Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

[The Clerk]

Sorry, that's what I was just going to ask, if Ms. Petitpas Taylor could email me a copy of the motion she just put on notice.

That would be great. Thank you.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Will do, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Something that came to my mind when I was listening to you speaking and talking about new horizons funding, Ms. Petitpas Taylor, was that just before I logged on to this meeting, I joined virtually a group funded through new horizons. It was a group of seniors all learning to use tablets.

They were also talking about how technology has been the saviour for a lot of us through this pandemic, but it has been so difficult for them because some of them don't even know how to use that technology to their benefit. It's nice, then, to see there are groups doing work like that, training seniors so they'll have access to a whole bunch of different things—groceries, banking and all of that. It was nice to get in touch with those seniors from my riding this morning.

Mr. Turnbull, you are next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank my honourable colleagues who came before me and made such great speeches and remarks.

Before I get started with my argument today, I would like to put another motion on notice. It's a shorter one, but no less important. The motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to its mandate to examine issues related to Elections Canada under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the committee undertake a study of the issue of the Ontario Superior Court decision on Section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act; and consideration of any necessary legislative amendments.

My French is not great. That's why I said it in English. But I will email it to the clerk in both official languages. I'm pushing “Send” right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I think that's a very worthwhile motion. I note that the motion is like an amendment I moved in the previous Parliament on that exact issue, which would have prevented the court challenge. Unfortunately, the committee at the time didn't adopt it, but I'm glad the government has now come around to the Conservative view on this.

Perhaps we could have unanimous consent to adopt all three motions—Ms. Vecchio's, Mr. Turnbull's and Ms. Petitpas Taylor's. It's three for the price of one. Let's get to work on these three issues and see if we can't move this committee along. I'm optimistic this time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Good ideas can come from anywhere, Mr. Nater. They often come from you, so I won't say they can't also come from you. I'm glad to see that you're in favour.

I don't think the committee has changed its view on unanimous consent, unless you want me to formally ask—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Monsieur Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I apologize Madam Chair. I would very much like to see all this written in French to ensure that I can follow the discussions and think intelligently about what is being proposed at the moment.

I would like to see the documents in French first of all, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, absolutely. You'll be circulated a copy in French shortly.

We won't be moving forward on any of this right now. It's just been put on notice, like the other motions we have from Mr. Therrien and Mr. Blaikie. We will remain on the debate of Ms. Vecchio's motion at this time.

Mr. Turnbull has the floor right now on that motion.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did just send a copy in both official languages to the clerk, so that should have been received.

I appreciate Mr. Nater's attempt to “let's make a deal” the situation here, but I don't think we have unanimous consent.

I'm looking forward to delivering some prepared remarks. I've been spending a lot of time.... Continuing with the argument that I started in one of our previous meetings—I think it was actually two meetings ago—where I referenced a document by the chief statistician, it is a 134-page or 135-page report of key statistics that were gathered, or I guess collected and analyzed throughout the period from the beginning of the pandemic to around August 2020.

This information was relevant at the time of prorogation. I think it serves as a foundational document of extremely important and relevant data to inform evidence-based decision-making around resetting the government's agenda. I believe very strongly—and I'm going to argue today—that all of the data actually points to very specific and important themes that show up in the Speech from the Throne.

To me, this again provides significant rationale as to why prorogation was necessary and why a new Speech from the Throne was a chance to reflect the needs of Canadians, and also to check in with them through an extensive consultation process, which I've spoken about before.

The argument really starts off from.... I think the key argument I want to make is that if a global pandemic is not a good reason to prorogue Parliament, then really nothing is. That I think is something that the opposition parties around the table here should be keeping in mind.

I know that the opposition doesn't seem to be satisfied with that, and I feel as if they want to fabricate a narrative that suits their political purposes. Really, you could continue to deny that this is a legitimate and good rationale for the reasons that existed for prorogation, but I think that's denying the evidence and the science behind this and the specific facts about what actually happened following from prorogation.

