his thoughts, but I do have a lot of thoughts. There's a lot I want to say. This is just a bit of a preamble before I get going, but I have a lot to say, and I can say it again, and I can say it again if I have to, because we need to find a way forward.
I think MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion is extremely valid. MP Vecchio's motion—I won't read it—is an invitation to the , the and the .... Okay, that's in the amendment. Renew the invitation to Bill Morneau is in the amendment to the motion.
The issue that got all of us, if I can be so blunt, is the wide scope of the initial motion: , , former minister Morneau, Katie Telford, Marc Kielburger, Craig Kielburger, Farah and Martin Perelmuter from Speakers' Spotlight, documents, PMO, PCO, production of records, communications, WE Charity.... It casts a net so wide, it's almost like putting something out there. With the greatest respect, and I have a ton of respect for Ms. Vecchio, it's almost like throwing that motion out: “There's no way they're going to accept that motion, but let's get it out there, so we can make them say they won't accept it. Let's make them propose an amendment,” and we did. We proposed an amendment, a good and fair amendment.
It states to renew invitations issued to the . I'm so proud of her leadership. I'm so proud of the ceilings she's shattering, the barriers she's breaking down. She is the first female Minister of Finance to deliver a budget. I look at Minister Freeland and I'm inspired by her leadership, but it's not just her leadership. It's her style, delivery and authenticity. That's what we need as a minister of finance, somebody with that vision and leadership. Obviously, she delivered a wonderful budget 2021, which was delivered a couple of days ago. It was just an unbelievable budget.
There are those points in a country's history where you can drive that stake in the ground and say that this is a turning a point. This is a turning point not for our party, but it's a turning point for the country. It's a shift for us to finally come forth with a solid commitment to child care. I'm so very proud to be part of this government, and all of us will look back at a later date and say, “I was there when we moved forward with day care.”
Look at the plan and look at how ambitious it is. I don't know if Mr. Blaikie is still on the screen here. He might have needed to take a break. I don't see him. Correct me if I'm wrong and hopefully, I get this right, but the leader of the NDP called the plan bull.
He called the plan bull: to reduce day care costs by 50% in 2022. Within the next several years, the goal is to provide day care for $10 a day. That could save, give or take, the average family in my riding about $500 a month. It's transformational, absolutely transformational.
We are raising the OAS for those over 74 years of age, 75 and up, by 10%, because they are the most vulnerable seniors. They have increased costs. We ran on that. That was in our platform. That's not a surprise to anybody. We ran on that, so for us to fulfill that and for us to replenish the trade corridors fund, to replenish the housing money and to come up with new green initiatives and a massive investment in green technology and infrastructure....
One thing that flew under the radar, I believe, was the support for students and student loans and to continue with doubling the student grants. The other one that flew underneath the radar was the repayment of student loans, and the threshold of $25,000 is now up to $40,000. That's huge. It's unbelievably huge. Instead of 20% of gross income now, it's 10%. That's huge. It can shave off your payment per month from about $400 to $90. It's an incredibly important piece of legislation for students—unbelievable.
Look, I won't go on about everything in the budget, because obviously that's not on topic. Thank you for not calling me out on that. I thought it was important to talk about that. Then I'll dig back up a bit with respect to , who delivered that budget that will change Canadians' lives. Then I'll talk about the amendment to the motion that calls for renewed invitations to be issued to the and the , , to appear separately before the committee.
Even MP Turnbull was suggesting that. Again, just very quickly, it says:
by replacing paragraph (b) with the following, “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee for at least 90 minutes;”
Also, very quickly, it says:
by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee....
It's a good amendment.
It's a good amendment, and I appeal to members to consider the amendment. I'm not so bold to just ask for a show of hands, but accepting that amendment moves us forward. As I've said earlier, the has testified. The Prime Minister has appeared before a committee—just keeping it real, like MP Simms does.
Do we really expect, honestly, that we're going to hear anything different from what has already been said? Does anyone really believe that? I don't. He has already testified. He has already talked about it.
I know there are times when I get accused—I get accused of it all the time—of getting up there in that Ottawa bubble and thinking everybody cares about everything. It's like they're right. Some of my friends joke with me about that. They say, “You're in the Ottawa bubble; you don't really know what's going on, blah, blah, blah.” In this case, it's like we need to step back.
I won't do it now, but we need to reread MP Turnbull's amendment. I get the art of, call it what it is, negotiation. There needs to be win-win. There needs to be give and take. Both parties need to feel that they didn't get everything they wanted but they got enough.
Look, who am I? I'm a guy who loves his riding, who loves his country and who wants to represent his constituents. That's who I am. What you see is what you get. I know the art of negotiation from my time with the Saint John Sea Dogs. We had to negotiate contracts with players, with billets, with our landlord Harbour Station and the City of Saint John. There were times when we thought it wasn't really everything we wanted; we wanted a little more. However, there were also times when I would step back with my organization and say, “Look, it's enough,” because then we can turn the page and move forward and actually start to do things that matter, that mean something to Canadians.
I know that with this, I don't want to say “mass...”, but prorogation, the WE Charity thing is kind of in there. I know what we need to do to move forward as a group, and I know we need to be united facing what I think, or not think but know, is one of the greatest challenges this country has faced since World War II. It's probably the greatest challenge. It's one of the greatest challenges this country has ever faced and we need to face it together.
We need to show Canadians that we can work across the aisle, work in a bipartisan way to represent Canadians. I know, because I dealt with it this morning, how—“needy” is not the right word—but how much in need Canadians are of our support, how much in need businesses and industries are of our support and how appreciative Canadians are of the initiatives and programs we're moving forward.
Out of the budget I could pick the wage subsidy. We're extending the wage subsidy through to—and I may be off a day here—September 25. Then there's the rent support. We're extending it. What a lifeline that is, allowing businesses in our ridings to survive. We have also extended the EI sickness benefits. We're offering other programs too, like the recovery benefit and the caregiver benefit. These programs are needed.
said it best. We're going to be there as a government to get us through COVID. I believe she said “punch” through, but there's a reason I hesitate with the word “punch”. I do a bit of boxing, believe it or not, at my age. I've actually had the opportunity to spar with the a few times. I don't know if that's a—
:
I do, I do. I can actually show you a picture of me after one of my.... I'm zero for two. Believe this or not, I'm an actual, what would you call it, registered boxer in the Canadian boxing, blah, blah, blah, because I was intent, when I actually boxed—this will be real quick—that I didn't just want to do a charity event, but I actually wanted to do a competitive box. It's called masters boxing for older people like me. Boy oh boy, I'll show you the picture sometime. I was beaten up. My nose was not crooked, but swollen up, and my eye was kind of closed. Anyway, I lost, but it was a great experience.
Back to the help, we're going to punch through COVID. We're going to focus on support and recovery, and we're going to be ready to roll and help this economy recover. We're going to come back stronger and more united than we've ever been. I'm absolutely convinced of that. We will get up and we will move forward. Sure, we're going to invest in more local production and make sure that, God forbid, if this happens again, we're going to be more ready and more prepared.
Oh my Lord, I know you can't see outside my window, but it's actually snowing right now. What is going on out there?
There are those who will say, “You should have done this. You could have done this.” Look, we're going to do what we need to do to be more prepared in the future and to be more resilient as a country. I think that's one of my greatest frustrations.
Obviously, I think I wear my heart on my sleeve with respect to my riding. I care so much about my riding and its people because I feel that my constituents, all constituents across the country, clearly deserve members of Parliament who have their best interests in mind. That's key for me—their best interests, not my best interests. I want to make sure they're represented and that I can advocate for them, and I can take their voices and come back to them with meaningful programs, like the rapid housing initiative and the federal co-investment fund, where we can actually make investments in affordable housing in this riding and all of our ridings.
One of the greatest frustrations for me, to be honest with you, was with respect to housing. I was a rookie MP, and I remember my first month I was meeting with this group. I was going to do this with housing and do this with housing, and then all of a sudden somebody took me aside and said, “Wayne, you understand that housing is a provincial jurisdiction, right? We can do housing bilaterals until we're blue in the face, but the province needs to pull that money through.” That's the beauty of the rapid housing initiative and the federal co-investment fund. They're direct federal programs where we can deal with proponents, and the programs are stackable. They're wonderful programs and wonderful initiatives.
I'll get back to MP Vecchio's motion, and MP Turnbull's amendment.
I miss Ryan. I hope we see him back here soon. He's a great MP. Like I said before, and I'll say it again right now, we could all use more people like Ryan—and like Ryans in other parties. I certainly apologize. I know there are great MPs like that. What I love about it, and I'll be honest, I caught myself at the very start of this session....
Ryan and I sit together on HUMA. He's a wonderful addition to our group. I have been fortunate. MP Vecchio and I were on HUMA together also. We did great work together, especially on the poverty reduction strategy. We did temporary foreign workers....
One thing about HUMA is that it crosses three or four different departments and makes up a third of the budget, I think. The responsibility of HUMA is massive. I love being on HUMA. I feel that it's one of those committees where you can really.... I know all of us on our committees, of course, can make a difference, but especially here with the challenges we have in this riding with respect to poverty, child poverty, teenage pregnancy and so many other issues that just absolutely break my heart like housing, I can have a direct impact.
I remember Ryan and I were sitting together. Ryan was saying, “I'm going to propose this” and “I'm going to do this”. I said to him, “Oh no, don't. That's not going to work. Don't bother.” He asked, “Why?” I said, “That's just not how it....” I caught myself. I said, “Whoa.” I'm only six years.... It's not like I've been around for 60 like Scott has. I caught myself, and then I stopped.
That's what is refreshing about an MP like Ryan. He's not afraid to propose something, try something or put something forward. Just because it hadn't worked before, or just because that's not the way it should be doesn't mean you shouldn't move forward and try. That's why I'm so passionate about that.
I don't know if everybody's copy is highlighted like mine is, but this is Ryan's amendment to the motion. He brought the amendment forward because he wants to find a way out here. We all do. Come on. Let's call a spade a spade. I looked at the amendment. I thought it was fair. Obviously, again, here we are.
I know this has been discussed before, the prorogation and why it was done. Well, he did it to.... When I say “he”, with the greatest respect, I mean the did it to avoid this. I know MP Simms said the timing or this or that..... Look, if any of us had the option of going back and tweaking something differently, redoing something differently or proposing something differently, sure, but it's all in hindsight. It's all looking back.
I think that the motion, the resistance and the prorogation was to avoid.... I would say that the Conservative Party, at times, has a short memory. Obviously, and it's been talked about, but I think it's relevant to compare what happened with the Harper government prorogation—I'm much better at saying prorogation now; I've worked on it—and how prorogation worked with .
You've dealt with one of the worst crises in the country's history. The game changed. The floor changed beneath our feet. The rug was pulled out from under all of us. We needed to do a reboot, a reload, a refocus, a new throne speech, because we were dealt something no other government has had to deal with: a health crisis of worldwide proportion.
I laugh when I go back now and think about us. I made a statement once in the House about then prime minister Stephen Harper and the deficits he ran. I remember getting back, saying no, that doesn't count because we were in a crisis. I remember that's what I got back. We were in a major financial crisis. We had to invest and we had to do this and that, but yet now, what we're in is a thousand times more serious and worse and financially damaging than that. Now it's, “You shouldn't have prorogued. You didn't need to reset. You've invested too much in these programs. You need to cut programs back.” I say no.
We need to have respectful disagreements. I think we've shown as government that we will listen to the opposition. We will take suggestions and work with, whether it's the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc or the Green Party, and we will come up with programs and policies that will support and be there for Canadians. Sure, we're going to make mistakes. Yes, we had to change course and pivot very quickly. But as I've said before, it's as if we're trying to put gas in the airplane while it's taking off. We don't have a playbook to go by here. We are doing whatever it takes to protect Canadians and to make sure we get through this.
Did we need to prorogue? Yes. We needed a new throne speech. We needed to reset and reboot, no question. The fact that the committee wants to study and analyze the reasons for prorogation, I get it. I understand. I know MP Simms tackled the same thing. I get it. I understand that. But then it's like this, as I've said before, and then the amendment. Let's move forward. Let's call some witnesses. Let's get it out there.
MP Blaikie certainly said there are questions he wants to ask the . Okay. This may be wrong to say, but there's the House of Commons. There's question period. There are all kinds of ways publicly to ask questions of the Prime Minister.
Again, it just takes me back to wondering what this is really about. What really is the end game here for this?
I wouldn't even be talking with as much passion as I can muster if not for the amendment. I would have been the first to say to my own party that we need to not just say no, that we need to offer something that is good, has credible people invited, is fair and will make us go forward.
Hopefully, I'm not talking too loud. Chair, is it fair to check with the interpreters? Is my voice coming through okay? Am I talking too loud?
Very quickly, the reason I brought that up was that I was on the road with the Dogs— I'm going to climb back up now—when former prime minister Harper prorogued. I remember sitting down with some people in our organization wondering what this was. What's this prorogue thing? What does it mean? I didn't know what it meant. I'd been to Parliament Hill two times in my life and really don't remember. I was very young at that point.
Let's call a spade a spade. Prorogations are widely used. As the government already said when we reported it, prorogation was for the purpose of responding to the ongoing COVID pandemic. As a government, we needed to plan. We needed to focus and really get ready for what I would call the second wave. We didn't know what we were facing when we needed to prorogue. None of us did. Come on. None of us knew. Think back now a year and four months ago to January or February 2020. We didn't know what was going to hit us. We saw news reports about Wuhan and what was going on in China.
What we were faced with was unprecedented. When we were all sent home, we didn't know what we were going to have to face—the fears, the challenges, the deaths and the devastation. It wasn't just economic devastation. My lord, there was the personal devastation. We didn't know.
When we prorogued.... I think it's extremely important to point out the differences, because MP Vecchio's motion—and I'm not going to read it; I promise—is in respect to the committee's study of the government's reasons for proroguing. The motion is about studying the government's reasons for proroguing. That's what is says.
Let's all take a step back and think about that. We need to study the government's reasons for prorogation. What were the reasons for prorogation? We were facing the crisis of our lifetimes. We needed to prepare for the second wave— to plan and pivot.
It's not just to study the reasons for prorogation, but also (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h). Let's invite the Kielburgers and the Perelmuters. Let's seize documents. Let's get this and let's call the .
Whether you agree or not, the reasons for prorogation were that we were faced with a crisis. I find it extremely interesting that, of course, the WE Charity makes its way in here. That's when even a guy like me.... I'm not, self-admittedly, the most partisan person in the world, but as soon as I read it...at that point, I really wasn't even involved with PROC. I was doing my thing on HUMA and life was good.
Then I read the motion, and come on. The first sentence refers to studying the reasons for prorogation, but then it's about this and that and WE. Then I said, “Well, hold on here. The has already testified, so why do you want him again?” We all know why. It's to get a clip or to get something in the news that night or try for a gotcha question.
The reasons we prorogued were that we needed to pivot, and pivot we have, and stand up for Canadians, and we have. The fact that we were asked in this motion to accept the study on the reasons for prorogation.... It is important to put into context how former prime minister Harper prorogued and the reasons versus what we did and how we prorogued.
For context, the people who are watching today will understand what we're debating, and obviously we're debating the amendment. I know people kind of get dug deep in this, but right now we are talking about MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion.
Let's compare. I want to call that out. Let's compare that. We have prime minister Stephen Harper, who prorogued. There was an article. I'm not sure it's been quoted, but I know there was a New York Times article, and I won't read the whole article. I have them all here on my screen. I could read you enough articles, Madam Chair, on prorogation, the pros and cons and who did what and where that you wouldn't need a watch; you'd need a calendar to keep track of time for me. I have so much that I want to say about this and so many points I want to bring forward with respect to the motion and the amendment to the motion and so on and so forth.
Here's the article:
Canada’s parliamentary opposition reacted with outrage on Thursday after Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down the legislature until Jan. 26, seeking to forestall a no-confidence vote that he was sure to lose and, possibly, provoking a constitutional crisis.
He was going to lose that. For context, this is a New York Times article:
The opposition fiercely criticized the decision to suspend Parliament, accusing Mr. Harper of undermining the nation’s democracy. “We have to say to Canadians, ‘Is this the kind of government you want?’ ” said Bob Rae, a member of the opposition Liberal Party. “Do we want a party in place that is so undemocratic that it will not meet...?”
That sentiment was echoed by constitutional scholars, who lamented that the governor general might have created a mechanism that future prime ministers could use to bypass the legislature....
I have another one from the CBC about Canadians outraged by Harper's use of prorogation:
Thousands of people attended rallies in towns and cities across Canada on Saturday to speak out against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision....
There were thousands of protestors, and so on and so forth.
Let's compare that to the articles on what happened with us when we prorogued. The Hill Times article has the headline “Trudeau government says prorogation bought time to ‘build a robust’ response to pandemic, in new report”. In it it says:
“We knew our plan would need to get us not just through the weeks and months ahead, but even further down the road,” the report said. “This gave us the time we needed to do exactly that: to build a robust, responsive, and comprehensive approach to the challenges....”
The prorogation that happened with us versus the prorogation that happened in the Harper era are like apples and oranges; they're not even the same thing. We were faced with the challenge of a lifetime. We needed to pause, to reflect, to rebuild, to reboot and to move forward in the name of all Canadians.
Again, I understand fully why the Conservative Party moved forward with the motion about prorogation. I get it. They want to study it. Study it? They wrote the textbook here in this motion. It's like, “Let's invite everybody and the kitchen sink to testify, and let's ramp this up and let's make it a big public affair.” I've been in the backrooms of strategy, whether it's hockey, the salmon business or what have you. I absolutely totally get it when you have the court of public opinion behind you. It's politics. I get it.
They're like this: “You know what? We've got momentum. We've got people. Our phones are ringing off the hook. Let's go. Let's get this going. It's going to be good for us.” Well, news flash—a Wayne Long news flash—nobody cares. They want us to work together. They want us to find a way forward. MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion takes us forward.
I did an AMA last night. I do these AMAs; they're called “ask me anythings”. I do them pretty much every two weeks. I get great views. I get anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 people watching them and, give or take, 200 or 300 questions in an hour. It's crazy. I always throw it out there and say, “Hey, it's Wayne. What's up?” I do a little ramble about what's going on in the riding. I do them live. Ask me anything, AMA, and talk about what you want, your concerns, your....
Since I've been subbing in here, I've done, I don't know, two or three of them. In the easily 3,000 questions, I would say, do you know how many questions I've had on prorogation? Do you know how many comments I've had about prorogation and PROC and amendments and subamendments? Do you know how many I've had out of the thousands? It's less than one. Okay? It's less than one. That's why I absolutely know that the right thing for us to do is to find a way forward, and MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion—we've held it up too many times—is a way forward.
Madam Chair, do you mind if I just take a drink of water? Is that okay?
:
I'm happy to oblige, Madam Chair.
The prorogation was important in that it let us make the pivot we needed. Our world wasn't what it had been when we came to power in 2019. There was no pandemic then, or even the slightest hint of one. We were dealing with other problems; we had other plans and we had been reelected on another platform.
However, prorogation became necessary when the pandemic hit and we were caught unawares by the crisis. It was really the only thing to do at the time, and we did it.
Let me be clear: the original motion, which calls for a study of the prorogation, is a bit of a shell game. What can I say about this set‑up to keep the WE Charity scandal alive? It's a set‑up; that's all I can see here.
Several other parliamentary committees examined more than 5,000 pages of documents in detail, heard hours and hours of testimony and found no evidence that anything inappropriate had taken place, nothing at all.
The real problem here is that the opposition parties can't stand the fact that they've wasted all this time, which they should have devoted to combating COVID‑19 and taking positive measures that might have helped both the federal government and the provinces organize the purchase and distribution of vaccines. On the contrary, they preferred to devote their time to the WE Charity issue.
We saw the frustration on their faces as they listened to officials testifying, one after another, that nothing had happened, which was subsequently confirmed by thousands of pages of documents. We saw the frustration on their faces after the appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. His chief of staff and the ministers who appeared before the committee all said the same thing. They all said that the Canada student grant for full-time students was theoretically a good program.
That program was one of the dozens of programs that we introduced during this critical period, and we thought we had done a good thing. Unfortunately, we failed in its execution. The program didn't work. These are things that happen. Who has ever had a 100% success rate every time? I don't think it's ever happened, and certainly not in our profession.
We've seen this kind of thing before. That's why we have committees that conduct studies on government operations and the public accounts. This kind of work is always being done. We have to look at what we've done and determine how we can do things better. Sometimes that doesn't work. In some cases, we cancel everything, refund the money and the matter's closed. Then we move on to something else.
I heard the opposition members' comments on the subject. They definitely noted that more money was allocated for summer jobs in this year's budget. That measure was well received in Châteauguay—Lacolle, and it was a big success.
Officials and politicians worked countless hours to ensure that assistance programs for Canadians in difficulty were implemented. Some members previously mentioned this, but I repeat that programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy were very well received, especially here in Châteauguay—Lacolle. I think the same was true in ridings across the country.
As I said earlier, however, mistakes were made and the was the first to admit it. He apologized to the Canadian public. We were working at breakneck speed at the height of the pandemic's first wave, and that inevitably happened.
Members on the other side tried many times to fault the government. That's the reason we're here and why we're spending hours on these issues and committee hearings, particularly those of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on which I sit. Opposition members see an opportunity to fault the government. They didn't succeed in doing so and apparently have nothing else to do but keep trying.
Late last fall, after hearing hours of testimony, supported by documents, and examining thousands of pages of documents, the opposition realized that it had overplayed its hand and rightly moved on to something else. I imagine all the members were contacted by their fellow citizens and urged to focus on the pandemic because that was, and still is, the only issue of any importance.
And yet the committee is once again considering a motion that clearly concerns the WE Charity issue but is disguised as a study of the prorogation in August 2020. What they're doing is so obvious it's almost funny. Mr. Turnbull's amendment is designed to make the scope of the main motion much more reasonable. It's an attempt to come up with something that satisfies everyone.
As some witnesses stated before this committee, under our constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister alone has authority to consult the Governor General on prorogation; that decision is no one else's. We also learned that the Prime Minister didn't need a reason to prorogue Parliament. Prorogation has been used throughout this country's history to reset the parliamentary agenda, as it were. The period between dissolution and a new throne speech has varied from a few hours to several weeks. It's a tool that prime ministers have used since our Parliament's inception. It's one tool among many, but it's nevertheless very important, particularly in a period of crisis.
I think it's interesting that the opposition used the time between the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne in September to claim that it was related to WE Charity. We were in the midst of a pandemic, and that was the concern of our government and of Canadians. We had to decide how we were going to organize our response to the pandemic. We obviously didn't know how long it would last. We knew it might go on for months, but no one knew exactly how long. And we're still in the midst of this crisis, aren't we?
Here are a few historical facts. In the fall of 2008, the former Conservative prime minister prorogued Parliament for several weeks before returning to the House. So I find it ironic that certain members who are sitting here and who were part of that government are now opposed to prorogation.
Prorogation as such is a political act based on political considerations, and there's nothing wrong or inappropriate about it. Politics is a set of activities and policies; it's the way we decide to organize the country's affairs. In times of great change, as is the case of the COVID‑19 health crisis, prorogation is definitely a political decision. We need to reset and turn the situation around.
Notwithstanding the opposition's claims to the contrary, there's nothing inappropriate in the Prime Minister's making that decision. The Prime Minister has the right to make that kind of decision.
Why is prorogation political, and why is it acceptable? Because a government's legislative agenda is political. Colleagues must distinguish between a political act and a purely partisan act.
Sometimes people here in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle tell me they don't like politics. It's not politics they don't like, because they're all involved in non-profit groups: they campaign for social housing or wetlands conservation, for example, and work to reduce poverty. We have good conversations. I tell them they're engaged in politics precisely because they're committed to various causes. Those are political acts. What they don't like is partisanship. I can understand that because they feel it makes no sense. They don't understand the disputes among elected members. That's why I always say that every party presents its policies and platforms during an election campaign, but elected members represent everyone once the campaign is over. They must avoid partisan actions. They must be there for everyone, and the same is true of the government. The government is the government of all Canadians, and it's elected based on its political agenda.
The Speech from the Throne is a political manifesto that lays out the government's roadmap. A responsible and transparent government provides a statement that clearly outlines for Canadians the basis on which it addresses the challenges facing it. Consequently, the decision to prorogue Parliament and reset that political agenda was entirely acceptable.
My friends, the present government delivered a Speech from the Throne in December 2019 that was based on the political promises it had made during the campaign leading up to the October 2019 election. However, no one could have foreseen the global pandemic that arrived in the space of only a few days in March 2020.
We all remember that week in March. We were in Ottawa and I had organized a small party at Darcy McGee's to celebrate St. Patrick's Day on the Monday of the week in question. There was a whole group of us, members from all the parties were present, and we had some good music. Some members are good singers and it was fun. I'm very pleased the party was a success. A few days later, Parliament shut down and the parties stopped. We love our political parties, but we enjoy our social parties even more.
All Canadians found themselves in the same situation at the same time. In the coming years and even decades, people will definitely study this historic event in an attempt to understand how we reacted to this unprecedented health crisis.
Of course, the agenda we put before Parliament in December 2019 became moot because there was nothing more we could do.
Madam Chair, will we have to go and vote in the House soon? You will let me know, won't you?
:
—but it's not actually what I have to say; it's ordinary Canadians who have been dragged into this, and they have a right to be heard.
Mrs. Perelmuter was in fear for her own personal safety for a while. She didn't want to leave the house. Some of their 27 employees, particularly young women on staff, were also concerned about their safety. Maybe it's laughable to some members here. Maybe it's something that's not important or germane to where they want to go, but this is what Canadians are in shock about. This is why we are here.
Chair, if in some measure I can protect at least a couple of Canadians from this kind of abuse, I will feel that my time has been well spent and that I am doing my job here.
Mr. Perelmuter says he understands that politics is a tough business, but he said that his company is not partisan. Again, the difference between politics, policy and sheer partisanship, just to score political points, drag anybody down with you, it doesn't matter, because we have to score those points.... These people were unfairly caught in the crossfire. His company had only a tangential connection to the WE affair and had nothing to do—nothing—with the student services grant at the heart of the controversy. The information they were looking for was from the times the and his wife, before he was prime minister, would have spoken to maybe a Legion or a charity affair; I don't know. It was ridiculous.
Mr. Perelmuter goes on to say, “It's something that I never thought we would have to deal with. We're not in a controversial type of business.” As part of its investigation into the affair, the ethics committee asked Speakers' Spotlight to turn over documents related to any fees earned by the Prime Minister and his family members for speaking engagements over the past 12 years. At that time, Parliament was prorogued, so the clerk informed Mr. Perelmuter that he no longer had to submit the documents requested by the committee. “Aha,” says the opposition. “There—you see? They wanted to stop those documents from being produced. That was the evil plan.”
At the same time, Conservative MP sent the company a letter the following week, which he released to the media before Mr. Perelmuter said he'd had the chance to read it, asking him to do the right thing and turn over the documents directly to the members of the then disbanded committee. So you see that Mr. Barrett had a plan to get to the bottom of all of this nefarious wrongdoing.
Mr. Perelmuter said the company's legal counsel informed him that releasing the documents in that manner, without an order from the committee, would violate privacy laws. We work by the rule of law. We have parliamentary tradition and parliamentary rules that we follow. Mr. Perelmuter said that he was upset that a member of Parliament would ask the company to break the law. This is what he told the committee.
's Facebook post came shortly after Mr. publicly released his letter. By making the request public, Mr. Perelmuter said, he “definitely felt like [he was] being intimidated” by Barrett. He said, “It was frankly quite shocking [to me] to be completely honest,” adding, about launching a lawsuit against Conservative MPs, that “certainly it's crossed my mind”.
That is where those Conservative MPs have brought us as parliamentarians.
I don't know about you, Madam Chair, and about other colleagues here, but my reputation, the honour, the privilege, as a parliamentarian is that what we do here is for the good of Canadians. We would never, never bring our position, our role.... I take my role as a parliamentarian on a committee, when we ask for witnesses and require witnesses to appear.... Anybody who has seen the work that we're doing on MindGeek and Pornhub will know that.
We are doing some very important work there, and we want to get to the bottom of those issues because that's what's important to Canadians. But to use those same powers against ordinary, innocent Canadians for partisan purposes, I cannot condone. I'm not one of those parliamentarians who gets up and rants and raves, so I think I may have surprised a few of my good friends here. This is what gets me, innocent people being dragged in.
Mr. participated in that committee hearing but he did not address the matter. He did ask Mr. Perelmuter several questions about some specific speaking engagements. I am extremely disappointed and shocked, but maybe not surprised. This is me saying that Mr. Barrett was present here and he did not use his time to offer a complete apology for his actions. That's what I said at the time, to give Mr. Barrett some time, the ample opportunity, to do the right thing. He's so keen on doing the right thing.
I and other members on the Liberal side, and Mr. from the NDP, did take that time to apologize to the Perelmuters and the chair of the committee. Mr. , as chair of our ethics committee, did the right thing by offering a sincere apology on behalf of the committee for any of the unintended consequences that came from any actions of the committee members in regard to the obligation of our office. Then once the committee...remember when the prorogation happened, that must have been the evil plan, but the committee was reconstituted in September after the prorogation was over, after we had the new throne speech and after we had done the reset.
Our committee then sent a narrower request to Speakers' Spotlight for records of the speaking fees earned by Mr. and his wife. The company complied with that request and those records were provided to the committee members for a week. I think committee members are familiar with how that's done, in privacy. We had all the time in the world to peruse them and guess what? No one, including Mr. , asked any questions about those documents at our meeting in December.
So that was the story of dragging in innocent witnesses with absolutely no connection to the matter at hand, except for a family name. Yes, that'll be just enough. They were dragged in front of the committee and their reputations and their personal well-being put up as fodder for the mill.
[Translation]
I'm going to keep saying that the opposition members on the committee presupposed the conclusion in this matter, exactly as the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tried to do. They're doing everything they can to make the narrative fit the facts.
Unfortunately, we won't be satisfied with that response. Canadians have understood the game the Conservatives and their opposition collaborators are playing, and they aren't buying what they're selling. As Canadians, we will never allow a tribunal, whether parliamentary or otherwise, to render a decision before hearing the case put before it. That's the kind of judicial procedure used in dictatorships and oligarchies, not in Canada.
So I find it very interesting that, on the one hand, my opposition colleagues condemn authoritarian dictatorships that don't abide by the basic principles of legal fairness yet, on the other hand, sit on the committee and try to advance a process that has completely abandoned any semblance of legal fairness.
The scope of the motion before us is so broad and the motion itself so unrelated to this study that we, as members, have no choice but to reject it.
Rather than do that, my colleague Mr. Turnbull has introduced an amendment that will give the opposition another chance to take a crack at the settled matter of WE Charity's involvement in the student grant program. They're doing it under the pretext of a study on the prorogation of Parliament without however seeking the cooperation of the and his staff.
Reading the motion, which I hope will soon be amended, I thought it was interesting to see how obvious it was that the opposition had attempted to disguise its secret WE Charity study as a study of the prorogation. By simply looking at the dates of the documents requested, you can see that the opposition members aren't interested in the prorogation but rather are trying to connect WE Charity to this study.
If we support the amendment to the motion, they can still play that game, albeit in a slightly more limited way. I understand the frustration of my opposition colleagues, who have tried for months to raise the matter in several committees and the media, but without success. Now they're trying once again to make a final effort to embarrass the government over WE Charity. Seriously, where are their priorities?
These requests for witnesses and documents are nothing more than another set‑up designed to slow the government's work, bog down officials in paperwork and make them waste time sorting, examining and sending documents to an overworked Translation Bureau rather than work on implementing the government's programs.
I say that ironically, but I find it amusing to hear the opposition leader say he wants the government to succeed in providing vaccines to Canadians and restarting the economy. He should speak to certain members from his party, who take a different view. However, the opposition leader is allowing his members to slow down the machinery of government by introducing frivolous concurrence motions that effectively achieve that end. We need to move on to other matters. The Conservatives have to stop playing their games, and we have to focus once again on what's important for Canadians: economic recovery and emerging from the COVID‑19 crisis.
And on that note, I conclude my speech.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a hard act to follow, in terms of following after my colleague Mrs. Shanahan, whom I have great respect for. I attended a couple of those meetings of the ethics committee, just a very small number. I know she has done great work on that committee and I thank her for speaking so passionately. I, too, share many of her concerns when it comes to bringing forth private [Technical difficulty—Editor].
In just a moment I will speak to my amendment, which does relate to that, but before I get started, I just want to say that I'm sorry I was away from the committee over the last two weeks. I want everyone to know that I wasn't avoiding this important and riveting debate. I was under the weather, but I'm feeling much better now and feel increasingly better every day. I extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleagues and my teammates who filled in for me while I was gone and checked in with me regularly. I really appreciate the fact that we have such a compassionate team.
While I was resting and trying to get better, I probably held on to some vain hope, a small grain of hope and optimism for returning and finding us having made progress on this motion and the proposed amendment, but alas, here we are, still debating this. It's unfortunate.
I have quite a few remarks. I've had lots of time to reflect and had lots of thoughts prepared before I fell ill and was away for a little while, and I'd like to get them on the record.
First of all, the amendment that I put forward was an attempt to compromise. You have to give something to get something. However, the members of the opposition on this committee have to give too, and so far, I don't think there has been a willingness to be flexible and to give a little on the original motion.
I really don't think we need to hear from the Kielburgers and the Honourable Bill Morneau. Let's be honest. I think Mrs. Shanahan's comments are really poignant and point to the harm that can be caused, inadvertently, of course. It's not necessarily intentional, but it is harm that members of the public—private citizens, business owners, and so on—can experience as a result of being called before these committees. I think that's an important consideration.
Now, I left those two invitations, those renewed invitations, in the proposed amendment as a way to say to the opposition parties, “Okay, here is something perhaps that would appeal to your interests,” which I think clearly we all know are for partisan purposes, or at least I suspect that, based on all the comments I've heard.
What I really think is that the added testimony from the and the would actually be relevant to extending the study, and hearing from them would add to the testimony something perhaps that we haven't heard before.
These witnesses are important because we can get a sense of the depth and breadth of the economic impact, as well as the significant data and evidence, not to mention the first-hand experiences relayed to us from our constituents about the inequities and vulnerabilities that Canadians are living with or are experiencing due to COVID-19, which is a reason that the would be appropriate, in my view, because this is her expertise. This is her mandate and file.
We also know that economic impacts have not been distributed evenly across our economy. Quite the opposite, they've been distributed unevenly. It goes without saying, and I think we've all heard this over and over again, that some industries have been decimated while others have prospered. Some will bounce back quickly and others will take years to return to pre-pandemic levels.
I remember in one of the previous meetings, before I was away, Mr. Blaikie made a comment. I think he said that the pandemic “also matters”. I don't mean to quote him out of context, because it was within what he was saying and I'm sure he didn't mean this, but it seemed to me that it was sort of implied in his remarks that the pandemic was the distraction from what the opposition was really looking for in this study. Only a party focused on playing political games would characterize a global pandemic as an afterthought or a distraction.
The pandemic clearly is what we all, and certainly this committee, need to be completely seized with and focused upon at every moment. We are in a third wave of a global health crisis of epic proportions. Canadians need us. They care that their government is working for them, at all levels, to essentially meet their needs and protect them from the worst parts of this crisis—or help them get through this.
Canadians are rightfully exhausted by this and are counting on us to help. We can't afford to be looking backwards and to be distracted with partisan games, which is really what the original motion is about.
I think extending it, with a couple of witnesses, is a more than reasonable solution. It's an attempt at compromise. However, I see that this doesn't satisfy the opposition.
I want to quote someone. There's a gentleman I heard recently, who I'm sure some of my other colleagues probably know and admire. In a recent interview, Dr. Michael Ryan, the executive director of the World Health Organization's health emergencies program, said:
I think what we've learnt in Ebola outbreaks is you need to react quickly, you need to go after the virus, you need to stop the chains of transmission, you need to engage with communities very deeply; community acceptance is hugely important.
You need to be co-ordinated, you need to be coherent, you need to look at the other sectoral impacts, the schools and security and economic.
So it's essentially many of those same lessons but the lessons I've learnt after so many Ebola outbreaks in my career are be fast, have no regrets; you must be the first mover. The virus will always get you if you don't move quickly and you need to be prepared and I say this.
One of the great things in emergency response—and anyone who's involved in emergency response will know this—if you need to be right before you move you will never win.
“Perfection is the enemy of the good,” which is something our says often, “when it comes to emergency management.”
“Speed trumps perfection and the problem in society we have at the moment”—and he's speaking to this global pandemic—“is everyone is afraid of making a mistake, everyone is afraid of the consequence of error.”
“But the greatest error is not to move, the greatest error is to be paralysed by the fear of failure and I think that's the single biggest [lesson] I've learnt in Ebola responses in the past.”
That's what Dr. Michael Ryan said in a recent interview. I thought, wow, this is powerful advice. It really speaks to the need for us to move quickly, to focus on the future and not the past, and to not be debating, for months, a motion that has absolutely no relevance to managing the crisis we're in.
It is nothing but a political game, and the opposition parties, for some reason, persist. I understand that they want to win political points and get an uptick in the polls. I understand that. I understand that there's partisanship here, and it's always present. However, can we not put that aside and focus on what really matters?
We're heading into a wall, and we're looking in the rearview mirror instead of being focused on preparing for the fourth wave. I hope we don't have a fourth wave, but my colleague Dr. Duncan and people who have studied virology and understand pandemics....
There is so much work for us to be doing. I'm lying in bed for two weeks trying to get better, and all I can think about is how I can possibly rest when there is so much damned work to do that matters to people out there in the world—work that they're counting on me and us to do for them.
Here we are—what is it?—one month later, still debating. I don't know how many weeks it's been, but it seems like forever to me, because there are so many more pressing things coming into my constituency office, and so many other things, even within this committee, that we could be focusing on. It's just disheartening, to say the least. I say it's really disheartening.
Some of my colleagues on this committee have made it seem as though this is just a matter of how much time we use for this study, but I think it's about more than that. It's about what we invest our time in, what we choose to spend our time on. We're making decisions about what to focus on. We know that standing committees are masters of their own domain. We could be pursuing other more important topics, and there's a long list.
:
I do think this is relevant because what I'm advocating for is an amendment to the motion. It would narrow the scope of the motion that was put forward, which would free up our time to focus on other items. It is therefore relevant to the argument I'm making. Again, there are much more important tasks here in my view, and I think many members, in the Liberal Party at least, would agree with me. They would be a much better use of our time and Canadians would appreciate our focusing on them.
Misinformation in elections and deliberate misinformation are issues that we all need to be concerned about, especially given the time we're living in, a time when people are consuming a lot more information online. I think there's a lot more partisanship and lots of polarization within our democratic society. That's deeply concerning to me, especially given what we saw happen during the election in the United States. I think we can all agree that it would be good for us to to address some of the root causes there and look at how we can avoid making some of the same mistakes that perhaps precipitated the insurrection in the United States.
I will leave it at that, on those points anyway. I have lots more to say, so I'll get back to the motion by Ms. Vecchio.
It has been said, which I need to say myself with conviction, that there was a motive, and the opposition is assuming that prorogation couldn't have happened for legitimate purposes. I find that so hard to believe because if a global pandemic is not a good reason for proroguing, what is a good reason? Honestly, I can't think of a bigger crisis and issue.
Stephen Harper and his government prorogued twice, once in 2008 and once in 2009, and cited the economic recession as their primary reason for proroguing. Certainly everyone suspected there were more partisan reasons and political reasons for doing this, but, legitimately, they cited that as their reason. Why, therefore, in a global pandemic of epic proportions, the biggest crisis in 100 years, can we not see a rational justification for proroguing Parliament?
I will go further in my remarks and say that there is no justification for prorogation that will satisfy the opposition parties because they are not interested in evidence, facts, data, arguments, reasons or reality. This is not about facts and getting to the truth. This is about pure partisanship, facts and reasonable arguments be damned. It seems the Conservatives have a tendency toward, and a growing fascination with, adopting views and positions that have no basis in evidence and reality.
If it's evidence you want, the committee has received a substantive report, which has been tabled, on the reasons for prorogation. It has heard from a selection of witnesses, and the majority of them were of the opposition's choosing. Our witness list had almost none. I don't think we even submitted any witnesses. The opposition parties are the ones that submitted the long list of witnesses they wanted to hear from, and many of them came forward and attended the committee. Members had ample opportunity to ask questions.
I've put forward a motion that allows a few more witnesses to be reinvited, which is a compromise, but there is still no movement. They want the . They have a vendetta against Justin Trudeau. This is not about anything other than a ploy to spin a story, get a headline and cause a small uptick in the polls. We know what this is about.
This is all at the expense of the Canadian public. The public is relying on us.
I shouldn't even be laughing because, in a way, it's just absurd that we're here and that I'm speaking to this.
Let me again represent my views on prorogation, which are supported by the evidence and facts. I have maintained and argued that the social and economic impacts of COVID-19 are deeper, more substantial and in fact many times greater and exponentially more severe—at least 10 times greater, according to many experts and our own chief statistician, on many of the indicators—than those of the 2008-09 recession.
Again, that recession was cited by Stephen Harper as the reason for two prorogations and, some would say, to avoid a confidence vote, and there are other reasons. I would just say that if those were good reasons for the Conservative Party back then, why is it so unbelievable to cite the same sorts of reasons for the most recent prorogation?
I think this is why, from my perspective, hearing from would be beneficial, because who else can speak to the significance of the economic impact? Similarly, I thought that having the come to testify might help illuminate the many inequities that COVID-19 has laid bare. This makes sense. In fact, it's common sense, in my view, and if you were looking for the truth and looking for facts and information that are relevant, I think that would be more than acceptable to focus on.
Let us not forget that it was our government in the last Parliament that made the change to the Standing Orders that led to the submission of a report that provided a rationale for prorogation. For the first time ever in the history of our great country, we have a report tabled in the House of Commons and referred to this committee that we've all had a chance to review. Let that sink in for a minute, colleagues and Madam Chair. Never before has any prime minister or any government in Canada's history been required to provide a reason for proroguing Parliament. Never have they had to write and table a report. Never has PROC had to study such a matter. I think there have probably been some other studies that were decided on by the standing committee, but it was never required.
Mr. Blaikie has remarked several times that this would be precedent setting, and I think we've already set the precedent to a much higher standard and to a higher degree of transparency by having a report be something that's necessary, by following through on that and by even entertaining a study. We weren't required to have a study on prorogation just because a report was tabled. This committee chose to do that. We were willing partners in that pursuit. We voted to support that. We heard from witnesses, but now this is still not good enough. It's still not enough. Why? The opposition members didn't hear what they wanted to hear.
To be honest, I haven't even heard opposition members speak to the merits of the report that was tabled. If you were really concerned about that report being deficient in some way, you would be able to provide me with real reasons and arguments as to why it was deficient. Where is it deficient? It provides a great rationale that I think is very sensical and very much based on evidence and research. I think the opposition members have decided from day one what they want to get out of this and never for a second have they entertained any other possibility.
I have mountains of evidence to demonstrate that proroguing Parliament made sense; that it has led to a process of consultation and re-evaluation; that it was timed perfectly between the first and second waves and to reduce any losses in sitting days in the House of Commons; and, that the priorities and themes of the throne speech, the specifics of the fall economic statement and the budget all reflected what we heard from Canadians. It's responsive. It makes sense. It's backed by data and evidence. It's consistent with the report that was tabled and the testimony given by the government House leader.
What more does the opposition need or want? If this were about reason and evidence, this would have been over a long time ago.
The timing made sense. Between the first and second wave of COVID-19, we took some time after many months of an all-hands-on-deck, full-court-press agenda supporting Canadians. We were moving an agenda forward that supported Canadians. Everyone was working full steam ahead.
We took a hiatus, a time to reassess priorities, to reset the agenda. Did that not make sense, between the first and second wave? It seemed to make sense to me.
I think any Canadian listening in could understand that this government had been working around the clock to serve Canadians, getting supports and programs designed in weeks instead of years, and that it took some time to re-evaluate priorities [Technical difficulty—Editor] at a time when Parliament would normally not be sitting anyway, between the first and second wave of the pandemic. It just made sense.
Why can't the opposition compromise a little on their original motion?
