Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think it's important to note that what I was speaking to is the fact that Parliament as a parliament wasn't working. We weren't doing legislative work. There weren't negotiations happening between the parties in respect of important legislation around the deadline of the CERB. That's a fact. I can tell you, as the NDP critic who is responsible for the CERB and who participated through the spring of last year in many negotiations, that the government was not open to having those conversations, and did not invite us to the table around those things.
It's not to say that individual MPs weren't doing the good work of MPs or that they were off at the beach or something, but it's a fact that Parliament was not meeting and it's a fact that the government wasn't reaching out to other parties about that legislation. It's a fact that the work I was doing as an MP was hearing from constituents who were concerned about what was going to happen at the end of the CERB and why there wasn't legislation being put in place to tell them what they could expect in October with respect to their household budget.
That's what was going on. I do think it was a bloody shame that the government prorogued Parliament despite calls by the NDP to come back in September to do that work to give some certainty to Canadians. I thought it was a shame the way the debate proceeded on a short timeline with only three days when we came back when we all knew that deadline was coming. That's what I'm talking about. Let my remarks not be misrepresented as somehow saying that I don't think MPs were doing their normal work. Parliament wasn't doing the business of the nation that it needed to do when millions of Canadians' households budgets were riding on the line. That's what I'm upset about. It's not whether MPs were doing their work in their constituency or not.
I hope that provides the member some relief from the anxiety he was clearly experiencing about my remarks.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I would say thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure if it provides me relief.
I know you are with me on participatory democracy and with many of your thoughts on civic engagement and the importance of citizen juries and other things like this that I know you're interested, Mr. Blaikie, in studying in the future. But I think I would say the way I view it is that taking the time to check in with Canadians between the first and second wave does not seem to me to be out of line or this sort of almost.... I don't want to characterize it the way you do because I don't see it the way you do. I see it as a part of that legislative process. To me these two things are fundamentally related in a healthy democracy. We've seen opposition parties delay key support and bills through the House of Commons for political purposes that relate specifically to COVID relief. We're seeing that now with concurrence motions.
I would say to you that it goes both ways. If it were so important to get that work done, then what about now? Why are opposition parties stalling things in the House and delaying our ability to get things done for Canadians? This motion is another attempt at that.
If you're so concerned about the efficiency with which we move forward then you would be dropping this particular motion and moving on with the supports that matter to Canadians right now. Having the Prime Minister come before this committee and testify does not seem to me to be a great use of the time.
I want to get back to my remarks and my conversation—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When I checked in with my constituents, I heard things like universal basic income, and I heard about how the pandemic was deeply scarring their businesses and putting them into debt. I heard about the social inequality that people were experiencing. I heard a lot about social justice issues. Climate change was something that was still on people's minds but not as an immediate concern. I think we saw that this became less of a concern during the pandemic, but it was still on people's minds as an important shift in transformation for our economy as we come out of the pandemic. Between the first and second wave, there were quite a few stakeholders engaged in discussions and very excited, I would say, about the whole “build back better” kind of messaging.
Some people have called that a token phrase. One of our witnesses said that, but I would say to you that no, this is a meaningful message that encapsulates a vision that Canadians, especially liberal-leaning or progressive-leaning ones, want to see. In my riding, they certainly want to see us build back our economy and our society in a way that is different and better, to create a more resilient Canada. Even the title of the throne speech reflects what my constituents have said and what we heard during that consultation process. Again, there's consistency here.
It just seems unjustified that we should continue with a study that repeats the past, and I would say, is only for political gain. There's no other reason for it.
Let me get back to my other remarks. I have reflections, too. I actually wrote a blog on my website, reflections on the throne speech 2020. The reason I wrote it was that I was so excited, as a new member of Parliament, that my voice and the voices of my caucus members were being heard and that the throne speech reflected those comments and the feedback I received from Canadians, from my constituents.
Some people have said there's nothing new in the throne speech. This is absolute nonsense. I am sorry but I don't know how anyone can see that as a credible statement, one they actually believe is based on reality. There are so many things in the throne speech that are new and unique. I would say yes, there's still consistency there. It does reflect what we heard, and there was a genuine effort—an authentic engagement—that went into reformulating and reassessing our agenda and priorities. To me, that's why we prorogued. This is all consistent with the rationale given in the 37-page or the 40-page report that had been tabled.