I say good reasons and rational arguments, because we've seen recently that the Conservative Party in particular has even denied climate change being real, at their national convention. This again continues to show a disregard for scientific evidence and research.

I think that the hypocrisy is thick here, to be honest. Harper prorogued four times in the better part of a decade when he served as prime minister. No disrespect to Stephen Harper or to the Conservative Party, or any of its members, but the party spokesperson gave reasons each time, especially in 2008 and 2009. All of the reasons given were very consistent with concerns about an economic crisis or recession at the time and wanting to check in with Canadians, key stakeholders and opposition parties.

My argument is this. The global pandemic that we've been living through over the last year and responding to as a government is at least 10 times greater than the recession in 2008 and 2009. If we are sitting around the table and honestly thinking that proroguing Parliament wasn't justified, it just seems hypocritical to me, especially when the economic crisis is so much worse. Mind you, this is a public health crisis first and foremost, but it has economic and social implications that are deep and far reaching.

We all have been living through that together, and it's been challenging for every Canadian out there, every one of us, for sure. I feel very privileged to be serving Canadians at this time, and advocating for them first and foremost. However, we're not immune to the impacts as well. We've all experienced losses in our families, local businesses, the isolation, mental health challenges. The list goes on and on.

We're all feeling this and getting through it together, and I really wish that instead of debating this motion, which seems to be about nothing more than political games, we could get down to the business that matters to Canadians. It would be really great.

My colleagues Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Lauzon painted the picture, from their perspectives, of what their constituents are asking about today. This study is not on their minds. I would even venture to say that it is almost completely irrelevant to Canadians right now. That's a bold statement, I know, because I think many opposition members are committed to pursuing it, but I am still struggling to understand why. I guess I'm really at a loss, because I have to assume it is, again, only for political purposes.

I want to reference a couple of statements that were made in the media in relation to the 2008 and 2009 prorogations of former prime minister Stephen Harper. One of them was in a 2008 CTV article. This is a direct quote:

Last Friday I asked Canadians to give us their opinion on the parliamentary situation. That feedback has been overwhelming and very clear. They want Canada's government to continue to work on the agenda they voted for—our plan to strengthen the economy.

This is, again, referring to prorogation, and it's very clear from this statement that this was a chance to work on the agenda. It was assumed not only that the agenda was not abandoned but also that prorogation was justified based on wanting to strengthen the economy and look at how the government could do that at the time.

In a Toronto Star article on the same prorogation in 2008, this statement was made: “It's the opportunity to work in the next six weeks on these measures, and I invite all the opposition parties, especially those that have a responsibility to the whole of Canada, to work with us, to inform us of their detailed position and we will be there to listen.”

Again, this expresses the idea of consultation with opposition parties, responsibility to Canadians and a chance to reflect and listen. That was used as justification in 2008 by the Conservative government at the time.

One could criticize whether prorogation was necessary again a year later, in 2009, but I won't go there today. For our purposes, I want to clarify what reasons were given, which I think are very consistent with the reasons that our government has given. This is my point about hypocrisy being kind of thick at this moment in time.

In the Toronto Star, Dimitri Soudas, whom I've never met but I understand was the spokesperson for former prime minister Stephen Harper, said at the time that with the recession easing, it was “time to engage with constituents, stakeholders and businesses in order to listen to Canadians, identify priorities and to set the next stage of our agenda.”

This was about resetting the agenda coming out of an economic recession that was slightly easing. One could draw a very similar parallel between the easing first wave of COVID-19, with its economic impacts, and the chance to re-evaluate and do the consultation necessary with constituents, stakeholders and businesses to reset the agenda. This is exactly the same. It's so blatantly parallel that it's hard for anybody to deny.

In a CBC News article from Ottawa, Dimitri Soudas said, “This is quite routine”, referring to prorogation, “but it is also important to give Canadians an overview of where we will be taking the country over the next little while.” In a CTV article, Soudas said, “'There's nothing out of the ordinary about doing this”, referring to prorogation. Then in Maclean's, Soudas said that a new parliamentary session was needed to set in motion “basically the next phase of the economic action plan.”

