Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

Good. No one wants to make things difficult for our interpreters. I'd like them to tell me if there's a problem. I'll try to speak more slowly than usual.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I never like to interrupt the flow. I think you were on which vaccines had been approved.

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

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,Ms. Anand, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, 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 Ms. Freeland 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor for her important remarks. I appreciate several of the things she chose to focus on. In particular, the importance of the grassroots organizations across our communities to help people who are vulnerable is something that struck me as important for us to remember. Also, there's the importance of the public health measures which, when lifted too early or not applied as rigorously as needed, can lead to spikes in cases and waves of COVID-19 that certainly, at this point, I think, have become....

I don't know what the right word is, but I'm certainly ready for COVID-19 to be over. I'm sure all of us are. I know the constituents in my riding are at their wits' end. Their lives have been so dramatically impacted on so many levels that it's really the challenge of a lifetime that we're all living through. I want to bring empathy to the challenges associated with this on every level, but also work across the aisle with my colleagues to find a way forward in the important work of this committee.

I appreciated the opening discussion that we had, which was impromptu. It seemed to be on a cross-partisan scale such that maybe we could find a bit of a way forward. That's always encouraging. I relish those moments when they occur in our Parliament today and in our committee work as well.

I've been making an argument for quite some time that I feel is important and worth making. It's really an argument for the amendment that I put forward to Ms. Vecchio's original motion, which, as most of you know by now, was an attempt to compromise. I understand that the opposition parties still are clinging to seeing the Prime Minister appear.

That wasn't in my amendment. My amendment focused on providing further rationale and evidence and testimony from witnesses who I think would be able to give us additional perspective. The Prime Minister's perspective has been shared with us through the report that was tabled concerning prorogation, which I probably don't need to remind anybody at this point was a change to the Standing Orders that our government implemented in the last Parliament and which I think is a positive step forward.

I know my colleague Mr. Blaikie talks about its being precedent-setting that our committee is delving into the reasons for prorogation. I think it's great. We really have set precedents, both in requiring a report to be tabled in the House and referred to this committee, but also in the willingness our government has shown to study the reasons for prorogation.

Further to that, the two main witnesses who, I think, based on every bit of information I've been able to gather, would be really helpful are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I've made a pretty detailed argument as to why I think they're important and why I think these two witnesses can offer some testimony that could enhance our ability as a committee to finish our report and make recommendations.

To me, that's the nature of the study we were undertaking when Ms. Vecchio put forward her motion, which looked as though it was just trying to assume a motive—a rather nefarious motive—on the part of our government for proroguing Parliament, whereas I think there's a completely rational explanation for why it was necessary and why the time was well used to connect with stakeholders and reset the agenda the government had at the time.

I want to continue with that, because what I find again and again—and I will repeat this point for emphasis' sake, because I really do think it's important that we recognize that really, if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason to prorogue Parliament, then, really, nothing is. I stand by that claim. I've made it in every single speech I've given in this committee since Ms. Vecchio put forward her original motion. I have focused on arguing that it really is the crux of the matter, in my view, which is that, for some reason, opposition parties don't see the global pandemic as a good reason for the Prime Minister to use his prerogative—or her prerogative. In this case, it is “his”, but I hope that one day in the near future we will have a female prime minister in Canada. I would just say that the global pandemic has been deeper and more severe in terms of economic impact, and I'm not even focused, in this particular debate, on the health impacts, which are far greater and should be the primary concern, and I've said that as well.

I've focused my arguments and all the data and evidence gathering that I've done to make my argument on understanding the depth of the economic impact, the severity of that, how it impacts different segments of the population across Canada unevenly. It disproportionately impacts people who may be historically disadvantaged in some way or who may be from an equity-seeking group of one kind or another. I've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that to this committee in the hopes that the members opposite would see the light and come around to hopefully supporting my amendment.

That may seem like a vain hope, but I maintain there is good reason and rationale to support hearing from two more witnesses, i.e., the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I will say that the recession in 2008-09 really pales in comparison to the global pandemic and its economic impact. I've gathered some additional information on that, which was relevant at the time. I've been using a lot of detailed statistical data that was gathered by the chief statistician of Canada for a report that was published in the early fall of 2020, so it was right around the time of prorogation that this information would have been utilized to make decisions, and we really see that it informed the throne speech.