Opposition parties act as though they haven't had a chance to study prorogation, but we've had numerous meetings on the topic. We've heard from the who was willing to attend and who answered our questions. We heard from multiple other witnesses who testified before this committee. It was fair and transparent. All members had a chance to ask questions. The opposition provided their lists of witnesses and they now have testimony from academics, procedural experts, historians, officials and the . We have material that could be used to write a report.
Some of the opinions shared by witnesses even favour the opposition's preferred interpretation. Why can't we move to writing a report? They already have some evidence or some opinion, I would say, that supports their narrative. What more do they need?
The opposition has also, over and over again, claimed that the throne speech had no substance, which I emphatically deny. I say that's false. They still won't listen or concede that the throne speech has substantive themes and very specific measures that reflect the needs of Canadians. It is in fact true that it outlines priorities that relate directly to the information gathered by the chief statistician of Canada and the extensive consultation that was done during the time that our government was prorogued.
To be clear, our caucus was not on vacation during the time of prorogation. We weren't twiddling our thumbs or sitting on our hands. There were many stakeholder consultations, constituent surveys, caucus consultations, meetings with opposition parties, departmental and interdepartmental discussions during that time, all of which helped to inform the throne speech. Again, these things led to themes that appeared in the throne speech that were new and the relevance of which was directly tied to the pandemic and its deep, far-reaching impacts and were evidence-based.
Notable examples include additional supports for small businesses: the wage subsidy, the commercial rent subsidy, the redesign and improvements to the Canada business credit availability program, and expansion of the CEBA. These are huge supports for small businesses. I've heard over and over again how these have literally saved very many of our small businesses from going under due to the effects of this pandemic and the public health restrictions that have been necessary to protect Canadians.
Our supports for workers, the wage subsidy, the Canada recovery benefit and the central reforms to EI were outlined in the throne speech. They were not in the previous throne speech. They were new initiatives that were a direct result of taking some time to reflect on what Canadians needed.
On supports for the hardest-hit industries, we know there's a long list of industries that have been hard hit: hospitality, tourism, retail, and cultural industries. The list goes on and on.
National standards for long-term care weren't in the original throne speech. That is something I've spoken to before. My colleague, Mr. Lauzon, is not here today, but he speaks very passionately and is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, and he has spoken to this as well.
Those national standards for long-term care were in the throne speech. They were a direct result of the consultation that was done. Many of my colleagues and I advocated for that national standard to be in the throne speech. We're quite happy to see that it got in there.
These are just a few examples, but I'm going to give you others as well.
No one can say that addressing systemic racism was not in the previous throne speech. There were numerous actions outlined. I'm very proud that it appeared in the throne speech after prorogation, that it was a direct result of realizing the inequities that many racialized Canadians and many others were experiencing due to the pandemic. It's not that they weren't experiencing those before. They, in fact, had been for generations, but the pandemic and its impacts laid it bare. It showed us and taught us all about how deep those inequities are, and how deep racial injustice is in our country.
That appeared in the throne speech. It wasn't there before. It's something I'm very proud of, and I take very seriously. It speaks to the responsiveness of a government that took the time to reflect, and ask what Canadians need us to be focusing on. How are our agenda and priorities shifting and changing?
Some of the things in there are already under way, which is incredible. I'm particularly passionate about the inclusive and diverse public procurement, which has been an area of passion for me for a long time. Seeing that in the throne speech was something I felt very proud of.
I was pleased to see that we were taking action on online hate, making sure we have disaggregated data, so we can see the inequities better and identify how those play out, and how we can then develop policies based on that information.
There is also an action plan to increase representation in hiring and appointments in the public service. There are steps to acknowledge artistic and economic contributions of Black Canadians. Included are justice system reforms to address the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and people of colour in our justice system. There is training for police in law enforcement. These things are incredible steps toward realizing greater degrees of justice in our country, and eliminating to the greatest degree possible systemic racism.
The opposition parties still continued to maintain that our throne speech had no substance to it, that it was no different, that we didn't need the time to reflect and re-evaluate. Would these themes and important measures be a priority for our government if we didn't take the time to do that work? I would say maybe not.
What about gender equality? There is an action plan for women in the economy, the Canadian-wide early learning and child care system, acceleration of the women's entrepreneurship strategy. These were all in the throne speech. Our government is deeply committed to realizing greater degrees of gender equity and gender equality. We have been working on that from day one. To have these specific measures identified confirms continued action and continued priority on realizing gender equality in Canada which, again, is something we've learned—
The other thing that appeared in the throne speech that I'm also very passionate about and pleased to see was the disability inclusion plan. That's a threefold commitment to income support, employment support and changes to eligibility criteria. This is very welcome.
Last, the throne speech also had the term "build back better". I know opposition parties—and I'll speak to this a little more later—have claimed that this is some token phrase. They've said this over and over again. I'll fight them to the end of the earth on that one and argue until the day I die. Literally the most important thing we need to do, in my view, is to build back better. That message is not a token phrase. It refers to realizing the many deep impacts and inequities and the ways in which our economy doesn't support full social and environmental responsibility.
It's referring to building our economy in a more intentional way so it really supports people and the planet. This is not socialism and communism, and the oppositions parties and the conspiracy theorists out there will tell you this is the great reset.
It's not the great reset. It's dealing with the very specific ways in which our systems are flawed, that are impacting people and the planet and creating the massive inequities and injustices that we see jeopardizing our future and our children's future. Things in the throne speech related to build back better, and that message is exceeding Canada's 2030 climate goal. We've seen our government put forward a new ambition and an ambitious target for a better target. I want to be more ambitious about that, as ambitious as we can possibly be.
This is really important. There's a new fund to attract investments in zero-emission products and to make Canada a leader in clean technology. I will say more about this because it's an area that I feel very strongly and passionately about. I think we still have lots of work to do. We have to go much further.
I want to reiterate that I find it just doesn't respect the value of that build back better phrase.... I know it sounds like a key message or a marketing strategy, but I think it's a very small packet of words that has a lot of meaning to it. For me, it really is important. It's what we heard from a lot of constituents.
Certainly in my riding, I have many climate activists and people who want serious and progressive change to be made on addressing climate change. They feel that this pandemic is a wake-up call for us to begin to realize just how better prepared we need to be. We have to realize how much better our systems and our politics and political system have to work to address major crises that we have not addressed over many generations. They have been accumulating in importance. We've left it to the bitter end. We can't do that anymore. We have to collaborate and find ways to address the impending climate disaster that I know climatologists have been predicting for at least 20 or 30 years. It's probably even more than that.
I have a colleague who was a part of Pollution Probe, which is one of the first environmental organizations. He was one of the co-founders. He's been actively working towards climate action for over 40 years. He's been frustrated. He is now retired but still active, no matter what.
Anyway, I want to get back to my main argument. I feel like I have so much to say and I don't want to take up too much time. I was away for two weeks reflecting, so a lot of things have been percolating. I really value the opportunity to express myself fully and give my point of view, which I know is part of my responsibility. I take it very seriously.
Let me tell you a little bit more about my argument and why we need to get on with things but also hear, at least, from the and the . I'm not going to speak too much more to the Kielburgers and the Honourable Bill Morneau. I left those reinvitations in there as a compromise with Ms. Vecchio and the Conservative Party members. I really want to speak to my argument as to the importance of hearing from two more witnesses. I think it would be valuable. This speaks to the heart of my proposed amendment.
Again, I'm going back to a document I've referred to multiple times before, because I love data. I'm a bit of a data nerd. I think we have to base what we're doing on research and data. It's a report on the social and economic impacts of COVID-19, a six-month update released by the chief statistician of Canada in September 2020.
The reason I'm referring to that particular report is that the whole thing looks backwards in time and talks about why we prorogued. That report took statistical information on the social and economic impacts up to about August, then released a report on it in September. It really would have been some of the most relevant and substantive information available at the time. The reason it's relevant and important is that it demonstrates why the government did the things it did and how that information factored into resetting the agenda during prorogation, which is reflected in the throne speech.
I'll try to quickly summarize the main findings and then I'll go into more detail. I will summarize by saying there are three major findings. There's a lot to say about each one of them. I could probably talk for two or three meetings on each one, but let's just start with the first. The evidence collected shows there's been an unprecedented depth of economic impact in every category. It's also been uneven and inequitable across industries. I've already said this but there's a lot more information on the extent and the depth of that economic impact, which I think is pretty substantive.
For example, it's uneven across industries. The declines in outputs are five times greater than in 2008, and that was only in August 2020. Just think, we've now been through the second and third waves of this pandemic. The economic impact of COVID-19 has been far, far greater, at least 10 times greater. It could be even more than that by now. I haven't looked at the most recent statistics yet.
There was a historic decline in all economic activity. This comes directly from the chief statistician's report. It doesn't matter what measure we use. There's a historic decline in imports, exports, business investment, household spending, real GDP and market prices. The recovery is also uneven. In other words, we saw some industries bounce back between the first and second waves. The retail industry, for example, started to bounce back much more quickly than some of the other industries. Just how resilient different industries are to this specific type of shock to the economy is very uneven. It requires a lot of exploration, reflection and data gathering.
I remember at that time I was saying, "What is the economic impact of all of this?" I remember in August that I didn't know about this chief statistician report. It was only later that I found it, and I really find it valuable.
There is also historic declines in the labour market activity. There are steep losses in the highest-impacted sectors. We can think about retail, cultural industries, hospitality, tourism and many others. I have that data here as well.
There are also structural challenges in heavily impacted sectors. That impacts the recovery of some of those heavily impacted sectors. It's not only that they had the highest losses, but they also have structural challenges within them in terms of recovering. It's also led to an overall context of business uncertainty, which the report goes into quite a few details about.
This is just the economic impact. Understanding how historic those declines are and how significant and deep the economic scarring was, or the potential for economic scarring, highlights the importance of hearing from Chrystia Freeland, the .
Understanding that depth of economic impact.... And I'm not even speaking to the health impacts, which are really the most important parts of all of this. I know my colleagues Dr. Duncan and Ms. Petitpas Taylor have spoken to those in previous meetings. I feel just as passionately about those. I perhaps will bring more comments on those at a later time. Because they've focused on those areas, are extremely knowledgeable and have expertise in that area and are very eloquent, I'm focusing on the economic and social impacts in my remarks today.
The other major finding of the report is inequity. If you were struggling or were on the margins before this pandemic, it only got worse. This includes the impacts on women, immigrants, visible minorities, people with disabilities, low-wage workers, youth, and the list goes on and on. There are other groups, but those are some of the main ones that are identified in the statistical data that was provided by the chief statistician.
When I spoke to what was in the throne speech and hearing the evidence and data, you can draw direct links between them. I could create a map if you wanted me to—which I like to do—and I could draw lines between things and make those associations and connections. This is reasonable. For a rational person and someone who is very much interested in research and evidence-based thinking and policy solutions, this all connects. It adds up. If there was something fishy going on or some other nefarious activity, things probably wouldn't add up so well. They wouldn't make sense. They wouldn't be rational. There wouldn't be all of these very logical conclusions and arguments that could be made.
This is why I think it's so important for me to provide these sorts of rational arguments and draw these connections, because it goes to the heart of what this study is supposed to be about. We're now debating a motion and debating an amendment, which I'm trying to be very reasonable about, when opposition parties keep claiming that we don't want to study this or do that or provide reasons. They're assuming all of these motives. I thought, “ We've provided evidence and rationale. We've been transparent. It makes sense, so what do you want?”
I digress on that. Getting back to the point I was making, there are three main conclusions that I drew from the evidence that the chief statistician provided.
The last one is the looming existential threat of climate change. It's not mentioned that way in the report, but what's mentioned in the statistics is just how much environmental services, clean-tech industries, are almost pandemic-proof or shock-proof. They represent massive economic opportunities for a country that's in the deepest economic crisis probably since the Great Depression.
What's interesting is the evidence shows that those industries really represent a lot of hope and opportunity for us, not to mention help us. Not only do they create the economic growth and prosperity we're looking for, after the deep scarring and hardship experienced by Canadians, but they also are the right thing to do. We must think about this pandemic as a wake-up call to the impending climate disaster that will be coming in the near future if we don't wake up and act in the way that Dr. Michael Ryan was speaking to, in the quotation I gave, with the same degree of urgency and immediacy that is required for this pandemic. That's the kind of full court press we need for fighting climate change.
I would say that our party and the throne speech and the data support this as not only being the right thing to do for many reasons, but as also representing some of the biggest economic opportunities for our country. When we say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, this is why. There is actually evidence to suggest that this makes sense, too.
I want to speak a bit more about the inequities. No, let me say a few words just briefly about the economic impact, because I covered some things that I wanted to say in comments I gave in previous meetings, but I didn't cover everything I wanted to say, and there are quite a few important impacts.
One in particular that I feel pretty passionately about is the level of business uncertainty that the pandemic has created for business owners and entrepreneurs. Just in May 2020, that is, three months into the pandemic, a quarter of businesses had been granted rent or mortgage deferrals. At this point, the number is probably much higher than that, but just think about their being granted mortgage or rent deferrals at the time. This was before we had the rent subsidy. It was redesigned later on and I think worked much better. That was another example of our government's listening and responding to the needs of businesses.
Just having those deferrals add up—and remember, a deferral is a deferral; you still have to pay for a small business....
I was a small business owner for 12 years and helped other small businesses. I've helped more than 250 small businesses start up. I only worked with businesses that had a triple bottom line, ones that believed in social and environmental impact and integrated that sense of sustainability into their business models. That's my specialty.
For me, when thinking about business uncertainty and the impact of this pandemic and the kinds of opportunities it creates, but also about the way our government is responding to it, it's important to understand the kinds of uncertainties businesses are facing—or I should say “were facing” at the time we prorogued.
There's also evidence in the chief statistician's report that says many businesses will be reluctant to invest in the near term, and that means invest in their own businesses. They talked about businesses trying to protect their balance sheets and debt service.
The idea is that many businesses have planned expenditures in their businesses as they made a profit. They put the money back into their business to continue developing. It might be opening new branches, facilities; it could be in HR, personnel. There are all kinds of system improvements and operational pieces of their business that they might be planning in the near future to invest in.
I remember, as an entrepreneur, going from being a sole proprietor to a corporation to a mid-sized consulting firm over 12 years. You did business planning in order to anticipate the growth. Then you hustled to meet these targets so you had enough as an entrepreneur or a business owner to invest back in your business so you could continue to grow and develop and achieve your mission and purpose as a business. Just think about the fact that many businesses were reluctant to plan any expenditure and were protecting their balance sheet by saying, “We're not going to spend any money.” Think about what that says about our economy.
Seventeen per cent had an annual decrease in private sector capital spending as well. Firms sharply downgraded their capital spending plans, so private sector decreased planned capital spending by 16.6%, which is equivalent to going from $178 billion to $147 billion. That's only a 16.6% decrease, which seems small at this point. Now, after a second and third wave, I'm sure it's much, much, much higher. I don't have that number for you right now, but I think the chief statistician's most recent update would probably provide a useful comparator for us to understand the trend. For now just know that at the time, in August, it was literally a $30-billion hit to private sector capital spending. That's huge. There was a 39% decrease in planned capital spending for accommodation and food services—a 39% decrease in that industry. It was much greater in some industries versus in others. A 27.2% decrease in capital spending planned for the oil and gas industry is another example.
Also, small service-based companies were disproportionately impacted. Three-quarters of small businesses have taken on debt as a result of COVID-19. I'm sure, again, that number is much higher today, but at the time 75% of small businesses had taken on debt. You can just think about how that's going to impact their ability to recover. Some of those businesses have told me that if we come roaring out of this pandemic with economic recovery, it will be almost a miracle if they can service the debt they've accumulated over the course of the first, second and third wave of this pandemic. That's why I've been a vocal advocate for “COVID zero”, which is an approach that is different from what some of our provinces and territories have taken. I think the Atlantic provinces have shown us the light and the way in terms of managing the pandemic without the continuous open-close, open-close, open-close disruption of our economy and our society over and over and over again.
Anyway, that's a bit of a side note.
I'll go back to the small service-based companies that have been disproportionately impacted. Sixty-eight per cent of those with debt estimated it would take them more than one year to pay that debt off. Again, that was in August 2020. A lot has happened since then. If 68%, almost 70%, would have taken a year to pay off their debt at that time, just think about how many years it's going to take them now. That debt has only gotten greater through the open, close, open, close of our economy.
On new firms and start-ups, again, I was highlighting these before I knew only too well. Since 2015, when the Liberal Party formed government, the number of new firms, so new business start-ups entering the market, was on average 16,500 on a quarterly basis. Every three months there were 16,500 new businesses in Canada from 2015 until the time this report was written in September.
Start-ups account for 45% of gross domestic product, so 45% of the output of our economy is essentially new start-up businesses. There were 88,000 business closures in April 2020 and 62,600 closures in May due to COVID-19. Those were closures, not bankruptcies or anything. Those businesses closed down. That's not to say they necessarily went completely out of existence or folded up, but they closed down.
You can see how many businesses were impacted. There were 100,000 fewer active businesses in May 2020 compared to May 2019. One hundred thousand fewer active businesses—that's unheard of. Think about how many businesses are going in the opposite direction. Whereas we have had 16,500 new businesses being started up in every quarter in Canada since 2015, now we have the reverse direction, which is these 100,000 fewer active businesses in May 2020 compared to the previous year.
I don't know if we can even really fathom.... I spent 12 years working with about 250 businesses, and I can tell you about the work those people put into building their businesses. To have all of that lost due to a public health crisis is just astronomical. It's very hard to fathom the depth of that impact, how far-reaching it is and how much it impacts those family-owned businesses, those individual entrepreneurs and those small partnerships and franchises: so many businesses and good people working their tails off to make a living and to do something they believe in that's often good for the community, good for the economy and good for them at the same time.
Business failures among small firms dwarf the lack of new entrants. Again, the amount of failures in the economy of those small businesses was far greater than any new start-ups during the pandemic.... There's a quote in the chief statistician's report that says, “The pace of...job recovery will depend in large part on the extent to which...companies...can remain viable...”. That's on page 66. It goes without saying that if our small businesses make up such a huge portion of our economy and employ the largest number of people in our economy, I would say that they're the engine of our Canadian economy, and if we're seeing that many failures out there or that many closures and not as many new entrants, we're going to have a severe problem that's long term, right?
Our measures and supports that our government launched and were in the throne speech were designed specifically to help the most small businesses get through this crisis. For me, I've heard over and over again that for some small businesses that were family run or run by sole proprietors, the wage subsidy and the CERB were life-saving measures, supports and financial assistance for them.
The work on the commercial rent assistance and how the program was redesigned was done after prorogation. It was something we heard strongly during the prorogation. The small business tenants in commercial properties wanted the support to go directly to the small business owner so that they could pay the rent with resources instead of having it go through a more complex scheme, through their landlord, which clearly wasn't working, although it was a good intention on the part of our government. It didn't work as planned or as well as we had hoped, and it was redesigned promptly. I think it really was appreciated.
There were higher operating costs for many small businesses and definitely weak demand. They were anticipating a weakness in the demand for their services.
This wasn't the case with every industry. Certainly, I know of some examples in my community where some larger businesses did quite well in the pandemic. For the most part, though, the highest impacted sectors and industries and the small businesses that operate within those really were affected by a weak demand for their services and products.
Also, if they were to operate, they had higher operating costs. They had social distancing. They couldn't service as many individuals or take the volume of sales. There were all kinds of things they had to do to manage or prevent infection, control and operate with health and safety at the forefront, and develop protocols. There was all kinds of extra work they had to do and there were some extra costs for many of them.
Trade flows between the U.S. and Canada were impacted greatly by case numbers. As the case numbers went up and down in the United States and in Canada, they impacted the trade flows between the U.S. and Canada despite the fact that our government, I think, has done a lot of work to try and keep the trade flows between Canada and the U.S. going during the pandemic and to not have major interruptions. There's some evidence in the report to show that the trade flows with the U.S. were impacted by the case numbers of people suffering from COVID-19.
I also want to speak a little bit about the structural challenges in heavily impacted sectors. The transportation and warehousing sector employs a million people across Canada. Fifty per cent of employment is in accommodation and food services. For tourism, 22.1 million tourists from abroad would have come into Canada. Travellers spent over $22 billion in Canada previously, and spent approximately $1,640 per trip. That's in 2018. Just think about how many fewer people came into Canada. I think we heard from the back then that travel was down about 98%, if I remember correctly.
Just think about the 22.1 million tourists who would normally come into Canada and all of the economic activity and revenue that would be generated for businesses that serve those travellers, which was estimated at $22 billion a year. When tourism is down that low, just imagine how much our economy is impacted by that.
In 2001 after 9/11, the airline industry declined by 26%. In 2003 after the SARS outbreak, the decline in the industry was 26%. These were unprecedented numbers for impacts on the airline industry. It was 26% after 9/11 and a 26% decrease in the industry after the SARS outbreak. In 2020 after the global pandemic, decline in the industry was 97%.
Have I made my point clear yet? This is unprecedented. I hate to use that word at this point because people use it so often. I'm sick of hearing it and I'm sick of saying it, but it literally is unprecedented. The evidence is clear. After 9/11, there was a 26% decline in the airline industry. It was 26% after the SARS outbreak, but 97% during COVID-19.
The list goes on and on. I have so much more data and information that I feel like I could speak forever. I don't know whether my other colleagues want a chance to speak, but I have a lot more to say, Madam Chair. I also don't want to dominate the airwaves and not give my other colleagues time to speak.
I want to follow through with my argument, but perhaps I'll take a little break and let one of my other colleagues say a few words. I'll get back on the speakers list to continue my argument because by no means am I finished and I have quite a bit more to say on this matter. I would be grateful for some more time to express my thoughts.
I'll turn it over to the next member on the speakers list. I'm not sure, but I think it might be my friend and colleague Darrell Samson, if I'm not mistaken.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will continue.
Marginalized communities, those who are low income or racialized, continue to be hardest hit by COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Lineups at vaccine clinics in COVID-19 hot spots powerfully show the demands in the community for vaccines and the lack of resources in marginalized communities.
I have come here to be a voice for the people I serve in Etobicoke North. I'm hoping I will not be repeatedly interrupted today for bringing the voice of Etobicoke North to this committee and for bringing science, evidence and fact to this debate on the amendment.
We often hear that this place is so toxic. Building an institution is not toxic; it's how we treat one another. We have a choice every day when we come to committee in how we choose to conduct ourselves. The young people in my life tell me over and over about how put off they are by what is rewarded here. “A good punch” are the words that are used, aren't they? A good punch. Hitting back. Beating back someone into submission. The young people in my life are especially sickened by it during a pandemic when their friends and families are getting sick and, in some cases, dying.
We've all recently put out tweets, statements against bullying and for Pink Shirt Day. It should be the goal for all of us to get many young people, particularly women, involved in politics. When they watch colleagues being interrupted, they're turned off. I hope the interrupting will stop today.
I know colleagues have talked about their first days on the Hill and not being interrupted, so I will just give a little bit of my history.
I left a job I loved at the university doing research and teaching our inspiring and outstanding students in order to serve the wonderful community of Etobicoke North. It's the place where I was born and raised. I had two areas of expertise, pandemics and pandemic preparedness and climate change. Our colleagues across the way are well aware of my background, my pandemic work, as the previous government, a Conservative government, reached out to me during the 2009 H1 pandemic.
I trust I won't be interrupted today for talking about Etobicoke North. The community I serve matters, bringing their voice matters, and their ideas are absolutely relevant to this discussion.
I also trust I will not be interrupted for talking about a global pandemic, a pandemic where Canadian experts were ringing alarm bells for weeks while this committee focused on a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic last summer. We're still in a pandemic, and we should absolutely hear from our .
I should point out that I'm not just an Etobicoke MP; I am an Ontario MP, and my job is to stand up for my province. Recently the co-chairman of Ontario's expert panel said Ontario's hospitals could no longer function normally, yet we continue with a partisan motion.
Dr. Brown said, “Our children's hospitals are admitting adults. This has never happened in Ontario before. It's never happened in Canada before.” Field hospitals are being set up in car parks.
Dr. Isaac Bogoch said the health care system was “already overloaded prior to the third wave, with hospitals still treating patients from the previous wave”. I continue the quote:
In many places, for example Ontario, we never really decompressed our intensive care units from the second wave. We had a third wave come in very short after the second wave, so you've got more explosive outbreaks with the variants that also caused more significant illness proportionally compared to the strains of COVID-19 we had earlier.
The trifecta of more transmissible variants that cause more significant illness and proportionately more people ending up in the hospital, rapid reopening that's providing more opportunities for transmission, and a healthcare system that still hasn't decompressed from the second wave really puts us into the mess that we're at right now.
Yet this committee remains focused on a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic in the summer. We're still in a pandemic, and we should hear from the .
Last week the rate of coronavirus infections in Ontario reached an all-time high as hospitals warned they were close to being overwhelmed. Ontario, at last, moved and introduced stricter public measures that were not rooted in science to control the spread of the virus, including closing playgrounds, while failing to move on measures that experts believed could decrease transmission, including paid sick days for workers. I'm glad to see yesterday there was movement in this direction.
One of the lessons of this pandemic has to be that this is a pandemic first and foremost, and that it requires paying attention to science, evidence and fact. It requires politicians paying attention to science, evidence and fact, and listening to experts.
There needed to be an understanding that the variants were fundamentally different. They were more transmissible and caused a higher severity of disease. Responding effectively to a pandemic requires seeing where the cases are going and taking early and preventive action, and not waiting until so-called fires are burning out of control.
Another lesson has to be about essential work and racialization, unfortunately a lesson that we have yet to learn. While many of us had the privilege of working from our bedrooms, kitchens or living rooms, essential workers kept our communities and country going.
Information from last April shows diverse neighbourhoods were hit hard by COVID-19. An analysis done last April shows that the most ethnoculturally diverse neighbourhoods in Ontario, primarily those concentrated in large urban areas, experienced disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19 and related deaths compared to neighbourhoods that were less diverse.
The rate of COVID-19 infections in the most diverse neighbourhoods was three times higher than the rate in the least diverse neighbourhoods. People living in the most diverse neighbourhoods were also more likely to experience severe outcomes, hospitalizations, ICU admissions and deaths, than people living in the least diverse neighbourhoods. In fact, hospitalization rates were four times higher. ICU admission rates were four times higher. Death rates were twice as high. Yet this committee remains focused on a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic in the summer. We're still in a pandemic. We need to hear from the .
Data from the City of Toronto last July showed the link between COVID-19 and racialization. The first release of individual level data findings captures information collected from May 2020 to mid-July 2020. It showed that 83% of people with reported COVID-19 infections identified with a racialized group. Yet this committee remains focused on a partisan issue. We were in a pandemic in the summer. We're still in a pandemic. We should hear from the and the .
More information from the City of Toronto in November showed a continuing picture about COVID-19 and racialization. In November, 79% of reported cases were among those who were racialized, while 21% of cases were among people who identified as white. While 48% of Toronto's population identifies as white, 52% of the city's population belongs to a racialized group. The COVID-19 infection rate among people in Toronto was higher for those identifying with racialized groups. These are appalling numbers.
This information required urgent action to protect those who are on the front lines. In February the chief public health officer for Canada showed that when it comes to COVID-19, it is clear that race matters. The report showed that although race-based data are not consistently available across Canada, local sources indicate that racialized communities are being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. For example, surveillance data from Toronto and Ottawa indicates that COVID-19 cases are one and a half to five times higher—one and a half to five times higher—among racialized populations than among non-racialized populations in these two cities.
In April of this year, new research showed that the gap between who needs COVID vaccines and who's getting them was particularly bad. In Toronto, the neighbourhoods with the highest populations of racialized people had the lowest vaccination rates, despite the disproportionate impact of the disease on these communities. Last April data showed that racialized communities were hit hard. Last July it showed the same, as it did in November and, most recently, this spring. This is heartbreaking; it is wrong; it is systemic discrimination. The public health data is there.
More has to be done. Workplaces need to be safer. There need to be sick leave benefits, and vaccines have to go to the neighbourhoods that are on fire. Communities are strong, resilient and they are doing everything they can to fight the virus. It is not okay that in Ontario only one-quarter of the vaccines have been going to heavily hit communities. Yet we have a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic last summer and we're still in a pandemic. We should hear from our .
Let me be very clear. Collecting data does not mean change. It simply means information was gathered and perhaps collated. Telling a story does not mean change. Data collection must be used to improve lives.
Thankfully, after months of urgent calls about the need for paid sick leave by medical professionals, labour advocates, political leaders and even top doctors from some of Ontario's hardest-hit regions, the government has announced, now, a plan to provide three paid sick days through a temporary program. We'll see what more needs to be done.
I come from a community where people work hard for their family and work hard to make a difference in their community, and they do, each and every day. They make a difference in our community and they make a difference to our country. I come from a community where many people work on the front lines, and they put their health at risk in order to put food on the table and to keep the community and country going.
The community I serve wants us to do real work on their behalf, not be focused on a partisan motion, and yet we have a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic in the summer and we're still in a pandemic. We should hear from the .
Thankfully, we're starting to see some improvement in Canadian case numbers, from a seven-day high of over 8,700 cases on April 18 to over 8,200 cases on April 24 to just under 8,000 cases on April 27. Ontario reported over 3,900 new COVID-19 infections this past Sunday, as the number of patients in intensive care units once again reached a record high. The number of patients in intensive care units and on ventilators reached new highs.
As of last Friday, there were almost 2,300 patients in hospital with the virus. A total of more than 830 people were in intensive care units, and more than 780 patients required ventilators to breathe.
On Monday, over 870 people with COVID-19 were being treated in intensive care units across the province, twice as many as there were at the beginning of April.
Hospitals across Ontario are stretched to capacity amid a surge of COVID-19 cases in the third wave. Ornge, the organization in charge of patient transport, says patients are being moved in record numbers, mostly by its critical care land ambulances, but also by its helicopters and airplanes and with the help of local paramedic services. Between April 1 and April 23, Ornge says 747 patients were transferred to out-of-town facilities to make room for new patients. Seven hundred and forty-seven: To put that figure into context, 209, 217 and 242 patients were transferred in January, February and March respectively.
We're starting to see change. On Tuesday, Ontario reported a fourth consecutive single-day drop in the number of new COVID-19 cases, but the province's test positivity rate remains high. Cases were almost 4,100 on Saturday, almost 3,950 on Sunday, almost 3,500 on Monday and over 3,250 on Tuesday, but the test positivity rate stands at 10.2%.
All of us should be concerned—all of us—about what's happening to Ontarians and what Ontarians have been facing and continue to face, yet this committee remains focused on a partisan motion. Let me be clear. We were in a pandemic in the summer. We're still in a pandemic. We should hear from our .
I've been raising the COVID-19 pandemic every time I had a chance to speak during this debate, and this committee actually has something it could do. It could study the House of Commons response to the pandemic so that there is better advice for future parliaments when a future pandemic or disaster strikes, because there will be a next time, and pandemic preparedness and readiness is a constant. There is no beginning, no end and no peacetime.
In 1918, the Spanish flu sickened half the population. Churches, governments and ministries closed. Private buildings were pressed into service as hospitals. Losses to businesses were staggering. I'm going to quote from a speech I delivered often and around the world in the early 2000s about pandemics predicted and past: “All countries will be affected. Widespread illness will occur. Medical supplies will be inadequate. Large numbers of deaths will occur. Economic and social disruption will be great. Global economic activity could weaken. Supply chains could fail. Once a vaccine is ready, who gets it? Health care workers? Essential service workers? At-risk groups? After a pandemic, millions will be affected in profound ways. From depression to the loss of friends and relatives to financial loss resulting in disruption to business, governments, society and corporations will have to ensure financial, psychological and social support for affected families, companies and the rebuilding of society.”
Does it sound familiar? The point is that we have learned the same lesson time after time, most recently after the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009, yet instead of doing what is required, namely, to be prepared for next time, we remain on a partisan motion.
We were in a pandemic last summer. We're still in a pandemic. We should hear from the . Let's not make the same mistake. Let's learn from this pandemic so that we are better prepared going forward. Instead of focusing on politics, we should be focused on learning from the pandemic. It should be part of this committee's work to review any pandemic plan that existed for the House of Commons.
I don't know if there was one. Was there one? We had officials here. I asked if there was a plan. They didn't know. Was there a plan? Who drafted such a plan? Who was consulted? Who signed off? Who was the plan communicated to? How often was it reviewed? What did the cases look like here in the parliamentary precinct? Who was affected? What lessons have been learned to date?
Those are important questions. It's this committee that should be asking them, and it is this committee that should be driving continual improvement of any pandemic plan for the House of Commons.
Pandemic preparedness cannot be so-called hot for just a few years following a pandemic. It has to remain on the agenda. Science, research and public health have to remain on the agenda. It has been said we remain with a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic in the summer. We're still in a pandemic. We should hear from the .
It is very clear that in 2020 Canada faced an unprecedented time in Canadian history. We were facing the worst pandemic since 1918. If we look back to 1918, tens of thousands of Canadians died. In Montreal the demand for transporting coffins was so great that trolley cars had to be converted to hearses that could carry 10 coffins at a time. Eight cabinetmakers worked around the clock in Hamilton, Ontario, to keep up with the demand for coffins. Undertakers would take one casket to the cemetery and hurry back to the church to pick up the next. In Toronto funerals were allowed on Sunday. White hearses for children became a common sight.
No one knew what this pandemic would bring. It was a novel virus in 2020.
Let me be very clear. Our very special Etobicoke North community is focused on the pandemic and getting through it. They are focused on their health, their safety, their jobs and their livelihoods, yet this committee remains focused on a partisan motion.
We were in a pandemic in the summer and we're still in a pandemic. We should hear from the .
:
Well, wonderful. Buckle up because I have quite a lot to say.
I hadn't finished making my argument in our last meeting, but I ceded the floor to one of my colleagues because I felt I was slightly dominating the airwaves and I don't like to do that. I believe that everyone on this committee deserves a chance to express themselves. We're all equal members of Parliament. We all represent constituents who have points of view that are exceptionally important to us, and it is our job to express those points of view.
I have made an argument that is directly relevant, Mr. Nater, to the amendment that I put forward. I've been making it for multiple weeks.
As you know, I was away for a short period of time due to sickness, but I'm glad to be back so I can make my views known.
My argument is building. Each of my speeches and remarks builds one on the other. Like Ms. Duncan, my colleague whom I respect and admire so much, I really believe in science, evidence, facts and research. I believe in making rational arguments and I've mapped out my logical argument.
I took enhanced logic way back when I was in my undergrad in philosophy. I use it every day because I think it's really important that we understand the logic behind the arguments that we make and that when we come to debate, we actually debate things in a way where we're willing to be influenced by each other's point of view. I think that's the very heart of democracy. Dialogue, actually, and dialectics, which is the heart of democracy, is that we approach truth through an open debate process, whereby the principle of sufficient reason actually is the principle that we all subscribe to, where we approach the truth together. Although we disagree along the way, we express varying perspectives that differ, but that we give up something every step of the way.
Compromise is built into the very art of debate, but we don't see that in many of our debates, especially on this committee. We see, as Ms. Duncan said, partisanship over truth, over facts, over reason. I really feel strongly that what I've put forward as an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion was really an attempt to compromise. It gives you something. It gives the opposition parties something they wanted, i.e., I've left in the Honourable Bill Morneau and the Kielburgers to be reinvited to the committee, who I don't really feel need to be brought to the committee, to be honest, but I left them in as a bit of an olive branch.
The two ministers that Ms. Duncan spoke eloquently to wanting to hear from—and it's very intentional that they were left in there—are the honourable , Chrystia Freeland, and the honourable , Bardish Chagger. There are very good reasons those two were left in there. Before I get into that, I want to summarize the argument that I've been making.
I'm glad you are here today, Mr. Aitchison. I don't know if you've been at PROC this time around, but it's great to have you and I'm glad you're here to hear the summary of my overarching argument.
My colleague Mr. Amos is also here, who hasn't been in attendance on this committee as far as I recollect. It is great to have you, Mr. Amos. I know you're a real advocate for the environment and climate action, among many other things. I have such respect for you. I will be making some remarks related to that.
I think this pandemic has taught us something about the inequities in our society and the deep economic impacts we need to recover from, but also the opportunities that we have to build a stronger economy that's more sustainable and helps protect our planet while hopefully protecting us to some degree from more incidents and public health crises like the one we're going through now. I think climate change can be linked to the incidence of communicable disease and I know that pandemics could be far more frequent in the future as the climate warms.
I won't go there yet because I want to summarize my argument. I'll make a few points and then I'll go into more depth and detail. I hope Mr. Nater hasn't tuned out and is still listening.
First of all, I want to say that our government has been more transparent than any government in Canadian history when it comes to prorogation, okay? I've said this, but I'm saying it again. I am repeating myself, because I don't think it has sunk in for some folks out there that we've tabled a report. Our government, in the past Parliament, actually is the one that changed the Standing Orders to require a report to be tabled in the House of Commons to explain the rationale for prorogation. That was the first time in history this change was made to the Standing Orders, and it was done by our government.
We prorogued, which hadn't been done in the entire term of 's Liberal government, whereas it was done four times, I think, in Stephen Harper's time. When you think about it, we only used prorogation for a very good reason and we complied with the rule change to the Standing Orders, which required a greater degree of transparency. We provided a rationale and a report—a significant report. I've read it. I'm not sure whether every member on the committee from the opposition parties took the time to read it carefully, but I certainly feel that, based on their remarks in the past, they haven't really assessed it on its merits. I think there are merits to that report.
There are also merits to be given to the testimony of our and the many others who came before this committee, as we, the Liberal members on this committee, agreed to do a study on this very topic. It wasn't required for us to do that. We agreed to that. We allowed opposition parties to call witnesses. We all had a chance to scrutinize the testimony of those witnesses, ask them questions and make our arguments.
Now, what we have at the end of this, despite the willingness on our part and the commitment to that level of transparency, and no real argument that the opposition has made against the merits of that report or the testimony, a presumption that somehow there's some ulterior motive that is political in nature. This seems to be the driving force behind Ms. Vecchio's motion. I feel very frustrated by that, because I think we've made major improvements. There are so many other things to focus on. We've been more transparent than any government in Canadian history when it comes to prorogation, and still that's not enough.
Still that's not enough, so what more does the opposition really want here? What really is the driving motive behind the motion that Ms. Vecchio put forward? I would say that the WE Charity issue has been studied over and over again at other committees. Ms. Shanahan has been involved in some of that and spoke in our last meeting about how that work continued even after prorogation. There's really no reason to go on another fishing expedition in this committee, PROC, which is, I'm told, the mother of committees. I think we have other really important business to attend to.
All that said, in an effort to compromise and give a little more opportunity to extend this study and have a few more witnesses attend and give testimony, I put forward an amendment that I thought was very reasonable, and still there's no movement. It's partisanship over science and evidence, and over facts and information, in a global health crisis the proportion of which we have never known in our lifetimes, in a hundred years. We say it's unprecedented. I've said this before. I hate using that word these days because it's just so overused, but it really is something that I never thought I would live through or experience in my lifetime, to be honest.
My parents, and even my grandmother, who passed away this year during the pandemic, never lived through a crisis like this. Really, we have almost no.... Although we've learned a lot from other outbreaks that have happened—the SARS outbreak, Ebola, etc., and other communicable diseases that I think have taught us things—we really haven't learned the lessons.
We don't have any real memory of the—I know it's called the Spanish flu, and that's probably not the right term to use. I know that it was named and there's probably some controversy around that. Maybe Ms. Duncan can speak to that at a later date. She probably knows infinitely more than I do about that. I'll just refer to it as the Spanish flu for the moment. I know that's incorrect, so my apologies to her for all her astounding work in the area.
I want to get back to my argument, which is that we prorogued Parliament. There's that word, “prorogation”, that Ms. Vecchio was looking for, so this is relevant to prorogation. Prorogation was done at a time when doing so made complete sense. It was absolutely rational for a government that was working at full court press for many, many months in a row to reassess and re-evaluate between the first and second waves of a pandemic. That makes sense to me.
In addition, during the process we went through, as I've said, we didn't sit around and do nothing during that time. There was so much work and consultation that was undertaken during that time. There were interdepartmental meetings. I personally participated in something like 15 to 20 different consultation sessions, some in my community with constituents and some with caucus, the various caucuses we had, and those all informed a new Speech from the Throne. When you look at that Speech from the Throne—and opposition parties have stated over and over again that there's nothing of substance in the Speech from the Throne. I've heard them say this over and over again, and I wonder how anyone can say that.
I've done a full analysis of it. The last time, I actually outlined about 15 or 20 themes and parts of that throne speech that are unique, that were not there before and that were context dependent. In other words, they were grounded in the public health crisis. They came out of that, and they're supported by evidence, research, and consultation work that was done. It wasn't as if they came from nowhere. They came from the very process that was undertaken during the time of prorogation.
Again, this seems to be common sense. As I have reflected on it over and over and over during the time we've been debating this, I have come to the same conclusion. I'm very much a critical thinker. I studied philosophy for eight years in university. I have taught it around the world. I'm a critical thinker. I criticize myself just as much as I do the opposition members or anybody else. Reflecting deeply on this, I still can't find any reason to really support the opposition's intended motive or the narrative that they seem to be adamant about trying to boost or prop up at all costs.
Here's the main point, though, that I want to make. I've made this over and over again. It's repetition for emphasis' sake: if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then nothing is. Nothing is. Literally, I can't think of a better way to say it than that. I've reflected on it over and over. Stephen Harper prorogued twice, once in 2008 and once in 2009, and he claimed that the recession at the time, so the shock to the economy of that recession, was his reason for proroguing not once but twice to re-evaluate and assess the impact on the economy and work on the plan to help the country recover.
What I've maintained and I've argued and I have ample evidence for—piles of evidence for, Mr. Kent—is that this pandemic is at least 10 times worse in terms of economic impact than the 2008-09 recession was, at least 10 times. That is based just on information that was available in August 2020. At this point, we've gone through the second and third waves, which were much greater than the first.
I'm using information that's based on the time when prorogation actually happened, that was available at that time, to demonstrate to you that the government in power, which I'm very proud to be a part of, was using that information to inform decisions that were made about what appeared in the throne speech, what then appeared in the fall economic statement and what then appeared in our 2021 budget.
Again, when you can draw direct links, logical links, rational links that are based on evidence and consultation across Canada, to the things that appeared in the throne speech, how can anyone even maintain the claim...? How can any rational person maintain the claim that there's nothing in the throne speech that justifies reasons for prorogation? It makes absolutely no sense. It's nonsensical. It's absurd. It's absurd, given the evidence that we already have.
So, why are we here? Why are we doing this? There are at least four other motions in this committee that my colleagues and I have put on notice that we could be doing and which are significantly, exponentially and infinitely more important than this staring in the rear-view mirror.
I quoted last time a highly respected doctor at the World Health Organization, Dr. Michael Ryan. He said that we just can't afford to be staring in the rear-view mirror. We need to be ahead of the curve of this pandemic. Curve after curve, wave after wave, we, as Canadians, have been behind. We're not in front. Dr. Duncan said this so eloquently, but I believe it wholeheartedly, too. We are behind the curve every time. We need to move faster.
:
Thank you, Mr. Nater. I appreciate your points, as always.
I do have a little bit more to say, though, to fill out my argument. I've highlighted some of the architecture of the argument, some of the main features of it, the sort of beams, but I want to build out with some of the material that I've prepared to substantiate claims.
I don't make claims to things that aren't based on evidence and fact. Certainly, occasionally I would put my opinion into my argument and perhaps overextend a little bit—I'm only human—but, in general, I would re-evaluate if someone contested that.... I would think critically about what I said and try to find out whether my opinion was something that was based in facts and evidence. Then I would revise my opinion, if I found that it wasn't substantiated by facts and evidence.
Again, this is literally the heart of democracy. I think if we lose the sense of the pursuit of truth, then our democratic system will suffer dramatically over time. This is why I speak out against disinformation coming from the opposition, which I've seen over and over again. I cannot stand by and let the public be intentionally misinformed—at least, I feel—in many cases.
I'm going to go back to my argument.
Mr. Kent, the main point of my argument is that the global pandemic, in terms of economic impact, is at least 10 times greater than the 2008-09 crisis or recession. It's almost a blip at this point compared to what we're living through today. For me, when I think about it, the evidence that's out there is supporting the fact that this pandemic is greater, and exponentially greater, in terms of impact.
