Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all of my colleagues for their questions.

I would just like to say that it is a very hard time in Ontario. Madam Chair, you're right. The average test positivity rate is 10.8%, but in some communities those numbers are much higher. My heart goes out to everybody who has worked so hard, who has put community and country before themselves—our front-line health care workers and our essential workers. As I've said, we were in a pandemic in the summer and we're still in a pandemic. We should hear from the Deputy Prime Minister.

I was fortunate to be part of a very special Zoom meeting on Saturday with our Sri Lankan Tamil seniors of Etobicoke to celebrate Tamil new year but also to bring people together virtually to hear about their experiences during the pandemic and to talk about the importance of getting vaccinated.

How many times have I raised seniors and long-term care? Canada has the worst record for COVID-19 deaths in long-term care homes out of all wealthy nations. In Canada, between March 2020 and February 2021, more than 80,000 residents and staff members of long-term care homes were infected. Outbreaks occurred in 2,500 care homes. Ontario experienced the largest increase in excess deaths at 28%, while B.C. had the smallest, at just 4%.

That's what my community cares about. My community cares about knowing that we are doing everything possible to protect our seniors, those who helped build this country. We had an absolute tragedy take place last spring in long-term care homes. That tragedy was repeated in the second wave in long-term care. This should not have been a surprise. Infections, whether it is influenza or gastroenteritis, strike quickly in long-term care homes.

Provinces had warnings. They saw what happened in Europe before COVID-19 hit here. Ontario was aware as early as March 2020 that 98% of COVID-19 deaths in Italy had involved elderly people with pre-existing health conditions. That risk should have been recognized.

Yesterday, we heard from Ontario's Auditor General that the province's decision to delay implementing mandatory measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care homes may have contributed to the devastating toll. The province initially provided to long-term care homes direction on infection prevention and control in February 2020, but it was framed as guidance. It was ultimately up to home operators to decide what actions to take to protect the elderly, frail and ailing residents. By the time an emergency order was issued in early April, requiring that all staff and essential visitors wear masks, there had already been 500 confirmed cases among residents, almost 350 confirmed cases among staff and almost 100 deaths. It would take another two weeks to issue another emergency order restricting staff from working in more than one home. That order came nearly a month after officials in British Columbia took similar action.

In light of how quickly COVID-19 spread in long-term care homes, every day that implementing mandatory requirements was delayed made a difference in the effort to control its spread. That sickens me. There was warning, and not enough was done. There was not clear direction. Actions were delayed, and the necessary inspection to make sure that homes were complying with containment measures was not done.

Instead of focusing on a partisan motion, we should be talking about what Canadians care about, that we need to do better next time because there will be a next time. It is time to write this report on the study, to move on to being better prepared for the future. That's the job of this committee. If there is not a way to go forward, like my dear colleague and friend Mr. Turnbull, I believe we should be inviting the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Youth.

Just as I've been doing since the beginning of March, I will ground my remarks around the pandemic. The issue is the number one concern of Etobicoke North, the burning issue for our country and the world, one of the two global crises the world is facing, which of course are COVID-19 and the climate.

Let me talk for a moment about what is happening worldwide with COVID. Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to intensify. It's—

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I realize, just like Ms. Duncan, we are all very concerned with this, but we are going further and further each moment. Instead of talking about the fact that we didn't close our borders, they were talking about long-term care homes and what the provinces were doing. Now we're talking about international things.

This motion is about prorogation. It would be as if we're talking about the budget. It's a big thing, but I really question how far off we're going to go when it comes to relevance. I do believe questions should be relevant when we come here. I've questioned the relevance for the last 10 minutes. I find we're so out of the realm of what we're talking about, even from two months ago. At least two months ago we were talking about the motion. Now it's just whatever we can put in to fill in time.

I'm asking that we get back to the motion on prorogation. By the way, I have not heard the word "prorogation" in the last hour, so I'm wondering if we're going to start talking about the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll remind the member to link all her remarks to the issue at hand, prorogation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Absolutely, we prorogued. There was a pandemic. We were in a pandemic last summer. We're still in a pandemic, and we should be hearing from our Deputy Prime Minister.