I have also done a little bit of research in my spare time, of which I have tons. Ha, ha—that's not true, but I have found quite a bit of really good information to substantiate how different and deep the current economic crisis is in comparison to the 2008-09 financial crisis, sometimes referred to as the great recession, which really seems like kind of a blip at this point compared to what we're going through today.

I'm going to refer to a document published by First Policy Response on June 3, 2020. It highlights the differences between 2008 and 2020. The subtitle of the article—it's a compilation—is “What's different this time around?” It had several contributors. I'll quote some of them. They're all very renowned professionals. One is Kevin Milligan, who is a professor of economics—

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, perhaps you could ask Mr. Turnbull if he could cite what he's reading. I think he's reading a study that was from before prorogation and why it was different, and I'm just trying to get the date to see how this lines up with this motion. Perhaps he could just tell me when this was actually written, because I don't know if it's actually talking about the 2020 prorogation at all. That's why I'm asking. I don't think if it was written prior that it would actually be talking about the 2020 prorogation and have anything to do with this amendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Maybe I can speak to that, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to answer that question from Ms. Vecchio.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sure, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

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 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, 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 Minister of Finance 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.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, it's 12:55. We had a great conversation earlier and I'm just wondering when we will be coming to that vote as we previously discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I guess we are on the perfect person right now.

I will hand it back to Mr. Turnbull since it's his amendment. Perhaps he'll want to share that with us.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm not finished my remarks and not prepared for a vote just yet.

I'm still hoping that we get a counter-proposal from the opposition parties in writing that we can look at. I will leave that to them to figure out.

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

Madam Chair, what I understand is that right now, although we had previously discussed it, Mr. Turnbull is choosing that we're not going to go to a vote as we had previously discussed, though we have already said we're working towards a solution.

I don't want to lose faith, but I thought there was a bit of a consensus that at 12:55 we were going to work together to find some sort of solution. I'm looking at Daniel and Alain as two other opposition members. I'm just wondering if this filibuster is going to continue rather than getting to what we really want, which is a solution.

You can't hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's not so much that we can't hear, but you're cutting out.

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

I'm so sorry.

Working in good faith, I think that's what many of the members were doing this morning when we were trying to have a very open, transparent and accountable discussion. We had talked about going to a vote at 12:55. I think that was very fair.

I'm looking at the members of the opposition parties. It was mentioned for us to do something. I know that in good faith that has actually already started, which is fantastic. We're trying to get somewhere. I'm just wondering why the speaker is not allowing us to go to the vote. If we are doing our part, why can we not go to a vote now?

I'm just confused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

By speaker, I'm assuming you're speaking about Mr. Turnbull, who has the floor.

It was definitely discussed. I will let Mr. Turnbull see if he's ready, or the other members. We need to see if all of the members are willing to not take their turn to speak and move to a vote at this point.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate Ms. Vecchio's comments in that we had a great discussion at the beginning of our meeting, but I don't recall anyone agreeing that there would be a vote.

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

Oh my God.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I know it was suggested by Mr. Blaikie, but I don't think there was any agreement that we would move to a vote. I am certainly open to.... I think all members of our party are willing to have discussions about how we move forward, but I don't recall any commitment to have a vote today.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull. I have lost [Technical difficulty—Editor] faith, because I thought we were having a rational discussion this morning where we were coming up with a solution. I'm sorry, but in good faith, I believe we were going to go to a vote at 12:55.

I believe that all [Technical difficulty—Editor] for a resolution, and I'm really concerned that... .Perhaps one of the other members of the opposition was also expecting to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio, you were just cutting in and out. I'm not sure if the translators have even been translating what you were saying, because there was so much cutting in and out. I don't know if all of the members can benefit from what you were saying with that happening at this point.

Mr. Clerk, can you let us know if there was translation for Ms. Vecchio?

You can kind of make out what she was saying, and you get the gist of it, but I don't know if the translators were able to follow.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, the interpreters were able to catch what Ms. Vecchio was saying. There does seem to have been some lag with the Internet connection, however. It was sort of cutting in and out, but the interpreters did get the gist of what Ms. Vecchio did say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

To the interpreters, excuse me for using the incorrect terminology. Of course, you are interpreters.

Ms. Vecchio, do you still want one of your colleagues to—

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

Perhaps John Nater can take the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Point of order, Madam Chair.