I see this through the sustainability lens, so I'm looking at the economic impact, the social impact and the environmental impact, and thinking about how we recover from this;, and how, at the time of prorogation, the government took some time to re-evaluate and reset the agenda so that it could really understand these impacts in a fulsome way and come out with an agenda that focused on the needs of Canadians. I think that process was rigorous. It was authentic. It was genuine. It was evidenced, informed. There was a lot of listening that was done. It was true to what I believe is good and responsible governance.
In terms of the economic impact, the depths of the economic impact cuts are uneven across industries, which I've said before. We've seen remarkable declines in output from the economy—five times greater in August 2020 than in 2008-09. We've seen historic declines, in all economic activity. The recovery has been uneven across industries. There have been historic declines in labour market activity, steep losses in the highest impacted sectors. There's an overall context of business uncertainty. This is where I went into more detail last time. Then, there are structural challenges in the heavily impacted sectors that are limiting them from being able to recover from this pandemic at the same rate. There are many examples that I have of this impact.
Last time, I went into depth on the heavily impacted sectors and some of the statistics on those. However, before I go back to some of those thoughts and remarks and some of the evidence I've gathered, I would like to outline the rest of my argument.
Notice that there are deep economic impacts that are unprecedented, and I've covered sub-points there that support that. This also provides a rationale for why the would be a good person to have appear before this committee.
Really, if we're entertaining that and the extending of this study, when it comes down to it, I don't think it's completely necessary because, as I've argued over and over again, the evidence stacks up in favour of the explanation we've given being sound, rational and well supported by evidence and data.
I am again saying that if there were a need to gather some additional testimony or have some additional testimony at this committee during this study, the would be one of the most appropriate individuals to have before us, because who better than someone who has been studying this and has a whole ministry that is responsible for understanding the depth of economic impacts? For that reason, I really think it would be great to have Chrystia Freeland, the come before the committee.
My second major claim is that there have been social impacts during this pandemic. I outlined a whole bunch of those many meetings ago, but I also have a lot more equity issues, inequities that the pandemic has caused. I shouldn't say that it caused inequities, because those inequities preceded the pandemic, but it exacerbated many of them. It highlighted them in a way that is unignorable at this point.
We cannot go back to the same systemic barriers that racialized minorities in this country have faced for generations. We cannot go back in terms of the hard-fought gains won by the women's movement in this country. We cannot afford to allow women's equality and equity and full participation in the workforce to be hindered by this global pandemic. We need to address these structural and systemic inequities that are present, and there are many more of them. I'm highlighting just a couple.
We've seen that there are unequal impacts on Canadian workers. These create challenges for robust and inclusive growth. Visible minority groups were at much higher risk of work stoppages during the first wave of the pandemic, but also, I think, in succeeding waves. There has been an unequal impact on low-wage workers far greater than in 2008-09. There are long-term effects of COVID‑19, depending on the degree to which layoffs become permanent job losses. This is just part of it, but it really highlights the unequal impacts on Canadian workers.
There's another point that I would like to make related to equity. Immigrants and visible minorities have been the hardest hit. There is the September 2020 report on the the social and economic impacts of COVID‑19, which is a six-month update. Again, I'm using data from the point in time that I think would have been most relevant at the time of prorogation and would have informed the throne speech. It only included data from March through to August, I believe, the point being that the data shows, I think, that this would prove over and over through updates that have been given by the chief statistician of Canada to this report.... I haven't gone back and done the comparison, but I do have the other reports. I just haven't had time to go through them, but if this debate were to persist, I could always do an analysis.
I'd be happy to do that, because I feel that this is an opportunity for me to learn, to be a better member of Parliament and to be able to advocate for my constituents and in fact all Canadians by understanding the depth of the social, economic and environmental impacts of COVID‑19. I should say “and/or” opportunities, because I think that with some of this what we can see is that these challenges and this crisis have shown us that there are opportunities to address the systemic issues that we have in this country.
I think that's why folks, like my colleague, Mr. Amos, and his work as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, are so important to me, and inspiring. Our ministry, under his leadership and Minister 's leadership, and Mr.' before him, is really looking to build back better and find innovative solutions that are market based and that leverage our strengths and deal with inequities.
They launched the 50-30 challenge, for example, which I was over-the-moon excited about. It encourages much more diversity, equity and inclusion within all organizations and employers across Canada. People can voluntarily sign up for that challenge, to ensure that at least 50% of the workforce is represented by women, especially in management and board level positions, ensure that there's upward mobility in those companies and organizations for all women, but also for 30% to be from equity-seeking groups.
I think workforce diversity is something that, if we can get more employers to be voluntarily signing up for this program that was launched.... Based on evidence and research that's come to light during this pandemic, there are these massive inequities across our economy, and we need to address those inequities.
It's great work. It's great to have you here, MP Amos, with much love and respect for you. I'm really, really glad that you're here.
I'm going to get back to my argument.
Immigrants and visible minorities have been hit the hardest. They have been disproportionately represented in jobs with greater exposure to COVID-19. I've covered a little about this in the past. The hospitalization rate is much higher. I think four times higher was the amount that I recollect—I have the notes somewhere here—and the mortality rate was two times higher. Again, it's tough now.
The chief statistician's report talked about this being double and triple jeopardy for visible minorities and immigrants who are working in many of the lower-wage jobs and front-line essential services. Visible minorities were more likely to work in industries that have been the worst affected by the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on immigrants' employment could reverse gains made in recent years. These are conclusions that were drawn from that report.
Immigrants and visible minorities are more likely to face harassment and stigma as a result of COVID-19. This is unacceptable to me. When we see the increased incidence of anti-Asian racism and anti-Black racism in our country, it breaks my heart. We cannot let this happen.
This is the result of a pandemic that has disproportionately impacted certain groups, and other portions of our society are blaming those groups and taking their frustrations out on those people. Honestly, I could cry over this. It breaks my heart when I think about those people, who have already been marginalized and excluded, systemically, in many ways, who have been on the front lines, who have taken the health risks, who have been in the lowest-wage jobs, and whose gains in our economy will be jeopardized by this in years to come.
They're the ones who are experiencing an increased incidence of hate, violence and stigma. I don't even know what to say. It's just appalling. It's appalling on so many levels. How much are they expected to take? How much are we going to let this be a reality, a lived experience for those people in our country, our precious country, our Canada, our home?
That's not my country. I don't believe in a country that fosters hate and intolerance. I won't stand for it. That's for sure.
I know my colleagues here won't stand for it. We've got to do a lot of work on this, and I think it requires systemic or system-level change.
That's what my life has been about. That's what my whole career has been about: how do we work collaboratively towards system-level change? It's like a concert with many instruments playing and resonating at the same time, because we have levels and layers within our society and its complex systems.
I am dealing with the motion because this fits into the architecture of my argument, so I'm not sure why Ms. Vecchio is interrupting me, but go ahead, Ms. Vecchio.
We can't hear you, though.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to Ms. Vecchio for her comments. I didn't at all mean to question her integrity. I was questioning the authenticity or genuineness of the question she asked me. When I was undertaking to answer that question and provide evidence and examples to substantiate what I was giving her as an answer, she promptly interjected that she wasn't interested in hearing that. It seems a little disingenuous to me when you ask a question but you then don't want to hear the answer.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not questioning your integrity as a member of Parliament, nor would I ever do that, because I don't believe in what are called ad hominem arguments: attacking the person rather than the argument. I can disagree with you and the things you say, but I would never disparage you as a human being because I respect you and I value you.
There's a big difference. I think Ms. Duncan talked about that and about bullying and the way in which we operate and conduct ourselves. I believe strongly that debate and differences of opinion and perspective and arguing about things from different perspectives make us all better and smarter and make our democracy work, but I think it has to be done with an authenticity to getting to the truth and to working together on our shared and common interests as Canadians. That's where I think perhaps we get snagged sometimes when parties or individuals put partisanship over progress.
That's how I'm feeling. I'm not saying that others have to share that perspective, but that's my perspective, and I'm allowed to express my perspective. In fact, it's my job, and to do so is also, as I've learned, a privilege that I have as a member of Parliament.
Getting back to my argument here, I was saying that immigrants and visible minorities are more likely to face harassment and stigma. Also, the evidence the chief statistician put together shows that at the time—I'm not sure, really, whether this has changed at all—the trend was that immigrants were more concerned with the health impacts and they were more willing to take precautions and follow public health advice, given the statistics at the time, but they were also less likely to get the vaccine. There was a higher degree of vaccine hesitancy among that segment of the population, statistically, at least, from the data that was gathered at the time. Again, this was relevant in August 2020.
There was also a huge amount of evidence that showed immigrants and visible minorities were overrepresented in low-wage jobs that were at risk of replacement by automation. This is another trend that I was shocked to see. I'm sure that some of my other colleagues perhaps know more about this than I do and know the true extent of it, but many of those low-wage jobs were at greater risk of being replaced by automation.
Again, for immigrants and visible minorities, the compounded layers of vulnerability and inequity they experience are so much greater than they are for many other Canadians. Again, I'm not saying that to disparage any other segment of the population at all. I think it's the reality that we have to acknowledge this coming out of this pandemic and to work towards corrective actions and solutions that help to address these massive structural inequities. They weren't intentionally done to anybody, but they're ways in which our economy and our systems function that perpetuate injustice in our society.
Again, to go back to the point of prorogation and the argument that I'm making, it is that these inequities are another reason, and a very substantive reason, for why the would be the most appropriate person to testify at this committee.
Ms. Vecchio, you can't say that this isn't relevant to the argument and the amendment that I've made, because it is. I mean, it's backing up why the amendment's focus is on those two ministers and why they would be the best politicians to come before this committee to testify as to those inequities that we've experienced, and I think they would be best to fairly represent the extent to which that's a reality across Canada, given their portfolios.
I want to move on now to the third major point, which is the environment, which I noticed was highlighted in the chief statistician's report. It was highlighted more as an opportunity for economic growth and resiliency, which was interesting. There are a few trends here that I think are important for us to keep in mind. I'm going to get to the main conclusion that I want to make, which is something that was said by several opposition members way back that really bothered me. I won't let it go, ever, because it really struck me as something that, again, was just untrue.
They claimed that the build back better message was nothing more than a token phrase, that it had no meaning. For me, as I've said and claimed over and over again, it has a hugely significant meaning for our economic recovery, for building a Canada that works for everyone and that's inclusive, equitable, just, fair, resilient and sustainable. That's what I stand for. I would work my whole life towards that vision. I feel very passionately about that, so I won't give that up, and I won't allow other members to claim that this is some empty phrase, because I feel so adamantly that this has so much meaning for us as a country.
On build back better, yes, we could change the phrase and market it in a different way. I don't care about that, but on the underlying meaning behind it, I subscribe to that, and the vision that it represents to me is something incredibly inspiring for us to work towards as a country, as I think our government is committed to. That's why I'm proud to be a member of the Liberal Party.
I can't let that go. I won't stand down. I won't give that up, because it's so important to me and, I will say, important to my constituents. I have many constituents who want to see us build a sustainable economy. I get people coming to my office and calling every day with ideas. They know me as someone who's interested in those innovative solutions that have social, environmental and economic impacts. They're interested in seeing us be a leader on the global front and leading the way.
Anyway, to go back to my argument, digitalization is a trend that was documented in the chief statistician's report, and it's driving structural change in all our industries. Employment growth was seen in the digital economy and in clean tech and environmental services, solutions and protection. It's interesting to look at that. The growth was pretty stable and significant. I'm sure my colleague Mr. Amos will be able to speak to this, if he wants to. I associate him with being a great champion for our environment in his role as a parliamentary secretary. I relate all of these innovative solutions around this as something that he is very passionate and knowledgeable about, so I hope that I'm not assuming too much, Mr. Amos.
Also, digitally intensive industries have higher growth and rates of innovation. This is another conclusion that was made based on the evidence and statistics in the report that I keep referencing. Also, teleworking and the prevalence of that was another major area that was highlighted.
Obviously teleworking increased significantly. People are working from home, but what's interesting to note is the share of businesses with at least 10% of the workforce that were teleworking doubled from 16.6% to 32.6%. Again, this is as of August. A greater number of businesses had at least 10% of their workforce teleworking, and one-fifth of businesses expect 10% of their workforce will continue to telework after COVID-19.
That was back then, so that trend has continued through wave after wave of COVID-19. Teleworking capacity is greatest in industries such as finance, education, professional services, information and cultural services and public administration. It's interesting to look at digitalization. It really does not equal jobs, and it's interesting to think about how automation is replacing low-wage jobs, and teleworking is allowing higher-income earners and families to be able to continue working in a pandemic or any other type of crisis.
Again, think about how the inequity is perpetuated by these two trends that we see within our economies, digitalization and teleworking. If you're a lower-wage worker, you're much more at risk of having your job replaced by automation and if you're teleworking, only those who are in higher-income brackets are the ones who are able to telework.
I also want to substantiate my argument around the environment and clean tech a little more as a key growth opportunity. I have a climate activist in my community who communicates with me all the time about every step we take. He was one of the founders of Pollution Probe and is the manager of sustainability at the region, or was, until he quit out of protest because our local region wasn't doing enough, in his opinion, to address the climate disaster that has long been predicted.
He reminds me that our government's work on climate change and climate action is progressive. It's increasingly ambitious, but it's not enough yet. We have to do more. We have to push ourselves and I think we're going to continue to do that. One of the things that he reminds me of is that we can't just look at.... We've said over and over again that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, and I do believe that's true. I believe the economy can grow when there are significant under-recognized or under-leveraged opportunities right across Canada to grow our economy and address climate change at the same time.
What he reminds me of constantly is yes, but it's just not about that. It's not just about growing the economy. We can't see addressing climate change as just embedded within the same economic model. We have to address it with the immediacy of a global crisis. What's interesting about that is, and I come back to what this pandemic is teaching us and has taught us, and it's we can't be stuck looking in the rear-view mirror. We have to be ahead of the curve and truly make progress on these global crises that we know are coming. Climate change is coming. Climatologists have been telling us the same story for 30 years. We're headed towards a wall. We are staring in the rear-view mirror and we can't afford to do that anymore.
This pandemic is teaching us to be resilient, to adapt more quickly, to change our systems and the way we work. It is teaching us to be more collaborative and more responsive and to listen faster and be attentive to the movements bubbling up from the grassroots and to be able to catalyze that momentum more quickly into direct action that's supported by all layers of government.
The pandemic has taught me that we need to do a better job of that. That's going to take a lot of work and a lot of transformational leadership, which is not the same as organizational leadership.
The chief statistician's report documents that the growth potential is highest in clean electricity, clean-technology goods and services, research and development in this space, construction services, and support.
I have all kinds of examples from my community of entrepreneurs and businesses that are doing great things. A gentleman has started a business that has created, essentially, a battery pack that attaches to your electrical panel. It can be hooked up to a solar panel on your roof. It will store energy to run your entire house and to get you through a blackout period for two to three days. If there was a natural disaster of some kind, you would be able to run your entire household.
I remember back when I was in university in Ottawa, we had the ice storm and it took out all the power lines. We had no power and heat for over a week. It's no big deal compared to what we're living with today, but I remember it was pretty shocking for people to live through. This gentleman and his business have come up with this great solution. It also saves people money because they can run off their battery pack during peak times when there's peak pricing. That's the type of pricing we have in Ontario. I'm not sure about other provinces. It's a really helpful energy retrofit to a home, for example.
There are so many other examples of great work that we can be leveraging. Ontario Tech University is in the riding beside mine, which is in Oshawa. Whitby is beside it. Almost 50% of their student body is from Whitby. I think I got that wrong; I might have overstated that. Anyway, there are a large number in some of their programs. They have partnered with a bunch of organizations to develop a battery cell centre of excellence where Canada can become a leader in developing advanced battery cell technology.
This is a really big thing when you think about what's ahead of us and how we need to electrify almost our entire use of electricity. We have to electrify cars. We have to electrify everything. We need renewable energy to be the source that we use to generate all electricity. That transition is going to take quite some time. I think solutions like the ones I'm talking about are things our government is looking to support.
Going back to the chief statistician's report, 3.2% of GDP overall is a fair amount. It could be more, for sure. Clean electricity makes up 40% of the GDP in the overall sector, so that's good. ECT—I guess it's the term used for this industry—offers 320,000 jobs across Canada. The jobs are relatively high paying and highly skilled. Of those, 92% are full time and 8% are part time. The average annual wage for ECT jobs is almost $75,000, whereas the national average is $53,000. Two-thirds of ECT jobs employ workers with some post-secondary education. Of these jobs, 72% are taken up by men and 28% by women.
I think this is a real problem. It's a problem that again points to the inequities we see. Even in the areas where we've identified growth opportunities, we need to also be looking at how we can further women's equality—and equity for all equity-seeking groups, in fact—to take part in the new green economy, which I'm passionate about building.
Again, I think these opportunities have been well documented. I'm sure the , given the budget and the $17.6 billion that has been dedicated to this in many respects in the current budget.... To speak to those investments, and how the evaluation and re-evaluation of our agenda at the time of prorogation led to all these things, I have to acknowledge that some of this stuff was not entirely new, because our government had committed to many of these things prior to prorogation. But I think there was a lot of re-evaluation that was done and a lot of lines that can be drawn.
I definitely have more to say, but I think I've made my case for the moment in terms of why I think we need to build a sustainable economy, and why I think the amendment I made is more than reasonable, that prorogation was completely rational and justified. The outcome of prorogation was a new agenda, represented by the throne speech, and then built on through successive steps afterwards. I think that is all very consistent with what our government, our House leader and our report that's been tabled in the House and referred to this committee have said. I've tried to justify why I think the could be reinvited to this committee to testify and why that makes sense, given the context and the rationale, as well as the . I think that's rational.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the time you've afforded me. I appreciate being able to make my remarks and my argument, and to back it up with evidence.
I won't apologize for repetition. I did repeat myself a couple of times, but it was purely for emphasis' sake, just to make sure that members, opposition members in particular, don't forget. Repetition is a rhetorical device that's used to emphasize and make sure that human beings, who forget things or sometimes don't listen.... All of us are naturally inclined to occasionally tune out. I think repetition is a good device. It makes things stand out in people's memories.
I hope I didn't repeat myself too much, but I did feel like it was necessary to drive home my argument.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the committee for welcoming me today. This has been a very interesting discussion already.
I want to note my appreciation for MP Turnbull and MP Duncan, whose learned and helpful comments I think are advancing the conversation around this amendment.
I'd like to start from a place that will lead into my comments around the pandemic and prorogation and the importance of this amendment. I want to start with the land recognition for the Algonquin nation on whose territory I sit here in the small town of Chelsea, Quebec.
[Translation]
It's a well-known fact across the country that Parliament, of which the House of Commons is a part, in the National Capital Region, is situated on unceded traditional land of the Algonquin people. Of course, all of us acknowledge the importance of the indigenous peoples, with whom we have a very special relationship. In the context of this pandemic, it's very important for me to greet the Algonquin people and rightly to recognize it, if only because we have learned a great deal from that people during this pandemic.
[English]
When we discuss prorogation as we discuss the amendment brought by MP Turnbull, which contemplates the bringing forward of two exceptionally important witnesses to help the public understand the relevance of a parliamentary reset at this critical juncture of Canadian history, it's important to understand how each of our communities is experiencing this moment.
MP Duncan did a fabulous job, I thought, of bringing the voice of her constituents forward to this committee to help us appreciate the importance of the amendment in relation to our constituents.
I would like to do the same, starting with the experiences I learned from with the Algonquin communities of Kitigan Zibi and Rapid Lake. These communities, along with so many, have been turned upside down and had to fundamentally reconsider what it is to be in a community, to provide security, safety and adequate health services to their people. That is what we're doing across the country. That's what we have been challenged with since day one, on that fateful day the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization back in March 2020.
I think it is germane to the conversation of prorogation and to our government's desire to take a step back, assess the broader needs of the country, be accountable and step forward with a Speech from the Throne that would be reflective of that particular moment.
As we, as members of Parliament, have reflected on our constituents and their experiences, we've had the opportunity to bring this information back to the government. Certainly in the context of the communities of Kitigan Zibi and Rapid Lake, it has been very helpful to our government to understand the distinct experience they have had.
I'd like to underscore how particular it is on many first nations reserves across Canada. It is so particular because quite often the provision of health care services is a partnership between the community, health care professionals and the Government of Canada.
This is certainly the case in the Algonquin communities that I represent—whether it's in relation to the procurement of vaccines and the distribution of vaccines to these communities, whether it's in relation to the procurement and distribution of rapid testing in these communities, whether it's in the procurement and distribution of personal protective equipment. On all of these health care fronts, there have been distinct conversations that have been very challenging at times, because the communities recognize that the danger they face is a distinct one.
There are many elders whose knowledge of the culture and the language and whose health circumstances are so threatened. It doesn't just threaten human individuals and family members, which is tremendously serious, but it literally affects the nation. One can count the number of fluent Algonquin speakers—not on two hands, of course, but they do not number in the thousands, and many of them are older and most vulnerable.
These are the circumstances in which the conversations have come up around what the next steps are, what the needs are, and how we are going to move forward as a nation, as a Canadian nation, as an Algonquin nation. These are the kinds of conversations that have come up.
I have been particularly blessed to have the learning opportunities with my colleagues Chief Whiteduck in Kitigan Zibi and Chief Ratt in Rapid Lake as they have, themselves, struggled and wrestled with the implications of this pandemic.
There have been outbreaks, and those outbreaks have caused great consternation among the members of the nation, far and wide, and in communities that may not have been suffering an outbreak, because there are so many families that are connected in the language tradition, which is so linked.
I think we can all appreciate, as distinct members of Parliament representing different regions, that the lived experience of every Canadian through this pandemic has been one that is unique and distinct. Each one of us has a particular voice that is so important to bring forward, whether in the context of this standing committee or in relation to the government's broader performance.
Therein lies the relevance of the prorogation process, of that reset, that stock-taking—the ability to come together, assess, and project a vision forward that satisfies and maintains the confidence of the Canadian people. That, to my mind, was the fundamental significance and importance of prorogation.
I think the witnesses whom MP Turnbull prioritizes for this motion are altogether the appropriate witnesses. I'm not going to get into the partisan dimensions of it. At the end of the day, this committee is the master of its undertakings. It can determine at a later point if further witnesses may be needed, but I think it would be a great start to hear from the and from . They can shed important light on what was going on in the run-up to prorogation, and certainly we now have the benefit of hindsight. MP Turnbull spoke to this in the latter stages of his commentary. We are all well aware now of the chain of events that started with prorogation and then went through the Speech from the Throne, into late November and a financial update, and then through the budget process, culminating recently in the federal budget.
All of these critical elements ensure that Canadian views are incorporated into a governance plan that makes clear what the government's priorities are and are not, which I think leads Canadians to an appreciation of how their values are or are not being reflected in the government's priorities. I think we saw some very important things in the Speech from the Throne pursuant to that prorogation, which made it very clear that the government did want to take a series of significant steps forward in a series of significant new directions that Canadians needed to understand clearly, that they needed to appreciate and assess in relation to their own priorities.
I know that my constituents in the fabulous and vast riding of Pontiac wanted to have their say. They wanted to convey their preoccupations, because they had lived, as we all had, through six months of pandemic—a lifetime of pandemic, it felt like, at the time—and they wanted to know where our next priorities were.
I can think of no better witnesses than those proposed by MP Turnbull. I look to the Speech from the Throne. I look back with hindsight and I see so many distinct priorities that did require elucidation through that Speech from the Throne to ensure that Canadians were being brought along in understanding where our government was going. For example, I don't take it as a given that every constituent of mine in the Pontiac was aware of our government's priority of reforming the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I don't take that as a given at all. It was important to indicate clearly that this was a direction our government was going to go in.
If I take a further step back, because I would like to return to that theme of clearly identifying to the Canadian public priority areas where our government was going to move forward, I think it's important to recognize that the government was in a situation where there was a pandemic to manage as the number one priority, and everything else was going to be secondary. That's what the Canadian people expected.
The economic challenges associated with the pandemic were to be another top priority—understood—but Canadians such as my constituents in the Pontiac, whether they're from small towns in the upper Pontiac like Chichester, L'Isle-aux-Allumettes and Sheenboro—tiny places, some of them, of 200, 300 or 400 souls—or whether they're in the suburbs of Gatineau, which I also represent, also sought assurances.
They sought assurance from our government, and clarity in direction from our government, around our ability to not fall victim to what Mark Carney referred to as the “tragedy of the horizon”. In my riding, we sometimes like to say it's being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Some people like to text at the same time as they do those two things.
The point is that they wanted to know that we would be able to manage a pandemic and cope with the economic struggles that so many are facing, whether it's small businesses, workers, distinct sectors or family units. They wanted to know that we could cope with the immediate crisis related to health and the economy while still being able to focus on the future and while maintaining our gaze on those issues that are top priorities for the country at any point in time—issues such as climate change. We all know the climate change crisis is not going away. We all know it's real. We all know we need to bring measures forward to deal with it.
The whole purpose of the prorogation process was to ensure that focus, that clarity of direction, and that ability to indicate exactly how we were going to deal with the pandemic. The fundamental approach that the adopted since day one was to stand behind all Canadians and to have their backs. It was also to be able to progress on files of significance that have a relationship with the pandemic but may not be strictly the pandemic and the economic recovery.
To go back to that logical sequencing of prorogation—the Speech from the Throne, the fall economic update, and through to the budget—we now have that hindsight, of course. We can see clearly the purpose of prorogation being to clearly outline these priorities.
MP Turnbull was very kind to point out a passion that he and I share, and that I know so many of us collectively share, around environmental protection. The Speech from the Throne was abundantly clear. In fact, there was an entire section dedicated to the new and stronger directions our government would be taking on a fact-first basis, on an evidence-based basis, to address climate change and to tackle toxic regulation.
[Translation]
I'd like to continue along the same lines and discuss the prorogation issue and its impact because I consider this discussion very important.
One of the impacts of the prorogation was the new plan to address climate change. That plan had been promised in the Speech from the Throne. Late in the fall of 2020, two months later, we delivered the most detailed plan in the history of Canada, one that outlines historic investments and combines industrial policy and economic transformation with environmental protection.
A few days later, we introduced Bill , which is designed to create an accountability framework for the implementation of the federal plan and the objectives to which we have committed internationally.
There followed a budget detailing historic investments and planning by milestone years. There is the net zero accelerator of the strategic innovation fund, but several other things as well. However, now isn't the time to discuss the budget because I don't want to stray from the subject covered by our amendment. What I'm trying to do, however, is demonstrate the unifying theme of Bill , from the prorogation process and Speech from the Throne to the climate change plan and fiscal investments to ensure climate change accountability.
International targets were recently revealed in an announcement that our made together with President Biden. We can see how the prorogation helped clarify the direction in which we as a government want to take Canada. It's essential that we show where we're headed, how we'll get there and through which processes and consultations. All that was revealed thanks to the prorogation.
I think it would be of vital interest for this committee to have an opportunity to hear the observations of the in particular and to ask her questions. The prorogation has obviously helped more clearly shape the direction in which the government would like to take Canada in a pandemic context.
[English]
I appreciate that we are now in a third wave and Canadians are looking to today, looking to tomorrow, and they want to know when they will be able to get back to normal. If they haven't had their first vaccine already, they're looking forward to it. These are the conversations, which are future-oriented, that Canadians want us to have, because they know we prorogued Parliament at the end of the summer so we could reset, get ourselves aligned, project forward our priorities, not fall victim to the tragedy of the horizon, be able to focus on the here and now, on the medium term, the long term, and that's exactly what has happened.
Canadians are now past that moment of the Speech from the Throne. They have absorbed it, and by and large I believe they have appreciated it. Certainly in the riding of Pontiac I've heard some very positive feedback. They have absorbed the fall economic statement. They are aware of how our government has gone through the process of procuring vaccines and distributing them to the provinces, and they are now witnessing before their very eyes the great lift, the massive acceleration. They're optimistic and wanting to focus on the future. I think we're all wanting to focus on the future.
I think that Canadians are also recognizing that the prorogation process ultimately, as MP Duncan so rightly pointed out, is fact-oriented, evidence-driven and, above all, science-focused. I tip my cap to MP Duncan for her incredible leadership, not just during the pandemic but well prior, putting in place the building blocks of scientific institutions in our Canadian governance system that have greatly assisted this government.
We need only look at the significant contributions of our chief science adviser, Dr. Mona Nemer, whose consistent advice, both to the and to the , is there because of MP Duncan's solid work as Minister of Science in our previous mandate.
I take the opportunity to recognize that, as prorogation was being contemplated, our government was in a state of constant review of advice that the chief science adviser was providing, which is ongoing today. Most recently—and this is available for the public and for MPs to review—I would commend to you the March 31 report by the chief science adviser related to scientific considerations for using COVID‑19 vaccination certificates, an important discussion that many of our constituents bring forward. I see correspondence on this issue regularly. This issue has been canvassed by our chief science adviser and by the network of Canadian scientists across so many institutions—academic, research and otherwise—who are bringing forward the best possible evidence and considerations as our government evaluates next steps.
Let's step backwards in time a bit to look at some of the important considerations at a scientific level. These all fit into a context of the importance of stock-taking, pressing pause on parliamentary proceedings and restarting in a timely manner, which was done through prorogation.
Back in September 2020, there was a report—again, available on the chief science adviser's website—on the role of bioaerosols and indoor ventilation in COVID‑19 transmission. We read about these issues in the news now, but we can't be blasé about the fact that so many Canadian experts in the field of bioaerosols and indoor ventilation came together to work with the chief science adviser to deliver pertinent information that has helped our government in the context of the Speech from the Throne, in the context of the measures identified in the fall economic statement and so on, which have helped define the path forward that our government has chosen.
Back in the summer of 2020, the chief science adviser issued a report on long-term care in COVID‑19. It was a report of a special task force that brought forward considerations around the improvement of long-term care. Having been beset by this pandemic for over a year, I think all Canadians will agree that we need our best and brightest non-partisan scientists, researchers, long-term care providers and medical experts. We need them bringing their most clear assessments and their recommended course of action to our government. We needed it then. We received that in the summer of 2020. Through the process of prorogation and subsequent Speech from the Throne, great clarity has been provided in relation to what our government's commitments are to improve care for our most vulnerable seniors.
Prorogation has enabled the consolidation of our best expert thinking and of external scientific expertise being brought to bear in a non-partisan, even-handed way, and of course for discussion with our colleagues and partners at the provincial, territorial, municipal, Métis, first nations and Inuit governance levels.
I think it's fundamentally important that we appreciate what MP Turnbull's amendment is all about. It recognizes that it's a good thing to discuss prorogation. It's a good thing to be accountable to Canadians for decisions related to prorogation and the subsequent pivot into a Speech from the Throne, which was a renewed direction being made clear to all Canadians.
It's so important to appreciate a very appropriate offer of key members of the government's executive— and —to be available. I think it would be a good thing for this committee to move forward on the basis as proposed by MP Turnbull. I think it could help bring us to a place where there is perhaps a greater appreciation of some of the items that were incorporated into the Speech from the Throne. These may not have been part of the public dialogue or the set of issues that were being debated through the spring and summer of 2020, when the focus was just so entirely on COVID and the economic ramifications. I think these witnesses are entirely well positioned to discuss this.
Having regard to the way the Speech from the Throne clearly identified.... I referenced this earlier in my remarks and I do want to allude back to this, because it's a matter of current interest and a matter of personal and Pontiac priority. The Speech from the Throne clearly indicated that our government was going to reform the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is a law that ensures Canadians and their environment are protected from toxic substances. It ensures that such substances are properly regulated and stringently assessed for their impacts on humans and the environment.
This law has not been amended in 20 years. The Speech from the Throne clearly indicated to Canada that this is where our government is going. We are going to improve it. We're going to strengthen it. We're going to have regard for the experts, and we're going to have regard for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which came forward with a committee report in 2017 that incorporated 87 recommendations.
The government said it was moving forward with this, and now here we are, in late April 2021. A couple of short weeks ago, I had the distinct privilege of announcing with the tabling of Bill . It is another instance of our government delivering, in a forthright and very clear fashion, on commitments made in the Speech from the Throne.
Bill would bring toxics regulation in Canada back to the cutting edge, where it needs to be to protect humans. Again, I'll bring up the metaphor of the “tragedy of the horizon”. It's so important that our government demonstrates its vision to look beyond the pandemic and demonstrates to Canadians that we're capable of focusing on matters that ultimately go to our children and grandchildren and to all living organisms in the future. So many toxic substances are persistent and bioaccumulative and have long-term generational impacts.
Bill was tabled just as promised in the Speech from the Throne and just as enabled by prorogation. I'm sure the two witnesses whom MP Turnbull has proposed would be able to comment on the importance of that moment in helping bring us to the tabling of Bill C-28.
[Translation]
Let me see if I've forgotten anything.
In conclusion, I'd like to note that we've included in Bill a very important partial reform of environmental rights in Canada. We propose to add the legal concept that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment. Perhaps my colleagues from Quebec, Mme DeBellefeuille, in particular—I don't know whether she's still here—know that section 46.1 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms grants Quebeckers that same right to a healthful environment. It isn't provided at the federal level, however, and that's a significant deficiency. We've just included it in Bill C‑28.
I know that the citizens of Quebec, more particularly my fellow citizens of Pontiac, Vallée-de-la-Gatineau and Collines-de-l'Outaouais, expect us to guarantee increased environmental protection. They expect us to manage simultaneously the pandemic and resulting economic turmoil, the problems associated with contaminants and climate change and privacy in this digital era. They expect us to be able to juggle these various public policy issues.
And that's what the prorogation has enabled us to do. It has helped us set the record straight and rely once again on various scientific views and evidence that lead us to take action and step up efforts in certain directions. It has enabled us to be accountable to Canadians by telling them where we now stand, what we've done to date and where we're headed.
[English]
I would conclude on a note of appreciation. It's rare to have an opportunity before colleagues to share an understanding of the importance of one particular moment, a moment of prorogation, as a matter of parliamentary procedure. It's rare to have the opportunity to consider a particular moment that of course has important consequences. It stops the business of Parliament and requires a restart.
It's so important to be able to reflect back on that moment and understand the why, and to then be able to shift our focus towards what happened thereafter, why that prorogation was so relevant, and how it enabled where we are now. It's fundamentally important, because where we are now is in a much stronger place, with an economy that is rebounding faster than the vast majority of economists ever expected. We still have work to do. We still have jobs to recover. But month by month, quarter by quarter, the acceleration of our GDP growth is nothing short of remarkable. Don't take my word for it. You just have to listen to the latest pronouncements from the Bank of Canada or any of our major banks.
We're on the right path. We're getting vaccinated. Canadians are optimistic about this summer. They're appreciative of the fact that we laid out a clear path through prorogation and through the Speech from the Throne to deliver on commitments that go beyond health and the economy, to link in matters of environment, to link in matters of indigenous reconciliation, and to link in matters of the transformation of Canadian society towards one that is much more appreciative of the important contributions to our future productivity that bringing in more workers can provide, whether that's through immigration or through a child care plan that can benefit so many people. We have the benefit of hindsight to see what prorogation was all about. It's so much easier to understand why we're in a strong posture now.
Once again, I thank my colleague MP Turnbull for making me feel so welcome, occasionally making me laugh, and making me feel as though we are in this process together. I think we can all recognize that not everyone on this committee is going to share the same views and that we're going to have sharp debates. That is good and appropriate, so long as we all treat each other with common decency and respect, which on occasion has lacked. We know that we are all in this together. Our constituents expect us to work hard together.
Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for their patience.
:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
It's actually my first time speaking at PROC, even though I have attempted several times to speak at this committee. We always happen to adjourn right before my turn, so I'm really excited to share my thoughts on this with you today.
Today we continue to debate an amendment brought forward by my colleague Ryan Turnbull, which I've had the opportunity to take a look at, as well as the original motion on the floor, brought forward by MP Karen Vecchio.
I want to take this opportunity to comment and add my two cents to the discussion at hand, and why I support the amendment. I apologize in advance if I repeat anything that has already been said, as I have not heard everything that has been said before my arrival. Luckily, I did come in time to hear several of my colleagues at the last few meetings. I agree with a lot of what certain of my colleagues have said.
During these unprecedented times, I think it's completely normal and completely expected that the government would have prorogued Parliament last summer. The removal and replacement of a finance minister, the most important role in cabinet, makes it very obvious why we would need to prorogue and why people needed to set their priorities straight for the year ahead, especially during such unprecedented times. I don't see why we're really continuing to talk about this a year later.
To the first point in the amendment, regarding the removal of point (a) from the motion, I do agree that this would be a good move. It seems to me that the has a lot to do and is working hard for Canadians.
[Translation]
The has truly done his best to assist Canadians across the country since the start of this pandemic. It is extremely important that he continue that essential work, and Canadians want him to do so.
[English]
Frankly, rather than living in the past, Canadians wish to know that the and the government in general are working for them during this time of crisis.
The number of cases in Canada is at an all-time high in some provinces, such as Ontario. It just seems to me that the is probably quite occupied with helping us survive this pandemic and seeing how our government could further help Canadians and their businesses during this time of uncertainty.
I really don't see how requesting his presence for a minimum of three hours, as the original motion proposes, to discuss why Parliament was prorogued a year ago, would be an overall benefit to Canadians. As I mentioned at the beginning, it's obvious, and it should be an obvious enough point. Once again, the needed time to set her priorities for the year ahead, and that's pretty understandable.
As for the removal of point (e) from the motion, I agree with that as well, with regard to the production of records—as stated in the motion, “of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, since June 2020”. In general, I just don't think this is a path that we should want to go down. There's a reason why the Access to Information Act has certain exclusions and exemptions, as it strikes the balance between the citizens' right know and the need to protect certain information in the public interest.
With regard to cabinet confidences, in order to make important decisions on government policy, ministers meet to exchange views and opinions on policy matters in order to come to a consensus. This decision-making process has an impact on all legislation, including the legislation that has been adopted at a quicker pace, luckily, during this pandemic to bring help to Canadians when they needed it most. For this decision-making process to be fully effective, it is important for cabinet ministers to be able to have full and frank discussions and exchanges among themselves and, of course, to have the assurance that these exchanges will be protected. The privacy of these deliberations is protected by the privilege associated with cabinet confidences.
When ministers are sworn into office, once they've been appointed, they take the privy councillor's oath, which requires them to maintain secrecy of the matters they discuss in council, and I think this indicates just how important these cabinet confidences are.
The Supreme Court of Canada referred to cabinet confidentiality as “essential to good government” and to the inner workings of government:
The process of democratic governance works best when Cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.
While I understand that in politics sometimes people choose to play games and sometimes they choose to find creative ways to make opposing parties look bad, when it comes to matters as important as this, matters that affect the way government is run—especially at a time when the government has done its absolute best, I would argue, to support Canadians through COVID-19—it seems to me to be completely irresponsible. It just seems that by asking to produce documents that are protected by cabinet confidentiality, that should be protected by this confidentiality.... We have to make the public aware of what the implications of this could be for our country.
Again, our system of democracy depends on electoral, parliamentary and decision-making processes in which political parties and political considerations play a vital role, and these processes require confidentiality in order to function effectively and fairly.
On a completely separate note, in relation to the removal of points (f), (g) and (h), with regard to WE, I have spoken about this on different committees, because obviously at different points this year similar motions have been moved in different committees. It's something that I want to repeat, because it's really important to me in particular.
WE is an organization that I knew as a high school teacher before coming to Parliament. I personally know students who have benefited directly from activities organized by WE. What WE has recently gone through because of politics is completely unfortunate. They really do great work and they've helped thousands of students over many years get really great experience that would prepare them better for their future. At a time when young people are making such a huge sacrifice to help us get out of this pandemic more safely, a pandemic we're still very much in the middle of, they need our support, our help. They need programs to help get them out of the house and into the workforce and into new opportunities that will allow them to grow.
So many of my constituents have told me how difficult it has been to keep their teens at home recently. While schools are open, they're not open for everyone every day. There are often closures of classrooms due to outbreaks within a class or within a school.
Students who have just begun their university experience are doing it from home. I'm sure everyone on this call remembers what university was like for them, what their university years were like, and that they were life-changing. I met most of the friends I have today at university, yet these kids, depending on their age, may never have that opportunity. They'll possibly never get to experience that and they're taking classes online. They're building friendships behind a screen, if they even have the opportunity to do so. Their lives have been significantly disrupted in so many ways, yet we're making this a political issue.
For teenagers, and I'm speaking to this again because I was a high school teacher, the restrictions we're facing have meant months and months—we're past the year mark—of virtual learning, more time isolated from their friends, the cancelling of important school activities.
[Translation]
Extracurricular activities everywhere have been cancelled. Students are following strict rules at school as a result of the pandemic. Even if they go to school every other day—if it's not shut down as a result of the pandemic—they can't enjoy themselves the way they used to. It's a very different life. They're afraid. Most of the students who are trying to obey the rules the government has set are afraid to be at school, but they're there. They're living in fear.
[English]
They are literally living in fear because of this pandemic. They are afraid of getting out of the house. At home, what do we talk about? The only thing we talk about is COVID-19 and how many cases there are and whether or not there are outbreaks in the school. These kids have had their lives changed from one day to the next, and these are extremely important years for them. They're developmental years. This has left them so much more susceptible to declines in psychological health.
The government tried to do a good thing. It wanted to partner with a very well-established organization that was ready to give thousands of Canadian youth leadership opportunities that were so very needed at this time. I was very saddened to see what WE Charity went through for political reasons, sad for a great organization, sad for the young people who didn't get to take advantage of an amazing program.
That's why, more recently, I was so happy about the companies and organizations in my riding that luckily this summer will be able to hire so many students and young people through the Canada summer jobs program, so at least there is a silver lining in some areas. We have some other great plans for youth in the coming year, thanks to budget 2021, so things are starting to look up.
Committees have already seen the , the founders of WE, and pretty much everyone else who's listed in the original motion put forward by MP Vecchio. I don't really see how we would have any value added from a meeting like this or from a study like this.
My colleague Ryan Turnbull has come up with a great amendment that would still allow for some of the questions in the motion to be answered. I can live with that. Again, I don't think it's necessary to talk about the same thing over and over again. I think Canadians definitely want us to be focused on things that are more important, on moving forward on the programs we're going to continue to offer them to help them get past this.
Literally zero of my constituents have reached out to tell me that this is what they want the to spend his time doing right now, talking about last year's prorogation—not a single one of them. What Canadians across this country want to know is that our government is there for them during this pandemic and that we will help them get through it, whether we're talking about supports to businesses, help getting back into the job market if they aren't already, financial support when they fall sick or when they need to quarantine because they've come in contact with people who have tested positive for COVID-19, or getting access to vaccines so they can finally get back to their lives. The one thing everybody wants right now is to get back to normal. Rehashing something from last year just isn't really moving in that direction.
Again, I think most Canadians understood why we prorogued. Even when we prorogued last summer, not one person out there complained to me that we had prorogued. They were very understanding of the fact that it was necessary at the time in order for to be able to properly plan, with the and cabinet, to see what the priorities were going forward and what types of extra supports they could give to Canadians during this unprecedented pandemic. This is an unprecedented time we've never had to experience in the past, at least not in my generation and not in the generation of most of the people on this call. Canadians want to know we're there for them.
Getting access to vaccines is top of mind right now. I know in Quebec that's the number one thing people are speaking to me about when I make calls during days when I call my constituents. That is the main thing they're concerned about. Today it was announced that people in my age bracket will finally be getting access to vaccines in early May, so I'm really happy about that, and all adults will be able to get vaccinated, at least in Quebec. I don't know how it's going in the rest of the provinces.
I think these are the things that Canadians want us to focus on, and finding out whether or not we're going to be able to supply our own vaccines in the coming year. We've obviously invested a lot of money in our budget 2021 to be able to do biomanufacturing here in Canada. I think those are the most important issues right now. That is what they want the and the government to be focused on.
I don't know how many times I can say it, but I really support my colleague MP Turnbull's amendment to the original motion. If it were up to me, not even that would be done, because I think this committee could be utilizing its time a lot better than talking about this motion and doing this type of study. I think we definitely have a lot more important things that we could be discussing at a time like this.
I just wanted to add my two cents to this discussion. I thank you all for allowing me to speak today.
I may be back; we don't know. Your speeches may inspire me to come back and maybe add more. Thank you.