One thing that really strikes me as important—and I know Mr. Lauzon will feel just as passionate about this as I do—is having national standards for long-term care and those being a priority for our government. This was reflected in this Speech from the Throne. It came out of that process. My mother's in long-term care, Mr. Blaikie, and I'm concerned for her health every day. I've had a major outbreak in my riding, at Sunnycrest in Whitby. I'm telling you, it breaks my heart to see what seniors have gone through and to see the failures in our system for long-term care.
I actually feel like I'm choking up over this. This is really how I feel, that those voices and that consultation process led to our government responding in the Speech from the Throne. That wouldn't have happened if we hadn't taken the time to reflect.
The opposition members keep saying that this was all just a ploy to avoid something. Well, what about the important work that was actually done? You're not taking that into account at all. You're disregarding the work of a healthy democracy under this government. I strongly believe that. With all my conviction, I really, passionately, believe that is the truth.
You want the truth, right? That's what you keep saying. You keep saying you want to drag everybody out and you want the truth. I'm telling you my version of the truth. My job as a member of Parliament, as I understand it, is to represent my constituents and do that to the best of my ability.
I don't think my constituents are watching right now, to be honest. I think what they care about is that we get pan-Canadian or national standards for long-term care and we improve the quality of care that our seniors deserve.
Why aren't we doing that? Let's work on that. Let's talk about that. I know that isn't the business of this committee, but those are the types of things that Canadians care about.
In a minority government we know there could be an election at any time. We could be doing a pre-study on the bill that deals with Elections Canada and the elections process. We've done a lot of great, meaningful work on that already, but we need expedient passage of that bill just in case, at any point, an election could be called.
I really worry about what would happen to our democratic process if we don't have speedy passage of that bill. This committee could be doing that work right now. There are other things that this committee could be doing with our time, but instead we are debating this motion, which I feel strongly against, as you can tell.
I want to get back to my original remarks because I didn't quite finish. I got a little taken up there in the emotion around the issue of national standards for long-term care, for which I hope no one would fault me.
Where was I?
We managed to accomplish all of the work that went into the throne speech, updating the government's priorities to fit into a wider global pandemic context while supporting Canadians and engaging in wide-scale public service consultations. In Mr. Sutherland's own words, a witness who came before the committee, there was one day lost between September 22 and 23 in pure House time—one day.
I would view that as an accomplishment for the government and a point for all House members to be proud of. The government accomplished all of its planning objectives without having to take away significant time from the House. It was only one day, for a task that Mr. Sutherland told us was a lot of hard work. I would attest to that, and I would attest to the hard work that I put into that process.
The opposition tries to make a fuss of the prorogation, but Mr. Sutherland said at our committee, “From a convention perspective, there is nothing at all.”
One other thing that I've had on my mind came out of that consultation process that I was talking so passionately about. I would point to an article in the Toronto Star, published on September 18, 2020. It talks about Minister Chrystia Freeland talking to former finance ministers about the economic crisis. It goes into some detail. It doesn't provide a lot of detail, but what's interesting—and I heard this in my riding—is that many women have been set back and deeply affected by this pandemic. It's been referred to as a “she-cession”.
Again, this speaks to the consultation work and the hard work that was put in during this time. The Minister of Finance checked in with one of the former ministers of finance, John Manley. She also took the time to check in with another Liberal MP who served as the minister of finance for several years, and that was Ralph Goodale. I have a lot of respect for both of them.
Ralph Goodale is quoted in this article as saying, referring to Minister Freeland, “She is very consultative. We've had some opportunities to have some really good conversations.” Again, this provides evidence. Notice I'm substantiating the things that I'm saying, because I believe that evidence and science are important.
In the article it says:
Especially in the case of women, child-care initiatives have “clearly” been effective, he said, and that it's fair in terms of “'gender equality and gender fairness.” And finally, Goodale said it adds to economic growth, not debt. “Women joining the workforce has been the single biggest contributor to productivity in Canada since the Second World War,” he said.
Here is another quote: “Because of COVID, we've lost a chunk of that, and women have been put at a disadvantageous position.”
This is important to me. I spoke with Minister Freeland about this myself as the chair of the 905 caucus, and I heard a lot of feedback from that caucus about the importance of women's full participation in the economy. This, to me, is another aspect of the Speech from the Throne that is a major section in there. We've seen it follow from this in the fall economic statement.