All of these statements made in the media to justify prorogation in 2008 and 2009 were almost identical, only we have to remember that the government of the day, in the four times it prorogued, didn't provide any evidence or any report to the House to justify why it had prorogued. Sure, Canadians were left guessing and, sure, these reasons were given in the media, but that was acceptable at the time.

Our government introduced a change to the Standing Orders that required transparency around this process. Here we have opposition parties now trying to claim that we haven't been transparent, and they want to do an extensive study that's already been done multiple times at other committees. This is a rinse and repeat until they get what they want, which is holding up the very important work that this committee could be doing.

I want to speak directly to Ms. Vecchio's livestreamed constituents. I know she's livestreaming this on her Facebook account, but I really think this is—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, he is misleading people. I believe it's the debate that's going on in the House of Commons today that is being livestreamed.

Ryan, can you clear the record and make sure you give the correct information?

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I know Ms. Vecchio was doing that in our last meeting, so if I was wrong, my apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

The clarification I guess has been made.

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

To round out that point, it's very hard and rich specifically for the Conservative party to be saying that our government lacks transparency around this when the pandemic presents at least 10 times the impact....

We amended the Standing Orders previously. We complied with that standing order and produced a report. We've had the government House leader come and speak to us. We've done a study. We've entertained this in terms of understanding the rationale for prorogation and still they persist in wasting this committee's time.

I do believe it's a waste of time. I'm sitting here and I'm preparing for hours and hours to speak to this motion, which I fundamentally disagree with. I will not stop arguing for it to be defeated. I will not stop, because it is a waste of our time.

We're here to serve Canadians. We're here to do work that matters to Canadians. I would like to be talking about misinformation within the elections process and what we can do about combatting misinformation. I think there are so many other things we could be doing.

The safe passage of the bill that was put forward, I think it's Bill C-19—sometimes I get the numbers mixed up, because so many things are happening. It's the bill we worked on. We did some great work in this committee, some really fantastic, non-partisan work to move us forward as a country, understanding that if an election is called.... I know we all don't want an election. We looked at what we need to do if it's called to ensure that Canadians are safe, they can exercise their democratic rights and they can vote within a safe electoral process.

That work is so impactful and important. Here we are debating this instead of moving that. We could be doing a prestudy on that bill to make sure the bill itself passes more quickly when it does come to our committee. There are so many better things we could focus our attention on right now that are more relevant to Canadians.

This is just the start of my remarks today. I have a lot more to say. I will try to be brief, but I do have a lot to say. I've been reading extensively and preparing for this conversation.

I know that, as a new member of Parliament, it's my job to speak and advocate for the things I believe in and that I think my constituents would want me to be saying and doing. I'm very conscious of that, and I take that very seriously. Like Mr. Lauzon, Ms. Petitpas Taylor and all my colleagues, we're working hard for Canadians.

I also want to point to something else that is a key piece of evidence, that if I were a witness on this committee I would introduce.

Experts say this pandemic has been approximately 10 times worse than the recession in 2008 and 2009. They are almost incomparable. When we look at the statistics, the recession in 2008 and 2009 is a blip compared with the economic impacts of this public health crisis that we're all living through and trying to manage our country through.

I want to refer to a specific article in BNN Bloomberg on April 27, 2020. The title of it is “COVID-19 to spur depression '10 times worse' than 2008”. I have a whole host of other articles, but I'm just referring to that one so it's on the record. It's not just me saying this. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm reading expert opinions and advice and bringing that to the committee.

I would also add that one can't even say that we can use what we learned from 2008-09 and apply it to the current health crisis and the induced economic crisis based on our public health crisis. They're so different in attributes and characteristics. I started to say this last time, and I'm prepared to talk more about this in the future. I think there's a very big difference between a supply-side recession and a demand-side recession. Economists have done a lot of analysis to look at the differences between 2008-09 and the 2020-21 economic crisis.