It's a pleasure to be back on PROC. I certainly want to thank MP Lambropoulos for her wonderful input and speech. It was uplifting and very thought-provoking. Also, MP Amos, that was a wonderful speech. I don't know if MP Amos is still here. Prior to that, obviously, was my good friend and rookie MP, MP Turnbull. It's great to have him back. His speech was fantastic. His hair looks good. He's on point. As always, it was a very thought-provoking, sincere speech.
We're here again. We're talking about many things, obviously. We're talking about prorogation. We're certainly talking about MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion. For those tuning in this afternoon and listening with great interest to what their parliamentarians are doing, I've just pulled up a few articles here. I just want to go back a bit:
A prorogation of Parliament suspends all parliamentary activity, including all legislation and committee work. This clears the way for a new session of Parliament and a relaunch of an agenda that can only begin with a new speech from the throne.
This clearly has happened.
I think this is probably my fourth or fifth time speaking on PROC. Just let me throw it out there for all of us to consider. The Conservative Party wants us to study prorogation, and that's fair, but just let me quote.... I have a lot to say here. MP Vecchio's motion called for the to come.
Let me quote this:
We are proroguing Parliament to bring it back on exactly the same week it was supposed to come back anyway, and force a confidence vote. We are taking a moment to recognize that the throne speech we delivered eight months ago had no mention of COVID-19, had no conception of the reality we find ourselves in right now.
Who would have thought?
It continues:
We need to reset the approach of this government for a recovery to build back better. And those are big, important decisions and we need to present that to Parliament and gain the confidence of Parliament to move forward on this ambitious plan. The prorogation we are doing right now is about gaining or testing the confidence of the House.
Who said that? Whose quotes were those? Those quotes were from the . That's what the Prime Minister said.
The Conservative party wants to call in the and ask him about prorogation, yet the Prime Minister has already talked publicly about prorogation. He has already answered why we prorogated and why we needed to move forward. We've heard from the .
As I said the last time I spoke, I don't understand what anybody thinks they will get from the , other than what he has already stated. We've heard from the Prime Minister. We've heard from the , who testified right here before committee after tabling a comprehensive report. Those who are looking and saying that government hasn't been responsive and isn't accountable.... That is absolutely not true.
If we had a situation where, as in previous governments that came before 2015, there was a deliberate ducking of the question and avoiding the press, that's fair fodder. That's different. The has already stated why he wanted to prorogue.
Let me compare it to this, for those who say that he shouldn't have prorogued, shouldn't have reset, didn't need to reboot and what have you. Let me bring this to terms that I'm familiar with and that I can deal with.
A typical Quebec Major Junior Hockey League season is 68 games. It used to be 70 games. I actually voted against cutting it back to 68; I wanted that extra home game. Anyway, it's 68 games. Let's just look at the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, the OHL or the WHL. These are the three leagues that make up the CHL, as we all know, to compete for the Memorial Cup, which very sadly has been cancelled this year. Who would think that for two years straight now we wouldn't have a Memorial Cup? We did win it in 2011, as I'm sure you would remember me saying.
However, I'll go back to my point on prorogation. Obviously, you wouldn't call it that in hockey or other sports, but that's what happened in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. That's what happened in the OHL. They didn't continue on as normal. They didn't just say that since they have a 68-game schedule, they're just going to continue to play and not address, change or reboot. No. They prorogued, in hockey terms. They stepped back. They did a reset. They reorganized.
They didn't think they'd be dealing with COVID-19. I'm sure if you interviewed the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League commissioner, Gilles Courteau—he's actually a friend of mine—he would say that when we started the season of 2019-20, nobody knew about COVID. Nobody was dealing with COVID or a pandemic. Nobody understood what it was.
Sure, you can be oblivious. I think it's irresponsible to continue on as if everything is normal and just do what you need to do and ignore the fact that things have changed.
Things did change, and our league did have to reset. That was a responsible thing to do. They reset. They got a new mandate from the owners of the league. They rejigged the schedule, which has unfortunately been rejigged about 20 times now, but that's what they had to do, and they did it.
Again, I go back to this—what would you call it?—amazement by the other side that we needed to prorogue. I'll get to this after, but I'll compare different instances of prorogation in parliaments back over many, many years and how some were obviously okay at that point, but when we did it in the middle of what I'd call one of the greatest health challenges—one of the greatest challenges our country has ever had, full stop—we need to study it.
I was going through my notes last night and that's when it hit me. What hit me was that the did comment. He did give his reasons for prorogation. As I've asked before, with the greatest respect of course, does anybody really think they're going to get any answers different from what the Prime Minister has already given? No, of course they're not. I can state that clearly for him. He's already stated it. Now, he could say the same thing, but we already know what he said.
The fact that we needed a new mandate, a new throne speech, the fact that we as parliamentarians, as a government, all of us, needed to step back.... None of us knew. Yes, I know I've talked about this before, but none of us were prepared for what we were going to be faced with when we came back to our constituency offices in March 2020—it seems longer than that right now. None of us knew. None of us knew the crisis that all of us, as political leaders in our constituencies, would be facing and would need to be there about.
None of us knew what CERB was—or CEBA, or the Canada recovery benefit and all those benefits that we would have to produce. Again, I apologize for always trying to compare it to the Major Junior Hockey League or my days in salmon aquaculture, but what happened in businesses, leagues and industries across this world was that they had to step back. They had to reassess. They had to sit around tables and say, “Look, we've been dealt something that we didn't expect. How do we plan for this?” How do we come forward with benefits? How do we, as a government, make sure that we have Canadians' backs?
To me, that was a responsible thing for us to do, for every one of us.
Look, we all know how challenging it's been, and we all know how difficult it's been. We all know how tired all of us are—physically, mentally, emotionally—but we needed to prepare and we needed to be ready to respond to Canadians' needs, and we have done it. We're not done yet, but you know what, we have been there for Canadians. When we talk about prorogation and we talk about.... Obviously, all of us, where we are right now.... The fact is that the has already spoken. The fact is that has already testified.
I want to go back to my friend MP Turnbull's amendment. I will not torture anybody by reading MP Vecchio's motion; we all know very well what it was. It was certainly detailed. I'll say that, it was detailed. It certainly had a lot of people invited, production of records and communications, and of course WE was in there, coincidentally. We had to get WE Charity in there to make sure we got another pot—we get the pot, we stir the pot and we throw WE in there, we throw some prorogation in there, we throw some bad government in there and we stir that pot around and hope that we can brew something that's going to be controversial, or something that's going to grab Canadians' interest. No.
It's almost a running joke now outside my office. I'm outside and I have my mask on, of course. I'm safe and I'm socially distanced. I'm out there with my book. I have some notes, and constituents are walking back and forth in the mall. We have a wonderful mall here, Market Square. MP Vecchio has been here, and MP Petitpas Taylor has been here. MP Morrissey has his hands up like he's been here. If you were here, I wasn't here, so maybe you were moonlighting as the Saint John—Rothesay MP. It's great to see my friend Bobby Morrissey, whom I have so much respect for over there in Prince Edward Island. With all those rock star MPs over there, it's like Mount Rushmore. I always look at Prince Edward Island as the Mount Rushmore of MPs. There's , who has been an MP since about 1925, and you have , and Bobby Morrissey. I tell you, you have some depth there, man. It's crazy.
Because I want to keep on topic here, I'll go back to MP Turnbull's amendment. I think he did the right thing. He spent time on it. I know he's very collaborative, and he works across the aisle. He's not partisan. He's an MP who, number one, loves his constituents, loves his riding. You can see it in how he operates. We certainly missed him for a week there when he was a little under the weather. It's good to see he has some colour in his face. My screen on the computer probably isn't high-definition, but you're certainly not that pasty grey that you were earlier in the week. You have a little bit of colour, my friend. Your hair is good. That's a good sign.
All that being said, the amendment to the motion.... I can tell that our chair is looking at me saying, “Stay on point.” I am going to stay on point, Chair. I'm going to keep it relevant. I want to talk about MP Turnbull's amendment. It's a very fair amendment. I know he did a lot of work on it.
We're renewing invitations to the , and the . We renewed invitations issued to Bill Morneau, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger. There's a lot there. This is not trying to sweep something—which, by the way, doesn't exist—under the carpet. It's there. If you got the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, , I can't think of anybody who would have more answers and a higher profile than MP Freeland. But no, obviously, that's not going to work. I know MP Turnbull is disappointed. I think we're all disappointed.
I go back to this. When I did my poll this morning—quickly, but there's a lot of traffic out there going back and forth to Tim Hortons—I was grabbing people and saying, “Look, real quick, give me the top 10 priorities you want me to work on. What are the top 10 things you're concerned about? Give me the top 10 things you like about our government, or you don't like about our government.” I want to hear it all, always.
That's what good members of Parliament should do. They should work with and get feedback from their constituents. They should be open to listening to their constituents. I got a lot of good feedback. Keeping it honest, some I didn't want to hear. You know what? Any feedback is good feedback, because we can all learn from that. We can all be better. I try to be better every day. You know the old adage, that to stand still is to go backwards. You always need to be evolving, moving forward and challenging yourself. The status quo doesn't work for me, ever. We need to always try to continuously improve ourselves and those around us. You always have to try.
I got the feedback. Some people talked and were very thankful that we extended the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy, the recovery benefit and the sick days benefits. These are benefits that Canadians need at this time. There wasn't one comment—again, this is the fifth time I've done this—about prorogation or PROC. I'll be honest, as I always try to be. I don't think I've had one call in my office, ever, about why we prorogued. If I did, we would explain why and somebody would say, “Oh, well, that makes sense to me.”
I go back and I appeal to members of the committee. I think I'm just talking to my Liberal friends right now, but it's not an issue that Canadians are seized with. It's not an issue, to be blunt, that Canadians really care about. As I said to all of you before, while looking at a lot of still pictures here, a lot of freeze-frames.... I'll tell you a story about the freeze-frames here in a second, but that's what disappoints me. Canadians want us seized with, dealing with, business that Canadians want us dealing with, and that is being good representatives, leading good government, being responsive, advocating for our constituents and getting more vaccines.
In this riding, we are very fortunate. It's a wonderful riding, but we all see even things like vaccine hesitancy and false stories spread. All of us political leaders need to show, by leadership, that vaccines are safe and that vaccines will help us win this battle. I was thrilled to see the Leader of the Opposition get his vaccine and the leader of the NDP get his vaccine. I can't say whether the leaders of the Green Party and the Bloc have received their vaccine—maybe they have and I just haven't seen that—but that's what we need to do. These are the things we need to be doing as members of Parliament. We need to be leading. We need to be calming fears. We need to be there when constituents need us, whether it's programs, benefits or fighting for them. These are the things we need.
Just to cap that off about my informal poll, again, I ran 0% interest about PROC and prorogation and those things. People want to know what we are doing as a government. People want to know what we're working on.
I think all of us, every single one of us on this committee, can be very proud of budget 2021. I think that budget is a budget that will transform our country. We have made strategic commitments that will change the face of Canada for the better.
The fact is that in Saint John, the average cost of day care is, give or take, $500 to $600 per child, and the fact is that we have made a commitment to reduce the cost of child care by 50% in 2022 and then strive for $10-per-day day care by 2026. That is transformational. I don't think I'm wrong in saying—although I was corrected and I was a little hesitant—that this is going to help so many women get back into the workforce. But it's not only women; it's caregivers, men, parents, whoever. We certainly see in New Brunswick that we're desperate for people to enter our workforce. We are desperate.
The fact that a child care program can make it easier for caregivers—moms, dads, whoever is looking after children—to get back into the workforce is significant for us. I heard that upwards of 40,000 people in New Brunswick alone could re-enter the workforce because of our child care program, because so many people just can't afford to go to work because of the cost of child care.
Obviously, my constituents want us advocating for the delivery of things like child care, which was in the budget, or the 10% raise for seniors over 74 years of age, the most vulnerable seniors. Let's be very clear, these are the most vulnerable seniors, who have the highest costs because of health care, because of extra care. They're the seniors who are the most vulnerable. That was in our platform. We ran on this in our election. That shouldn't be any surprise to anybody. That was in the platform. I say that to people. I campaigned on that. Other commitments, as I said before, are the top-up of the trade corridor funding and the top-up of the rapid housing initiative.
Another item in the budget that I think has totally flown under the radar is the help for students. I had a meeting this week with student executives from my old university, UNBSJ, the University of New Brunswick Saint John, of which I was the student union vice-president, where I got my first taste for politics. I met with the student executive of the university. We talked about our changes to student loan repayment. There are sensational changes.
Very quickly, then, I'm going to get back to MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion.
The fact that we raised the repayable loan from $25,000 to $40,000, the fact that we reduced the maximum payment from 20% of income to 10%.... If you made $50,000, that would reduce your monthly payment from $486 to $90, give or take. Think about that. Think about those changes. Students are thrilled with those changes. They're unbelievable. We've doubled the student grants—from $2,000 to $3,000 initially, and now from $3,000 to $6,000. These are unbelievable changes. I know that CASA, the student alliance, is thrilled with those changes. I told the student executive that's why they lobby. That's why they have Hill days, why they lobby MPs.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for allowing us to have a short bio break. It has been a long afternoon, as was last night. I think we're probably all feeling a bit of the late night vote we had. Getting up at three o'clock in the morning is not always my favourite thing, but having done a lot of on-call work in my career, I'm lucky I'm able to get back to sleep, so that's a good thing.
Again, we are back here debating the motion of my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull.
Ryan, we're so happy to see you in good form. Everyone's commenting on your hair today. Your hair always looks fine, but anyway, it makes me laugh that everyone has commented on that today.
I also want to take a moment to thank my good friend and colleague Dr. Duncan for her really thoughtful remarks today.
Kirsty, every time you speak at PROC, you educate us. I know you work really hard in all of your speeches that you prepare, and you stay up late at night in doing that, because you truly care about your folks in Etobicoke, and you believe in the science. This is your area of expertise, and when you speak, I truly believe we all need to listen. As the government, as parliamentarians, we are really better because of the contributions that you make, so I really want to take a moment and say thank you.
On that note as well, I would be remiss if I did not give you a shout-out on your motion 38 that you're putting together hoping for a standing committee on science. I think it's fantastic, and again, a continuation of the work you do. We're so proud of you, so thank you for that.
I also want to thank you, Ryan, for your thoughtful comments again today as always. Again, there's a lot of passion, and we really appreciate all the work you do. You may be a new parliamentarian, but you're an old soul, I have to say. You certainly contribute a tremendous amount to our committee.
Will, our friend and colleague, is gone, but, again, it was really great to get Will's perspective as well. I should probably call him MP Amos, but we're amongst family and friends here. He gave some really great comments.
Emmanuella, finally you had a chance to speak today. You have been with us on several occasions and we seem to always be cutting you off, so thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.
Finally, last but not least, is MP Long. Wayne always has an awful lot to say, and we always appreciate his sharing his thoughts and also speaking about—not the Wild Cats—the Sea Dogs. I better get that straight. He will be quite offended if I don't get it right.
Over the weekend I was thinking about this whole debate we have been having over the past several weeks now. Perhaps some of it sounds a bit redundant or a bit of a refresh, but when I was thinking over the weekend.... It's funny how I wrote something that my friend and colleague Ryan said today about the willingness to be influenced when we have a debate.
I wrote that down today when you said that, Ryan. I thought to myself that you were absolutely right, because this weekend, when I was reflecting on the motion before us.... For those of you who have been at committee for some time, you have heard my comments indicating that I was really prepared to go straight to writing the report.
If we look at the witnesses—and there are many new members with us today—in preparation of this prorogation study, we have heard from a number of witnesses who have appeared before PROC. We heard from many academics. We also heard from parliamentarians like and also staff from the Privy Council. With the thorough and thoughtful comments they made, I was really of the position that I thought we were prepared to go straight to writing the report. But, again, Ryan has brought forward an amendment, and, again, trying to be the mediator....
I always consider Ryan to be a bit of the mediator amongst us, always trying to find a spot for us to be able to agree upon. I started thinking over the weekend, though, yes, I conceded that I would agree with Ryan's amendment, but this weekend it dawned on me, and I don't know why I knew this, but it dawned on me that is not only the Deputy Prime Minister, but she is the first female Deputy Prime Minister, I think, in Canada. She's certainly the first female finance minister, but even more importantly, why I think that Minister Freeland should be called before our committee is that she chaired the cabinet committee on COVID for a number of months, so who better than Minister Freeland to appear before our committee to really talk about the issue as to why government prorogued?
Ryan, to your point when you talk about the willingness to be influenced during debates, you know what I mean, to really challenge our thoughts, I think, more than ever, I absolutely agree with. Not only did you have to coax me, but now I say, yes, we absolutely need to have appear here, because in actual fact, I truly believe that she'll be able to contribute an awful lot to this discussion. Again, she's the second in command, if you will, but more importantly, she chaired the cabinet committee on COVID. Over the past year and a half we know that our government has really been seized with this.
This morning, I have to share with you, I was speaking to one of my former colleagues who worked with me when I was in the health department. He called me regarding something. He had a baby a year and two months ago. I was asking him how his baby was, and he was telling me how she's growing up, but he shared with me something today that is relevant to this. He shared with me today that his daughter, at this point in time, is starting to talk a bit. What is she doing when she's playing with her dolls right now? She's taking a thermometer and checking the temperature of the doll's forehead, because when she goes to day care every day, that is what they do.
If we stop and think, just a year and a half ago, we would have never thought that our children would be playing with their dolls and putting a thermometer on their forehead to check their temperature. I just mention that short story, because when he said that it really made me reflect on how life has truly changed in the past year.
Again, when we look at the relevance as to why we're talking about the issue of prorogation and why that.... Again, I truly feel that we've done a great study, but we know we certainly can add the and also . I guess I'm still stuck with the point that I know that many of our opposition colleagues have already prejudged the study. They've already made their points of view known. Even yesterday and over the past week or two I've been fortunate that I've had a lot of House duty, a lot of long hours in the House, and I've been able to listen to many debates.
Again, I'm hearing time and time again members of the opposition talking about the WE issue and making the link between that and prorogation. Again, I just feel it's a bit of a fishing expedition, and I truly believe that with the work we've done so far ,we are prepared to move on.
With that being said, I think that we also have to recognize that when we look at the realities of when we entered an election campaign in 2019 and when we came up with our throne speech, that was the reality of the time, and that was pre-pandemic. None of us anticipated that we would be dealing with this situation. We've been dealing with it over the past year and a few months, but, let's be frank, we know this pandemic is going to be with us for many more months to come, and we are going to have many challenges ahead for months, if not years.
Now, if last August was not the time to prorogue and to do a reshift and a reassessment or retooling, if you will, I really don't know, again, what would justify proroguing Parliament. When I hear my colleagues.... I'm going to quote the when he said last year, “What purpose did...prorogation serve? It was used as a diversionary tactic, because the government was in a conflict of interest with WE Charity.” Another member, that same month, the indicated, “The main reason for the prorogation was to put a lid on the WE scandal.”
If I truly felt that our colleagues were looking for more information with respect to why we prorogued, and if we really want to get the reasons for prorogation—the true reasons—I think we would have to look at having someone like come to the table to share her knowledge with respect to all of the work that was done during the pandemic months and what we needed to do to move on. She's probably even better positioned to do so, because she was the captain of the ship, if you will, in many ways when it came to the COVID cabinet committee. I think she would have a lot to share with us.
[Translation]
Now I'm going to make a few comments in French.
We've heard many comments from our fellow citizens about the priorities the government established and included in the 2019 Speech from the Throne.
I'm going to speak in French now. I have a few more comments to make.
Let's talk about the priorities the government outlined in its 2019 Speech from the Throne. We really were inspired by what our fellow citizens had told us and established many themes for the Speech from the Throne. They included the themes that we had campaigned on but also the important ones our fellow citizens hoped we would address.
In my riding, the fight against climate change was a major issue. My fellow citizens are clearly very concerned about the situation and it's a priority for them.
The other theme we heard a lot about was the need to support the middle class and to help people who are trying to join it. We talked a lot about that.
We also talked about the path to reconciliation with indigenous peoples as well as the health and safety of all Canadians. It was an absolute priority for me as a former health minister to ensure that good programs were in place and that Canadians would have access to health services.
We also wanted to ensure that Canada had a good international image, and we campaigned on that theme.
These were all absolute priorities in 2019, but the situation quickly changed in 2020, as we all know. We all remember Friday, March 13, 2020, when we had to leave Ottawa. We flew home and many of us haven't been back to the capital since then. I was fortunate to be able to attend meetings in person for four weeks. Since my province was shut down, I had to self-isolate for two weeks before I could get back to my family. I was only able to be in Ottawa for four weeks.
As my colleagues mentioned, upon our return, we really had to make sure we met our fellow citizens' needs. We asked them to stay at home, practise social distancing and comply with public health measures. We asked them to do that and we also made sure we provided them with the necessary resources to pay their bills, feed themselves, pay their rent and so on.
The government and members of all the parties worked hard. I clearly remember receiving two or three calls a day from our colleagues. We discussed various issues. Sometimes we conducted a critical examination. We really wanted to ask the right questions so we could develop appropriate social policies. Members from the opposition parties asked appropriate questions. Lastly, we developed good policies. They may not have been perfect, but they were good.
I'm not going to review all the themes that were addressed in the 2019 Speech from the Throne, but, generally speaking, we did it all. Then the pandemic hit and we had to address all the related issues. We obviously didn't have the magic formula for managing a pandemic, but together we were able to do our best.
Then the pandemic hit again in August 2020. Many programs had been proposed and we had to continue putting assistance in place for Canadians. Since Parliament was prorogued at that time, the was available and we asked her why the government had prorogued the session.
Personally, I think it was the right time to do it. If you think back to the situation in August 2020, COVID‑19 cases were starting to decline. We knew that a third wave might be imminent. We were starting to develop vaccines and there was some light at the end of the tunnel, although we knew there was still a lot of work to do to help and support Canadians.
I think it was the right time to prorogue Parliament. We subsequently consulted Canadians and asked them what they thought we should do. We also reset our 2019 agenda since it didn't reflect the reality of 2020‑2021. So the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament.
I think all the members at today's meeting have spoken with people in their communities, with young people, and have conducted consultations. The Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe Youth Council in my riding meets every month. When I met with them during that period, we discussed what we should add to our new throne speech. I have to say that the young people in my riding are more politicized than others elsewhere, but they didn't know what a throne speech was. It was a great opportunity to explain to them what it was and to ask them what they thought we should do and what we should add to it.
I make telephone calls to my constituents every month—as I imagine many of my colleagues do—to ask them what their priorities are. In 2019, we heard a lot about their priorities. I really think the 2019 Speech from the Throne actually reflected what we had been told and what I'd heard from the citizens of Acadie and New Brunswick. They thought we should continue focusing on pandemic-related priorities and post-pandemic preparation. In the end, that's exactly what we did.
I've heard some colleagues say the Speech from the Throne wasn't ambitious enough. On the contrary, I personally thought it was very ambitious. It's a grand roadmap indicating where we stand right now and what we should do to help Canadians.
Providing assistance to Canadians during the pandemic was a central focus of the Speech from the Throne; it was the key message. We wanted to ensure that Canadians knew we were there for them for the short and long hauls. I feel the throne speech clearly outlined that plan.
I'm not going to talk about the budget that we introduced a few weeks ago, but I will say this: there was a subtle difference between the Speech from the Throne, or roadmap, and the budget. What we were going to do in an attempt to help Canadians was very clear: we wanted to help Canadians get through the tough times.
We introduced many economic programs for Canadians. I know that the citizens of my beautiful region, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, wanted the government to be there for them and to continue working for them.
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe is the best riding in Canada, but I'm sure all members think the same of their constituencies.
[English]
To give a break to my anglophone colleagues, I'm going to speak in French and English today. I'm also trying to speak slower for interpretation because I know that sometimes when I get going I can speak very quickly.
Madam Chair, I hope I'm doing better today on that note.
:
Once again, Madam Chair, I think we all have different points of view with respect to why we prorogued. I clearly believe that the reason for prorogation was that we were in the midst of what we hope is a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. The issue for prorogation was really to look at not just programs, but the priorities of Canadians during this time.
As I have indicated, if we look at the priorities of 2019 and 2020, and if you ask my constituents, they were really different. Some of them were similar, but some of them were different in protecting the health and safety of Canadians, making sure that Canadians stayed home, encouraging them to protect themselves and protect others.
We had to be there for them. When I say “we”, I mean all of my colleagues, because we all had a role to play in putting together these programs.
I absolutely appreciate Ms. Vecchio's point, and I absolutely do want to stay on topic. I will continue to stick to the points I want to raise with in order to ensure that we can get these questions answered, because I truly believe this was a big part as to why we prorogued Parliament at that time.
There are some other programs that I would like to ask her about. Again, some programs were elaborated during prorogation. There was the whole issue of wage subsidies. Many people in our riding still continue to benefit from those types of programs at this point in time. In my little province of New Brunswick, we have a whole lot of people that have applied for that program. We have been very fortunate that many of our establishments have been able to benefit from it, so I would have some questions with respect to that, as well.
The whole issue of rent subsidy support during the lockdown would also be an area that we should explore with her. We could get a sense as to why the government moved forward and continued with that.
The list continues with respect to the programs. I'm not going to continue to harp on that, but someone indicated that repetition sometimes can be helpful. Sometimes we need to make the point that these programs were put in place.
A reset was needed because of the pandemic. The only way we could really get that reset was to make sure we prorogued, that we consulted Canadians, that we consulted folks on the ground, and from there we could come up with the priorities.
[Translation]
It has also been said that the opposition parties felt our new throne speech perhaps wasn't ambitious enough. However, I would say that our Speech from the Throne was very ambitious since our absolute priority is still to be there for all Canadians.
I'd like to make a comment. As I noted earlier, we want to invite Ms. Freeland because she's the Minister of Finance as well as the country's Deputy Prime Minister. She plays a very important role and I'm certain the Prime Minister consulted her to determine recovery priorities during and after the pandemic.
I'll make sure I speak slowly. When I speak in French, I tend to do it very quickly. I'll do my best for the interpreters.
Earlier I mentioned that Minister Freeland chaired the cabinet committee responsible for the federal response to the coronavirus disease, or COVID‑19. In all the work that was done over months, Minister Freeland really played a central role in all decisions. I'm very grateful to her for that and I think she could provide us with a lot of information on the subject.
Canada has constantly adapted its response based on new scientific data since the start of the pandemic. The sole purpose of all the government's decisions is to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.
Canada is literally being hit by this third wave right now. All members of the committee discussed the potential third wave, but we're all somewhat surprised by its scope.
Like many other countries, we've had trouble maintaining public health measures due to concerns about economic and social consequences.
Once again, we're telling people to stay at home, and I know that people are concerned about the economic aspect, their businesses and our economy in general.
Once again, we want to be there to protect them and the only way to protect ourselves is to follow public health guidelines while we wait for our vaccine.
As in many other countries, the number of cases in certain provinces has risen with the relaxing of certain public health measures and the arrival of the new variants.
Once again, even here in Atlantic Canada, we've done a very good job of managing the pandemic to date, but we can see that we too are beginning to have concerns in Nova Scotia and even New Brunswick. We're starting to see a gradual rise in the number of cases. We really have to do everything we can to protect ourselves.
Increasing case numbers have obviously led to rising hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care. Even more worrisome, hospitalization rates reflect not only seniors, but also young people and very young children who are winding up in hospital, and the health systems of certain provinces have now reached capacity as a result.
It's therefore more important than ever—and I want to emphasize this—that we minimize the spread of the virus in order to lower the infection rate as far as possible.
Once again, I come back to because she chaired that committee, and I think she could really explain the processes that have been put in place to ensure we're there to protect Canadians during the second wave and the third wave as well. We hope there won't be a fourth wave, but that could happen too.
We all know what has to be done to protect the public. The variants haven't changed the actions we take to stop the spread of the virus. Despite daily increases in the number of people vaccinated, we must continue protecting each other even as we see the light at the end of the tunnel. As I said, it's truly motivating to see that part of the population has been vaccinated, but we still have a long way to go to reach the percentage where we're all protected.
We can all sense that the end of the pandemic is approaching. That's why we have to put appropriate measures in place so we can make it safely through this crisis. We have to do it all together. The number of young adults who are infected with COVID‑19 and must be hospitalized or sent to intensive care is constantly rising, and that reminds us that, regardless of age, we can all catch COVID‑19 and develop serious illness.
I'll stop there, Madam Chair.
As we've said, I think we all know what we have to do to avoid catching or spreading COVID‑19, but, once again, we, as a government, must provide Canadians with programs and social policies.
I think could come and inform us about the government's decisions and the reasons why the session was prorogued at the time.
The number of cases in the country has more than doubled in the past month. However, every newly infected person can in turn infect many more. That's how the pandemic continues to expand in scope. If we're to believe the forecasting models, there may well be a resurgence if the most worrisome variants continue to spread at the same rate and public health measures remain the same.
That's why we must all limit our contacts as much as possible because we need to reduce the risk of being infected ourselves and unintentionally passing the virus on to others.
On another, more positive note, we're starting to see the effects of vaccination. As I said, the news isn't all bad; there's light at the end of the tunnel, but we still have a lot of work to do.
As of April 10, more than 84% of seniors 80 and over had received at least one vaccination against COVID‑19. The number of complications among the 80 and over age group has fallen sharply in the past few weeks and risen more slowly in the other age groups. The number of outbreaks in long-term care homes is still declining among seniors and the most vulnerable. The more vaccination efforts advance, the more the public will see their impact.
Once again, Madam Chair, I think that Ms. Freeland, as chair of the cabinet committee responsible for the federal response to the coronavirus disease, or COVID‑19, can explain to us all the programs that have been established to assist seniors in our provinces and territories and to tell us what we have to do to really slow the spread of the disease.
The growing number of variants is worrisome because they're associated with more serious consequences. The number of variant cases in Canada is still rising sharply and nearly doubled in one week. In addition, this spring, many governments are still reporting variants of concern during the third wave. On April 20, 70,000 variants of concern cases were reported in Canada, and they now represent the majority of cases in the four largest provinces.
Atlantic Canada isn't safe from the variants. As I was saying, there's been an outbreak of cases in Nova Scotia, just next door to New Brunswick. It's very disturbing, and people are very concerned about the variants.
If Ms. Freeland came to see us, we could ask her the questions that trouble us all and ask her to explain the reasons for the decisions that were made and the reason for the prorogation.
With the emergence of variants of concern in late 2020, the Government of Canada established a strategy to detect and combat those variants. The government invested $53 million as part of that strategy. What will the strategy be? Its purpose is to expand capacity and sequencing across Canada to shorten the time it takes to achieve results. That will assist in taking prompt public health measures and creating a robust, results-based research network. We will thus be able to understand these new variants and their impacts in very short order. This work is being done in partnership and cooperation with the provinces and territories and has helped expand sequencing capacity, which has gone…
:
Thanks, everyone, for your kind words also.
[Translation]
As I was telling you, to get up to speed, I had to reread all the reports and all the questions you had put to the witnesses during the committee's meetings. The questions were already about WE Charity at the time.
I'm well acquainted with political games because I've been involved in politics to varying degrees for some 30 years. Today, however, as I told you, the watchword is a simple one, and I'm prepared to debate the issue as long as necessary. Whether we like it or not, a government in power, even a minority government, is one that has chosen to make decisions. Whether we like it or not, the people chose the Liberals. I understand that the other parties are playing political games, but since we're in the midst of the COVID‑19 pandemic, I think that, as parliamentarians, we should set aside partisanship and simply work on the extremely important issues we need to address.
When I came back, I took stock of the situation and asked the chair how many motions had been introduced. I had lost count and thought there had been six or seven, including that of Mr. Therrien, who wants to withdraw one. However, 10 motions have been introduced and we're still discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment. At first, unlike Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Turnbull, I wasn't in favour of that motion of Ms. Vecchio's. We should simply have dropped it and moved on. However, every good member can give some ground, and after analyzing the matter and speaking with my colleagues, I decided to accept Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
We put many questions to the , Mr. Rodriguez, and we're still saying that we want to hear from the and that this question can be debated again today. That's unfortunate because, as parliamentarians, we should especially focus on the pandemic. Ms. Petitpas Taylor described the situation earlier as she explained the reasons why the pandemic is directly related to what we're doing.
It's late. The pandemic began 15 months ago and case numbers are still rising in my riding. We're in the red zone and many restaurants and businesses there have shut down as a result of COVID‑19 because the hospitals are still full. The statistics on our seniors are improving, but we know the variants attack younger people. This week in my riding, all teaching staff will receive their first doses of vaccine. However, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor explained, you must not let your guard down even if you get a dose of vaccine because your entire system is vulnerable. We must make our decisions and move forward based on that fact.
Under the amendment that Mr. Turnbull introduced following discussions with the chair of this committee and that of the Standing Committee on Finance, this motion may address the COVID‑19 pandemic. It would be entirely appropriate for us to take a break, analyze the situation and take another look at Mr. Turnbull's amendment. However, I understand the political games being played around this issue.
I want to discuss the fact that we're still in the midst of the pandemic. People tend to forget that because the temperature is rising. The nice weather makes people want to get together. In reality, Canadians rightly focus on much more important issues than those we're discussing right now.
I want to make a direct connection with the calls I make to people in my riding. Personally, I'm a fan of phone calls and telephones. I call the people in my constituency, and a team of volunteers is there to help me. Calling my fellow citizens helps me take the public's pulse.
I've made thousands of calls since last August. No one has spoken to me about the importance of proroguing Parliament for six weeks last August or told me that the should appear before the committee to talk about the prorogation. The opposition parties have formed their own idea of the reasons for the prorogation. Having made thousands of calls, all I can say is that no citizen is concerned about the situation we're in today. There's no better way to survey public opinion of the situation.
Canadians want to hear us discuss much more important matters, such as the measures we put in place to combat the pandemic. Canadians are focused on the millions of doses of vaccine and want to know when they'll get their second dose.
In Quebec, people want to book through a website. People call us to ask when their age group will be allowed to be vaccinated. That's what people talk to us about; they don't talk to us about the prorogation, amendments or the WE Charity issue. Canadians are focusing on the doses of vaccine that were administered this week. They want to know how many cases there are in the hospitals, how many deaths and what we're going to do to support industries. We're all affected by that.
There are businesses associated with the tourism industry, for example, in every one of our ridings. The riding I represent is quite rural and thus depends on tourism. The tourism season's nearly here. There are a lot of festivals in my riding. Festivals are an industry in themselves. Culture, music, entertainment and the outdoors are part of the culture of Argenteuil—La Petite Nation, but everything's on hold right now.
One of the concerns is whether day camps will open this summer. That's the question on people's minds. Can we send our kids to day camp this summer? Will summer jobs be available at the day camps? No one was wondering whether Ryan Turnbull's amendment was relevant to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That's not the case.
Everything I'm saying is part of my introduction. I want to share a number of things with my colleagues. For the people in my riding, it's important that we discuss real business, things that affect Canadians. People today want us to discuss the economic recovery.
They want to talk about what the government can do to stimulate the local economy and the economies of every one of our ridings and provinces.
It's important to join forces to work toward economic recovery so we can have a strong Canada and create jobs. We have to work directly with people to help them get back on their feet after this crisis.
We aren't out of the crisis yet. It's dragged on for 15 months, and, as I speak to you, there's no indication that we'll be able to gather for the Christmas holidays or that life will be as it was. Things will change. Business models will be altered.
Governments must support people. As members of Parliament, we must devote all our energy to finding solutions to revive the new economy. These are words we aren't used to hearing because we only use them after pandemics, wars and disasters.
As Canadians, we must bounce back from this pandemic and move on to something else. We must get over it by accepting Mr. Turnbull's amendment. It's directly related to the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne.
Let's be clear. Ms. Vecchio, you have all my respect, but this motion is a democratic shell game, an attempt to keep the WE Charity scandal alive. Even after detailed examination by other committees of the documents and testimony on the subject, this is the latest attempt to corner the Prime Minister, who at the time was in a vulnerable position, one that's even being taken out of context today.
There's absolutely no evidence or proof that anything inappropriate occurred. I understand that angers the opposition parties. I know it's hard for the opposition parties to grasp that they've found nothing. I understand that they were trying to find something. There has been little or no publicity about this, and they'd like to test the waters in an attempt to revive the scandal. But it's not working. That's a shock to the opposition parties, and I understand that. However, this game has to stop at some point.
Instead of focusing on problems that actually affect Canadians, since the list of issues the committee could address includes some important matters, Mr. Blaikie said earlier that the new motion should appear on the initial list. My answer would be no, because politics evolves.
For example, who would have thought that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance would have had an important item on the agenda, one that would have an influence on Elections Canada if an election were to be called? We don't have a crystal ball. We're engaged in politics and we evolve from day to day.
The purpose of the motion that Mr. Turnbull introduced today is to do our government a favour. However, we aren't doing our government or the public any favours today by allowing the Standing Committee on Finance to make a decision that could have been debated here in our committee. That decision might have been relevant in a completely different way before it was sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Today we have before us a motion and an amendment the result of which is that all these issues prevent us from moving forward. As regards the prorogation and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, I'll come back later with a list of issues that should be dropped, decided or voted on so we can move on to matters we care about.
The actual situation is that the opposition members are finding it hard to accept that all the time and energy they've spent since last fall have led virtually nowhere. I can understand that's hard for the opposition. We can sense it here in the committee, but that's not the case among the population, where this isn't the reality. The fact that we're debating an amendment requiring that the testify before the committee on matters that have been addressed in many committees and have led nowhere hasn't drawn a lot of attention from citizens in our ridings.
We can definitely sense the frustration now that all the witnesses have said the same thing in every committee. We would only be repeating ourselves, and that would ultimately be just an opportunity to add to the record a question that could be used to demonstrate an attempt to hurt the government. That's pure politicking in the context of COVID‑19. Things might be different if the context weren't extraordinary. However, an election is coming and we have to make extremely important procedural decisions. Consider not only Bill , but also all the rules we have to put in place for the House of Commons and Elections Canada. We must consider that as soon as possible, and that's what we need to discuss.
I understand that it would have been extremely important to debate the motion that Mr. Turnbull introduced today over two or three meetings perhaps. That would have been a small step toward a discussion of Elections Canada, but I'm convinced that we would have come up with more questions than answers after two or three days of deliberating. Addressing that issue would pave the way to a consideration of how to conduct the next election safely and in accordance with the rules prescribed by the government respecting Elections Canada so that Canadians can vote with complete confidence and show that they have a right to promote democracy safely and in their own way.
Officials and politicians have worked hard for 15 months. That's my analysis. Countless hours of work were devoted to the issue to ensure that programs were available to assist Canadians who were in difficulty and still are today. Nothing is perfect. We've made our comments in the course of many meetings and have listened to every pandemic-related question in the House.
We obviously made some adjustments as we went along. Our primary aim was to help as many Canadians as possible. Since nothing is perfect, mistakes were made, and the was the first to admit it.
It's important to debate the amendment so we can then debate some real issues. I was particularly struck by one of the errors that was made. One morning, I was bombarded by emails stating that a traveller voluntarily returning from the south would be entitled to compensation of $1,000 upon returning. All the parties dropped the ball, not just the Liberals. That was debated in the House. I remember the motion, which contained three elements. One of them was that. We didn't realize that non-essential travellers would be entitled to that amount.
Officials were behind that measure, but I don't blame them. We're trying to reinvent the system. By discussing this motion and voting for the amendment moved by Mr. Turnbull, we would be able to get back to our business and get things done. We have to work together. For example, we have to find a way to conduct the next election safely.
Personally, as parliamentary secretary to the , I will obviously defend seniors. In the next election, some seniors from my riding will have to travel 200 kilometers to vote. Some Canadian seniors live in remote regions. They aren't allowed to be driven by car; some don't have a driver's licence. We're currently in the red zone, but people don't always practise social distancing. Even if people wear their masks in their cars, they aren't two metres apart.
I have many questions I'd like to ask. I'd like to work with the committee to establish the best standards for Elections Canada.
It's fine to say we're going to move the polling stations closer and set them up in a school or community centre; those institutions aren't accessible in rural communities. Sending out a worker to build a makeshift access ramp doesn't make the school or community centre accessible. That's false. When you're on the ground, you see that the actual situation is different. Even if you install an outdoor ramp, there are still steps inside the building. You haven't solved the problem.
We have to come up with solutions that can help people. To do that, we have to be innovative and a committee has to examine the matter. It bothers me, but we've been debating the motion and Mr. Turnbull's amendment for 40 hours now. Why? Because, as you said, there's no way out, no other way apart from having the Prime Minister here in the committee. For that reason, we're going to be debating for a long time instead of making progress. We can't get things done that we don't want to get done.
I want to talk about the officials again.
I don't want to improvise because I might repeat myself. I tip my hat to the officials who worked during the prorogation and prepared the Speech from the Throne together with the Prime Minister's Office.
They've also been proactive throughout the pandemic. They've innovated and worked on the programs they designed using systems that were unsuited to such extraordinary measures. Simply changing the tax system and extending the deadline by one month are extremely complicated undertakings in the machinery of government. Imagine all the decisions that were made concerning all the programs that were introduced.
Earlier I mentioned the mistakes that had been made. They were collective mistakes that we made together in our attempts to respond to the COVID‑19 crisis. Sometimes you try to move a little too quickly and make mistakes. However, I want to emphasize that I'm absolutely not criticizing our officials. I am so grateful to the officials who have done a remarkable job during this health crisis.
They have proven that we politicians would be nothing without our officials. At any event, career public servants who have been working for 30 or 35 years have seen a lot of politicians. For them, we're just passing through. As we do so, we try to meet the needs of Canadians as best we can while asking our officials to do the impossible, to adapt to the situation. Ultimately, we try, year after year, to improve the system based on the prevailing situation.
Today we have an excellent opportunity to improve the electoral system, for example. Mr. Turnbull's amendment concludes the motion by inviting an incredible person who has been here from the start. Ms. Petitpas Taylor accurately described , who is absolutely capable of answering all our questions, all the more so since she is the Minister of Finance.
I'm prepared to give Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Petitpas Taylor my support. Initially I didn't quite agree that the Deputy Prime Minister should appear before the committee given all that was said in the other committees. However, now I agree that we should have the Deputy Prime Minister so we can ask her the real questions, the hard questions. The Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to answer them and to testify before the committee.
Has she accepted the invitation? First and foremost, the members of the committee must adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment for the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to appear before the committee. Since we're debating that amendment, she has no interest in replying to our invitation today. I can't speak on her behalf, but I propose that we first adopt a resolution, a motion. Let's vote in favour of Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Then we'll get an answer to our invitation from the Deputy Prime Minister. Then we'll be able to go ahead, address the tens of pending motions, analyze them one after another, debate them and move ahead on the issues I consider important.
I remember the first wave of the pandemic. We were very concerned at the time. We were already working at a frantic pace in many committees, the House and our ridings.
When the pandemic hit us, we wondered whether what we were experiencing was real and whether it would continue for a month or two. We could see what was happening in other countries. We could see the number of deaths.
The question on people's minds in other countries wasn't how many people would be saved but rather which of them would be saved. We wondered whether we would get to that same point in our country. Those questions were already on our minds.
Fifteen months later, we're still at the mercy of the pandemic and have just spent 40 hours advancing our files because we still don't want to invite the Deputy Prime Minister—the highest ranking government after the Prime Minister—who is also the Minister of Finance. I'm astonished.
Late last fall, following testimony from countless witnesses, the examination of thousands of pages of documents and the questions you asked during all the testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I also went to see what was going on in the other committees. The questions were more or less the same, the witnesses the same and the accusations against WE Charity as well. The immediate question was whether the WE Charity scandal could once again be made the key issue. That's the way it was at the time.
However, that's no longer the case. Fifteen months later, it's something completely different. What's important today is to look ahead. We know that an election will be called. We know that an extremely important economic recovery is taking place in our ridings and that we're very much affected by it. We know that the green shift has to occur and that we'll be experiencing many significant changes in our society in the next few years.
Just imagine how lucky we are. Every single one of us is one of the 336 Canadian decision-makers who are able to take concrete action. How do we go about improving the situation?
I may not have the political experience that many of you have, but I can give you one piece of advice. The best advice I can give you to help get things done is to work, as my father always told me, and, in order to start working, we must adopt this amendment.
[English]
You can look me in the eye right now if you want to, but we'll never let the come to this meeting.