I'm not saying our government wasn't committed before this to achieving gender equality and advancing women's rights in every aspect, and that hard work we've been undertaking for quite some time, but again, this speaks to that consistency in the rationale provided for prorogation, which is that there was time needed to reset our agenda, and that work was done.
Look at the throne speech. Have people read the throne speech? I know you all heard it, probably, and watched it, but the throne speech has a section called “Women in the Economy”. The first part of it focuses on—
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Can I do a Simms intervention here, if you don't mind?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
How does a Simms intervention work? Do I have to agree to it every time?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I would prefer continuing on this one, if you don't mind, Ms. Vecchio. I was on a roll there.
One thing I could say is that, in the throne speech, there's a section on women in the economy. It says, “Many women have bravely served on the frontlines of this crisis, in our communities or by shouldering the burden of unpaid care work at home.”
The next line goes further and says, “We must not let the legacy of the pandemic be one of rolling back the clock on women's participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure.”
Again, think about this. This appears in the throne speech. There was no such thing as a “she-cession” before the pandemic. It wasn't on the mind. Certainly we were committed to advancing women's rights and equality, but we weren't talking about a she-cession. We weren't talking about rolling back the clock on women's participation in the workforce.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Am I to take from this that the government wasn't aware of the research on the nature of how this was becoming a she-cession until during the prorogation? It sounds to me like this consultation was necessary, and one of the things that the government learned was that the nature of the economic consequences of the pandemic were generating a she-cession during that consultation. Am I to gather from you that it was news to the government during prorogation that the pandemic was having a disproportionate influence on women?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I would say no. I think we were all aware that it was becoming more and more of a clear issue, but did we understand how that stacked up in relation to other priorities, how deep that was right across the country, and just what that impact had on everyday Canadians in our ridings? I would say yes and no.
I mean, did it give us a chance to check in with people and do a pulse check? Yes, it did. Did it clarify specifically what that impact was and the true qualitative nature of how that was really impacting women's lives in this case? I would say yes. I think it deepened our understanding of something that we had already identified.
I would answer your question that it allowed us to reflect on how that related to all of the other competing priorities before government. There are a lot, and obviously you know that.
That's how I would answer your question.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I just want to ask, if I can, in the same vein—
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
This is really unique that...I noticed....
I like the engaging debate, but is this normal? People don't normally jump in. I feel like I'm really stimulating people to jump in here. Are we encouraging that? I guess it's up to me, is it?
Madam Chair, you're looking at me, and I'm looking at you.
I just wonder.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I know.
Some people have allowed it since yesterday.
You can just say, “I don't want any interventions. I want to carry on with my speech”, and that's fine. Then there are no interventions, and you can carry on. You must be—
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I was just going to ask, because it was on the same thread as Daniel. I was asking if I could go on that same thread as the former status of women chair.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Ryan, I hear exactly what you're saying on the she-cession because we had an excellent report that the status of women committee had put together. We had emergency meetings in July. On July 7 and 8 we came in for emergency meetings. I think all of government with all opposition parties working together knew that there was an issue. We had an excellent report that was being put together. I know it was going through final translation, and it was supposed to be tabled on the 19 or 20.
Ryan, I know there are issues. Perhaps the government might be ever willing to look at that report that was never able to be tabled. We had some of the finest Canadians in there talking about this she-cession, so I agree.
I can say that there was extraordinary work done by the status of women on emergency committees based on this. Unfortunately, we couldn't table it.
Thank you.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you.
I'm on two other committees, and one is the HUMA committee. I don't know if Mr. Long is still here, but he serves on that committee with me.
We decided right after prorogation to essentially reconvene with one motion, which put all of the studies that we had done before back on the table, and we continued forward on our work. There was really no difference. We reassessed our priorities a little bit, but we continued with our work.
I wonder why the committee that you're speaking of didn't do that. Maybe you felt that the Speech from the Throne already dealt with—
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
They did go back into it. It's just that we had something that was very.... It was talking about child care issues and a variety of different things.
It would have just come about five months earlier, that's all. That information was already there, and it would have been available to the government in July instead of waiting for the committees to reconvene. FEWO was the last committee to reconvene due to the technical difficulties that we currently have. They were late to reconvene.
I know that this is something they've studied. I'm just saying that the subject matter and all of the information was there in July for the government, and they did not have to wait for them to reconvene and get back on the study. I think it's been reported now, but those are some of the delays. It was a five-month delay for status of women, which means child care and all of those other issues that you're talking about....