I would just say maybe “to be continued”, but it's not just 10 times worse. It's completely different. We can't even necessarily apply some of the learning from that past crisis to this one, because it doesn't really apply. There may be some aspects of it that do, but I think it's pretty important to point out that they're qualitatively different, and this one is much more complex and deeper.

Getting back to my original argument, I referred to the report from Statistics Canada. I've read it pretty much cover to back numerous times. I've made notes about it. I think it's important. The reason I think it's important is that the key message in the throne speech that I found opposition parties would contest and trivialize and call a “buzz term” or a “catchphrase” is this message of “build back better”, which I know some people may perceive as a buzz phrase, a catchphrase, a talking point or something.

It certainly may sound like that to you, but to me, and based on all the evidence I see from Statistics Canada, I believe this message that we need to build a sustainable, resilient, inclusive and equitable economy moving forward resonates with the majority of Canadians—and now is the time.

Just as we always say that COVID-19 is an unprecedented crisis and that we haven't seen this in 100 years, we also have an opportunity, coming out of this, to really address the deep inequities in our society and our economy and to ensure we have an economy that works for everyone, that builds pathways to social and economic inclusion and that, more than anything else—we have to make sure—protects our planet.

To me, if you believe in social justice and environmental sustainability, our Speech from the Throne really would speak to you. That message of “build back better” isn't just a buzz phrase or catchphrase. It's something that we believe in and that stakeholders across this country have been echoing. They've been echoing it because it resonates with them, not because it's a talking point or a.... I don't trivialize that. It encapsulates what people want to see in the future of this country.

What I want to do is bring it back to the statistics and the information that we have, and specifically the information that was available at the time of prorogation, which is relevant. The economic crisis and the social impacts of COVID-19 have gone through a second wave and, now, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor rightly pointed out, we're in a third wave. We're going to experience that, I guess exponentially, in that third wave.

I want to get down to making my argument. That was a bit of a preamble, but I wanted to outline the overall architecture of the argument I'm making. I really think it's important for you as members of this committee to know where I'm going with all of this. Now I'm going to provide you with evidence, research and information that I think substantiates it.

First of all, on the economic impacts in general, there's a whole bunch of categories to the economic impact in general. There was an unprecedented decline in outputs. Again, this is based on August 2020, and it's five times greater than 2008, with the worst impact on the economy in the service-based industries. Real GDP fell by 2.9% in 2009. Real GDP fell by 12% in 2020, and that was only after the first wave. Already, you can see that the impact was greater and that was only during the first wave.

I want to quote from this report by the chief statistician of Canada. I'm not sure whether this should be attributed to the person who wrote the report, because there's probably a whole team that worked on it, but I will just quote it:

The road to recovery will involve major adaptations for businesses and households, which poses challenges for an equitable and resilient recovery.

It's interesting that those phrases should be used at a fairly early point in that report, but I certainly think this is relevant to where I'm going with this argument.

Another point that I think is important to keep in mind is that historic declines in all economic activities were experienced. Those include imports, exports, business investment, household spending and real GDP at market prices. Those are five categories. Not only did real GDP fall, but all of these other economic activities also experienced historic declines.

In Q2 2020, household spending had decreased by 13%. Employment earnings fell by 9%. Our government's emergency relief measures ensured that Canadian families got direct payments through the CERB and other income supports. Those led to disposable income and household savings actually increasing eventually. They went from 8% to 28%. That was based on a reduced cost of living, and this will also ensure that people spend—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I believe the translation isn't coming through clearly. I just want to make sure that it is coming through in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is it not coming through in French to you?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

No, actually, my apologies, it is now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Are you able to hear me right now?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Yes, I can. There was something wrong with my headset. I apologize. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No problem, Mr. Long.

Mr. Turnbull, I'm sorry about that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If possible, I'd like to move an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion while I have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's as follows:

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

I. by deleting paragraph (a),

II. by replacing paragraph (b) with the following: “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee for at least 90 minutes; and”

III. 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 for at least 90 minutes.”, and

IV. by deleting paragraphs (d) to (h)