[Translation]
It's inconceivable. I can never let it happen. Have the Deputy Prime Minister appear if you wish; that's already a lot. I'm telling you that we will debate this as long as necessary. The best way to move forward is to work together.
I talked about the difference between what we're experiencing today and what we experienced during the first wave of the pandemic. The scenario is completely different today in both my riding and yours. Now we're facing an economy that has to recover.
We're experiencing all kinds of things: rising lumber prices, exponentially increasing house prices and extremely low interest rates, in particular. We're also seeing people take on more debt and families in difficulty managing to emerge from poverty thanks to government programs.
However, we could be facing a global economic crisis as a result of the pandemic.
We're immune to nothing. We have to prepare, we have to work hard, and we have to keep Canada strong so we can actually get through this crisis together.
After examining the testimony of thousands of witnesses before other committees and ours, the opposition has clearly understood that it overplayed its hand because questions went unanswered. The questions that were asked in this committee and others concerned a scandal that drew no response. The other committees quickly moved on to something else.
That's where we stand today. It isn't out of our own free will that we're discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which clearly involves WE Charity. That has nothing to do with the prorogation.
During the discussions and testimony, we clearly showed that, even though they said that the purpose of the prorogation was to conceal the WE Charity scandal, the witnesses ultimately admitted that prorogation nevertheless had its place. The purpose of the prorogation was to reset the government's agenda and put it on a sound footing. We didn't know at the time that we would be spending 15 months in a pandemic, that we would still be vaccinating, that people would only have received one dose of vaccine and that we would be in the midst of a third wave.
I don't understand how the witnesses could have said at the time, even before the pandemic, that the prorogation didn't follow from the pandemic. If the pandemic wasn't sufficient reason to prorogue Parliament, what was the purpose of the prorogation?
It's so obvious. I want to choose my words here because everything is being recorded, but it was almost amusing. It was truly strange to hear questions directly related to WE Charity without being able to debate them, without being able to express opinions. The questions were plainly related to WE Charity.
As we heard from various witnesses during the committee meetings, under our constitutional conventions, the alone had authority to advise the Governor General on prorogation.
So that's the way it is. The Prime Minister may, as he wishes, request prorogation in an extreme situation. He's virtually the only prime minister who has ever decided to do so in such a way as to be able to prepare a report after the fact explaining why he did so. That could simply have put an end to the discussion and closed the loop. It would have meant that the Prime Minister was explaining to the public, to Canadians, why Parliament had been prorogued.
Now, I understand that the gave his testimony and also prepared his report. I understand that Pablo Rodriguez came and spoke on behalf of the government. However, that's never enough.
It's a form of political gamesmanship I really understand.
Prorogation was a new phenomenon I was unfamiliar with. There were some in the Harper era, but I wasn't there at the time. What I've learned is that the Prime Minister doesn't even need a reason to prorogue Parliament and doesn't have to appear before the committee to justify it. Constitutional conventions do not require the Prime Minister to justify a prorogation. And yet the did so out of concern for transparency.
Today, it's being suggested that he be invited to have him justify the prorogation. But that's not the main reason for the invitation. It's really to unearth scandals that other committees failed to find. It's the umpteenth attempt to test the system. It's an attempt to break the political system to find some bug that doesn't exist.
My understanding is that, historically, prorogation has been used in Canada to wipe the slate clean. As was explained, the purpose of prorogation is to end Parliament's work so that it can then start over from scratch. The period between dissolution and the new throne speech has varied over time. The August 2020 prorogation lasted six weeks but only prevented the House from sitting for two days.
It was important for public servants and politicians to work together to try to restart the economy and find ways to address the shortcomings. Today again, I learned about the closing of a restaurant in my riding. I am extremely disappointed that La Barque, a small village restaurant, is closing down because we've been unable to deal with the pandemic. Do we really need to know that a small restaurant in the village is shutting down? We need to find ways to work together. We need to find a way to adopt this amendment so that we, as MPs, can say that we can make a difference for Canadians. That's the main reason why we were elected.
I mentioned the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the throne speech. I find it interesting to see the opposition argue on the basis of this period that the prorogation was related to the WE Charity. The same questions were asked at the Standing Committee on Finance. I read over the evidence. Some witnesses said that we had acted too late, and that we should have cleared the snow before it had even fallen. We should have prorogued as soon as we knew that the coronavirus was spreading in other countries. Some people told us that we waited too long. According to the opposition, we always wait too long.
We have been working with our experts and with the Public Health Agency of Canada. The COVID‑19 pandemic didn't come with an instruction manual.
I'm going to talk about how we might be able to work more effectively, and about how important it is for us to consider the post COVID‑19 period so that we can be prepared to deal with any future disasters. As members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it's important for us, in principle, to take the 10 motions on notice, along with various pending matters and some good ideas you may have had even before I got here, and to work on what I believe is the most important motion, which is how we can do better in any catastrophe, without having to mention the expression "COVID‑19". We need to address this because it's important for Canadians. How can we as members of this committee make ourselves useful?
We could then say that we had made a difference, because we worked on a model, a guide. Canadians are relying on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to show them what it plans to do after studying ways of dealing more effectively with a pandemic.
It means looking at what we got right and what was unsuccessful. Feel free to look at what we got wrong, which means asking real questions of the proper witnesses—those who were affected by the pandemic.
One such witness is a ferryboat operator in my riding. He was never able to benefit from any of the programs for one reason and one reason only. The calculation for compensation was based on revenues for the year preceding the pandemic. Unfortunately, there were floods that year. This meant much lower revenue than usual in July and August. The following year, in July and August, he was not eligible for the programs because his revenue had dropped dramatically the previous year. He was therefore never entitled to any compensation. Can't we do better than that?
I had to explain to this citizen in my riding that he had fallen through one of the cracks in the system.
I don't receive benefits because I'm a Liberal MP. Canadians are Canadians, no matter where they come from. The day after an election, we turn the page and serve all Canadians equally. I am a Liberal because of my convictions. The day after an election, I can turn the page and serve everyone, whether from Petite-Nation or Calgary. A Canadian is a Canadian.
Now, how can we improve the system? The best solution would be to move on to something else.
I understand political gamesmanship, but I'm not going to take the rap for it. As an MP and a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—duties I take pride in—I would not say that I'm to blame if we fail today move forward and still find ourselves here after 40 hours of debate.
It would be unreasonable for me to say to a government that was elected by the people that I agreed with the idea of the coming here to testify before this committee after several attempts by other committees to do just that.
I digressed to address the economy, on which I would like to see some action. These procedures are very important to me.
What I just said made me think of something I'm going to tell you about. This proves that my speech was not written ahead of time. I'm going to describe what I experienced in order to explain why we should adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
Some municipalities in my riding experienced some flooding. As the Canadian government, we sent the armed forces to help out. We helicoptered people from their houses. They left behind their vulnerable animals, including horses, cows, dogs and cats. We were able to save the people, but not the animals.
These decisions were extremely difficult for us, as MPs. We worked with the armed forces to save Canadians. How can we do better?
The first thing these small municipalities did, even though they didn't add much staff, was to work with the RCMs to establish procedures. In 2017, we worked together to decide on the best ways of taking action if we were to have other floods. We wanted to be proactive. We wanted to look at the chronology of events to determine whether it would have been possible to get the farm animals out or to take specific steps to care for them. For some of the farms, it was not even possible to feed the animals because they couldn't be reached. Dairy farms had to dump milk into the river because the trucks couldn't come to pick it up. We therefore had to look at what had happened to see if we would be able to do things better and make better decisions if the situation were ever to recur.
And these small municipalities were in fact able, with the RCMs, to put together documents specifying procedures to follow in the event of a disaster. I worked with the small municipalities to find basic solutions, like sandbags and ways of dealing with the animals. This shows just how important it is…
:
Given that Mr. Nater obviously isn't convinced by the lengthy and rational evidence-based argument that I've been putting forward meeting after meeting—and I do understand that sometimes politics seems to override rational, thoughtful debates—I will continue to make my argument in the hope that he will see the light and perhaps support my amendment. This is exactly why I continue to speak on this matter and to have thoughtful remarks that I've prepared that are supporting that amendment.
The main conclusion of the argument that I've been making meeting after meeting is that if a pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then nothing is. I've said this over and over again. This is something that is undeniably rational in my mind. We're in the middle of a public health crisis. We haven't seen this kind of public health crisis in a hundred years, and previous prime ministers have used their prerogative to prorogue Parliament when they've seen that it has been necessary to do so. Sometimes there is a bit of controversy around whether they've done it for solely political reasons, and I get that. I also think that the reasons most cited are the need to reflect, the need to reset the agenda, the need to re-evaluate, and the need to understand the impacts.
The main reason Stephen Harper utilized his prerogative to prorogue Parliament in 2008 and 2009 was the recession at the time. That was cited over and over again in the media. I understand that the recession was of deep concern. We could debate that prorogation. I know there are some members who feel strongly that the prorogation at that time was an abuse of power. In reality, the prime minister at the time had the prerogative and used it, and he cited reasons that I think were largely accepted and were rational, given the recession at the time.
What I've been saying for quite a number of meetings now—and I see that Mr. Nater is not convinced, but hopefully I'll get at least one other colleague to come around to the side of reason and rationality and to eventually support the amendment—is that the main argument is that the pandemic we're living through and trying to manage and support a country through has had an at least 10 times greater depth of financial impact than the 2008-09 recession had. If that's the case, then there was at least 10 times more reason to prorogue Parliament in between the first and second wave of the pandemic. There's lots of evidence to show how doing that made sense.
One thing I want to focus on today within that overarching argument is the reason—again which I think Ms. Petitpas Taylor said quite well, and my colleague, Mr. Lauzon also said quite well—we feel strongly that having some additional testimony from the in this case would be helpful for this study. That is the depth of economic impact that we've all witnessed and we've heard about from constituents across our ridings. I certainly have been staying in touch with my chamber of commerce and with the many small businesses that are members of the Whitby chamber as well as with the ones that are not members. There are many small businesses that unfortunately aren't members of the chamber of commerce.
I have a very strong small business community in my riding. There are at least 900 small business that are members. Many of them have shared with me over and over again in phone calls, round tables, consultation sessions and meetings that we've had with those stakeholders. The chamber of commerce has met with me to talk about their advocacy on behalf of small businesses that fall into different sectors and industries of the local economy here. I've heard what's working, what's not working and what their concerns are.
We can look at the chief statistician of Canada and the work that was done, which I've cited before. It is a substantive body of evidence that was collected. It's been updated since then. I found the updated version, which is “COVID-19 in Canada: A One-year Update on Social and Economic Impacts”. I've been going through that. I don't know whether I'll get to that today, but certainly, if this debate is extended, I'm happy to cover a lot of what's in that report as well, because it does support the trends that we've seen from the first wave of the pandemic.
We saw between the first and second waves there were some industries and businesses that were hard hit but that were able to start to come back, yet not fully recover. Some industries did better in the crisis. I know that sounds strange. There are some that did better and were more profitable. There are others that suffered dramatically, but between waves when restrictions were starting to be lifted by provinces and territories, they were able to come back quickly. There are sort of three categories. There's another segment of businesses that were in industries that were hardest hit and that couldn't come back as quickly.
There's this resiliency that's built into some industries. I think it's important for our government, and was important at the time of prorogation for our government, to assess the level of that impact to see what industries were bouncing back on their own and to understand the structural barriers some industries were encountering that would limit their ability to recover just by virtue of the nature of their business model.
That's really important information to process. It was really important at the time for doing a deep reflection. In listening and talking to those stakeholders, we know that in every industry we have very strong associations that do incredible work to survey their members.
I have reports here from the airline industry, the food service industry and the tourism industry. I have some others from the hotel industry. They're all really substantive reports that those industries have prepared with their associations helping to survey, consult and collect data and really understand what those industries are going through. It's interesting. If we think of industry-specific measures and supports, that's part of some of the complexity of dealing with a global pandemic, how that pandemic has affected industries differently and how they're challenged by economic recovery in very different ways.
We know this with some of the steep losses in highest-impacted sectors. Let's look at net employment losses, for example. I have some numbers here. I like numbers. I'm not a mathematician by any means, but I definitely like backing up the things I say with data. I realize that data can be interpreted in different ways, but when you're relying on the chief statistician of Canada, you're talking about a pretty reputable source of information. We can all question the data and evidence we find on the Internet from time to time, and I think we have to evaluate where information comes from and certainly do some due diligence, but I think there are trusted sources of information, and I try to use those as best I can when formulating the arguments I use as a member of Parliament.
Some of these hardest-hit industries—accommodation, food services, retail, construction, transportation, warehousing, manufacturing, information, culture and recreation—have been hard hit, but not all equally. These are statistics collected between when the pandemic first hit—let's say from about February or March 2020—to August 2020. It really only covers the first wave of the pandemic. There were 260,000 net job losses in the accommodation and food services industry. That's a pretty significant net loss of employment. In retail there were 120,000 net job losses. In construction there were approximately 120,000 net job losses. Transportation and warehousing was about 100,000 or a bit more than 100,000 net job losses. Manufacturing had 80,000 net job losses. Information, culture and recreation was approximately 100,000 net job losses.
If you add that up, you have—just off the top of my head—about 800,000 net job losses right there. There were probably more than that, but I think the statistics show that those were the industries that were most impacted in terms of net job losses.
Construction and manufacturing seemed to rebound to more than 90% of pre-COVID levels as businesses reopened. There's construction going on across the street from my house and there's a lot of development happening in my riding. Some of that construction has stayed pretty constant throughout this pandemic. I've been surprised that some of those job sites have continued and that workers are continuing to work. I suppose they've been social distancing and have been able to continue.
What's interesting to note here, Mr. Kent—I like to use members' names once in a while just to make sure they're still paying attention to me—is the 90% of pre-COVID levels in construction and manufacturing. That's between the first and second waves, so you could see that that industry rebounded a lot more quickly than accommodation and food services. By contrast, employment in their industry remained 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so it was less likely to rebound as quickly. I think there are reasons for that. Our government took the time to assess and reflect on those reasons, when you look at the throne speech.
Today my focus is on the hardest-hit sectors or industries and how the throne speech, I think, really reflected the consultation work, the evidence that was available and the information that industry associations were providing to the government at that time. It was very rational and very logical in terms of one thing following from another. There is a sort of chain of causality there which really backs up the interpretation that flies in the face of the narrative that I think opposition parties are trying to build, which is that somehow prorogation was some abuse of power.
I've heard members say that this was precedent setting. I don't agree that this was some abuse of power. I think it was done for legitimate reasons that show up and are evidenced by a whole bunch of factors, which I've continued to bring to this committee and represent as the more plausible and more rational narrative. I think if Canadians or, as they say in law, people who are rational judges.... The heart of the idea of a jury is that people have this ability to reason. If impartial, rational people were to judge the evidence that we've provided, the vast majority of them would side with the most rational explanation.
This is why I can't stop speaking to this amendment I have put forward. I feel very strongly that this rational argument we have been making is supported by data, evidence, research and consultation. It seems contradictory to rational argument to assume some other motive that is not backed up by evidence, especially when we know that much committee business in other areas that some of the opposition parties have been consumed by, or focused on, for some time has, in fact, continued.
It's really shocking to me to see that we can't get past this and move forward with other committee business. I have been trying to provide some alternatives in my remarks and some, I think, worthy studies and debate and discussion we could be having that would truly be beneficial to Canadians right now, beneficial to a future election process whenever that time comes. I really feel that PROC, because of its mandate, could be studying some of these other issues, such as hate groups registering in our election process, and misinformation online, people presenting that knowingly within an election process to affect the results. These are extremely important and concerning issues that I think we should be seized with rather than this, but I will get back to my argument.
I want to talk about the structural challenges in heavily impacted sectors. Again, I'm presenting information that was pulled together by the chief statistician and is in the report that I have referred to about five or six times now.
The transportation and warehousing sector employs one million people across Canada. Some 22.1 million tourists come to Canada from abroad in any given year. Obviously, that hasn't happened this year. Travellers spend over $22 billion in Canada. Just think about the impact on our economy not to have those revenues or income for the many tourist-related sectors and businesses, everything from hotel stays to excursions to visiting.
We have all kinds of destinations in Ontario, from campgrounds to beaches. My favourite is Wasaga Beach. I have been going there since I was a kid. It's the biggest freshwater beach in North America. Just think about these small communities, often rural communities, how their economy has been drastically impacted by the pandemic through no fault of any government. I think the government is doing its best to implement public health restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. In some cases, some provinces have been more successful than others for sure, and I have some critical remarks on that from time to time, but I will leave those for a moment.
Just think about the economic impact. The average spend per trip in 2018 was $1,640. I did some work many years ago mostly on food-related or agri-food tourism. There is a lot of evidence to show how even travel inside a province supported local economies, specifically around sustainable food and local food economies in Ontario but also across Canada.
Because people spend more on these small trips on food and accommodation, and that money really stays in local communities, it really helps support small family businesses and restaurateurs. My favourite is in Stratford county, the Savour Stratford festival, which I used to go to. It really demonstrated the power of food, agriculture and restaurateurs.
We have them all over Canada, and these are a big part of our culture. You can see how travel, food, accommodation and cultural recreation, all fit in some cases together, or at least intersect in a way to support local economies. They've been drastically hindered in terms of their growth or prosperity during the pandemic.
I think I've said this piece before, and I'm not sure if I've provided the statistics, but the decline in the airline industry from 9/11 was 26%, from SARS was 26%, and from the global pandemic was 97%. Again, you can understand the level of exponential impact that COVID-19 has had on our economy, and the airline industry is no exception.
There are many others. With public transit, ridership is down significantly, and rightfully so. We understand why. People are being asked to stay home. To prevent the spread of COVID-19, that makes sense. We understand that municipalities are having trouble running their public transit routes. Some of them have cut back on those routes, which I think is a responsible thing to do in a pandemic, but they are experiencing shortfalls.
Our government, through the safe restart agreements, offered them support. The local regional government here really benefited from those funds. Again, this is all part of a pretty thorough reflection and reassessment of our government's priorities during prorogation.
The commercial real estate industry in quarter two of 2020 fell by 3.1%. That may not seem like a lot, but it has a significant economic impact. This was during the first wave of COVID-19. Just think about how commercial rents would have been affected again and again.
The original version of CECRA, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program , its initial iteration, I can definitely admit to committee members that it wasn't my preferred design for that program. I think our government did its very best to design a program that would help both landlords and small businesses that were renting space.
We know that some of the hardest-hit industries from COVID-19 are the ones that have the highest overhead costs. It's very hard to shift a business. Some businesses in my local community have even gone out of business mainly because of the overhead costs that are often tied to property, or a facility that they rely on. For example, we have those places that are like indoor playgrounds for kids. They work a bit like a child-minding place for parents, but you can have your kids go there and play with other kids. Obviously, they were shut down due to public health guidelines fairly early on, but many of them had significant costs associated with their overhead. Having a program for commercial rent assistance was extremely important to those businesses.
What I witnessed between the first and second wave, and exactly at the time of prorogation.... I actually had conversations with the Minister of Finance at the time about redesigning that program, and about some of the challenges I'd heard about from landlords who were not participating in the original version of that program.
That re-evaluation was reflected in the throne speech, and subsequently there was a re-engineered or redesigned commercial rent assistance program that was significantly improved. If we had not taken the time to reflect and check in with stakeholders, if that program hadn't been redesigned in such a way that really meets the needs of many commercial tenants, I believe that wouldn't have happened. Businesses in my community have now been able to access direct support instead of through their landlord. By the way, these are mostly small businesses, as far as I can tell, at least in my community.
I was getting a lot of feedback in and around the time that prorogation happened. It actually worked out well for relaying that feedback. That program was redesigned, and it now goes directly to tenants. It's indexed to the proportion of revenue loss for small businesses and gives them up to 65% rent support. It also adds a top-up, which wasn't there before, of up to 25% if the business is shut down due to a mandatory public health order.
These were such welcome changes in my community for the local businesses here, like the ones that I was talking about that are hardest hit: the small family-run restaurants as well as the small family-owned hair salons—I could use a hair salon, but I can't get a haircut these days. There are all kinds of others, such as the independently owned optometrists, etc. I have many examples of small businesses in my community.
Even in downtown Whitby we have the Fart Café. That's not their name, but it's the term they use. It's an art café, but it's often referred to in that way as a local joke.
The point is that the supports that were extended to the small businesses and were redesigned were really tailored based on the time that we took to reflect and gather evidence and data.
Many of the tenants who are in those commercial buildings, the ones who don't absolutely need space, may rely less on renting space in the future, or be reassessed about how they operate. We've seen a lot of that as well.
I've heard from local cleaners, for example. Some of them operate with the model where they actually don't do all the cleaning on site, but they have a separate facility to do the cleaning. They're often small family-owned businesses. Some of them have given up their storefront space, which is very small, like a small kiosk, where you walk in and drop off shirts to be cleaned, or have alterations done, or whatever. Those businesses have shifted their attitude to thinking that they really don't need a storefront and they'll operate online now. They've opted for an online model.
I have a local catering business that specializes in some really unique kinds of baking for people who have special diets. They're really famous in my community, and they've done a really great job. They shifted a lot of their work from having more of almost a delivery truck, and they just have a commercial kitchen facility and then deliver, but they do everything online now, other than the actual baking and delivery, which does require some physical space. They've looked at ways to shave off their operational model so that they rely less on space that they need to rent so they can reduce their overhead costs and remain viable during the pandemic.
Those are strategies that many small businesses have been encouraged to do. By necessity, they have had to alter their operations and business models and re-evaluate how they reduce their costs and remain viable during this global pandemic and get through this.
There's likely to be downward pressure on new office building lease rates, and longer-term impacts on commercial real estate that I think are going to be substantial. I think the evidence shows that. Again, I think that taking the time to reflect is important for our government, and I would welcome opposition parties to participate in the fruitful dialogues that I think can happen to ensure that we tailor supports for the hardest hit industries.
I want to say a few words about the retail sector and industry. At the time of prorogation, the retail sector had actually rebounded very quickly from storefront closures in the first wave. Many elevated their efforts based on e-commerce: having an online website where they could actually sell their products online. Our government actually supported initiatives for the Digital Main Street. I was very proud of that, because it allowed a lot of retail stores in my community, small ones that were like boutique shops that were doing all kinds of.... That's a lot of the heart of our local economies, especially in our downtown areas. Mine in Whitby is quite small. There are two actual centres in Whitby, Brooklin and downtown Whitby. They're filled with these small, local, beautiful boutiques that are family-run businesses. In some cases, they've been in the family for generations. In other cases, they've changed hands. Sometimes businesses have gone under and new ones have emerged, but in terms of really making a vibrant kind of downtown, I think it's really important that we don't lose that.
Many in my community at the two BIAs we have are very vocal advocates for ensuring that those businesses don't go under. What's interesting is that many of them needed support. I shouldn't say “needed”, because I think entrepreneurs are very resilient and really innovative. When push comes to shove, they find a way to get through the hard times, but I do think that our government's support through that Digital Main Street initiative was really helpful in helping a lot of small businesses catalogue their inventory and move to online sales and marketing.
That gave them market access at a time when their physical locations were closed down. Some of them were able to.... I remember that back in the Christmas holidays—the holidays over December—which are such a big, important time for many of those types of businesses to generate their sales and carry them throughout the year, those businesses, despite the fact that COVID-19 continued in our community, did better as a result of having that digital platform, the e-commerce sites and the support that our government offered through the local chambers of commerce, which I think are pretty important supportive structures to help.
I really believe in the local chamber of commerce here in Whitby. I think chambers of commerce are fantastic. They're run by great people, a lot of business owners are involved. They really are a strong voice and don't give up. They really persist through the challenging times and the bumps in the road. They continue to be constantly in communication with me in my office and continue to inform us about how the different industries within our local community have been affected by COVID-19.
I see you unmuting, Madam Chair. I have a lot more to say, but I suspect you have something that you want to say.
:
Madam Chair, thanks for those opening remarks and helpful reminders. Last time there were a few interruptions to different speakers on the basis of repetition, and I appreciate the clarifications you've made. I certainly feel that repeating some points within an argument for emphasis' sake is one of my stylistic preferences. It is not in any way meant to waste time or to be overly repetitive, but is simply to drive home very specific points that I think are key within an argument.
There is one that I would repeat again, which I've made over and over and which, I again hope, opposition members will take to heart and maybe reflect on. This is the heart of the argument I've been making and what I've been expounding on in many different ways, and that is if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then I would say nothing is.
I've been continuing to make the argument that the economic impact of this global pandemic—and I understand that it is first and foremost a public health crisis, so we really should be focusing at all times on public health, because you can't have a livelihood without a life. We've seen the tragic loss of human life. We must never lose sight of the fact that every life matters. I say that for all of the people and families and communities that have been so deeply impacted. The grief is almost unthinkable for those families.
One thing we've become slightly desensitized to is seeing numbers and statistics and focusing on public health data and graphs. We have to realize that these hundreds and hundreds of deaths and individuals who are in ICUs and who are on ventilators are all individual human beings with networks and relationships. They have made massive contributions to their communities and their families. They're loved and they have this fulsome life that is being taken away by a virus.
It's no one's fault. We need to get away from the blame game. At the same time, we need to really cherish those lives and honour those lives in everything we do. When we're doing this work and this study in this committee, we tend to be focused on the rear-view mirror and on how the prorogation happened. It's almost a distant memory at this point. I have tons of information on the reasons for proroguing, but it's faded in my memory just because there are so many more pressing things for us to be paying attention to that are immediately in front of us.
It is very disheartening that we're continuing with this. I've continually tried to be appeasing and flexible and adaptable to the perspectives of my honourable colleagues from the opposition parties. With that intention, I proposed an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion, that maybe we can do a little bit more study on prorogation but quickly move on.
We see that the opposition parties are not interested in negotiating or being flexible or really working with us on the things that I think are even more pressing. That's really unfortunate, and I really feel there's quite a bit of work to be done that is more immediately pressing.
The main estimates, which you mentioned, Madam Chair, are a pretty important responsibility for our committee. I think that would take one meeting. Perhaps that's an opportunity for us to fulfill some of our other duties.
Division 37 of Bill , the budget implementation act, is an area that I've certainly been affected by and concerned about for some time. That's the prevalence of disinformation within election periods and just how much that can have an impact on our democratic institutions and some of the fundamental rights that we hold dear here in Canada. I really feel it's important for us to do the work on the pieces of the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, that are really required of us, if I were to be really honest about it. The Standing Orders define the parameters of PROC. This fits clearly within our mandate. I don't see how the finance committee will do that work, and the other pieces of their work that have to be hived off and given to other committees, if we don't do our part.
That's enough said on that, at the moment. I really feel strongly about that and Bill . It's important for opposition members to realize that the adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada come into effect upon royal assent of Bill C-19. Those adaptation powers would protect the health and safety of Canadians should opposition parties trigger an election, which they've been coming dangerously close to doing with some of the votes in the House. We're playing roulette at this point, or opposition parties are playing roulette, with people's health and safety, in my view, and I really think that's irresponsible.
I'll get back to the main argument that I've been making here. I have a lot more to say about the hardest-hit industries and sectors and some of the structural barriers to their recovery. They're no fault of any industry, or any industry players or businesses. Really, it's by virtue of the fact of how those business models are. I'll talk about restaurants or the food service industry. I spoke last time more about the airline industry. I covered a little bit about tourism, transportation, warehousing, public transit, commercial real estate and the retail trade. I left off talking about our local chambers of commerce and some of the work that was done around the digital main street initiatives, which I really felt helped some of the retail businesses pivot within the pandemic.
Again, I want to make it clear, just for the sake of relevance, that I believe in making an argument that's relevant at all times. This is relevant because what I've been claiming and substantiating with facts and evidence is quite clearly that the economic impact of COVID-19 is, at the very least, 10 times greater than the recession in 2008-09. Again, the heart of this argument is to say that this global pandemic, because of the economic impact being so much greater, if we were to say that an economic crisis or recession were a reason to prorogue Parliament and to reassess and re-evaluate and reset the agenda, and that's been a valid reason to prorogue Parliament in history....
I think this provides evidence as to why our chose to prorogue, and to use the prerogative that he had, between the first and second waves of COVID-19. I've been speaking to how this is rational. It makes sense. The process was substantive during that time. It really got to gather evidence and qualitative feedback from many stakeholders, which then fed into a throne speech that reflected that.
What I want to focus on today in my argument is just the depth of the impact on some of the hardest-hit industries, and then some of the things that were extended and even added, with some of the programs and supports that our government offered and that were redesigned coming out of that re-evaluation period during the time when Parliament was prorogued.
Again, I have to say this, because I feel that opposition members have implied many times over that the government sort of took a break at that time and essentially prorogued to just sit around and twiddle their thumbs. They have also claimed that the Speech from the Throne had nothing new in it. This is so false. It's factually false. If you look at the throne speech, it reflects the data, evidence and consultation work that was done during that time.
If you look at how much consultation work was done, as I've said before, I went to at least 15 different sessions. In my community, I did hundreds of surveys and consultation sessions—just me, and I'm just one member of Parliament. I know that my colleagues did the same. When I step back from this, even when I am trying to be charitable to my opposition colleagues, I still cannot find any evidence of how the overall narrative and story that we have provided, which are based in reason and evidence, are somehow deficient.
There seems to be no effort to assess the merit of the reasons that were given. I don't know how we got to this place. In my view, our government has done everything it can to be there for Canadians every step of the way.
I'm not saying we're perfect. I absolutely would not say that. I'm not perfect; none of my colleagues is. I think we all have things we can....
I know, Mr. Amos, you might be the exception, my friend, but for me, I can certainly admit various flaws.
We need to assess the merits of the report that was tabled and look at it on face value and ask what is deficient about the rationale. I can't find anything that doesn't make sense to me.
Okay. I'm in the governing party and I'm a Liberal. I get that. But I try to step outside of my perspective and critically evaluate and ask if there is any charitable or generous way that I can interpret the merits and the truth of the perspective of those who oppose my perspective. That has to be a part of our democracy and our debates at all times, because if we can't get outside of our own biases and perspectives, then we truly have lost our way.
However, when I do that, I still cannot find anything that doesn't make sense based on what I've seen and the data I have at my fingertips. I don't know where opposition members are really coming from when they are pushing the narrative that somehow prorogation was done for some ulterior motives that they seem to want to push. It seems just like a partisan political agenda that has no basis in reality.
I'm sorry to say that but, honestly, that is how I feel. I don't see any argument the opposition has made that really holds any water. I will continue to provide more data and evidence and to back up the claims that I am making, because I think they are the closest approximation of the truth. Until opposition members can actually engage in a fruitful debate on that, I think we're at an impasse.
You have your narrative and preferred interpretation, which are not based in facts and reality, and I have mine, or our members have ours. The difference is that we are providing evidence, data and reasons that make sense. The process makes sense. The themes in the throne speech make sense. The timing makes sense. The report is consistent with that. The testimony given by the was consistent with that. So what is this really about, when it comes down to it? What is it really about? I would say to you it's not about Canadians.
We're here to serve Canadians. I want to do things that are valuable to my constituents and not waste precious time that we as leaders in our communities have. We have been afforded the privilege and honour of representing the people of our constituencies, and I take that responsibility seriously and with great pride and honour.
At this moment in time we have a third wave that is.... We had the emergency debate last night in the House. Madam Chair, you were there on House duty with me, and I'm sure some of my other colleagues were as well. At least in that debate, things that were being said were starting to get beyond—or at least there were moments when we started to see just a glimmer of hope of getting beyond the partisan politics and focusing on what Albertans need right now to get through this third wave. I would say that at those brief moments in which we seemed to almost transcend the partisan swordsmanship and jousting, I thought okay, let's just go a bit further, one step further, and collectively come together and do our job for Canadians. That gave me just a glimmer of hope, but it was gone so quickly, and here we are back in committee basically ensnared in the same political jousting that to me is just unfortunate. It's more than unfortunate. It actually makes me feel sad. It really does. It's disturbing that this is what we're up to.
Anyway, I'll get back to my argument. Let me say a little bit about the retail industry. By June 2020, the retail activity had surpassed pre-COVID levels while payroll was 15% lower. This is kind of interesting just in terms of, again, understanding the impact on our economy and how unequal it is across industry. The retail industry in June 2020 was coming back. It rebounded very strongly. Retail activity surpassed pre-COVID levels, for a brief time, of course, because when we then had the full-out second wave, obviously that all changed again. Payroll was still lower, so in a way you would anticipate that in fact many retailers were more profitable in that time because their payroll was down but their sales activity was up, which is interesting.
Anyway, the point is that between February and May, sales had fallen by 18%, but e-commerce sales had doubled during the same period, which is interesting as well. I would say to you that many of the non-essential retailers were able to pivot to e-commerce, and I would link this back to our government's support. In my community, I know for a fact that the Digital Main Street initiative and the efforts made by our business improvement area in both our downtowns—because we're fortunate enough to have two in Whitby, in my riding—along with the work that the chamber of commerce did to help in the region of Durham, including my riding and others adjacent to mine.... They did incredible work to help local retailers move to online sales.
This didn't allow them to fully recover. It didn't insulate them fully from the impacts of COVID-19, of course, during the first and eventually second wave, but it did help.
It was interesting to note as well that many of the essential retailers, the retail stores that were deemed essential, continued to operate and actually increased sales dramatically. Again, just think about the equity issues here within the economic impact of COVID-19 and how important it is for our government to target support by taking the time to understand these dynamics and really listen to the industry associations that quite vocally were giving feedback.
Again, it was to inform our approach. Have we lived through this before? I haven't lived through a global pandemic. Has anybody here? Anybody here who has, please raise your hand. I see hands raised. Please give me a signal if you've lived through a global pandemic before. No. Nobody has.
Some of us may have studied global pandemics, but I would say that this one is not the same. It may have some characteristics that are clearly similar, which I'm sure Dr. Duncan can speak to, but I think that the state of our economy, the point in time, the moment in history, how this happened and the specific nature of the virus and how it's affected us are really things that none of us could have anticipated. I think it has had a unique impact in a way that we couldn't have comprehended before it happened.
It's interesting to think about it in terms of reflection and how important it is to learn from this, but also to realize that not every virus, not every pandemic and not every communicable disease is going to impact us in the same way. That's something else that we need to take from this. Being prepared for public health emergencies and other climate-related emergencies is going to take real adaptability and an ability to predict the various different ways in which things could unfold, based on different types of threats and risks, etc. I really welcome those conversations in the future to learn all we can from this experience.
Just to go back to my point here, we couldn't really have predicted that some businesses were going to stay open. In many respects, some of those decisions clearly were not within federal jurisdiction. We had provincial governments doing different things and doing them in a way that we couldn't. We weren't making those decisions. Sure, to some degree, we were providing some guidance and advice, but not always. Many of those decisions were made by provincial and territorial governments.
What I've heard in my community is that those really had impacts. The way that public health restrictions were rolled out and then rolled back, and how they were targeted to different industries and sectors, really had an impact on the different industries and sectors. Businesses were struggling with different scenarios. Again, how were we, as a federal government, supposed to understand that if we didn't take the time to prorogue, re-evaluate and listen to those stakeholders?
I find it hard to share in the perspective of some of my colleagues who seem to think that prorogation was not an appropriate or good use of time or was even for some other nefarious purpose. It just makes sense to me that you have to take time to re-evaluate. It's a lot of work to reflect and re-evaluate too. It's not easy. To learn and re-evaluate is not a holiday. It takes great commitment to ensure a good responsive government that is working for the people. It has to re-evaluate all the time. I would actually suggest that we probably need to re-evaluate constantly. I think we are, but perhaps there are ways to do that even better, too.
I'll get back to my argument here, which is that I've gathered some facts and figures from the hotel industry, as well, that I think are pretty important. These were collected in quarter three of 2020. The hotel industry or accommodations industry identified situational factors that I think we're all aware of that were really impacting them. Ongoing travel restrictions, obviously, were a big one that they identified. They also identified rising case counts, economic uncertainty, the Canada-U.S. border closure to non-essential travel, the reinstatement of gathering rules, the reopening rollbacks, the support program extensions. These were all situational factors. These were things they identified that were in the context they were dealing with.
I used to do strategic planning for organizations before getting into politics. With any organization, any large business, you would do a situational analysis—sometimes it was referred to as an environmental scan—before you developed a strategy. We did this work collectively, but I also did it with individual organizations. I think it's better to do it collectively, but it's more complex when you do it collectively because there are many different situational factors that are affecting different stakeholders within a system.
When you think about the complexity of doing this at a national scale with different levels of government, with many industries, with industry associations, with members of the public, with non-profit organizations, and the list goes on and on and on, just think about the complexity of how this virus has had ripple effects through our entire society. Just think about the challenges of different people, depending where you sit and stand in that system, and how what's relevant to you looks different depending on where you are. Again with those situational factors and that situational analysis, situational leadership depends upon that intelligence. Those are things that prorogation helped our government do. It helped it to stay attuned to those things, those factors and the differences of perspective out there. That, to me, is part of a responsible, responsive government.
You can't have good governance without being responsive. You can't. I mean, what does it even mean? What does good governance even mean if we're not listening to the various voices and stakeholders from across the country, especially in a 100-year public health crisis?
Again, we listened to the hotel industry. It had situational factors that it identified. The year-over-year change to occupancy for the accommodations industry in quarter one was down 10 points. In quarter two, it was down 49 points. That was when the pandemic hit. In July and August, it was still down 37 to 42 points. In quarter two, their revenues were down 82%. Basically, it started to get a bit better in July and August, but you can imagine that there was not a free-for-all. The pent-up demand—everybody wants to take a vacation, travel somewhere and stay in a hotel and—hadn't happened yet. In July and August 2020, we saw a moderate return of some revenues to the hotel industry, but they were very minor compared to what we saw in the retail industry.
Again, what I'm pointing to is the inequity of the impacts of the pandemic and the economic impact being greater—at least 10 times greater—than those of the previous recession in 2008-09.
Linking all this back for the sake of relevance, for my colleague Ms. Vecchio and others, these are all good reasons to have the testify before this committee and give us some testimony as to how she understood all of these various impacts at the time and how prorogation gave us the opportunity to re-evaluate some of our programs and eventually, I think, target more support for these industries. Some of that work is still ongoing, but lots of work has been done.
In particular, going back to the hotel industry....
Again, Madam Chair, I'm sorry for taking up so much time. I tend to be a bit verbose. Hopefully, as my political career continues, I may get more concise in the future. I struggle with this at times. I'll work on that.
Look, Madam Chair—
:
That would be great. I would really appreciate that. In particular, I'm hoping that my arguments here have swayed my opposition colleagues to support the amendment that I put forward.
Perhaps I can continue to make my best effort to bring you onside to the amendment. At any point, I hope you would express your willingness to support it, if I'm successful. I can only try my best. I understand that we all have our own perspectives and our own interests, etc., but I hope we'll get the support of some opposition members.
At any rate, I'll go back to my argument. That seemed like a long tangent. I want to continue to make my argument.
The hotel industry was impacted specifically in most of our urban centres most dramatically. I have here the statistics that were gathered by the hotel industry. This report here, from October 2020, is by CBRE Hotels, the world's leading hotel experts. It's specific to the Canadian impact of COVID-19. It's a substantive document. Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Niagara Falls, Halifax, Toronto airport, Calgary airport, Montreal airport and greater Quebec City were the areas where the hotel industry was the most impacted and we saw the biggest declines.
In addition to all of the situational factors I mentioned, there were also influences on recovery that kind of mirror some of those situational factors. They demonstrate what the hotel industry is saying will really impact how quickly they can recover. I've heard locally that the hotel industry and some of the other industries don't expect to recover for quite some time. It may take them two years or more to recover from the pandemic. This was their perspective after the first wave of COVID-19, in some cases, so I would say that this has only extended the hardship and the recovery time it will take for those industries to come back in full effect.
Again, we talk about this stuff, and it tends to almost dehumanize. It's not intentional, but when we talk about it, it's.... We're talking about businesses here, but what does it really mean when it comes down to it? There are people and families at the heart of these businesses. It's people's livelihoods we're talking about. I really think it's about paying attention and taking the time to really understand these impacts on people and families and communities and local economies. I'm talking about industries, and I'm bringing stats and information, but again, it's about the lived experience of families and workers and business owners. They're hanging on by a thread, at this point, if at all. I think some of them are not.
Part of this is due to the pandemic wave after wave and the fatigue that comes with that. I've maintained from the very start of this... Well, I wouldn't say it was from the start. That might be a little too arrogant of me to say. I would say that somewhere along the way, I think between the first and second waves, or just as the second wave hit us, we came to realize that going through wave after wave of a pandemic is not the best public health or best economic approach. It's not.
In terms of mitigation versus elimination, I saw a recent study out of France, I think out of a university there. I have it somewhere here in my piles of paper. The study shows that the countries and jurisdictions around the world that focused on COVID elimination fared the best from a public health perspective. They also fared the best from an economic perspective, by far. It's undeniable, based on the evidence.
What's interesting is that in this case, we see differences of value, philosophy and so on between different parties at different levels of government, and we see a different approach at different levels. This has created more inequity in the impacts and, in some cases, multiple waves of the pandemic, which have exacerbated the initial impacts.
There has been an exponential impact and hardship on the families and people in the community I represent. They've expressed this to me over and over again. I can't tell you how many calls I've had with local business owners who are at the end of their rope and are hanging on by a thread. By that I mean that in many cases they've had to borrow money and access our government supports. Although we've continually extended them, most people are saying that supports are literally keeping them afloat. If supports come to an end prematurely or the pandemic continues for much longer, they don't know how they're going to survive and keep their businesses afloat. Really, the livelihoods of many small businesses are at stake.
I myself am a business owner of 12 years. I started a business with $160 to my name and grew it over 12 years to a sizable firm with 11 staff and 30 contractors. It was a full-time 24-7 job, and it was gruelling and hard work to be an entrepreneur and grow a company. It's one thing to own a small company and keep it at the same level. It's another thing to try to build a bigger company.
You make plans as an entrepreneur to earn enough profit, even if it's just a bit as a small company, to reinvest back into your company so you can have better staff, can provide more training and professional development, can offer benefits and can do all kinds of things for the people who are the heart of your company. Some businesses can also invest in new equipment. Depending on what kind of company you have, sometimes you have a higher reliance on equipment and there is a need for operational expenses to increase. Those are big investments. There are all kinds of planned investments that entrepreneurs have as they try to build a business, and we should think about how these plans are shattered right now for our entrepreneurs and small businesses, for the family-run businesses that are struggling through wave after wave of the pandemic.
There's so much uncertainty for these folks. A lot of it has to do with the evolving science. Our understanding of this virus is evolving. I know that at times opposition members feel very frustrated with the fact that they want answers. I think Canadians do too. I'm not patronizing anybody when I say this; I really understand the frustration. We want to know the solutions right now. We want predictability and the answers right now. The reality in a pandemic, in an evolving crisis, is that we don't have that information and don't have certainty. That is really uprooting. It causes a lot of anxiety out there, and I can really empathize with how this impacts the businesses in our communities. Many of them have anxiety about reopening. When are travel restrictions going to be lifted? They have so many questions about economic recovery, about whether their customers are going to feel safe and whether there's going to be predictability in the future.
If you go back to what I was saying earlier about planned expenditures and growth, plans are integrated into the families of small business owners. This is as much about the growth of their company as it is about their livelihood. These things are so closely tied together. When you're the owner of a family-run business, you have a very close connection between your business and your family.
I can think about the optometrists I've talked to, or the accountants in my community, or the hair salons and the small shops along the main street corridor. All of them are these types of businesses. There's the local cleaner. There are so many of them. They don't all fit into one bucket. They're all these really committed, hard-working, entrepreneurial-type people who have taken on great risk to do something they love and believe in. Often, it's not really for profit, at the end of the day. It's for the stability of their family. They really are the ones who are impacted by this pandemic.
I've talked about the many workers and individuals who have been affected by this pandemic and the inequities across our society in terms of how that's played out. Today I'm really focusing on the small businesses and the hardest-hit industries. I want us not to forget that the economic hardships on them have been truly challenging at multiple levels, so I will continue.
In the food service industry, Restaurants Canada gathered statistics in October 2020 as well. They produced those. It took a little time to do the analysis, I'm sure, but I think just in general the food service industry really experienced a deep impact. They claim to be the hardest hit, and I think they are. I think maybe some other industry groups may say they are the hardest hit, but I don't think it's worth arguing; they're all the hardest-hit industries. There's no doubt in my mind that they are all in need of attention, support, empathy and targeted measures to help them recover. I think the only way we get those is by listening to them and by valuing their perspective. Again, taking the time to prorogue and listen to those stakeholders I think was essential for our government. I fully support taking that time.