I do think it's important for this committee to understand the context, and I will make two points here. Cases have been rising internationally for nine straight weeks. Deaths have increased for six straight weeks. We're all seeing what is happening in India. It's beyond heartbreaking. Yet this committee remains focused on a partisan motion. We were in a pandemic last summer. It's the reason we prorogued. We're still in a pandemic. We need to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister.

Public health measures have restricted many parts of life. They work. They save lives. Vaccines are giving us all hope, but vaccines alone will not end the pandemic. We have the tools to bring this pandemic under control in a matter of months, but only if we use those tools consistently and equitably.

This past Sunday a World Health Organization adviser, Dr. Peter Singer, a Canadian, had a message for Canadians. He said that dawn is coming. His comments came on the heels of soaring COVID-19 case counts in Canada, which had peaked at over 9,000 daily in April. As I've talked about, Ontario has faced a crushing third wave with record-breaking daily cases and ICUs stretched to their limits. Dr. Singer says it's the darkness before the dawn.

There is really no question that the situation in Canada has been very tough and that many people are suffering. I want to bring it home. This pandemic is the worst global public health crisis in 100 years. We were in a pandemic last summer. We prorogued because we were in a pandemic. We continue to be in a pandemic and we should hear from our Deputy Prime Minister.

This is a few days old, but over 11 million vaccines—I think it's much higher now—have been administered in Canada. Dawn is coming, but we have to keep maintaining the public health measures, the masking, the physical distancing, avoiding poorly ventilated indoor spaces. While this is some light, we have to keep maintaining public health measures, but this committee remains focused on a partisan motion. Again, we prorogued because there was a pandemic. We're still in the pandemic and we should be hearing from our Deputy Prime Minister.

Here at home, Ontario continues to struggle. Ontario made a formal request to the Canadian Armed Forces to help deal with the surge in critical care cases associated with COVID-19's third wave. A spokesperson made the request for assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Red Cross. In addition, we're looking for health human resources, logistical and operational support—and the military will help— yet this committee remains focused on a partisan motion.

I heard from my honourable colleague that we haven't mentioned prorogation. I've mentioned it over and over. There was prorogation because we're in a pandemic. We continue to be in a pandemic. We absolutely should be hearing from our Deputy Prime Minister.

I will just finish by saying that no matter what Canada does here at home, there's a much bigger issue that could impact the real end date of the pandemic, and that is vaccine equity. It is the challenge of our time, and while my colleagues don't seem to be interested, this international—

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I really respect the member but now she is talking about vaccines.

If she is going to talk about things at least let there be relevance. She is talking about a debate that's probably taking place in the House right now because we're talking about the lack of vaccines right now.

I really want to get down to the relevance of this motion. As Mr. Kent noted, this started on February 23. We have now wasted 10 weeks of our time, probably about 35 to 40 hours. Every single person who was on that motion on February 23 could have been here in the committee and already given testimony. We would have already written this report. We probably would have already tabled this report but now, after two and a half months, we continue to just sit here and talk about it being a partisan motion.

Yes, there is a partisan motion because it is coming from a different party and not from the Liberals. It is a motion that has been put forward. There is a reason for prorogation and the Prime Minister, in 2017, indicated that he wanted to be responsible and accountable to all Canadians. We have asked for his presence, as he changed the Standing Orders in 2017, and to date we have not seen him, nor have we had a reply. Even with Mr. Turnbull's motion, there has not been one single person, including the Deputy Prime Minister, whom the member continues to refer to, has not had the courtesy to respond.

Perhaps one of these members can pick up the phone and call the Deputy Prime Minister and ask what the hold up is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I understand your frustration, Ms. Vecchio. We've definitely been going down a very long road. Perhaps we can have a vote on the amendment at some point and reinvite those individuals. It would give me something to work on as well, to try to get those witnesses before us. I would like nothing more than that.

Ms. Duncan, I guess you were wrapping up your remarks and perhaps at this meeting today we'll get to the point Ms. Vecchio would like to see.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Absolutely, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I wasn't here on February 23. Of course, I was in mourning.

The point I was making about vaccine equity, we have to tackle this globally and right now the vast majority of vaccines are going to high- or middle-income countries. Only 2.2% have gone to low-income peers.

We have rapidly spreading variants. There has been inconsistent use and premature easing of public health measures, fatigue with social restrictions and dramatic inequity in vaccine coverage. All have led to an alarming spike in new cases and deaths.