Some 800,000 food service workers were laid off or had their hours cut to zero during the first wave of the pandemic. While many industries could bring people back to work, they were hovering at between 1% to 10% below pre-COVID employment levels as compared with February 2020. There continues to be a significant gap in the food service industry. They are one of the hardest hit for sure, with employment 21% below February 2020 levels. Those were statistics from October 2020 or just before then.
Again, I'm trying to use information that was relevant at the time of prorogation. In this case, I think the data that was analyzed had covered the summer of 2020 but was analyzed into the fall. It was still really relevant. I know that these associations were in dialogue with our government at the time and I'm sure they gave us the feedback. Although I wasn't in those conversations with the national associations, I was definitely hearing the same things in my local community from my chamber of commerce and the local chapters of some of these associations.
Over half of restaurants planned to, and still probably plan to, reduce their table service. This is a huge deal, obviously, for them. Many of them, of course, will want to open as soon as they can open patios so that they can earn some revenue.
This, to me, really inhibits. Social distancing really has an impact on them, because when you get the business model of a restaurant that often had pretty razor-thin margins.... I've done about 15 different business plans for restaurants, catering and café businesses of different kinds. I mentioned the one earlier that the YWCA runs in downtown Hamilton called At The Table café. It's a café and catering business and wholesale baking business. What I can tell you from doing very detailed financial analyses of these types of businesses is that they do have very thin margins.
It looks like my Internet might be slowing down. Am I coming through clearly, Madam Chair?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As an irregular participant on this committee, I do greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute and to learn.
I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Turnbull, whose contributions this morning have been illuminating.
I'd also like to appreciate that MP Vecchio is seeking to transact parliamentary business as between the parties, and I'm sure that the proper individuals on our squad will ensure that conversations happen, as appropriate. Being an irregular member, I don't want to interfere in any way that would be untoward, of course.
Members may recall when I had the opportunity last week to reflect on the relevance of prorogation and the particular point in the pandemic where we were late last summer. Obviously, we've moved to a different place now, and I think there is actually a fair point to be made that this entire exercise is a moot one. We're long past late summer.
As we appreciate it, we responsibly prorogued for a brief period of time in order to come back with a Speech from the Throne that could lay out a concrete vision in a moment where Canadians were looking for what are the next steps. We felt that was the responsible measure to take, as a government, and that's exactly what we did and why we did it.
That moved directly into a fall period of significant parliamentary activity, leading right up to the fall economic statement, which laid out a large number of concrete measures. I want to get into some of those today because I think one can only understand the relevance and the importance of the prorogation component by appreciating exactly what it led to: the Speech from the Throne, which recommenced parliamentary proceedings; going straight into a fall economic statement; and then of course more parliamentary debate through the winter, leading to the budget. So there is a continuum here.
I think it's important for Canadians to understand that this is all regular and dutifully conducted parliamentary process that is required as part of good governance and it's required as part of our Westminster parliamentary democratic tradition. I think we're all well aware of where prorogation fits into the tradition that we come from, as part of the Crown's various reserve powers.
We all appreciate that we are no longer at a point in history where all of governance is the product of royal prerogative. Nowadays there are very few such royal prerogatives, including prorogation. Centuries ago, when pandemics wreaked havoc on many societies, in both the Commonwealth and beyond, we lived in an era when the king or queen owned all the lands, made all the laws, raised armies to defend the people and attempted to conquer new territories to increase the wealth of the kingdom, and enforced the laws and then meted out justice. Over the past four centuries, those royal prerogatives have been whittled away and now we are at the point where Parliament controls virtually everything. Our democratic system is much more robust and there are very few powers, as I said, prerogatives that reside in the Crown, and one of them is prorogation. That is why the Prime Minister is required to bring to the Governor General that request for prorogation, and it was done responsibly.
I think that MP Turnbull and my learned colleagues have repeatedly articulated the rationale for this, and obviously the motions on the floor would seek to bring some greater level of clarity and accountability around the prorogation decision.
As I have said before, my own opinion is that this is a moot discussion. Canadians would want us to focus on the future and the future of vaccines, the future of economic recovery, the future of a return to normalcy for Canadian families and for seniors like those at St-Joseph's Manor, who I visited this morning via Zoom, who want nothing more than to say hello to their families in person.
I'll pause on this tangential point just because it is such a lovely thing. I learned this morning that the good residents at St-Joseph's Manor in Campbell's Bay got their second shot this week. That's stupendous news for those good people in Campbell's Bay on the north side of the Ottawa River, maybe 80 kilometres west of Gatineau.
That's what people want to be focused on right now. They want to focus on what we are doing to get to the next point of bringing us back, and that's what our government has been dong all along. Every single moment, every single decision has been focused on how we are contributing to making sure that Canadians can return to seeing their loved ones and can spend more time doing the things they want to do with fewer restrictions, how we can invest in the necessary fashion to procure and distribute vaccines to rebuild our biomanufacturing sector, how we can render more robust our overall health care system, how we can assist other levels of government, and how we can collaborate with other levels of government to bring about additional supports at critical times of need.
I think our hearts go out and our support is extended to those regions of the country that are, right now, really struggling, that are so challenged by this third wave, whether it's Peel Region, Nova Scotia or Alberta. We have regions that are really just focused on the here and now, and rightly so, because that's what matters.
I think many of my constituents in the Pontiac would express great frustration at the notion that there is a national debate to be had around prorogation decisions made late last summer with a view to enabling a pivot after the first wave and before the second wave took hold.
Let's take a quick step back, and think about what prorogation enabled. This is why it's so important to focus on MP Turnbull's amendment, and what he would propose that we focus this committee's work on. If indeed there is to be time spent staring in the rear-view mirror, let's focus on what prorogation enabled.
[Translation]
The prorogation allowed us to come up with an action plan for the second phase of the pandemic by means of a throne speech. Everyone knew that this second wave was coming, because we had seen what was going on in Europe.
We knew that we had to prepare for it by providing assistance to our workers, our small and medium-sized businesses, and our communities, which were suffering seriously as a result of the pandemic. The throne speech clearly indicated what emergency measures our government would be introducing. Additional protection was needed for our municipal players, and more funding.
That's what led to the throne speech and the 2020 fall economic statement. A wide range of measures and economic analyses of the situation were presented. In November 2020, the 2020 estimates had not yet been tabled because of the pandemic. It was therefore both necessary and important for our economic players to properly understand the situation through reliable data so that they could plan the April 2021 estimates.
My colleagues are no doubt aware of the contents of the 2020 fall economic statement. The information therein was about priority problems for the Canadian public. Table 1 showed the number of doses of potential vaccines obtained per person. Last fall, the discussion was about the number of doses that Canada had obtained from various companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax. It's interesting to see how the discussion has evolved since then.
We are now in a completely different position. On my Twitter account, I tweeted that in terms of the number of doses administered per 100 persons, Canada is now one of the leaders, along with Germany, the United States and Great Britain. The situation has changed considerably. We were in a very good position with respect to access to vaccines as soon as they were approved by Health Canada. After only a few months, 35% of Canadians had received their initial vaccine, and this percentage is increasing daily.
I will now return to the 2020 fall economic statement.
As you can see, we have turned the corner. The statement was about what had happened in the spring and how we had got to where we were in the fall. It mentions the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ontario and Quebec to protect the health and lives of our seniors. It also discussed contributions from the Red Cross and the ongoing efforts of the Canadian Armed Forces.
During the first wave of the pandemic, public policy and economic action evolved.
[English]
When we look at the different measures that were put in place, from the Canada emergency response benefit to the Canada emergency wage subsidy to the Canada emergency business account, there was an evolution with the collaboration of opposition members. There was an evolution of emergency policies all designed to bend the curve to protect our frontline health care workers and to help people to stay at home and stay healthy while continuing to pay their employees, pay their rent, pay their mortgages, stay on top of their bills and put food on the table.
By the end of summer 2020, we were in a different place. I think we can all reflect back. MP Shanahan will recall—
Sorry to disturb you out of your stupor. I know sometimes I can drone on. MP Long is looking at me as though he's paying great attention. That's well appreciated, MP Long.
MP Shanahan will recall how we had planned a Quebec caucus trip to les Îles de la Madeleine. We were looking forward to working hard together to discuss what could be done as we emerged out of the first phase and pivoted, knowing that there was a second phase to come. History being what it was, we weren't able to meet, which was too bad. We are all looking at Quebec caucus members to go back to les Îles de la Madeleine and to be greeted by to consider next steps for now. I recall at that moment we were looking at going there just so that we could take stock, step back and assess what had just transpired and then look to the future.
At the time we weren't even 10 months into a mandate. The government was in exactly the same position. The government, along with governments across our country in our provinces and territories and municipalities, had confronted the urgent necessities of this pandemic and had put in place the bricks and mortar programs that could sustain families, businesses and workers. It was the moment to look forward to what would be next. What did we need to do to improve the supports? How did we need to invest more? What did we need to do to address revenue issues and expenditure issues? That's what the Speech from the Throne enabled.
Canadians in my riding of Pontiac demanded to know where we were going, and rightfully so.
As I see the fall economic statement, I think about the importance of enabling the presence of our before this committee to discuss that continuum of how we were going to be pivoting from the first phase of the pandemic into the second phase. I think it would be entirely appropriate for her to bring us through that moment, if this committee sees fit to continue to look in the rear-view mirror and to continue to examine the past.
I would argue that my constituents would rather we focus on the future, but that's a separate matter. I will focus on the amendment at hand. You'll pardon my underscoring of the fact that my constituents would much rather we focus on the what's next of parliamentary procedure, as opposed to what was in our past.
I am looking now at, and would refer my esteemed colleagues to, the second and third charts of the fall economic statement, focusing on the one hand on real GDP and employment rate respectively. Note the distinct difference between real GDP without direct support measures on the one hand and with direct support measures on the other hand. It makes very clear, literally, in black and white, in a bar graph, what the measures implemented by our government enabled in terms of GDP preservation and employment preservation. The third chart indicates that without the direct support measures, unemployment would have reached nearly 20%. Those kinds of numbers are inconceivable for most Canadians.
Due to the direct support measures implemented during that spike in the spring of 2020, the unemployment rate was kept somewhere around 13% at its peak, as opposed to 19%. The Statistics Canada information is clear, but it's not just the Statistics Canada information. This is from the Department of Finance survey results from private sector economists. It is the norm with all Department of Finance efforts in the context of the economic statements and budgets to seek that external data input to ground-truth what is being published.
That's a significant indication to the Canadian public, being provided in a transparent way, of the importance of the support measures that have been implemented. They've prevented us from falling into a situation of nearly 20% unemployment and, rather, keeping us between 10% and 15% and then that unemployment rate to declined significantly. I might add, it was much faster than the vast majority of our OECD partners and our G7 partners. We were able to make sure that the employment rate was maintained.
That's important in a future-oriented perspective, because what was happening, particularly through the wage subsidy, was the maintenance of a connection between the employer and the employee. The effort was to incentivize the maintaining of employment to keep the employer-employee units strong so that there would be fewer pieces to pick up.
Of course, our finance minister is far more eloquent than I am. Who you have here before you is a mere member of Parliament from Pontiac stumbling through the fall economic statement as best I can. I know that our finance minister would do far greater justice to the plan for protection of jobs and protection of Canadians' employment and then the pivot into a plan for growth once the virus is under control and the economy is prepared to absorb it. The plan, as articulated in that full economic statement, is to deploy a three-year stimulus package to jump-start the economy.
That's exactly what has just happened this past spring. I'm just pointing out a thread that everyone knows and sees as being entirely obvious. Everything seems obvious in hindsight, and of course we're engaged here in an exercise in hindsight. The finance minister indicated abundantly clearly that this is where where we were heading. We are heading towards consistent supports on rent subsidies with wage subsidies to our municipalities and to our provinces, procuring billions and billions of dollars of vaccines at federal expense to distribute to the provinces so they can manage their own prioritization processes of vaccinating so many millions of Canadians, which is turning into the great success of 2021.
That generation of Canadians will look back on the achievement and say, “Wow, I was there. I remember that moment. I remember how it felt so dark at Christmas at how frustrating it was to be separated from family. I remember being challenged in my mental health through the winter of 2021; it was dark.” It wasn't as cold as some of the winters; it was still cold, but not as cold. It was a tough start to 2021, and then all of a sudden the vaccines, which had been procured so carefully by and her Department of Public Works, started coming online as planned. There were variations week by week here and there, but month after month the numbers came in, far greater quantities, far larger amounts, because the contracts were well negotiated and because the portfolio was diversified. We didn't pick just one winner; we bet on all of the horses. Now those horses are racing into the stables, and we are able to work with our provincial partners to accelerate the pace.
I think what we're going to see in years to come is that we're going to say that was the moment we remember being able to say, “Kids, you can go to a movie.” We're just looking forward to that moment. We're going to be able to have that backyard barbecue. We're going to go and enjoy a spaghetti dinner with our community. We're going to visit the seniors residence. These are all the things that are going to be made possible through the massive injection of so many doses of vaccines to Canadians.
All of it relates right back to that important and necessary decision to prorogue, to reconvene Parliament under the banner of a Speech from the Throne that could clearly indicate to Canadians that this is the path; here is where we're going, and to bring forward a fall economic statement that put the fiscal meat on the bones of that plan.
[Translation]
I'd like to end by thanking my colleagues for being willing once again to consider assessing the relevance of a discussion about prorogation. We could even discuss the relevance of prorogation, given that we all want to focus our efforts on things that really matter.
I hope that the right decisions will be made, because that would enable the committee to have useful discussions.
I'm very grateful for this opportunity to discuss things with you today.
[English]
I will conclude with that. I greatly appreciate the time that I've been afforded by my esteemed colleagues.
I've closed some windows. Hopefully I wasn't consuming too much bandwidth from the Internet that might have been making this a slower, choppier experience.
I was getting to what my constituents asked, and that's what I'm elected to do: address their concerns.
As I was saying, since being re-elected in 2019, and even after the prorogation of Parliament in 2020, I have had maybe two people, at the beginning, who wanted to know why, who actually wanted to know the semantics of it. Otherwise, I've had no concern about it. In fact, what my constituents have been asking about is how to get vaccines. How do we get vaccines into our arms? How do we get businesses back? How do we save jobs? I think that has been the focus of the government.
Then I look back at the history of when prorogation has been used. I hate to say this, but it's funny to see who's calling the kettle black, or however they say it. prorogation was used before to save a government from falling apart when three parties actually opposed it. In this case, it was a very contrarian version. We have a pandemic, which, as my colleagues Will Amos and Mr. Turnbull have said, nobody has seen in the last 100 years. I think 1918 was the last time. To go back, I've had to jog people's grandparents' memories, and even they have only heard about it, or when they were very young had very vague memories of it to actually relate that experience.
To continue in government as if nothing has happened and as if nothing is going wrong, with commitments that were made in a particular direction in an election just months earlier would be very unfair. It would be very inappropriate. It would not be what prudent Canadians would expect a government to do. Prudent Canadians would expect a government to be nimble, to quickly change, and to quickly figure out what needs to be done on the fly, immediately. They would want a reset.
If there was ever a time when prorogation was justified, was needed, was essential, that was the time. That was the time when Canadians wanted to forget about everything else. They wanted to know how they were going to be safe, how their children were going to be safe, how their kids would go to school, how they would be able to continue paying their mortgage or rent, and how they were going to put food on the table.
The government had to reposition and rethink things. This was front and centre for me.
Then we look at the length of time and the actual number of times. I think this committee has hashed over the length of time and the number of times that the previous Conservative government used prorogation as a tool for their own personal benefit when it was convenient. This time it was done in a pandemic.
Just look at the days that were postponed. There were months, the time before, that Parliament didn't sit. In this case, I think it was maybe 10 days or about a month of prorogation. In actually sitting days it was just 10 or 12 days.
What we came back with and what was given back after that period was a great reset. There was a fall economic statement that painted a blueprint or a road map of how we were going to survive this tenure and how we were going to sustain our businesses, jobs, and economy. Also, the question was how we were going to do a road map into recovery afterwards.
If you talk to any Canadian, anybody on Main Street, on Bay Street or in the airline industry, as well as the thousands and thousands or workers who are unemployed, that's what they wanted to hear us debating. They did not want us to debate other motions that were there from the past. Nobody cared about those at that time. They wanted us to debate how we were going to help.
The first calls I got were what most of you got: “What's happening with my job? Is the government going to be there for us?”
The second calls I received were from employers, who said, “I know I'm going to go through a pretty rough patch, but please don't let me lay off my employees. I barely got them. These are some of the best workers I've had. It takes a long time to nurture them. Can you figure out a way whereby I can still pay them a little bit? I want to and am continuing to pay them, even if I don't have much work. It would be great if the government could assist me in that way.”
The government responded in that way and was able to keep millions and millions of employees working even though revenue had dropped in those businesses. After that, when I brought up with my constituents, who would call, or call via Zoom, because we couldn't meet in person, whether they were having an issue with prorogation, or had any concerns on this, they said no. They didn't want to talk about that. They wanted to know what we were doing about their rent. Their businesses had been closed down.
In Surrey Centre we have a lot of banquet facilities. We have a lot of other facilities that were shut down, gyms and whatnot. They said, “Who's going to pay my rent? I have a huge footprint. Who is going to support us in this?” That is what they wanted to hear the government discussing at that time. That's what they wanted to hear in the debates in the halls of Parliament, or on the screens of Parliament, which we have switched to. That's what they wanted to see, and we came through. We said we'd give 65% to those who were hurt financially, but 90% to those that were shut down by public health notices. Right now the calls I get from them are thank yous and about the optimism going forward.
Prior to March we were on track. We made a million jobs, had the lowest unemployment rate prior to the pandemic in 2020.
I'm not in an affluent neighbourhood. I probably have one of the lowest family mean incomes in the Lower Mainland. If you turn right or left out of my office door, you would see “help wanted” signs in the windows of London Drugs and Starbucks. In fact, I have a non-profit employment centre next door that helps people get employment. Quite frankly, they had very few to send over there because everyone was getting jobs and everyone was doing better.
I think prorogation is a very important tool. It should be used very scarcely. This government has only used it once, only for a few weeks. It was a time to have cabinet, have government, have the rethink. In this case it was a minority government, so everything had to be done with all of the other parties. You had to have them on board. This was not a unilateral execution of power or abuse of power. This was something that you had to work on in co-operation with the parties, House leaders, opposition leaders, because you could face an election at any time. All of the measures were done in that pattern prior to prorogation, and after that, and every party virtually voted for almost all of those measures.
What were those measures for? They were measures for Canadians to get through this. They were measures that we needed at that time. They were not Mickey Mouse, as my colleague Mr. Amos just said earlier. We were able to hedge the most procurement of vaccinations in the world for every single person. My skeptics, family and friends, all of us, have interesting Zoom conversations or chat groups where people are saying, “Are you really going to get vaccinated? I'm not going to get vaccinated until 2022.” I think our colleague, , the health critic, has said a lot of things about children getting vaccinated, the third world getting vaccinated, before—
:
I am indeed here. I am pleasantly surprised to get a turn a little earlier than I thought. I raised my hand when there was some talk of how we might have a discussion to move past this.
Obviously, there is a lot in Ms. Vecchio's motion about the WE Charity scandal, but what's important to note is that my Liberal colleagues on the committee have also made this about the WE Charity scandal, because they refuse to have a vote because they are trying to protect, presumably, the for sure and others who were mentioned in the original motion from having to come to discuss the WE Charity scandal. All that is to say it's very much the Liberals on the committee who, as much anybody else, have made this about the We Charity scandal.
What I've tried to propose is a way forward that puts the focus back on prorogation. We've heard many times—and I don't think it's in dispute—that the effectively.... While it's the prerogative of the Crown to prorogue Parliament, she does that on the advice of the Prime Minister. It's effectively the Prime Minister's prerogative to decide when Parliament is prorogued.
There are obviously differences of opinion about the reasons for the 's prorogation. We've heard also some disagreement, and I think some real questions. We've even heard from Liberals at committee that, well, you know, the length of the prorogation might have been different, and maybe they didn't quite get that right and the timing of when it began.
There are some questions about the nature of the prorogation. We know that the is the decision-maker. I've offered many times on the record and off the record to various folks on the Liberal side that we could bring this back to the topic of prorogation by having the Prime Minister at committee for an hour and, as far as I'm concerned anyway, dispense with the rest. I know there are other committees pursuing the WE Charity question, and rightly so, but for as long as my Liberal colleagues are going to continue to filibuster in order to defend other Liberals from having to talk about the WE Charity scandal, this is what it's about.
If we're going to end up voting on this motion, then I'm going to support the Conservatives' motion. There's no doubt in my mind about that. The question then becomes, can we get back to making this about prorogation? That means having the sole decision-maker on prorogation come before the committee. I know that I'm not saying anything that's actually new here, but I think it's important because we've heard so much, so many words, from other colleagues that I think it's easy to lose the thread here.
The reason we're having this study is that the himself proposed this as a mechanism to prevent political abuses of prorogation. There can be legitimate reasons for prorogation. I think I've said here before—maybe I haven't—that the Manitoba legislature routinely prorogues. Every year, they come back with a Speech from the Throne. There have been uncontroversial prorogations in Canada's history. There were several, I think, in the Chrétien era. Nobody has talked about them, because they weren't interesting.
There are a lot of ways to prorogue Parliament. I'm not disputing that it is a tool that can be used. The pandemic is clearly all-consuming, so the idea that there might be a prorogation having to do with that is not outlandish. It's just that it happened to be announced the day after the minister of finance resigned right in the middle of a scandal and the day before a whole bunch of documents were due that might have shed some light on that scandal. I think any right-thinking person might think that there really is a connection there.
Yes, there may be questions for the about the WE Charity scandal, but also about the timing of the beginning of that prorogation. There are also questions about why the Prime Minister saw fit not to end it earlier, for instance, and to have us come back in order to have a far more fulsome discussion than what took place in Parliament about the expiration of the CERB program and what would replace it. We know, of course, that the legislation ended up being rushed through and there were some problems with that legislation.
Again, when we talk about the sickness benefit and then people later using that in order to quarantine from international travel that they had taken against the advice of the government, that was something that.... All parties agreed to that legislation and didn't identify that as a problem, but in fairness to opposition parties, I'll say that we didn't have a lot of time with that legislation. It was tabled and had to be passed in a matter of days, because the CERB deadline was there, despite the fact that I know I can say with certainty that New Democrats were calling for the House to sit in the month of September so that we could have that longer discussion.
There are a lot of legitimate questions about the timing and the nature of the prorogation that belong rightly with the sole decision-maker in respect of prorogation in the context of a study that has come about as a result of his own proposal for how best to prevent abuses of prorogation.
It makes perfect sense to have the here for one hour, and we could move on. I am putting that back on the table. I welcome a discussion about why it is that people don't think one hour of the 's time, in order to make good on his own proposal for how to prevent abuses of prorogation, the kind that we saw in the Harper years....
I would like some of my Liberal colleagues to say, if they think it's true, that had this mechanism existed in the Harper Parliaments, they would not have thought it was appropriate for Stephen Harper to come before PROC and defend his government's position. Then maybe explain how this mechanism is actually supposed to prevent political abuse of prorogation if the only decision-maker doesn't actually have to defend the decision in questioning to committee, because then I don't think it's a very good mechanism.
Of course, people at this committee will know that I think the best mechanism would actually be to have Parliament vote on prorogation because in instances of non-controversial prorogations—as I have said, there have been more of those than not in Canada's history—I don't think it would be difficult to get Parliament's assent to a prorogation. But in cases where it is controversial, then I actually think it's Parliament that should decide whether Parliament rises. It's Parliament that should decide whether all the work of committees is suspended or not. It's Parliament that ought to decide whether the legislative agenda gets cleared or not.
If a government doesn't want to move forward with certain legislation, it's always their prerogative not to put it up for debate on any given date. We saw that. Bill was a bill, a bad bill, I might add, that was presented by the Liberal majority government in the last Parliament, and I don't know that it was debated at all, in fact. I was relieved. I would have preferred that the government just withdraw it to give people peace of mind about their pension. That always hung over people's heads in the last Parliament, so withdrawing it would have been a better way forward, or dare I say, even a prorogation mid-Parliament.
There were times in the last Parliament that I did say that I thought we were about due for a prorogation. There was a lot of stuff on the Order Paper that the government clearly wasn't interested in moving forward with and I thought it would be good to just have the government reset its direction. Then the government picked the most controversial moment that it possibly could have, raising the spectre of political abuse for prorogation after over five years in government. So yes, we have questions. That's fair. That's what Parliament is for. That's what the accountability function of Parliament is all about. It's a principle of responsible government that elected parliamentarians be able to pose questions directly to decision-makers within government. Let's get the here and let's get this study over with and let's move on to something else.
Thank you to Mrs. Shanahan for allowing me to make that intervention sooner rather than later.
Thanks to the committee for listening to that again.
:
All colleagues would think they're going to get a different outcome.
I'll start by reading what the said:
We are proroguing Parliament to bring it back on exactly the same week it was supposed to come back anyway and force a confidence vote. We are taking a moment to recognize that the throne speech we delivered eight months ago had no mention of COVID-19; had no conception of the reality we find ourselves in right now. We need to reset the approach of this government for a recovery to build back better. And those are big important decisions, and we need to present that to Parliament and gain the confidence of Parliament to move forward on this ambitious plan. The prorogation we are doing right now is about gaining or testing the confidence of the House....
I think all of us didn't expect, and how could any of us expect, what we have faced since March 2020. The curveball we were thrown as parliamentarians, as MPs, as a government, and as an opposition, was unprecedented, obviously. We talk about a generation, a once-in-a-hundred-years event that hit all of us. The fact that we felt, the felt, that we needed to step back, regroup, strategize, and come up with new plans and priorities....
I know we say we needed to do that, and obviously, we did need to do that. Canadians agreed that this is what was needed to be done. I respect very much that the other parties don't agree with that. They don't think that was needed to be done.
I will now come to the motion, and I won't read it. The motion wants to study the government's reasons for prorogation. I spent some time last night actually pulling that back out again. It's getting a little wrinkly, and I should make a new copy.
All Canadians, parliamentarians, government officials and departments were getting kicked in the gut and had our feet taken out from under us by this, hopefully, once-in-a-generation pandemic. No one knew what they were dealing with. The fact is we had to do what we did.
The motion wants to study the government's reasons for prorogation. The clearly gave his reasons. You may not agree with the reasons, and that's fair. The opposition has a role to play in our government. The government doesn't work without a great opposition. The motion was to study the government's reasons, and we went through paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).
I apologize for saying this again, but it wasn't just the and the who knew. It was Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, the Kielburgers, the Perelmuters, with memoranda, emails, text messages and documents.
You can take a few steps back and ask Canadians, in particular, why did we prorogue? I always talk about how I do a little survey just to gauge if I'm way off or if my line of thinking is right, because sometimes you get so close.... You know the old saying about how you get so close you can't see the forest for the trees. Prorogation—and I pulled this up—“in politics is the action of proroguing, or ending, an assembly, especially a parliament, or the discontinuance of meetings for a given period of time, without a dissolution of parliament.”
I asked people, first off, if they knew what prorogation was. It's taken me about a month and a half now to actually say “prorogation” correctly. I still kind of stumble a little bit. I asked people today, and last night, if they knew what prorogation was. I had two out of maybe 20 who even knew what it was, but then I explained to the other 18 what it was for. To be fair, this wasn't to avoid our government falling or anything like that. I asked if they felt it was necessary for us to reset, given the curveball that we were thrown with respect to COVID-19. It was certainly not an accurate poll, but basically 100% of them agreed that, yes, we did need to reset.
What troubles me with respect to the motion and then MP Turnbull's amendment—I want to make sure I stay on topic here with respect to the amendment—is I felt that.... I know that when you make motions you will make sure you cast as wide a net as possible. I wasn't there, but we would have done that, too, when we were in opposition. I get that, but there was a lot in there. I think that maybe at some point there may be a “Yeah, okay, we did throw everything but the kitchen sink in there. We wanted to make sure we had all that covered, everything” as I read from (a) to (h), but then MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion was what I deemed a compromise.
Yes, straight up, the is not on it, but I'm still having a really hard time understanding what anybody on this committee won't get from , who chaired the committee. I fail to understand what you're not going to get from Minister Freeland that you would get from the Prime Minister. I don't understand that. You may say, “Well, we will probably get the same thing, but it's not the Prime Minister; it's Minister Freeland. We want that time with the Prime Minister sitting before this committee instead of Minister Freeland.”
I have been accused of sometimes not being as buttoned down as a lot of other MPs with respect to procedures, policies, motions and things like that. That's not my strength. My strength is just a passion for representing my riding and for connecting with people here.
I always use the words, “I want to keep it real.” I want all of us on this committee, as I've said before, to prorogue themselves for a bit and step back and say that we want the clip or the photo of the testifying before this committee, knowing.... Of course, I respect everybody on the committee very much, but we all know—all of us—that we won't get anything different from the Prime Minister than what he has already said. We all know that—every one of us. As I look around at some of these boxes, every one of us knows that.
We may have the ability to say, after it happens, “Oh look. He didn't give us what we wanted, and the said exactly what he said prior.” Well, yes, that's fair, because he has already said it. He is not going to say—and I'm probably stepping over my speech here a bit, but I am obviously not speaking for the Prime Minister—anything that is different from what he has already said, because those are the reasons why he prorogued.
To me, I feel it's important for the committee to re-evaluate what's important here. MP Blaikie has every right, of course, to call the . I know that MP Blaikie is an honourable man and extremely intelligent, and he knows the ways of these committees. I have a lot of respect for MP Blaikie. I sat on a committee with him and I was wowed by his knowledge, insight, thoughtful comments and questions. I know that MP Blaikie also knows—I know he knows—there's not going to be anything different with the Prime Minister being called before this committee—no way. Come on. He knows that. I know he does.
We're trying to find a way forward. To be perfectly frank, I haven't really started my real speech. This is kind of a preamble, if you will. I don't have a book. What do they call that? A prologue.... I don't really read books. I have trouble reading books, to be honest, unless there are pictures in them. It's my ADHD. I can actually read a chapter of a book and be done with the chapter of the book and say, “What did I just read?” I learn visually and through talking things out and watching things. I have a lot of trouble reading.
Look, I believe there is a way forward here. I believe that MP Turnbull's amendment.... As a lot of you know, I love to talk, but it's hard to talk about the same things. I certainly don't want to tell MP Turnbull what a great MP he is, because I already told him that at the last meeting or the prior meeting, but he is a great MP. I know that he is extremely passionate about what he does and what he brings. I know that this amendment.... I apologize for the scribbles. You can see at every meeting I do a few extra doodles, except when MP Turnbull speaks, because I listen to every word he says. It's so thought provoking.
I believe his amendment is something that, for the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc with MP Normandin, is a fair compromise. MP Turnbull's amendment moves us forward. Maybe when we move on to the next study or what have you, my days at PROC will quickly come to an end, but I want to see PROC be what PROC should be and doing great work.
As I said to you before, I've subbed in many committees. Obviously, I've spent a ton of time in HUMA. When we're first elected, we get our little checklist of what committees we'd like to be on. I remember looking at the list and asking what all those things stood for? What does HUMA stand for and what does PROC stand for? Of course, everything has a shortened name. I checked off HUMA and I was on ethics. Actually, MP Calkins is there somewhere.
Blaine, I don't know what you're holding. Is that an Arctic char? What's in that picture? Maybe he's not there, but anyway, his picture is there.
MP Calkins chaired ethics. I was on the ethics committee. I think back, and there was me, and . Maybe sitting beside Nate rubbed off on me a bit.
What I'm getting to with respect to ethics is that we got a lot of great work done. We did. We did a lot of great work. Our chair, MP Calkins, did a great job as chair. We collaborated, we compromised and we got some good stuff done.
Certainly my committee in HUMA, chaired by , who I got to know very well, got some good stuff done. He was a great chair. Now in HUMA, chaired by , again there's lots of collaboration, lots of working together, and we got some good stuff done.
If you want the pecking order of senior committees and committees that people are on, PROC is right up at the top. The work that PROC does is fundamental to the workings of Parliament, but not right now, no. We're stuck. We're in a stalemate. We're not moving, not moving forward.
Canadians aren't engaged with this. They're not concerned about this. It's not that they don't care. Look, it's not that they don't care about the workings of Parliament and committees and all that stuff, but they're not seized with this at all.
We all reference at times “for those Canadians who are watching,” and “those Canadians who are tuned in to this right now”. I always wonder how many people are actually tuned in to this and this is a big part of their daily lives.
It hearkens me back to a previous life. It was always an enigma to me. I was involved with a major junior hockey team—I think you all know that—and we had radio broadcasts. Anyway, it was a negotiation. The broadcaster was putting the price up to carry the games. We dug in. We really dug in to how many people were listening to our games on the road and at home, and to how much it would cost for an ad, and all those things. We dug in, and we were actually shocked as to how few people listened to us on the radio. I won't give you the number, but we were like, that's it?
Where I'm going with that, Madam Chair—and thanks for giving me a little latitude on that—is here we are in PROC. I know we are addressing Canadians and we're talking to Canadians, but how many people do we really think are tuned in to this and listening with bated breath to every word that Wayne Long is going to say, or MP Duncan, MP Turnbull, MP Normandin, MP Kent, MP Calkins and MP Amos, what have you? Do you think they're all tuned in with their little notepads, taking notes and saying, “Look at these guys go. Look at them go on this. Look at them going back and forth. They're filibustering, and they're doing this and that”? No, they're not. I can tell you straight up that they're not. That's a cold reality for everybody. They are not. They're not seized with this. Let me say it again, Canadians aren't seized with this.
Sure, as MP Blaikie has said, we have a right to study. In terms of MP Vecchio's motion, of course, we have a right to study—how is it actually worded again— “the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020”. Okay, that's fair. We have a right to study it. So let's dig in and study why they prorogued, when the has already said why he has prorogued. Government House leader , I believe—I'm not even looking at my notes—has testified and given reasons for prorogation. Officials have said why.
What Canadians are seized with is the uncertainty that this pandemic has brought into their daily lives. I had no idea when I signed up to be a member of Parliament in 2015...and then, obviously, I was lucky enough and fortunate enough to serve for four great years, where we did wonderful things as a government and as a Parliament. I was fortunate enough to run again in 2019 and win my seat, the only red dot in the southern part of New Brunswick. I wear that as a sense of pride. We have some work to do, obviously, but when you draw that line across the province, it's all blue, except for little old me down here in this little red dot. Again, I wear that with a sense of pride.
What I'm getting at is that none of us knew that we all would be faced with something that was to change our lives forever. It's not to say that we're all never going to be good again, or we're not going to heal, and we're not going to move forward and recover, but we will never be the same. I don't say that like it's devastatingly bad—I don't mean it like that—but we have all changed in a certain way our thoughts, our outlook on things and our outlook on the future.
Look, I love going to school classes to talk to students—love it, can't get enough of it—from, honestly, kindergarten right up to grade 12. I used to go in before this pandemic, and we would talk about Parliament, governments, world order and so on and so forth. I always used to say—and always still say—to the students, “Look, one bit of advice is, don't ever think that history is done changing.” Yes, from the Second World War until now, we've had flare-ups, but relatively stable world order. Don't think that just because from the late 1940s until now that it is always going to be the same and that things will never change.
Change will happen. Change will come when we least expect it. Boy oh boy, when we ran in 2019, all of us with our beliefs and our passions and our ideologies, what have you, none of us were prepared for what came at us in 2020, none of us. Give or take when we saw cases of COVID-19, the coronavirus, start in—I apologize, I'm going to be off here—probably November or December, and then we came back, and we were back up in Ottawa at the end of January, fresh off our elections, and we didn't know what was hitting us. We didn't know what was coming. Then some cases came to North America and Canada. Then it got closer and closer to home. Then we got more and more concerned. I can remember talking to my wife, Denise. Denise was here in Saint John and I was in Ottawa, and she asked what was happening, and more importantly, what was going to happen.
:
Madam Chair, I guess I'm going to get back to my reflections on the extended debate we're having on the amendment Mr. Turnbull brought forward.
Before I get going on my comments, I first of all want to thank the members who are joining us today. Mike Kelloway is subbing in for one of our members. As well, Andy Fillmore and Robert Morrissey are here. It's always great to have our colleagues with us. I have to say I feel as though I have the Atlantic Canada brigade with me today, so that's always great.
As well, before I get going, I know we're talking about the amendment Ryan has brought forward, and I think perhaps there are two camps.
I think there's one camp that certainly believes the reason for prorogation was related to WE. That is the argument that continues to be brought forward. Again yesterday in the House of Commons—I was fortunate that I was there on House duty—a lot of the comments again made reference to exactly that.
On this side I have to say that I am truly convinced, and my opinion is still that if a global pandemic is not the time to set an agenda, then I don't know when an appropriate time to move forward with setting new priorities would be. I truly believe that if we look back to August of last year, we knew what the situation was back then. Many of us spoke about a possible second wave or third wave, and, hopefully not, fourth wave. Those were the types of things we were talking about, knowing very well that they could be a possibility.
I have to say I'm extremely pleased and proud that our government chose to reset that agenda. I really want to reflect on where we are today and make reference to how, if we didn't make the changes back then, we would have been really ill-equipped to deal with the challenges that many Canadians are faced with.
I know that my honourable colleagues sometimes don't like to hear me talk about where things are right now, but I think we can't forget. Sometimes we do forget. Last year we thought we were in a bad situation. We never thought we were going to get to where we are. Maybe some of us did. We had to make sure that the plans were in place.
I want to talk a bit about the justification, and again why I feel that and would be well placed to provide us with some information as to the thought process that was involved in putting together a new throne speech and in resetting and recalibrating to move forward to deal with, really, a huge reality that we had to face.
[Translation]
We have to begin by reminding ourselves that the COVID‑19 pandemic is not a partisan matter and that no political party is involved. Honestly, COVID‑19 is not interested in political division. Most of the time, the COVID‑19 pandemic exploits such divisions. It recognizes that we are not always capable of working closely together, and it takes advantage of this.
I hope that we'll be able to continue to work closely together as parliamentarians to put an end to a global pandemic that has had such a negative impact on so many people. I think that we have all been affected in one way or another and we now need to recognize that we all have a role to play in putting an end to this pandemic.
My sympathies go out once again to all Canadians listening to us today. I understand their concerns for themselves, their community, their province and everyone affected by the pandemic.
Like them, I am very worried. I worry for my fellow citizens, my neighbours in Nova Scotia and people in every province affected by COVID‑19. Combatting COVID‑19 has reached a critical point, and the third wave is already hitting many regions from one end of the country to the other.
I'm going to use my friends in the province of Nova Scotia as an example. A month ago, COVID‑19 cases were under control in Nova Scotia. But as we can see, the situation can change quickly.
That's why it's important to make sure that will be able to come and speak to us. If you recall, I had mentioned that Ms. Freeland was not only the Deputy Prime Minister, but also the chair of the Cabinet Committee on the federal response to the Coronavirus disease, COVID‑19. She could come and tell us about what the members of this committee think and how they were able to develop programs to help Canadians. Through her many discussions with members of cabinet, she would be in a good position to tell us why they developed a new plan and explain the decision to prorogue Parliament.
The number of hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care has been breaking all records. Unfortunately, it is true that this third wave is hitting Canadians hard. As I mentioned earlier, the situation we are in is unprecedented. We need to respond together quickly through special measures.
The government has truly helped all of Canada. We are of course continuing to be there for all citizens. We have recently taken action, as we did for all of the provinces that were experiencing an increase in the number of COVID‑19 cases. We are collaborating on an ongoing basis with our provincial government counterparts to exchange information and provide support that would strengthen the provinces' capacity to combat the pandemic.
I won't review all of the programs that were introduced over the past year, but I think that could give you a lot of information on that score. I repeat that she should give us her views, as well as what her colleagues and the think.
We are continuing to deliver vaccines to the provinces as they extend their vaccination programs. According to the numbers available to me, approximately 18 million vaccines were delivered across Canada and approximately 16 million doses administered. The situation has been progressing extremely well, but as the vaccination process continues, we need to continue to protect one another. The virus has repeatedly shown that it can be cunning and insidious, and that it can spread very quickly if we don't take it seriously.
As I mentioned earlier, COVID‑19 is non-partisan. It tries to gain a foothold in our communities, and that is why we need to do everything we can to prevent it from doing so. I will reiterate that having and other potential guests come and speak to us could help us write our final report on the prorogation.
We need to stay on course to reduce the number of infections, protect one another and ensure that people remain safe in their communities. We can all admit that we are tired, but we need to continue to follow public health guidelines and do everything possible, individually and collectively, to stop the spread of the virus.
Vaccination may be the finish line, but until we have all been vaccinated, we need to protect one another. Companies, governments, families and communities need to do everything possible to reduce the risk of transmitting this virus.
Last week, I mentioned that my husband was privileged to receive his vaccination. I am pleased to announce that mine will be at 1 p.m. tomorrow. I'm not going to miss the opportunity and I'm looking forward to it.
Health Canada has authorized four COVID‑19 vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Only last week…
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'll pick up where I left off.
Health Canada has authorized four vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Only last week, we received some very good news. Health Canada has authorized the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children aged 12 to 15 years. There are a lot of very happy people in my riding.
All approved vaccines have been highly effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. As I mentioned, vaccine distribution in the provinces and territories is moving ahead quickly. More than 18 million doses of approved COVID‑19 vaccines have been delivered to the provinces and territories, and over 15 million Canadians have had their first vaccination. These figures are from last week, but they continue to increase steadily. We are on the right track.
Last week, we received two million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. It's a major shipment from this manufacturer. Last month, my colleague,, announced that Canada had secured COVID‑19 vaccines from Pfizer for 2022 and 2023, with options to extend into 2024.
As we have repeatedly stated, we will be there for Canadians to combat COVID‑19 by providing them with everything required for as long as it takes. We expect Canadians who are eligible for the vaccines and who want to be vaccinated will have access well before September 2021. This is part of our commitment to the provinces and territories, and we are working closely with them to combat COVID‑19.
The Cabinet Committee on the federal response to the Coronavirus disease, COVID‑19, has worked tirelessly over the past year and a half. It could comment on the whole vaccine distribution issue. I think could give us her thoughts on the matter.
We are going to continue to work together with our colleagues and offer them any help they might need to keep outbreaks under control and to keep the entire population of Canada safe. This could, for example, involve purchasing and distributing vaccines, personal protective equipment, and rapid detection tests, and facilitating their use, or calling upon private companies to distribute rapid tests in order to more thoroughly trace people who may have been in contact with someone who tested positive.
The government of Canada is providing $8 out of every $10 spent on combatting the pandemic. Once again, I'd like to point out that we have contributed an enormous amount of funds because we want to make sure that Canadians are protected. The number of things we have asked Canadians to do is unbelievable, and we are still asking those who live in a region where there has been an outbreak to stay at home. That's why we need to be there for them. We have always said that we will be there for Canadians. We need to make sure that the programs that have been established are accessible.
As for prorogation and the new throne speech, I would say that we did it so that we could take the time to think things through and make sure that all of the programs were in place to meet the needs of Canadians.
Much of the support now in place stems from the rapid surge capacity support initiative, which, in addition to the safe restart agreement, provided more than $19 billion to the provinces and territories so that they could increase the capacity of their health institutions, intensify contact tracing and provide epidemiological support and a variety of other services to all Canadians. This would enable the provinces and territories to respond more effectively in the event of an outbreak and reduce the spread in hot zones, where the pressure on health systems is strongest. They could also provide places to go for families and people who become infected by Covid‑19, who have been in contact with someone who is infected or who could not isolate otherwise. Needless to say, this money could also be used to consolidate existing services where needs are greatest.
We need to acknowledge that the provinces and territories all have different areas of jurisdiction, and that circumstances vary enormously from one area to another. I am happy to say that here in New Brunswick there are only 142 active cases. Touch wood! However, as we know, things can change overnight. We therefore need to make sure that the provinces and territories have some control over funds and over future national health policies. We are there to support them through this process.
In its COVID‑19 response, the Government of Canada Introduced rapid surge capacity support for eight existing services: testing assistance, outbreak management, contact tracing, laboratory services, testing equipment, voluntary safe isolation sites, public health response teams and human resource recruitment. These priority measures were put in place to help the population, and did not exist when the 2019 throne speech was delivered. We only succeeded in establishing them after careful consideration.
We were recently able to provide assistance to health systems in trouble, including Ontario's, through health human resources assistance measures, including reimbursement for the costs associated with the temporary transfer of health human resources from one province or territory to another. These funds will help support specialized care services by deploying staff when and where the need arises, including intensive care nursing staff and doctors.
Since it's National Nursing Week, I'll take this opportunity to congratulate all nurses from the bottom of my heart for their outstanding work in our wonderful country. They are front-line superheroes, and deserve everyone's thanks .
I'm very pleased to see that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia sent staff a few weeks ago to help Ontario in these difficult times. We are all Canadians and all members of the same family. We're there to help one another. I felt very proud about the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia sent people to Ontario to help out.
Every province and territory will be eligible for up to $20 million for the deployment of resources to areas in need. It's truly an opportunity for team spirit to come to the fore countrywide. The provinces and territories are prepared to help one another. The federal government will be deploying the financial resources needed to send health human resources where the need is greatest.
I'd now like to discuss testing, which, together with public health measures, are the main ways being used to slow the spread of COVID‑19.
So far, over 25 million rapid tests have been shipped to the provinces and territories. By combining these with the federal tests, up we have calculated that over 41 million rapid tests have been distributed across Canada. Several provinces and territories have announced that these types of test would be available for their companies. This is a follow-up to the successful distribution of over 1.2 million rapid tests to long-term care centres, hospitals, homeless shelters and areas where there are rapidly spreading outbreaks of the virus.
The rapid tests are useful, because they can detect presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases, isolate people earlier and slow the spread of COVID‑19, particularly in workplaces.
As I said before, the government continues to work closely with all the provinces and territories to make sure that they have the tools they need to fight the pandemic, including buying PCR and rapid tests for them to use at testing sites. These can be combined with other public health measures. It's an additional layer of protection that can contribute to the safety and health of workers.
We also work closely with the provincial and territorial governments to strengthen the health care system and adjust to the problems encountered in delivering health services during the COVID 19 pandemic.
The 2021 budget that was just announced includes $100 million for a three-year period to promote innovative health care measures. We know that many groups have been affected disproportionately by COVID‑19, including health care workers, front-line workers, young people, seniors, and Canada's indigenous, racialized and black populations.
My friends, over the weekend, I visited my aunt Lilianne at her home in Moncton. She is 99 years old and is doing very well from the cognitive standpoint. She has received both doses of the vaccine and is very happy and grateful, but still feels that she is very much a prisoner of her care home. She is waiting for life to return to normal, because it has been a difficult year for her. It's clear that young people and seniors alike have been experiencing stress and suffering mentally from the pandemic. We mustn't forget this.
There are so many unbelievable community organizations in Canada, and in our provinces, that are close to people and know better than anyone else how to provide these services. We want to help them, particularly at this time, because we can see that demand for services like these has increased. I said early on in this pandemic that there would be a tsunami of mental health problems. That is what is now happening, and we need to cope with the situation. Fortunately, we are still seeing a marked decline in the number of breakouts in long-term care institutions. We want to make sure that residents and caregivers in long-term care institutions receive proper support.
In the 2020 full economic statement, we earmarked $6.4 million for the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement, which has been using these funds to extend its long-term care program to increase its capacity to act in the event of a pandemic. It has been doing excellent work in helping long-term care institutions in Canada better prepare for preventing infections and taking other measures to protect residents. This is really our priority. Over 350 long-term care facilities and retirement homes are receiving assistance under this program.
I'd like to finish with a few thoughts about the importance of public health guidelines.
Vaccination is moving ahead quickly, but as we said earlier, and as we can all see, we are not yet out of the woods. Even vaccinated people like my aunt Lilianne must continue to follow the basic public health guidelines that have kept us safe so far. Even though the vaccination rate is increasing daily, most Canadians have not yet received both doses of vaccine. In the meantime, public health measures are what will continue to contain the pandemic and production protect the entire population.
If we lift the restrictions too quickly, the number of cases will spike, as shown by statistical models from the outset. The scientists were right. If we remove the restrictions too soon or do not enforce them strictly enough, people will get sick and some will die.
That's the truth of the matter. Even though it's tough on morale, and even though we might all be exhausted, this is not the time to let our guard down. We all need to continue to enforce public health measures, because they have proved their worth. There are no magic recipes. We know what we have to do and we have to continue to follow the guidelines.
We decided to prorogue Parliament because we wanted to make sure that we could introduce programs that would meet the needs of Canadians during the second wave, and even the third, which we are now experiencing.
Madam Chair, I'm not sure how long I've been speaking. I don't want to use up my colleagues' speaking time, and will therefore give the floor to my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull.
I'll continue later, if time allows, with some further comments.
:
I did just say June 3, 2020, was when it was published. My point is that, at that point, this information was relevant. All the stakeholders who are quoted in this publication would have been renowned economists who said things about the 2020 economic crisis that we're living through still today that substantiate the claim I've been making, or the argument I've been making, that the economic impact of COVID-19 is many times greater than the economic recession in 2008-09, which, I would add, Stephen Harper used as his excuse, or his reason, I should say, or rationale for proroguing Parliament twice, once in 2008 and once in 2009.
I really think this speaks to why we would hear from the , who I would think has heard from some of these stakeholders. Probably even her team of highly trained professionals would have been aware of this document, which I think helps highlight why this economic crisis is both unique but also far greater than the one that occurred in 2008-09. I would think that would be relevant information. It certainly echoes many of the other things I've been saying in this committee. Also, I think it supports in many ways the data that the chief statistician of Canada had gathered, which was slightly later but did include this time period as well. I think it helps us understand the first wave of COVID-19.
Going back to what I was saying, Kevin Milligan, a professor of economics from the Vancouver School of Economics, said that the main difference between the 2008-09 financial crisis and today's pandemic-induced recession is which side of the economy was hit, the demand side or supply side. He said that public health restrictions have shut down entire markets for goods and services, and it's not a lack of spending power from the demand side as it was in 2008; in fact, in this particular crisis, consumers have a lack of ability to purchase the same basket of goods and services, whether it be because of a fear for workers or consumers or because of public health restrictions in place.
The economic crisis we're in is very different in kind from the 2008-09 crisis, which was a demand-side shock. We're seeing a supply-side shock as a result of this pandemic, which is very different. It means that because so many workplaces have been closed down or work stoppages have been so far-reaching, in fact, there's a real shock to the supply side of the economy. This really informs how we should move forward. It informs how we can't simply apply....
Again, to Ms. Vecchio's point, this is a reason that a government would need to stop and reflect from time to time on what its priorities are and how it understands this crisis from a health perspective, an economic perspective, a social perspective, and so on. I think that's exactly why prorogation was used in this case.
To me, it's all very relevant and rational. I use that word a lot. I'm sorry to say that, but I keep saying it's rational. It makes sense. It lines up. There are reasons and evidence.
I studied formal and informal logic. I believe debate is supposed to be about argument and reasons and evidence, and not just saying things that are untrue or trying to persuade people to believe something because it serves your political interests. I believe we're actually being evidence based.
I totally get that no government is perfect. Especially in a pandemic, when you're in a public health crisis and there's a virus that's not completely understood, things are going to change. Evidence is going to evolve. Scientific research is catching up to a virus that's mutating in a way, and is almost surpassing human knowledge in terms of its ability to grapple with what that virus entails.
Again, the point I'm trying to make here is to take some time to understand that this economic crisis that is caused by the public health crisis is different. It's very different. You couldn't take the fiscal measures and even the framework or the understanding of the previous 2008-09 crisis and just apply it to this one. It would not work. It would not be successful, and there are many reasons for that.
For example, in 2008, the strategy to deal with the economic recession at the time was to restoke demand by promoting investment, injecting cash into households and to ensure financial sector balance sheets could support the resumption of lending. In the pandemic we know that family income and business cash supports are necessary to keep the economy just idling at a point so it prevents bankruptcies. This is why I think our government implemented things like the commercial rent subsidy and helped to work on making mortgage payment deferrals accessible, and provided small business supports and loans. This was to prevent bankruptcies right across our economy.
We also know that in the pandemic we wanted to prevent excessive debt that weighs down demand going forward. This is the rationale probably for direct payments to families, which we saw a lot of during this pandemic, in particular, the CERB. We all know why that was so important for families out there.
However, the demand-side measures will not get the economy back to full speed as long as the virus restricts economic activities. We can continue to try to bolster demand, but in a way we still have these very large supply-side adjustments. The ways of working are different, and they will continue to be different for some time. Workplaces may need to maintain a level of social distancing for some time. I don't claim to know all of the answers for that, but I will say that based on the evidence around the time that prorogation happened, or just before, there were quite a lot of economists saying that some of these supply-side adjustments are going to be in place for quite some time. This has a bearing on how the economy might recover and what measures would be helpful.
I'm justifying that it takes time to reflect on that, just as Mr. Blaikie said earlier in his comments that he needed time to reflect and have conversations with other parties to come up with a potential amendment that might be a counter-proposal that could move this committee forward. It takes a bit of time to reflect and work through those conversations. I think that's quite natural when you're undertaking a once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-hundred-years crisis of epic proportions.
I will get back to what I was saying, which is that the supply-side adjustments with the ways of working are different. The ways of households, caregiving and working from home have changed, and even consumption patterns, the ways of consuming for Canadians, have changed dramatically. You have these three levels—work, household and consumption patterns—that are all changing, and these are all supply-side adjustments. They're daunting, because it's hard to understand the costs and challenges that those create. Again, I made previous arguments as to how the economic impact actually affects different industries differently as well. There's inequity even in how industries are coping and in some of the structural challenges that some of the businesses had.
I think about businesses in my community. A few of them that have had to shut down seem to fall into a category where they have a very high overhead cost, often due to a facility they run. For example, one of the places is like an indoor playground for kids. They have a very high overhead cost to run their business. Restaurants would be another example where the overhead cost is quite high. Imagine not being able to generate revenue and still having some of those costs. This is exactly why our government put in place the commercial rent subsidy, which we've talked about before.
I want to quote Kevin Milligan, a professor of economics from the Vancouver School of Economics. He said, “The best way to minimize these costs is to strongly support public health measures needed now to suppress the virus sharply.” I find that just the fact that I could find that quote as early as June 3, 2020, sort of provides even more evidence to back up what my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor was saying, which was that the public health measures are some of the most important tools in our tool box for suppressing the community spread of the virus. Also, they're the best economic recovery measures because we know that, wave after wave, the small businesses and many of the industries are struggling because they can't get a foothold back into doing business again.
We sometimes see different leaders across the country lifting those public health measures prematurely. I think what we need to all do is encourage those to stay in place to get the case numbers down as low as possible. The primary reason is that it's the right thing to do to save human health and ensure that this virus doesn't mutate beyond the effectiveness of our vaccines, but it's also the best thing to do from an economic perspective as well. It's not just good for human health. I mean, we shouldn't need any other reasons, in my view, but if you do need other reasons, it's also better for the economy.
I read a paper a while back on the sunk cost fallacy, which I thought was really interesting because I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to fallacies. For anyone who doesn't know, “fallacies” is this word we use in philosophy that refers to mistakes in reasoning. They're common mistakes. They're mistakes that people make a lot. There are all kinds of different fallacies out there. There have been books written that explain all of the different types of fallacies, all of the mistakes in reasoning that we can have as human beings, and there are a lot.
The sunk cost fallacy is an interesting one because it really applies to this pandemic. Seeing the economic hardship that is brought about by public health restrictions can really impact leaders' willingness and ability to make decisions about imposing those measures in a successive wave of COVID-19. This is called the sunk cost fallacy because you're projecting the cost of the previous wave into the future wave, but you're not looking beyond that. I think this provides a bit of a rationale. I have a lot of empathy for leaders who are in those positions of decision-making and power and who have to make those difficult decisions, although in many cases I think the decisions perhaps have fallen prey to the sunk cost fallacy.
I'll leave that, and I would be happy to provide anyone with a link to that article, too. If Ms. Vecchio would like to review the sunk cost fallacy, I would be happy to provide it. At any rate, I will move on.
I want to speak about another prominent expert. I don't know this individual personally, but his name is Mike Moffatt. He's a senior director at the Smart Prosperity Institute.
This goes back to my argument that the current economic crisis is much greater and more substantial than the 2008-09 economic recession. Mike Moffatt agrees, in the paper that he wrote, that we are definitely going through a supply-side shock, but he also talks about how there are demand-side implications, or even shocks that are triggered by the supply-side shock. I will tell you what I mean by that.
He uses the example of a tornado in the U.S. Midwest. This is hypothetical. It hasn't happened, but you could very easily see it happening at some point. It's a possible scenario that could be real, but it's hypothetical for now. If a tornado in the U.S. Midwest were to take out assemblers of automobiles, it would create a demand-side shock in Canada for auto part suppliers. We have big auto part suppliers. Obviously, the demand for their supplies or auto parts would be dramatically impacted if all of sudden two big auto assemblers in the U.S. were to be hit by the tornado and not be able to function. That's one scenario. Another is to imagine if the tornado hit, God forbid, southwestern Ontario and took out auto assemblers in southwestern Ontario. This would create a supply-side shock but also a demand component, because auto suppliers would still take a hit.
I think what's important to recognize is that the current crisis we're in is not as simple as just saying the economy has been hit by a supply-side shock. There are ripple effects across our supply chains that also create demand-side shocks as well. I think that's his main point.
Adding to the previous expert I was mentioning, Kevin Milligan, the professor of economics, this individual really speaks to how we have to develop a more sophisticated understanding of how our economy has been impacted and understand what measures to put in place to actually help it recover. I think it's very rational to think that you might want, as a government helping lead a country through a massive hundred-year crisis, to take some time and reflect on what really is the impact of this current crisis so that you can target measures of different kinds to the real situation we're in.
You know, I talk about situational leadership. I've had several people tell me that there are different assessments of what constitutes situational leadership. In my view, it's a heightened sensitivity and responsiveness to the very particular circumstances, the changing circumstances, in a given situation and showing leadership. Within that is the ability to assess, evaluate, gather information quickly and make sense of the many different aspects of a crisis or any situation. Obviously, the need for situational leadership is heightened within a global public health crisis, of course, or any form of crisis. I think crisis management in general requires situational leadership.
That's a bit of a tangent. I'm sorry about that. I certainly will get back to my remarks here.
In terms of my argument, each view of the world, like the supply-side shock or the demand-side shock, which was 2008-09, or some mixture of the two really has an impact on how large the economic decline is, what inflation will look like, how interest rates will reflect that or impact that and whether stagflation is an issue or not. In the 1970s there was a sort of stagflation that came out of the supply-side shock then. It led to moderate economic decline, substantial increases in nominal interest rates and inflation pressures that either forced the Bank of Canada to abandon the 2% inflation target or caused them to hike interest rates even further.
In our case, I think what we're seeing—and this is changing—is a much larger economic decline than in 1970 and a relatively modest impact on inflation and interest rates. Pressure is upward or downward, depending on the relative magnitude of the shocks, and there's been no stagflation to date.
Stagflation, by the way, in case people are wondering—I hate using academic-sounding words, but sometimes I do—is characterized by slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment.
I see my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor smiling, and it's making me smile, and I am sorry for using these academic buzz terms.
Again, stagflation is characterized by slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment, which obviously is economic stagnation, but at the same time accompanied by rising prices, inflation. You're seeing a stagnation in the economy but an inflation of prices. This is why stagflation is something of real concern or potential concern.
I have lots more to say, but I am also conscious of time. Before I finish up, I have a few other things that I really feel I need to say, and I think there are two other really important contributors to the compilation that I am quoting from and using as some of my evidence base for my argument today.
One person I would refer to is David Macdonald, senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He said, “The job losses during the great recession of 2008-09 were a garden party compared to what has happened since March 2020. You have to go back to the...thirties to see anything like it but, even then, the comparison stops after the first month.”
I did a bit of an analysis of this graph that was shown in this paper, and it's really interesting to see how the job losses compare. This gentleman, David Macdonald, took five of the top economic crises, recessions, depressions—however we refer to them—the recession of 1991-92, what he called the “dirty thirties”—I don't like that term and I'm not sure why it's called that, but maybe someone else can tell me if they know a bit more about that history—the great recession, which was 2008-09, and the recession of 1981-82. I know that the thirties refer to the Great Depression.
When you look at these four in comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic, the only one that even comes close to comparing is the recession in the Depression, and it only compares for the first month or two, and it's only about a decline in job loss of about 5%; whereas, at the point in time when this paper was written, on June 3, 2020—this was really early in the pandemic—the crisis we're in is almost a 16% decline over the first two months in terms of job losses. Again, it's from 5% to almost 16%.
I think the has mentioned a V-shaped recovery. The V-shaped recovery refers to.... The drop in job losses has been so great and so many times greater that it looks like a cliff. The idea is that if our fiscal measures are working, we could see a rebound of that economy, a V-shaped recovery, which is a very steep incline of job gains. We started to see that recently before the third wave was really upon us. The job numbers were incredible. There were 300,000 jobs gained in one month. The previous month was a similar number. That was February, if I'm not mistaken.
The rebound of the economy is impressive. I think it actually provides another point of rationale that's now obviously in the future compared to where we would have been at the time of prorogation. When you look at what happened as a result of prorogation and then tie it back to the information that was accessible at that time, I think it actually helps to show that what the government has done was evidence informed. On top of that, it's working.
I don't mean to sound arrogant at all; I'm just literally saying that this seems to make sense to me. It adds up. It's rational. It's targeted. It took time to reflect. This gentleman, David Macdonald said, “This represents a seismic shift in how we fight recessions when private debt is high and interest rates are low: instead of encouraging debt, we put money into people’s pockets at an unprecedented scale."
In the contributions he makes in the article, he basically points to how the thing that's different about this crisis—and others have said it's both supply-side and demand-side shocks at the same time—was there was already a level of debt out there in our economy leading up to this crisis that was perhaps beyond what we've seen in other recessions, or other crises of this proportion. Again, this one doesn't even measure up.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
If I have understood correctly, we are returning to Ms. Vecchio's motion. I am happy about that because I'll be able to continue to explain my concerns with respect to point (a), about inviting the to appear before this committee. I don't think that it's at all necessary, particularly as people in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle have for months been speaking to me every day about other problems, and no one is asking me any questions about prorogation. On the contrary, people are happy that we have been focused entirely on the crisis since the beginning of the pandemic. They are also pleased about the new direction we have taken for the future and about our focus on delivering vaccines, which have now in fact been delivered.
We are very pleased with the progress that has been made in Quebec on the vaccination rate. As the premier said this week, we are expecting a single dose for everyone by the summer, which means that we will be able to consider organizing activities with families and friends in our communities. Needless to say, we will have to continue to comply with a number of health measures, but we will be much safer than we have been over the past months. Our goal, is to have given a second dose of vaccine to everyone who requests it by the fall. I am hoping that the vast majority of people will do so, and that we will be able to truly restart our economy.
It's precisely the August 2020 prorogation that enabled us to reboot the entire machinery of government. I recall that opposition MPs were worried because Parliament was not sitting as usual in the early days of the crisis. That was inevitable because we were in isolation. We were holding meetings, but not in accordance with the usual parliamentary procedures. We had to explain clearly to Canadians what our plan was for surviving, fighting and beating the pandemic.
Some of my colleagues who are members of this committee are more familiar than I am with the House Standing Orders and could explain to us how requiring that the government explain its reasons for prorogation could be considered innovative.
While we understand that the decision is solely the responsibility of the government, I would fully agree that it is reasonable for the government to explain its reasons for the prorogation.
I have the report in front of me. It's very clear. I don't think that a prorogation had been planned for the first term. Nobody could have have anticipated the pandemic. However, changes to Parliament's standing orders allowed a report explaining the reasons for the prorogation to be written.
I think that it's a good idea because it never hurts to learn more and and it's always possible to explain our system more clearly to people. We are very often influenced by what happens elsewhere, particularly in the United States, and we are not always aware of our own parliamentary traditions.
I think that everyone will have understood that the December 2019 throne speech was not at all applicable during a pandemic. The priorities in the 2019 throne speech were mainly economic investments, in addition to environmental expenditures and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
While it's true that these aspects of the throne speech were important, the priority quickly became fighting COVID‑19. I'll speak later about what our priority is now.
The throne speech that was delivered after the prorogation stated clearly that in spite of our convictions and our fundamental principles, when the house is on fire, it's not the time to redecorate do housecleaning. The important thing is to put out the fire.
The 36‑page report gives details about all the reasons why Parliament was prorogued. That had never happened before. I may be wrong, and if so feel free to correct me, but prior to the changes made to the standing orders, the Prime Minister made the decision and did not have to justify it or explain it.
The Prime Minister said:
[English]
The said:
We are proroguing Parliament to bring it back on exactly the same week it was supposed to come back anyway and force a confidence vote.
[Translation]
In a crisis, it's important for all members of Parliament to indicate whether or not the government has their confidence.
[English]
The continued:
We are taking a moment to recognize that the throne speech we delivered eight months ago had no mention of COVID-19, had no conception of the reality we find ourselves in right now. We need to reset the approach of this government for a recovery to build back better. And those are big, important decisions and we need to present that to Parliament and gain the confidence of Parliament to move forward on this ambitious plan.
[Translation]
I have trouble believing that the opposition members were against the idea of indicating whether they had confidence in the government. That was when they had the opportunity to do so.
The throne speech was delivered a few weeks after prorogation, which was declared on August 18. We returned to the House on September 23, 36 days later. We're not talking about six months or even six weeks. We took the shortest possible amount of time to prepare the new plan that we were going to present to Canadians. The Governor General delivered the throne speech on September 23. The speech said that the government's top priority was to implement measures to continue to fight the pandemic and save lives. It was a question of life and death. It was definitely an emergency.
The speech also said that the government's objective was to invest all possible technological, research and resources on testing and on distributing tests to Canadians. Emergency measures like the CERB were introduced for individuals, along with assistance for Canadian businesses experiencing serious needs. We at least had to help them avoid bankruptcy.
It's not easy to implement these assistance measures, and public servants had to do an extraordinary amount of work to get it done. The situation also required leadership and we had to have the confidence of the House to implement these plans.
Some vulnerabilities also came to light. We all know what happened in long-term care facilities, which resulted from a lack of investment. As we saw, women hold many essential service jobs. In Canada, with the exception of Quebec, there were problems with affordable and accessible child care centres. For the first time in ages, people got together and showed solidarity, in the Black Lives Matter movement, for example. We were all experiencing the same health crisis. People could see that there was social injustice. The will was there and it still is.
In the Châteauguay—Lacolle riding, groups of young people, businesspeople and citizens got together in support of more vulnerable groups like visible minorities and low-wage workers. We expect other gatherings; it's important to keep these feelings and this determination alive in the future. Right now, we have a little more hope for the future. From now on, people will understand what a crisis like the climate crisis really is. We have no control over mother nature. As human beings, we have to do everything possible to prevent crises like these because something that happens in one part of the world can affect the whole planet.
I saw a documentary about Greta Thunberg, and what this young lady did during the year of the pandemic. She continued her work. It was inspirational to see what she accomplished. I think we now have an opportunity to change our behaviour, not only to become more healthy physically, but also environmentally.
The thrust of the throne speech was the importance not only of coming up with a plan, but also a vision to inspire Canadians. The first wave was in September. We had hopes of getting through it, but we were not sure.
And, as we all know, we had a very bad winter, followed by an equally difficult third wave.
I can't see how the government could have continued last year to work on the basis of a throne speech that was no longer relevant. The fact that the government and the Prime Minister decided to put their cards on the table and ask the elected members of Parliament whether they had confidence in their actions was also proactive.
Some did not have confidence, and it's up to them to explain why. However, we were fortunate to have enough people placing their trust in the plan we came up with. We followed the plan, which guided us as we dealt with the situation. It was sometimes difficult, even extremely so. We didn't have a crystal ball. We didn't know which way to turn, or what should be closed or left open.
It was like being in an experimental laboratory. Different parts of the country took certain approaches and we'll soon know which worked best.
That was the idea behind the prorogation discussed in the report tabled by Minister Rodriguez in the House of Commons. As far as I know, the Minister also appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to field questions.
Some are saying that it was not enough, and that they needed to hear from the Prime Minister, and that Mr. Rodriguez was not who they wanted to see.
I myself always strive to get to the bottom of things and I like to examine the terms of reference for the committee I am sitting on to understand what we really have in front of us. Sometimes we are not discussing the right topic or trying to do something that has no relevance to the work to be done here.
However, this is certainly the committee where we can speak about the government in power and about the fact that ministers can indeed, in accordance with the concept of cabinet accountability and solidarity, provide answers.
I would even say that it's up to the government House leader, Mr. Rodriguez, to explain the reasons for the prorogation to MPs, to present the prorogation report and to provide explanations. As for procedure, he is the person responsible for explaining things and answering questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate your reminder about Bill being a government bill. These usually take precedence in committee business, or at least I think that's the informal practice that's generally followed. I hope that today the committee will see some movement on Bill C-19.
That's my hope. I'm stating that outright. It might be because we had a constituency week, but I'm coming back to the committee with renewed optimism. A little bit of sun on my face and—I don't know why—it has invigorated me. I'm looking forward to today's meeting. It's good to see everybody.
I appreciate Mrs. Shanahan's comments. I especially appreciated the story she told about the significance of the holiday, which I think exists differently within different cultural contexts. I appreciated that very much. I thought that was insightful.
I also appreciated your speaking to the amendment that I had put forward, even though we're not on the amendment. It was an attempt to appease some of the opposition parties and, hopefully, to move forward. I know the committee voted that down, so I won't cover anything having to do with that today, but I do want to quickly frame where I think we are as a committee. Then I look forward to hearing from Mr. Blaikie.
I've said this multiple times, but I really think it's important to emphasize. From the very beginning of this particular conversation, which started a long time ago, we as a committee agreed to study prorogation. We heard from witnesses. We heard from quite a number of witnesses. I think the government in general has been very transparent when it comes to prorogation. I've said from the beginning that if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason to prorogue Parliament, then I don't believe any reason will satisfy the opposition parties. I have to keep stating that, because I really feel that's the grain of truth here that I'm holding on to: that eventually the opposition parties are going to realize that, yes, given a global pandemic, given a government that's been as responsive as possible, there was a need to re-evaluate and reset the agenda. That's exactly what happened.
I've argued this point over and over again, and I'm not going to go through all the data and the evidence I've provided for how the throne speech reflects all the consultation work and the incredible data-gathering that happened during prorogation. I already got that. The opposition parties, as far as I can tell, don't care about that argument. They're not listening to that reasonable explanation, which is, to me, a rational explanation that makes perfect sense, given the context of a global pandemic.
I also want to speak to the fact that, from my perspective, we are now debating a motion on WE Charity. Look at Mrs. Vecchio's motion. It has in it the Kielburgers, the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, the Perelmuters and the speakers bureau. It has massive, huge requests for documents that would have to be produced and translated. WE Charity is mentioned multiple times. Sections (f) and (g) of her original motion specifically reference WE Charity. There's absolutely no doubt.... Well, there can be no doubt out there, for anybody watching or anybody on this committee, that the motion is to try to connect WE Charity to prorogation as some ulterior motive, which I think the opposition parties have been trying to prove.
We heard from witnesses. Some of them speculated. Most of them said that there has always been a potential political motive for prorogation throughout history, and that there are always multiple narratives on why prorogation happened, but most of them also claimed that, given a global pandemic and the context, it was actually a pretty good reason to prorogue.
What I find strange, though, is that we're still stuck on this motion after the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report has come out. I took a little time over the week that we were in the constituency, when I had a little time in the mornings in between meetings, and I read a good portion. I don't think I pored through every single page, but I read a lot of it, and I found it really interesting to see the analysis that was done by the Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion.
What shocks me and surprises me.... The has been completely exonerated by that report of all counts that the opposition parties have been claiming over and over again, taking up committee business in other committees. Fine, I got it. They wanted to “hold the government accountable”, which is what opposition parties are supposed to do, so I got that. But, at this point, at this juncture, at this moment in time we're still in a global pandemic, and opposition parties are voting against the government, in many cases coming dangerously close to triggering an election, and yet they don't seem to be willing to move on to study Bill , which would ensure that Canadians can vote safely, that their health and safety would be protected and their democratic right would be protected if an election were triggered.
I'm still feeling like, can we just face reality here? The reality is that the WE Charity supposed scandal is not a live topic anymore. It's a closed book. The Ethics Commissioner reviewed all the evidence and data. They reviewed it. I'm going to read you the conclusions here, just in case people haven't taken the time to read that document.
There are three major sections of the ethics code, or the Conflict of Interest Act, that were said to be the sections that were pertinent to the study that was done, or the report that was written. Section 7 is one that “prohibits public office holders from giving preferential treatment to a person or organization”. Now the Ethics Commissioner.... This is in the executive summary, so I'll just read the quick conclusion. I could go into more detail if people want, but I don't think that will be necessary per se. This is on page 2.
The evidence also shows that Mr. Trudeau had no involvement in ESDC’s recommendation that WE administer the CSSG. I am satisfied that Mr. Trudeau did not give preferential treatment to WE.
That's one conclusion. Now the other section, subsection 6(1) of the act, “prohibits public office holders from making or participating in the making of a decision that would place them in a conflict of interest.” On this one as well, the Ethics Commissioner concludes, “I am satisfied that there was no opportunity to further Mr. Trudeau’s own interests or those of his relatives from WE’s role as administrator of the CSSG or from its Social Entrepreneurship proposal.”
That's one conclusion. There's another related to this:
WE’s private interests would have to have been furthered improperly. In my view, there is no evidence of impropriety in relation to Mr. Trudeau’s decision making in relation to WE’s Social Entrepreneurship proposal or WE’s administration of the CSSG.
Those are two quotes that demonstrate that there are clear conclusions that the evidence has been reviewed. This is the Ethics Commissioner we're talking about, who has done the due diligence and found and ruled that the opposition parties.... I know this is disappointing to the opposition parties, because they wanted a scandal out of this, but there is none. The Ethics Commissioner's report is very clear.
The other section I would just quote quickly is section 21, which requires recusal “only in instances where the public office holder would be in a potential conflict of interest.” In this one as well, the Ethics Commissioner says, “I therefore found that Mr. Trudeau did not contravene subsection 6(1), section 7 or section 21 of the Act.”
Just take a step back for a second, please, committee members. I'm appealing to your better interests here. Take a step back.
For months and months, opposition parties have been trying to claim that prorogation was tied to WE Charity. We now have conclusive evidence, and all the due diligence has been done, that says there was no conflict of interest. The conclusions are clear, based on a really in-depth assessment of all the evidence and facts.
How, then, can we possibly continue to debate a WE Charity motion at this committee, when we have business that this committee needs to attend to, to protect the health and safety of Canadians? Members of this committee, tell me, do you feel that's responsible for us to do?
All of us are responsible for this work to continue forward. We have a government bill that has been referred to our committee, Bill . We need to get on with studying this bill. That's my plea to you. I don't know how we can not face reality and debate this whole WE Charity and prorogation link, because it's non-existent. If there was no conflict of interest, does it even make sense for opposition parties to try to tie the two together? It doesn't even make sense anymore. Give it up, and let's move on to Bill , please.
I move that the committee proceed to study Bill .
I wish Mrs. Vecchio the best of luck in correcting technical difficulties. I had one of my own this morning. That certainly has been a frustrating feature of virtual Parliament. I hope she's able to get that sorted out.
I thought I might begin by addressing some of the comments that have been made already this morning. I will start with Mrs. Shanahan in terms of responsible government.
I took the gist of the argument that Mrs. Shanahan was making to essentially mean that if opposition parties don't vote to have an election in the face of things they don't like about the government, it means there's nothing to criticize or that the government can do whatever it wants. It effectively has carte blanche until opposition parties decide to trigger an election.
I want to propose to Mrs. Shanahan that I think this is an important misunderstanding of the principle of responsible government. We have question period. We have committee work. We call ministers to committee. We have all sorts of tools to interrogate the government about its course of action. We do that because there is more than one way to hold the government to account.
In fact, sometimes an election is exactly the wrong way to hold the government to account, particularly if you're trying to focus in on specific decisions of the government. As we all know at this table, elections are very general affairs. There are a lot of issues that come up in an election. There are many kinds of issues that rightly preoccupy the attention of voters during an election. While voters may be very dissatisfied with the government in respect of some of its decisions, that may not ultimately be the vote-determining issue.
Just because a particular instance of government wrongdoing isn't the ballot question at the ballot box, that doesn't mean the government's behaviour is justified. It doesn't mean there isn't still a need to hold government to account. In fact, that is the function of Parliament.
The function of Parliament isn't to cause elections. The function of Parliament is to hold the government to account between elections. A number of mechanisms have been developed to do that, including calling ministers to testify before committee about decisions they have made.
What's been tying us up hasn't been the fact that the opposition refuses to call an election. Even in ordinary times, it's not clear to me that that would be the right solution for this particular scandal. What's been tying us up is that government members haven't been allowing a committee to proceed in using some of the normal tools of accountability in order to hold decision-makers to account for something they have done.
In this case, the thing they did—that the did—was prorogue Parliament in the wrong way for the wrong period of time. That is not to say that it was wrong to prorogue at all, but we have heard that there are different ways to do a prorogation and there are different periods of time. We have heard very clearly in a number of ways that this was ultimately the Prime Minister's decision.
We have heard, as Mr. Turnbull indicated earlier, that it's a decision that is often political all the way down. I think that means that it stands to reason that members of Parliament would care to interrogate the only decision-maker about his political reasons for prorogation.
What's at issue is whether the predominant concerns had to do with the pandemic or whether they had to do with getting out of the political heat on the WE Charity scandal. The only person who can answer those questions is the .
Nothing untoward has been going on here at committee with opposition members supporting a motion to get the and a number of other players who were involved in what is also quite plausibly a major reason, not just for the prorogation itself. I agree there can be multiple reasons for prorogation. Often in government there's more than one thing going on in a decision. In fact, the art of government, arguably, is to balance competing demands and competing interests. Very often, when government makes a decision worth taking note of, it's because it is complicated because there are a number of things at play.
I do think it is quite reasonable that even if the WE Charity scandal wasn't the only reason for the prorogation, it affected the nature, duration and timing of that prorogation. That's fair game. The only person who can really settle that question for the committee is the . I submit to you that the did a bad job of that, and people are free to disagree with that. I'd love to hear from the person who made the decision, and I really don't think that is unreasonable. It's just not something I can accept, that, first of all, it's unreasonable to insist on hearing from the principal decision-maker with respect to a file.
The last time Mrs. Shanahan spoke about responsible government, prior to today, I tried to highlight for her some of the ways a decision about prorogation or dissolution is a special.... I mean, this is the language right out of the order in council; I'm not making up new terms. Since 1935, at least, decisions about prorogation and dissolution have been a special prerogative of the Prime Minister. That is something that, by order in council, that is, by a decision of the entire cabinet, has been set aside for the Prime Minister to make alone. That's in keeping with the Prime Minister's special role as an adviser to the Crown.
There are many people, I'm sure, who would have loved to be in the meeting in one controversial prorogation I can think of, where former prime minister Harper met at length, for hours, with the Governor General on the eve of a prorogation. There was some debate in the lead-up to that meeting, and in fact during the many hours of that meeting, live on radio and the 24-hour news cycle and all that good stuff that politicos watch with fascination at times like that.
There were lots of people who would have loved to be in the room. The government House leader wasn't in that room. Staff from the whips' offices weren't in that room. I'm not even sure the Prime Minister's chief of staff was in the room. That was a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. To me, that just highlights the nature of that special relationship and the nature of the special decision-making authority of the Prime Minister and the extent to which nobody can stand in for the Prime Minister when it comes to decisions having to do with either the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament.
I thought that was important to state, if I haven't been clear enough about that in the past. I don't think that's a viciously partisan interpretation of the facts. I think that's a pretty good exegesis of parliamentary process and a little bit of parliamentary history, for that matter.
The idea that, when the opposition is dissatisfied, responsible government calls for an election is a broken idea. It's broken at least because it would mean that we have no responsible government in majority parliaments. I think that's a pretty clear implication. If responsible government demands that the opposition trigger an election any time they think there's something seriously wrong with the way the government has behaved, and they don't have that power in a majority Parliament, then that means we have no responsible government in majority parliaments.
I'm sure that's not what Mrs. Shanahan intended to imply. That would certainly shed a different light on the last Parliament, I would think. Although I could appreciate it if some people wanted to maintain we didn't have a proper kind of responsible government in the last Parliament, I doubt it would be Mrs. Shanahan and her colleagues in the Liberal Party. I'm happy to be corrected on that point at any time if someone would like to claim otherwise.
Those are some things I think are important to say.
With respect to Mr. Turnbull's comments, I would say this. The timing and the nature of the prorogation are important to me for a couple of reasons, as I've said before. They're important because there was a pending deadline for CERB, and millions of Canadian households were depending on that program and didn't know what was coming down the pipe. The government made an announcement about what it intended to do at the end of CERB the day after prorogation. That is to say, they chose when to prorogue, and they chose when to announce that package. They chose to announce it at a time when there could be no meeting of Parliament for parliamentarians to ask questions in the House.
We had another scheduled summer session. In fact, it was going to be within seven or eight days of the Prime Minister's announcing that prorogation. I can't for the life of me, in any of the testimony that we heard or any of Mr. Turnbull's best arguments, see why that prorogation couldn't have at least waited until the day after the last scheduled sitting of Parliament in the summer.
Those four sittings of Parliament were negotiated among the parties, recognizing that there was a pandemic, recognizing that there was an important role for Parliament, not just the government but for Parliament during the pandemic. The unilaterally decided to break that all-party consensus to have Parliament play that role and cancelled the last scheduled sitting of Parliament in the summer. I think that was a serious mistake. I think he did something wrong when he did that.
I am not satisfied by the answers of the government House leader as to why. It's not an on/off switch, prorogation or no prorogation. The also made decisions about when to prorogue. I want to ask him about those decisions, and I do believe that the WE Charity scandal, and trying to protect himself and his government from that fallout, played a role in the timing of the prorogation. I'd like an opportunity to press him on those issues, because I think they matter.
I think it matters that an all-party consensus to have Parliament meet biweekly during the summer was unilaterally quashed by the . There would still have been weeks for the government to consult, when Parliament wasn't scheduled to sit. Why was that last summer sitting cancelled, after the work of getting all the parties of the House on board? That was something that was done, if I recall correctly, by unanimous consent. Not only were the recognized parties on board, but that meant that the independent members and members of the Green Party also supported that consensus.
I don't think it was appropriate for the to act against Parliament in that way, and that's the way I see it. Frankly, that's not something that's really been addressed in the hours of debate that we've heard from Liberal members. Nobody has spoken directly to the issue of why the prorogation had to occur on the day it did. That's fine. I don't really care to hear Liberal members opine about that, because I know who made that decision. The Prime Minister made that decision, so I'd love to hear the Prime Minister opine on that.
I'd love to hear him give his reasons, not for prorogation in general but for prorogation on that day and why he saw fit to upend a unanimous decision of the House of Commons to meet twice in August—four times overall over the course of the summer—and why he would choose to cut that sitting off to announce the package for the replacement of CERB, which was likely to be controversial, in the non-pejorative sense of that term. That is to say, it was very reasonable to expect that there would be different opinions about what that would look like from the various political parties and that there would be some discussion required in order to get to something looking like a consensus.
Why take away the opportunity for parties to question the government about what that consensus might look like, with enough time for that to actually be hammered out, not at the eleventh hour when households are wondering what the heck they're going to do next month if they can't make rent? It could have been done progressively over the course of four or five weeks, or at least there could have been an initial conversation on the record that allowed the parties to stake out their preliminary positions and thoughts on the government's proposal.
To me, that's a matter of significance. It cuts to the question of how the handles the prerogatives of his office—dissolution and prorogation—and it's quite topical. I know the Liberals want to say that everybody has moved on. There are still people, incidentally, who are upset about the WE Charity scandal. If the Liberals don't hear much about them, then I think they should at least do a little more listening in western Canada, where I'm from, because I certainly hear about it, and I know it's a common criticism of the Liberal Party that they don't listen enough in western Canada. Maybe it's just a regional thing and you guys aren't hearing it, but if it's the case that Ontario has moved on—and I doubt that too—it's certainly not the case that people west of Ontario, I can tell you, have moved on from concerns about the WE Charity scandal.
It's topical even if people have moved on from the WE Charity scandal—which, as I said, I don't think they have. What they haven't moved on from is wondering whether we have a who's going to act unilaterally to call an election at a time when Canadians really don't think we should.
I've been part of efforts to demand an answer from the on this. The NDP asks very openly in the House whether the Prime Minister will commit to not calling an election unless he actually loses a vote of confidence. I've seen him sidestep that issue repeatedly.
If Canadians don't have confidence in the 's ability to use that prerogative well, then I think having him at the committee is an opportunity for him to better explain how he used the prerogative of prorogation. That might give Canadians some insight into how he intends to use the prerogative of dissolution. It's very much a topical conversation, because those two powers are intimately connected. They're both mentioned in the order in council from 1935 that I made reference to earlier today and in my remarks on the last day of the committee meeting.
We are very much in a time when Canadians have every right to wonder at the way in which the uses those special prerogatives of his office. I think examining his decision on prorogation is an important part of examining his use of those special prerogatives overall.
Again, I don't think this is a viciously partisan argument. I think it's actually pretty straightforward. I think it makes a lot of sense, if the committee is able to put the focus squarely on the , instead of this becoming about WE Charity writ large, in the kind of investigation that Mr. Turnbull has rightly mentioned has been pursued at other committees—in fact, with more success than we've seen here. A number of the requests that are in this motion have already been made successfully at other committees. The sky didn't fall and the world didn't end. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, although I have supported the motion all along, I think we could say that if we had just passed the motion and heard from those witnesses who were willing to appear, we'd be a lot further along by now than we are.
Putting the focus on the means making it about prorogation. It's not about an on/off switch—prorogue or not prorogue—but about why he chose the timing that he did. Why did it follow immediately upon the resignation of the finance minister? Why didn't he give it several extra days to ensure that Parliament could get the additional sitting that was agreed to unanimously by all members of the House? Those are good questions.
Mr. Turnbull has suggested that we don't need to explore any of those questions because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has ruled that there was no conflict of interest for the . I wish he had also read the conclusions of the second report that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner filed at the same time. I'm sure members of the committee know that report has to do with the role of Bill Morneau, who, at that time—and through the entirety of the last Parliament, I think it's fair to say—was the Prime Minister's right-hand man. I think there's clearly an affinity between them in terms of how they think about issues. Bill Morneau was trusted to lead many aspects of government. We know the importance of finances. We know the importance of money. We know that the person who's put in charge of that for the government is somebody who has the total trust of the Prime Minister.
I can also tell you that many times during the pandemic when there were negotiations between New Democrats and the Liberals, it was very clear that many things were going back to the finance minister. In fact, the finance minister was often cited above the in terms of whose sign-off was really needed. I think there were some good things that didn't happen, as a matter of fact, as a result of that particular finance minister's involvement.
One of the things that didn't happen was getting students on CERB at a rate of $2,000 a month. One of the reasons was that there was going to be this great new jobs program that was going to help top up the lower CERB rate under the CESB that students received. That was a great idea that came out of the Department of Finance and former minister Morneau, among others.
Those extra jobs and that extra funding never came to pass, because a scandal developed. How did the scandal develop? Well, it had a lot to do with the involvement of the finance minister, who, incidentally, as was omitted in Mr. Turnbull's earlier intervention, was found to have breached the Conflict of Interest Act on three separate counts.
The idea that somehow the isn't politically responsible for that kind of mismanagement by his own government is wrong. I accept the finding that there was no personal conflict of interest in the case of the Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean there's no political accountability.
I think this ties back to what I would say is a mistaken concept of responsible government on the part of Mrs. Shanahan. Political accountability is not the same as a narrowly defined legal sense of accountability. That's why we have a Parliament. That's why we don't just leave it to the courts. If the only way people could fail in political leadership was according to the law, then we would hardly need a Parliament for the accountability function. We might still have a Parliament to supplement the legislative intentions of a government and challenge some of the legislative initiatives that it intended to move forward with, but in terms of accountability, we would just leave that to the courts. I think that would be a deficient system, because it would fail to capture a lot of really important things.