Madam Chair, I have been speaking at length. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I thank them for allowing me to bring the voice of Etobicoke North to talk about the pandemic here in Canada and particularly in the province where I am a member of Parliament. I'm glad I was able to bring science, evidence and facts to this debate.

I will pass the floor to one of my dear colleagues.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan. I appreciate that and your passion for science and, of course, facts.

Mr. Turnbull, you are next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge my colleague Dr. Duncan for her incredible advocacy and work in the past and her incredible remarks that always focus on what I think Canadians want us to be focused on, which is the global health crisis that we're all struggling through together. I think she's pointing to the many lessons that we should be learning and the incredible amount of work we've done, but also that we still have ahead of us, because I know Dr. Duncan knows full well that this pandemic is not over, and I would just....

I really wish that we could focus on studies and motions that use our time to focus on what Canadians most need right now.

I've been arguing—and I may repeat myself a little for rhetorical emphasis as well, Ms. Vecchio. I hope you don't mind. Again, I studied ancient Greek philosophy. I know the roots of democracy that come from that and, in fact, repetition is a rhetorical device. It's been known for a long time—

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

Mr. Turnbull, I think you meant that little shot for Mr. Nater and not me, so maybe it is not directed to the right person.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Nater didn't have his camera on so I wasn't sure whether he was listening.

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

I was listening, Mr. Turnbull. I too have studied the ancient Greeks and political philosophy and public administration and political science and parliamentary procedure, so I would love to see a debate relevant to the motion at hand, which can be quickly disposed of so we can get to the work of this committee rather than filibustering for over two months now.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

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 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, and the honourable Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, 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 Justin Trudeau'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 government House leader 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.

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

Agreed.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay, great. Let's move on, then, Ms. Vecchio. Let's move on. Let's drop the motion—

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

[Inaudible—Editor] the whole time. Agreed.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Are you withdrawing your motion? No? Okay.

I thought that maybe I had convinced you. It was a vain hope, I guess.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, if the offer from Mr. Turnbull is that we dispose of this motion, then let's have the vote right now. I think we've heard enough. Let's move on. I think it's only the Liberals who have been participating in the debate. If they're eager to get on with it, I think we're ready to go. Let's go.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

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 Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister 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 Minister of Finance 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 Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister 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 Champagne's leadership, and Mr.Bains' 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're not plugged in.

We still can't hear you, Ms. Vecchio.

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

Got it.

Madam Chair, although I respect where Mr. Turnbull is coming from in talking about systemic racism, as well as the information regarding women, I have a point of order. I'm looking at what we're actually studying. We're studying prorogation.

I want to inform him that because of prorogation, two studies, one on systemic racism and policing that was started in spring 2020 has yet to be tabled. They're still working on that because prorogation put a two-month stoppage on it. In the status of women committee on July 7 and 8 as the chair, there was the plan to be tabling the status of women report on what has happened to women during this pandemic. It talked about child care, domestic violence. Once again, because of prorogation, we could not do the final steps of interpretation because of prorogation. Once again more studies have been delayed.

I believe because of prorogation, we've made this worse and longer because the studies we had done on these really key issues that we saw in the first three months when we studied, not in PROC, but in status of women and in public safety.

Perhaps the member could get back to relevance. If he wants to talk about these things, he should keep in mind that due to prorogation, some of these studies have yet to be tabled, and the government has actually delayed work on racism.

I want him to note that and maybe get back to relevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think the relevance that Mr. Turnbull has been pointing to is that a shift was made after prorogation when it came to the throne speech.

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

Madam Chair, I question that because those are two studies that we're in the middle of. If he really wants to determine the government and our committees were working on this before prorogation, these were two of the significant things that were being worked on, both in public safety—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I agree with that point. Part of your point of order—

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

This is not a part of what's new. These are things that we were dealing with beforehand. Perhaps he can get to the relevance of the motion on prorogation and why we still have not heard about these witnesses coming. He's talking about two other committees that were prorogued as well, where things were delayed just like in this committee.

Let's talk about this committee and stop talking about the work that got delayed because of your government. If you want to talk about why your government prorogued and delayed these reports, go for it, but please stop patting yourself on the back.