This is something we've seen develop over many decades. It used to be the case that, if you had a serious case of mismanagement under a file, you would see ministers take individual responsibility for that. Individual responsibility for that, most often, would look like a resignation. That would happen when things went really wrong. When or if a government took a position that somebody seriously disagreed with, it used to be that you would more frequently see the resignation of individual ministers. You don't really see that anymore. Instead, there's more of an emphasis on collective responsibility, but somehow the guy at the top doesn't bear responsibility. It becomes quite unclear who is responsible for the bad decisions of government.
When Bill Morneau left—although I truly believe that he left not to pursue a new executive position with an international organization, but because of the way he had mishandled the WE Charity file—he didn't take responsibility for it, though. You saw that again, the failure of a minister to accept individual responsibility beyond the collective responsibility.
As it is, by the Liberals' own telling, nobody has accepted responsibility for the WE Charity scandal. There's been no minister who's left government as a result of that scandal. That's what I hear from Liberal colleagues, anyway. If that's not true, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to hear that Bill Morneau left because he had mismanaged the WE Charity scandal. They recognized there was a problem, and he accepted responsibility for that, and that's the reason his political career ended, but I haven't heard that. I heard he was off chasing a job with OECD, which he quietly announced a little while later, to no one's surprise except maybe some Liberal Party faithful. He was abandoning that pursuit.
We are in this awkward situation where there was a major mismanagement of a big file that had serious material consequences for thousands and thousands of Canadians who were registered as students, who really ought to have seen themselves rolled into the CERB program, but instead were offered a discounted program on the promise of jobs that never came, because the finance minister, who did breach three sections of the Conflict of Interest Act in terms of his own conduct on this file, mucked it up. He made a political mess of what should have been straightforward aid to students, particularly in light of the fact that the government already runs the Canada summer jobs program, which is a perfectly acceptable way to provide employment to students. It was never clear why a third party organization was required, when the infrastructure for administering Canada summer jobs was already there and could have been supplemented instead.
Excuse me if I think it's too much to call coincidence the fact that the finance minister appeared at committee and wrote a $40,000 cheque to WE the night before, because he suddenly remembered that he owed $40,000 to an organization, which is not the experience of most people. Most people I know who have a $40,000 debt are very aware of it and they don't have the ability to write it off in an evening as an afterthought off the side of their desk. I think that showed to a lot of Canadians just how out of touch one of the principal decision-makers in 's government really was. I think that was unbearable and he had to go. That just happened to coincide with prorogation.
Yes, a pandemic can be a reason to prorogue Parliament, but the timing? Mr. Turnbull acts as if this is some kind of terrible surprise. I've said this before. In fact, he's repeatedly misquoted my attempt to say that before and he likes to bring it up, where I've tried to indicate that there can be more than one reason, that the pandemic may have been important in the decision to prorogue, but there are many of us who feel that the timing and the nature of that prorogation, which unilaterally busted up a consensus in Parliament to meet four times over the summer, had everything to do with the WE Charity scandal and getting out of political accountability for the WE Charity scandal.
Political accountability and legal accountability are not the same thing. If there was an opportunity to see some political accountability over the WE Charity scandal, it would have come if Bill Morneau had fessed up in terms of his real reasons for leaving government. He didn't do that, so we're still in this place where there hasn't been any political accountability for a major mess-up by the government that had real material consequences for a lot of students from coast to coast to coast.
So yes, I've been happy to support Mrs. Vecchio's motion. I continue to be happy to support Mrs. Vecchio's motion, but I also recognize that there's an imperative to get on with studying Bill .
Why is it important to study Bill ? It's important to study Bill so that, hopefully, we can make some changes to the way elections unfold before the summer, because it's very likely that the , just as he used his special prerogative for prorogation last summer in order, I think, to further his political interests, which incidentally aren't covered by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report, because they're out of scope by law, as they should be..... That's fine. We're not asking the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to weigh in on questions of political accountability. That's what Parliament is for.
Last summer, the used his special prerogatives to prorogue Parliament at a time that was in his political interest. We're now coming up against a summer where there's some real suspicion he is going to use a similar special prerogative to call an election because it furthers his personal political interests and the political interests of his party, even though Canadians don't want an election. All we would like the to say is that if we get to the end of June without his government losing a confidence vote, he's not going to call an election in the summer. He won't say that.
The question is, how can Parliament not be working in the summer, when it's not meeting? It seems to me that a Prime Minister who was really interested in listening to Canadians, who overwhelmingly are not interested in having an election right now, would be willing to say that if the opposition gets us to the end of the session in June without triggering an election themselves, he'd be happy to do his part and not trigger an election until Parliament resumes and we see how it goes after the summer.
Mr. Peter Kent: Just enough for one bath or a shower.
:
Talking about the 's behaviour often makes me want to shower as well, Peter, so I appreciate your contribution and I take it as being quite on theme. Relevance is a rarity here on committee.
It's because of the fact that there are questions as to the way in which the exercises the special prerogatives of his office that we need to have a timely study of Bill . If the Prime Minister would just say that he is not going to call an election during the summer, we'd have lots of time to study Bill C-19. It's not a problem. We could study it over the summer and we could have something that the House could be prepared to vote on in the fall. The urgency for studying Bill C-19 comes directly as a result of the behaviour of our Prime Minister, and I put it to you that it's a false sense of urgency.
Canada does not require an election this summer. There shouldn't be an election this summer. Canadians don't want an election this summer. All of the opposition leaders have pledged not to trigger an election before the summer because they've all pledged not to trigger an election during the pandemic.
Certainly if we can get through these next five weeks without the opposition parties voting non-confidence, there could be no reason for the to decide to trigger an election in the summer, other than because he considers it to be in his own political interest. The opposition parties can't obstruct a Parliament that's not meeting. If there's a way to do that, why don't you let me know?
I'm looking at Mr. Turnbull there, because it seems to me that if Parliament is not meeting, opposition members can't obstruct it. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable for the to say that if we get to the point where Parliament is not meeting, he's not going to be the one to call an election. We can't get that. That's where the sense of urgency comes from on Bill .
It would be a mistake to simply move on from this study. I do think we need to get to the point where we report back to the House. Look, PROC has spent a completely disproportionate amount of time debating how to proceed with this study. I think it would be an awful shame if we didn't report anything back to the House on that.
Simply moving on to the study of Bill and not coming to some kind of agreement as a committee on how we might proceed is a mistake. I recognize that it's challenging. I know that government members have dug in on various positions over the course of the debate, and I recognize that opposition parties don't always agree and that it can be difficult to carve a path forward. That's something I mentioned last time in the context of committing to try to do that, as the other parties did. We did indeed meet to try to find that way forward.
Again, we've seen what can happen to a committee when the interests of one political organization are at play. We've been going through dozens of hours of debate because Liberals don't want to have a vote on the motion that was put forward, despite the fact that there seems to be a majority consensus on the committee to move forward in the way proposed in Mrs. Vecchio's motion. Then you try to take three different political organizations, with different goals and different thoughts about where to go and how to do it, and that discussion certainly can become quite difficult as well.
However, we have been having that conversation over some time because I don't think anybody wants to hold this up. I don't want to speak for anyone, but certainly my impression in the discussion with the other parties is that I don't detect a real desire to be holding up the study of Bill . However, I did also hear loud and clear that there needs to be some kind of resolution to this study.
I want to remind Liberal members on the committee that the reason we're in this study is because of a mechanism that the brought forward. As members here have heard me say before, it's not my preferred method for how to deal with questions on prorogation, or even dissolution. Again, I think those are very related powers, and they should be dealt with in a related way.
The best way that is not outlandish or coming from nowhere...In fact, the United Kingdom, which is where our model of Westminster parliamentary democracy comes from, has adopted a provision, so that it's actually Parliament that makes decisions about prorogation and dissolution.
Unfortunately, those more democratic ways of navigating the questions of dissolution and prorogation have not yet come to Canada. There are some reasons why it's more difficult to implement in Canada, but like many politically difficult situations, provided there's adequate supply of political will, there's usually a solution.
When it comes to prorogation, for instance, I've heard that Canada may even need to go so far as having a constitutional amendment in order to allow the House of Commons to make a decision about prorogation as opposed to leaving it uniquely up to the .
There have been some really interesting witnesses here. I think of Hugo Cyr, for instance, who was here talking about prorogation. Some witnesses essentially proposed workarounds in recognition of the fact that, by convention, it seems to be a constitutional power of the prime minister, and therefore, needing some kind of constitution-level intervention in order to change the way that prerogative would be exercised.
I think the best way to deal with prorogation...That would get us around the need to even have this study, because we would have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons, and then a decision by elected members of our Parliament on whether to prorogue or dissolve earlier than a fixed election date. That's the gold standard.
However, that's not the one the chose. What did the Prime Minister choose? The Prime Minister chose to say that the government would table reasons for prorogation, and that those would be deemed referred to PROC. Presumably, that didn't mean, “Let's refer them to PROC, so that PROC can use the file as a door stop.” As is often the case, when things are deemed referred to a committee for the purpose of study, just as the estimates are typically deemed referred, a committee typically deals with them if it's a well-functioning committee, and they are not held up in filibuster over what is a pretty straightforward motion.
That was the 's solution, and that's why we're here. So, yes, Liberals did agree to have a study of prorogation. I take that to mean that they agreed to honour the Prime Minister's intent when he said that political abuses of prorogation were real. He recognized, in that proposal, the political dimension of accountability, that is to say, the dimension of accountability that goes above and beyond, strictly speaking, legal questions of the kind that a conflict of interest commissioner might rule on, for instance.
Here we are, and we're undertaking that study. We're undertaking it for the first time ever. I say with some measure of embarrassment, not individually but as a member of this committee, that when people look back to the founding study at PROC on reasons for prorogation, in some future instance where a prime minister is alleged to have prorogued for political reasons above other kinds of more altruistic reasons, or political reasons in the pejorative sense...There can be political reasons in a good sense, as well, and some of those may have been at play with respect to the pandemic, but they were used as cover for some other kinds of political motivations.
Fair enough, let's get the guy in here. Let's talk to him about it. That's the whole point after all.
Here we are, and this has been the kind of launch, if you will, of 's idea about how to stem political abuses of prorogation. I don't think it's gone very well, but I don't think it's beyond redemption.
It was very good until the filibuster started. We heard from people that we ought to have heard from. I'd have been happy not to have heard from the , though, and go straight to the , because, as I say, it was very clearly a decision for him to make, and that he did make.
We did all of that. It was going very well and then there were some reasonable proposals for other witnesses that had to do with some of the alleged reasons for prorogation. Suddenly, that wasn't acceptable to the government, so here we are stuck in a filibuster.
I think it's really important, in terms of setting a good precedent, that the appear. I think it's even more important that the upshot of this entire process not be that PROC fails to report back and that the Prime Minister uses a similar special prerogative to end the Parliament before PROC ever has a chance to report back. It would be a really bad precedent to say that these reasons are going to be flipped to PROC, that they might start to study it and hear from some good voices, but then they descend into a completely unproductive, months-long period of debate and never emerge. I think that would send the wrong message.
I would hope that if the or some of his folks are listening or some Liberals on the committee report back, there would be some sense of duty to this proposed solution so that we don't end up in a place where we don't even bother reporting back. How sad would that be?
I do think it's incumbent upon us to work towards some kind of resolution to what has been a very frustrating ordeal. That's why members of the opposition parties have been discussing what a way forward might look like. It's an odd position of reverse onus.
I've been part of opposition filibusters. If you're in an opposition filibuster, usually you see it as your own responsibility to find a way out of the filibuster.
With respect to Mr. Turnbull for having tried, it didn't really work. We haven't seen a lot of flexibility in terms of what the government might be prepared to accept or not accept. We had an up-and-down offer from Mr. Turnbull. I'm appreciative of the fact that we finally got to vote on that. I think that was good. As I say, it kind of clears the space for trying to find some other kind of alternative.
We may have to cycle through several attempts. If we can get into a place where we're proposing things and dealing with them without having to debate each proposal for months at a time, I think the committee would be well served. I think this special mechanism of the would be well served because it might actually get us to a point where we break the impasse.
If the model is that we're waiting on one person to propose one solution that's automatically going to rally everyone and if it doesn't, we're stuck in a months-long filibuster, we don't have enough time to make that model work. Arguably, even if we had another two years, we might not have enough time to make that model work. I'm just basing that on the precedent we've already set with the length of time we've spent considering Mr. Turnbull's amendment. That all gets hard to do.
I would definitely encourage, as we work through these things, a spirit of voting within a few meetings on any one proposal, so if it's not the one that's going to do it, we can dispense with it and move on and hear some other proposal. I think that might be a nice way to break the deadlock. There is definitely going to have to be some deadlock-breaking at this table, it seems to me.
I don't know that we're going to be able to negotiate something behind the scenes that brings everyone aboard all at once. The rhythm of the committee has to change because it's been quite slow. We need to move from what we've been doing in a couple months to doing in a couple meetings. I'm willing to make some proposals and not take their passage or failure personally. I think one is always disappointed if one makes a proposal toward resolution and it doesn't pass—at least in the sense of being hopeful for a resolution.
I would rather know that something I propose isn't going to work within a couple of meetings than to have to take a couple of months to get to a rather obvious conclusion.
In any event, I do now want to propose something. I know it may not be the thing for which everybody suddenly says, “That's amazing, I love it, obviously, why didn't we all think of this months ago?” I want to throw it out there as something for consideration. I would urge members to take a reflective approach to the proposal. I do think that there are advantages and disadvantages for all in this proposal. I certainly don't want to be causing any knee-jerk reactions.
I think it's fair to say, and other opposition members can correct me if I'm wrong, that I don't think we have a fully formed three-party proposal that's going to come forward today, so I'm going to put something out there that I think probably won't be shocking to anyone, but with an adequate period of reflection I think may be the solution. If it's not the way forward, then perhaps we could vote on it next day and dispense with it, so that the table can be clear for somebody else to put something forward. Maybe in the meantime there will be some discussions that help shepherd us all towards a common solution. I would certainly invite that and be happy to talk to people about what that might look like, if it's not the thing that I'm going to propose.
would like to propose an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion. I would move that the motion of Karen Vecchio concerning the committee's study of the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020 be amended by 1) replacing paragraph a) with the following:
a) renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;
2) by deleting paragraphs b) through h).
I want to talk about some of the advantages of this proposal. One of the things that we have heard loud and clear at this table many times is that the government takes exception to the idea that the procedure and House affairs committee would be for lack of a better term—I'm not sure I like this term—but relitigating the WE Charity scandal in the way that it has been dealt with at other committees.
We have heard that very clearly. It's something that I'm prepared to do, because I still think there's a dearth of answers. As I say, I don't think the government has really adequately been held to the kind of political accountability that I think the WE Charity scandal demands. That's why I've been very happy and comfortable about supporting Ms. Vecchio's motion.
I do hear that the government doesn't want to do that. For me, the question about the WE Charity scandal in the context of this study isn't about all of the details of the WE Charity scandal. We have seen the ethics committee deal with a number of those questions and hear from a number of the witnesses who were in Ms. Vecchio's motion. Rather, for me, the interest of the WE Charity scandal, as I say, has to do with the timing, the length and the nature of the prorogation that the in fact executed. Why did he prorogue on the day that he did? Why did he cancel a unanimous decision of Parliament to have four summer sittings? Why did he not heed calls by at least some opposition parties—I'll speak for the NDP here—to resume earlier in order to have some time for parliamentary dialogue about the replacement of CERB?
These are all important questions. I think the details of the WE Charity scandal do bear on those issues. I do want to talk to the about those things. Do I need to talk to the , and to the ? Even though a lot of the parliamentary dialogue certainly, and a lot of the media conversation and the evidence, points to their involvement in the way that the WE Charity scandal unfolded, they aren't the decision-makers when it comes to the timing and the nature of prorogation.
While I would like to hear from them here, and while I think their interventions may have some light to shed on how things happened, I don't need to hear from them in the same way in a study on prorogation. If I have to prioritize one witness in the entire motion by Ms. Vecchio, the is clearly it—for political reasons, sure, in the best sense. He was the decision-maker. The very kind of political accountability that Parliament is at least in part established to deliver rests with him. He is the appropriate person to ask about those issues.
I don't think I'm going to learn more about the nature of prorogation from the than I am from the Those are two people who are part of a cabinet that the might have spoken to about the decision, but they aren't ultimately responsible for it. I do think that in the case of the Prime Minister, there's cause to believe that we might yet learn something. Even if we don't learn something new, it will have been a valuable exercise. That is how political, as opposed to legal, accountability operates. The decision-makers have to answer questions about what they did and why they did it.
Likewise, I think it would be very interesting to hear from Mr. Morneau about what his reasons for resigning were and why he thinks his resignation happened. I dare say it was “precipitated”...but I won't use that kind of prejudicial language, although it did happen right before prorogation. Does Bill Morneau think there's a link between those two things? I'd love to hear whether he thinks so or not.
The point remains that it wasn't Bill Morneau who decided to prorogue Parliament. It wasn't Bill Morneau who went down to the Governor General's residence when he did—because he didn't. The did. He made that call.
It would be useful to hear from Katie Telford, who I'm sure was involved in the decisions that led up to the exercising his special prerogative in the way that he did. Is it strictly necessary in order to better understand prorogation? It is not anywhere near to the same degree that the Prime Minister is.
The Kielburgers clearly had something to do with WE Charity, had a role to play in the proposal that WE Charity was pursuing with the government and had relationships with government that landed Bill Morneau in a conflict of interest. Did they decide when Parliament would be prorogued? No, they didn't decide that. Only one person could decide that, and that was the .
In a study of prorogation, who is it most important to hear from out of all these witnesses? It's the . There's no big surprise here, but I think it's important to reinforce. I recognize that the Kielburgers weren't the ones who made that decision. By saying we're going to limit the scope of this motion, does that mean there will be no questions about WE Charity for the Prime Minister? Absolutely not. If the Prime Minister appears, those questions will be properly directed at the decision-maker on prorogation. They can be asked in a way that gets to the bottom not just of the fact of prorogation, which obviously happened and is obviously a prerogative of the Prime Minister to prorogue, and nobody has ever disputed that....
The question is how he has used that prerogative and whether he has used it appropriately. There you have to get into the details of the actual prorogation. While many of these witnesses can help us get into the details of something that I think still calls for answers—that is, the WE Charity scandal itself—they can't give us any kind of privileged information or insight into the nature of the prorogation.
The same would go for the Perelmuters, who have testified at other committees that were looking directly, and rightly so, and I'm glad for their work.... I'm grateful to for the leadership he showed in that study and the work he did along the lines of holding the government politically to account for what was a serious scandal, but I don't think that the Perelmuters are going to have a lot of insight into the nature of prorogation. Again, while I think it would be helpful to hear from many of the witnesses in this motion in order to better understand the WE Charity scandal, which might help us better understand some of the motivations of the , if we're looking to try to wrap up this study now on an expeditious basis after spending a lot of time on it, I don't think they're the one witness that we need to hear from in order to get that work done.
Likewise, there was a call for the production of a lot of papers, papers that I think ought to be produced, papers that I think would give more insight into the WE Charity scandal that Canadians deserve to know about, but those papers are not going to shed light on the question of why the decided to prorogue Parliament the day after the resignation of his finance minister, which apparently had nothing to do with the WE Charity scandal or his, at that time, very recent appearance before another committee of the House where he was held to account for the fact that he actually had a debt of $40,000 to the organization that was being sole-sourced for a large government contract that he had only cleared the night before.
Are we really supposed to believe that none of these things are connected? I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I accepted such a facile explanation.
Even all those things considered, there's still a question, as I say, when you consider all of the needs of the pandemic and the desire of many government backbenchers to spend some time consulting with their constituents on what might be in the Speech from the Throne. I would note, Madam Speaker, that we only had one scheduled sitting day over the time of that prorogation, but that one scheduled sitting day also happened to coincide with the deadline for documents like the ones called for in this very motion that we've been debating.
Our Liberal colleagues would like us to believe that it's a coincidence. Coincidentally, the timing of the prorogation just happened to rub up against the deadline when documents like the ones in this motion were actually due and which the government clearly doesn't want to provide.
Again, we have this odd coincidence about the timing and the nature of that prorogation, how long it lasted and the effects of proroguing at that exact moment, on the heels of the resignation of the finance minister after embarrassing testimony on the WE Charity scandal and on the eve of an important deadline for the tabling of documents that would lay out many details about that scandal.
Despite the recent finding that the wasn't in a legal conflict of interest, what we do know is that his right-hand man was. We know that political accountability has a broader application than legal accountability and that the Prime Minister does share in the political blame for this fiasco that even the finance minister refuses to take responsibility for. If he has taken responsibility for it somewhere, then I would urge my colleagues to point us in the direction of where that happened, because I haven't seen it yet.
In fact, I think the predominating quote in response to inquiries about the recent conflict of interest report by the former finance minister, Mr. Morneau, is “no comment”, which has been what I've seen. If he has commented more extensively on that, I haven't seen it. I might have seen something that was a prepared statement that was to the effect that it was in the past and it doesn't matter anymore. Of course, we all remember Rafiki's compelling refutation to Simba in The Lion King of the claim that actions of the past don't matter anymore.
I'm just trying to generate some interest on the committee, Madam Chair. I am beginning to suspect they might be losing interest, so I thought maybe a reference to The Lion King would spice things up, but it's a tough crowd. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the reasons for that.
What am I saying? What I'm saying is that this particular amendment offers, I think, a real and significant olive branch to members of the Liberal Party on the committee who have spent a lot of time telling us how irrelevant many of the witnesses are. While I don't agree with them in that assessment, what I am offering here is to dispense with all of that. Not only am I dispensing with that, or proposing that the committee does, I am also reducing the amount of time that the would have to appear from three hours to one.
Essentially, everything that Liberal members of this committee found objectionable in the other motion disappears except for one hour of the 's appearing. That's, I think, pretty good, because, if you were to make a list of what the Liberals didn't like about this motion, to have everything off the list except for one thing, and to have the length of that presentation be reduced by two-thirds, is a pretty good offer.
I won't speak for the other parties on this, but what I will say is that I think I'm not alone in feeling that it is very important that the appear in this study.
I won't be alone in asking some questions about the WE Charity scandal in that hour either, but my questions will certainly revolve around the circumstances of the prorogation, as I see them mattering to Canadians who were concerned, while on CERB, about having a better sense of what was waiting for them on October 1. Having then participated in the rushed debate that occurred at the end of September in Ottawa, I can tell you, that would have been time well spent, having heard from tons of Canadians from coast to coast to coast in the lead-up to that deadline about the anxiety and the uncertainty they faced. I can tell you that it would have been productive to create more space for Parliament to hash out what the agreed-upon way forward at the end of CERB would have been.
Having heard from students who were very disappointed that the NDP's proposal for a student benefit was cut down and didn't match what was on CERB, and the fact that those extra jobs that were supposed to top up that income support didn't happen, I can tell you that this was a decision that is very real to a lot of Canadians and had an impact on them in a very difficult time.
Folks on CERB ultimately did get an answer. We, the NDP, were ultimately able to maintain the benefit level. Even last summer, the government was looking at cutting the benefit level. We were able to avoid that. I was happy for that.
Students, on the other hand, never did see that income they lost made up. When you're a worker and the only thing you have to sell is your time, that kind of lost time really matters. It's not that easy to bounce back from. There's no extra cheque coming for the time you couldn't spend working and getting paid a wage. That's why this continues to be a very relevant matter.
Again, I know this is not totally new. I don't know that any committee member is going to get particularly excited at the proposal. In my experience, the fact that nobody is particularly overjoyed is usually a sign that some kind of meaningful compromise is afoot. I can tell the committee that I share that feeling in respect of this amendment, but I do think it's a way forward. We clearly need a way forward.
Before the constituency week, we were building some momentum to a way forward. I appreciated that Liberal members of the committee allowed us to have a vote on the amendment that had been before us for a very long time, to clear the way to have a discussion about another proposed solution. Given the fact that we spent months on the last solution, I think it would make sense to spend at least this meeting on the current solution. I'm quite open to having a vote on it at the next meeting. I think that might be useful. If folks want to talk about it a little bit more, I'm obviously happy to do that.
If this isn't going to be the one to do it—which I hope nobody will decide today because in these kinds of delicate conversations, time for reflection is important—then I do think that we can try to dispense with it relatively quickly the next day or at some subsequent meeting in the not-too-distant future.
I'm trying to honour here what I perceive to be an important need to conclude this study. I really think it's important that we report back to the House somehow. I'm satisfied that if we hear from the , we can at least report back. That's something we can get done. That's worth an hour of the Prime Minister's time. I think it would be worth it, anyway.
Frankly, I think there's a duty here, as the decision-maker, for him to appear. It's a double duty because I think he also has a duty to honour what he proposed as the solution to potential political abuses of the power of prorogation. He proposed that decision-makers answer for that. Of course, he is the decision-maker. That's important and that allows us to get on, conclude this study and report something back before the end of June. I think it is very important to do, so that when people look back on this....
I appreciate that, clearly, Liberal members feel there was no political abuse either in the fact of having prorogation or, apparently, even in the details of the prorogation, such as the nature, the length and the timing. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that at some future point they aren't going to suspect another prime minister of having abused that political power to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, I can find some common ground with Liberal members on the committee about past abuses of prorogation.
The question then becomes what we think is a good process for how to introduce some meaningful political accountability into that. I think having some written reasons tabled and forwarded on to PROC, which hears from some academics and then just buries it as a testimony item rather than reporting back to the House, would be a mistake. That's what we're at risk of doing if we don't find a way to wrap up this study.
I think the quickest and most straightforward way of doing that is to have that opportunity for political accountability with an appearance by the . That allows us to move on quickly, if the Prime Minister is prepared to do that in the spirit of his own solution.
The other reason it's important to try to find some kind of conclusion to this is that I want to see us get on to the study of Bill . I want to see Bill C-19 sent back to the House with enough time for it to pass before summer. Again, to be very clear, I mean that I want that because I don't trust the not to call an election during the summer.
If the would do one of two things, it would help the situation at the committee a lot. If the Prime Minister would appear, I think this would reasonably resolve our issues here at the committee. If the Prime Minister would say that he's not going to call an election during the summer months when Parliament isn't meeting, then that would give us more time to consider Bill and again would help with the work of the committee.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's an odd scenario to have government members filibustering a committee with an expectation that the opposition is going to help them break their own filibuster. As I say, in the filibusters I've been engaged in before, we talk about what our end game is and we talk about how to get out of it if it's not producing what we want, because we recognize that the people who start a filibuster are the people who have the obligation to finish it.
We're in this odd moment where I think government members are trying to shift the onus onto the opposition to break their filibuster. They can break it at any time. I'm not the one, with the exception of a longer intervention today—and I appreciate the patience and interest of members of the committee with my intervention today—who has been filibustering for the last number of months, so it's not for me to end it. I can't end the filibuster just by stopping talking, which is normally the power of somebody who is engaged in a filibuster, and it's normally up to that person who has the power to end it by stopping to find a way forward.
It's a very odd position to be in, with having colleagues imply that somehow it's the responsibility of the other side of the table to find a way out of their own filibuster so that we can consider their own legislation. I hope the Canadians who are listening appreciate what an unlikely and broken kind of situation this really is. I've done my best in good faith to try to bring about an end to this filibuster on a number of occasions, but it's true that I have not been willing to compromise on the importance of getting the here, because, significantly, I believe there are some really important non-partisan parliamentary reasons for having the Prime Minister at this committee, and I'm not really prepared to bend on those.
This amendment brings us a long way towards getting rid of what government members found most offensive—if you take them at their own word, and we should here—in the motion. In fact, I think just prior to my own intervention, it was Mr. Turnbull's contention that one of the things that was so objectionable about the motion was this litany of witnesses and documents. With this amendment, that's gone. It's a request for the to appear for an hour. All of the additional stuff that government members have said is a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with prorogation—all of that is done. All of that is gone with this amendment, if it passes.
This is a real opportunity for government members to be able to take out of the motion the lion's share, and I'm talking everything but one hour with the —all of the witnesses who are only being called because they have a connection to WE but don't have a clear connection to prorogation except through WE. We hear that Liberal members aren't interested in exploring those connections, even though I think those are connections that ought to be explored. We take them off the table.
The only call here is for the principal decision-maker in respect of prorogation, which is of course what we are studying. How do we know he's the principal decision-maker? Because you can go back to 1935, when cabinet said, by special proclamation, that those decisions—the decisions around prorogation and dissolution—rest with the Prime Minister alone as a special prerogative.
That is to say it is different from many of the other prerogatives of his office that he often jointly exercises with cabinet. It's not to say there wasn't a discussion at the cabinet table, but it is to say that, at the end of the day, he is the sole decision-maker.
It's why the NDP has asked the , not the , not the , not the , not anybody else. We've asked the Prime Minister to commit to not calling an election during the summer, because we recognize it is a special prerogative of the Prime Minister to make that call or not. We haven't asked that question of any other member of cabinet. Why? Because no other member of cabinet makes that decision. Cabinet does not make that decision collectively. It's the that does it.
We heard many things about how far-reaching the motion was, what a fishing expedition it was, how we should be talking about prorogation and not going down rabbit holes. While I say to my honourable colleagues on the other side that I don't agree with that analysis of the motion, for the sake of having five weeks left and in the context of a who won't commit to not calling an election during the summer, we need to get on Bill . We need to do it in a way that, above all, sees this committee report back on the issue of prorogation.
It's not for the reasons of this Parliament but for the reason of future parliaments, which is what, presumably, the wanted when he pursued a change to the Standing Orders because he recognized that the prerogative of prorogation was sometimes abused. He wanted a mechanism in order to create the context for political accountability.
If the is really comfortable in his reasons for having prorogued, when and how he did, then he ought to be willing to come to PROC for an hour to allow the work of a senior committee of Parliament to continue. Particularly, in light of the fact that our next bill and the consideration of that bill.... It's a bill of his own government. It's a bill that has a sense of urgency attached to it, because of the way he carries himself in respect of a special prerogative—just like the one we are studying.
When it comes to proroguing and dissolving Parliament, the power is the same. It rests uniquely with the . Bill is urgent, because he refuses to say that we're not going to have an election during the summer. That has everything to do with his exercise of the prerogative that's at issue in the report we're doing.
Like I say, with no pretension that this is a perfect solution or that it's going to satisfy everybody.... In fact, it will be dissatisfying to all of us in some way, shape or form, but it might be the way that we can move forward on this. Before anybody makes any hasty decisions, it's important to have some time for reflection. It's important to have time for news of this proposal to work its way up to the and the people around him, so that they at least have an opportunity to consider whether they think this is worth it. I do think that the way out of this quagmire is through prime ministerial leadership.
While I may have my own doubts about how on supply that really is, I want the opportunity to be proven wrong in what I think about the . I want to give him the opportunity to come to this committee for an hour and explain his reasons for prorogation, so that we can file our report and move on.
My proposal to you, Madam Chair, seeing that we happen to be at our normal ending time for meetings.... I know my Liberal colleagues are great believers in coincidences, so this is just one more for them to believe in.
I would propose that we suspend our meeting at the normal time, so that we can come back on Thursday at 11 o'clock. Perhaps by then, people will have a sense of where they would like the debate on this particular amendment to go. If at that time, members would like to have a vote so that we can dispense with it, that would be great.
With that, I'll cede the floor.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Once again, I'd like to thank everyone for being here today.
We made progress as members of this committee and can now see some daylight. Before giving you my own comments, I'd like to thank Mr. Blaikie. He took the time to give us a clear explanation of why , in his proposed amendment to remove the paragraphs following paragraph (a), he wanted the to appear in the week following the adoption of the motion.
I took note of a number of points in Mr. Blaikie's comments because he took the time to properly explain things. He clearly said that he wanted to know whether the prorogation was tied to the WE Charity or to the pandemic. That was at the beginning of his statement. The committee did look into this from the outset, with witnesses, with the presence of , and with all of the questions we had to deal with about whether the WE Charity or the pandemic was the reason for the prorogation.
Things have changed since then. Time moves quickly in politics. The Ethics Commissioner's report clearly showed that the Prime Minister had no links to the WE Charity, which in turn had nothing to do with the prorogation. The report cleared the , leaving us with the other option—the pandemic. If the pandemic was not a good reason to prorogue Parliament, I now find myself wondering what other reasons for doing so there could possibly be.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Blaikie also came up with an argument about a confidence vote that doesn't hold water. Allow me to explain. Mr. Blaikie mentioned that Canadians did not want an election. He also said that no one wanted an election in the summer and that these were all things for which the prime minister is accountable. However, that's not really the way things work. It's true that a minority government always depends on a vote of confidence or a vote on a budget or a budget statement, a throne speech or various other reasons for opposing a government. One can be forced to call an election, and it is the prime minister's prerogative to go to the Office of the Governor General to request one. However, it's wrong to say that it is solely the prime minister's responsibility.
If the parties work together, an election during the pandemic, and during the summer while waiting for people to be vaccinated, can be avoided. That's not only a prime minister's responsibility, it's the responsibility of the government, and the opposition has an extremely important role to play when it's a minority government.
Everyone knows that political jousting is involved and that the prime minister is not the only person to decide when there will be an election, which is why Bill is so important.
No one around this table wants an election or an election campaign to begin next week. However, if there were one, then as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would feel irresponsible not to have gone ahead with the study of Bill C‑19. I believe that it's very important.
I'd like to speak to you about something that is essential to the proper operation of Parliament under a minority government. We really all want the same thing, which is to provide better support to Canadians. It's extremely important for the various parties to work together effectively. We currently have an amendment before us. From the outset, I have argued vehemently that the Prime Minister is in the middle of managing a crisis caused by a pandemic. The Prime Minister has an extremely busy schedule. We could always knock on his door and ask him to come and speak to the committee, but doing so at such short notice is almost impossible for him. The wording of the amendment and the motion makes it extremely difficult to require the presence of a Prime Minister who is tied up dealing with a pandemic.
I'm not closing the door. We are continuing with our work, Mr. Blaikie. My colleague Mr. Turnbull demonstrated this clearly in his amendment with respect to the , who is also the Minister of Finance. That would have shown that we were very open to suggestions. Mr. Turnbull's amendment showed that there were many possible ways of getting answers to our questions and producing a good report. We would have had a better chance of getting the Deputy Prime Minister to appear, even though she too is very busy during this pandemic. She is of course also very busy as Minister of Finance. Wearing two hats is very demanding.
We were ready to move ahead. It's simply a matter of governing properly. I respect all the decisions that this committee will make. We voted against Mr. Turnbull's amendment and I have already moved on to the next one, from Mr. Blaikie.
This pandemic has gone on for just over a year now, and we could not have predicted where we would be now. I gave a presentation this morning about tourism and people were saying they would like to have a longer-term outlook. We would, six or seven months ago, liked to have had long-term forecasts so that we could better plan things like tourism and reopening the borders.
A pandemic doesn't come with an instruction manual. We're here to make decisions based on public health recommendations and we are going to continue to do so.
When we found ourselves in the middle of a pandemic, we didn't think that the priorities of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would still be the same as those on the list, which we were lined up to deal with at the outset. The priorities are no longer the same today. Sixteen months ago, who could have guessed that the top priority now would be Bill in the post-pandemic period?
We need to begin working on how to manage a future pandemic or disaster. We need to focus on those areas where we are likely to be successful. We need to write down what happened now, because it's still fresh in our minds and were still living through it. Now is the time to finalize the reports, and to archive the committee's data and experience so that it can become better in future at managing another pandemic, or even a flood, like the one that occurred in my riding.
We can learn a lot from what we did. Bill C‑19 remains a priority.
I understand why Mr. Blaikie is saying that he would like to turn the page, but from that to wanting the to appear here within a week is rather a stretch. He's all over the place at the moment. Everyone wants to see him. He has an extremely busy schedule. You can't mess with the Prime Minister's schedule like that. I would rather have him managing the country than appearing here before the committee to answer questions about the scale of the pandemic or about the WE Charity. People say they want to know whether he's guilty, even though we all know that he's been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner. I'm still standing my ground, but I agree with Mr. Blaikie when he says we need to vote, at which time I'll decide how to vote. That's all there is to it.
Lately, unfortunately, some people appear to have forgotten that we're in a pandemic, and I find that deplorable. Not only that, but sent a letter to the leader of the official opposition about the importance of collaboration among the parties because, as we all know, the Conservatives used procedural tactics in the House to slow down debate over Bill . And here we are with Bill C‑19 is now before us.
As I was saying, Bill C‑19 is upon us. The bill will make it possible for Canadians to vote safely if there is an election. I've heard people speculating about specific dates for the election. We don't have an election date. We don't even have an election calendar. Some are saying that the election will be held this summer, while others are saying that it will be in September. Many journalists have been making predictions based on their own analyses. I'm amused by all this, because I don't have a date. Our priorities are the safety of Canadians, managing a country, and having as many motions as possible adopted before the end of this parliamentary session. This committee has important work to do. We all know that time is slipping by, which means that it's important to prioritize the various matters at hand. I'm pleased to say that thus far, in spite of everything, we've been able to move ahead with this bill.
We've set aside Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I've got over it already. Now, there is another amendment on the table. We need to discuss it because I feel that what Mr. Blaikie has suggested is a compromise. He worked very hard on it, not only in terms of document disclosure, the hours and weeks of work that were required, testimony from the two Kielburger brothers, etc.
We know now that Mr. Blaikie has put some water in his wine.
I'm worried about the timing. It's very difficult for us to ask the Prime Minister to change his schedule and appear here within a week. He needs to meet provincial representatives on a regular basis. We are still negotiating various things with the provinces and territories. There is also the status of the indigenous territories and we are all aware of the Prime Minister's involvement in this issue. In the House this morning, there was another speech at 10 a.m. It never stops. The Prime Minister is in great demand. I'd like him to come and pay me a visit, but he can't. His schedule is too busy.
I'm still of the opinion that the , the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, could have come and spoken to us at greater length about the need to create a recovery plan and a collaborative approach by the parties that would help Canadians. She's an extraordinary and open-minded woman who generates optimism when she speaks. I'm certain that the Honourable Chrystia Freeland could add some very interesting points.
I'm convinced that she could have spoken to us about the need to step back and develop new priorities for Canadians.
:
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon, my friend and colleague. I really appreciate your remarks.
I also want to express my gratitude to Mr. Blaikie for his attempt at this, I think, really quite good amendment. I certainly appreciate the effort that was put in and the thoughtful remarks he made last time. I thought he spoke very eloquently, as he always does.
I'm not buttering you up; I really believe that. You spoke very eloquently and expressed your point of view quite well, and at length, I would say, as well, which sort of made me think it would be great to have some time to express some of my thoughts related to this amendment.
I have a few points to make here. I won't take up too much of the committee's time. I definitely want to express the things that I feel very positively about in terms of this amendment. One of them is the way that it really cuts out a lot of the things that, from my perspective, were main issues. Those things really have to include all the references to WE Charity, the documents, the very large document requests that were made within the original motion put forward by Ms. Vecchio, as well as calling the Perelmuters and the Kielburgers, who I know have already testified in other committees, multiple times if I'm not mistaken. I know that must have been challenging for them, especially the Perelmuters. I think we heard from one of my other colleagues, , when she was subbing in on this committee. She was part of the committee that questioned the Perelmuters. I know they went through quite a bit of hardship as a result of that. It's great that many of the things related to WE Charity are taken out of this and I feel very good about that as a positive step in the right direction.
I will just say, before I move on from that, we know that the Ethics Commissioner's report came out, and I referenced that last time. We know that the has been completely exonerated of all conflicts of interest, both real and potential, in that regard. Under the three different sections of the act that were relevant and the extensive documentation and evidence that the Ethics Commissioner reviewed, I thought that investigation and report were substantive and really took all the pieces of evidence and data into account, which is great. I think we can lay that to rest, and hopefully opposition parties will abandon their preoccupation with trying to link prorogation to WE Charity, which is more than rational at this point. This might be a vain hope that I have, that opposition parties will not try to undertake that line of questioning in the future. They're free to question and make whatever accusations they would like, but I think those are unfounded at this point and really show an attempt to link something to prorogation that is just patently untrue.
I feel much better about this amendment for those reasons. I really appreciate Mr. Blaikie's having cut those pieces of Ms. Vecchio's motion out, so I'm feeling very good about that.
I think Mr. Blaikie and I differ in terms of perspective at times. In the lengthy remarks and speech that he gave last time, I found myself at times shaking my head.
I remember I made a comment ages ago about how coming to debates in good faith is really being willing to give up a portion of your perspective in order to adopt the more rational point of view that someone else brings to the conversation. I felt at least with Mr. Blaikie's comments in our last meeting that I definitely shifted in terms of my perspective. I will say that I appreciate that and I think I learned something and definitely moved in terms of my perspective on this.
I have to say there are a couple of areas where I'm still feeling a difference of perspective may persist, at least in my reflections on this. There are two points that I would like to make around this. One is that Mr. Blaikie has said many times over—and maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this—that this is precedent setting, that this situation of studying prorogation is precedent setting and that the needs to come before this committee so committee members can ask tough questions and hold the Prime Minister accountable. He has said that the Prime Minister was the key decision-maker. That's my synopsis of what I think Mr. Blaikie has argued in the past. I see it a little differently though.
I see that the precedent setting of this particular moment in time is that we're in a global pandemic, which we all agree is unprecedented. The standing order change that required a report to be tabled in the House and then referred to this committee was a change to the Standing Orders that this government implemented in the last term of Parliament. I think that was a good change.
I think for me the precedent-setting nature is that standing orders were changed to require a tabled report. The government used the prerogative of prorogation and then followed through with a detailed rationale and report. I think that's precedent setting in itself as a higher degree of transparency around the reasons and rationale for prorogation.
I also think this committee has shown a willingness, I would say.... I don't remember our members pushing back at all on studying prorogation, which I understand was not a requirement. Just because the report was tabled and referred to this committee, it didn't require us as a committee to decide to study that. Of course, we did decide to do that together. I think our votes were unanimous on that. I really think that was positive. There's another degree of willingness to show transparency, look at the reasons and study some of those reasons.
I also think that with the witnesses we called to come before the committee, we all put our best foot forward. I don't think our witness list was all that long from our side. I know that opposition members had quite a lengthy witness list. I understand that some of the witnesses were not available in the time frame. That's a bit of a bone of contention, perhaps, with the opposition. Again, what I'm saying here is that there's been a willingness all along to up the level of transparency around prorogation and the reasons for it. I think that's positive.
In terms of setting a precedent, I guess what it comes down to is a slight disagreement on whether the needs to appear or not in order for us to get a sense of his assessment and mental state at the time of making decisions around this. From my perspective, when you look at all of the other information that's been provided to this committee and the other witnesses, I guess my thinking is this: Is the Prime Minister really going to give us a unique perspective? Has he not already in many ways given us the rationale?
I'm not saying I'm not supportive of this. I think this is a really good amendment. I'm just expressing some of my thoughts and reflections on it. It just sort of assumes that there's something else to be had. That's where I still wonder, really, if we're going to get anything more than what we've already gotten through this extensive work study and this lengthy debate that we've had. Those elements still persist for me as slight variances in perspective.
I also want to say that I think Mr. Lauzon pointed out quite well the things about the amendment that I'm still a little uncomfortable with, including the timeline of “within one week”, just given the 's schedule and the importance of the work he's doing leading this country. There are lots of demands on his time. I just wonder whether one week is really sufficient in terms of this motion. A response to appear within one week is a very, very short time frame.
That's one part. The only other part that struck me as...when I read through the wording carefully, was the last part, stating that “the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time.”
I don't know how to interpret this. Perhaps this is the wording—and maybe Mr. Blaikie could even speak to this—but I feel that this almost feels a bit threatening. I don't know whether it's intended that way, but it feels like a veiled threat, perhaps. I just wonder whether that's the way I should be interpreting it. Maybe that's incorrect, but that's the way I read it. It's imposing almost a consequence to not complying with a one-week time frame, which seems a bit unreasonable from my perspective.
Those are some of my thoughts related to the amendment. I appreciate any perspective that my other colleagues will provide and any clarification on that from Mr. Blaikie.
Thank you for listening to me and giving me the opportunity, Madam Chair.