Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Maybe we'll see its use more in the coming...I don't know. I'm not even going to say days, because I don't want to say that anymore. I hope for the best.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Given that Mr. Nater obviously isn't convinced by the lengthy and rational evidence-based argument that I've been putting forward meeting after meeting—and I do understand that sometimes politics seems to override rational, thoughtful debates—I will continue to make my argument in the hope that he will see the light and perhaps support my amendment. This is exactly why I continue to speak on this matter and to have thoughtful remarks that I've prepared that are supporting that amendment.

The main conclusion of the argument that I've been making meeting after meeting is that if a pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then nothing is. I've said this over and over again. This is something that is undeniably rational in my mind. We're in the middle of a public health crisis. We haven't seen this kind of public health crisis in a hundred years, and previous prime ministers have used their prerogative to prorogue Parliament when they've seen that it has been necessary to do so. Sometimes there is a bit of controversy around whether they've done it for solely political reasons, and I get that. I also think that the reasons most cited are the need to reflect, the need to reset the agenda, the need to re-evaluate, and the need to understand the impacts.

The main reason Stephen Harper utilized his prerogative to prorogue Parliament in 2008 and 2009 was the recession at the time. That was cited over and over again in the media. I understand that the recession was of deep concern. We could debate that prorogation. I know there are some members who feel strongly that the prorogation at that time was an abuse of power. In reality, the prime minister at the time had the prerogative and used it, and he cited reasons that I think were largely accepted and were rational, given the recession at the time.

What I've been saying for quite a number of meetings now—and I see that Mr. Nater is not convinced, but hopefully I'll get at least one other colleague to come around to the side of reason and rationality and to eventually support the amendment—is that the main argument is that the pandemic we're living through and trying to manage and support a country through has had an at least 10 times greater depth of financial impact than the 2008-09 recession had. If that's the case, then there was at least 10 times more reason to prorogue Parliament in between the first and second wave of the pandemic. There's lots of evidence to show how doing that made sense.

One thing I want to focus on today within that overarching argument is the reason—again which I think Ms. Petitpas Taylor said quite well, and my colleague, Mr. Lauzon also said quite well—we feel strongly that having some additional testimony from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in this case would be helpful for this study. That is the depth of economic impact that we've all witnessed and we've heard about from constituents across our ridings. I certainly have been staying in touch with my chamber of commerce and with the many small businesses that are members of the Whitby chamber as well as with the ones that are not members. There are many small businesses that unfortunately aren't members of the chamber of commerce.

I have a very strong small business community in my riding. There are at least 900 small business that are members. Many of them have shared with me over and over again in phone calls, round tables, consultation sessions and meetings that we've had with those stakeholders. The chamber of commerce has met with me to talk about their advocacy on behalf of small businesses that fall into different sectors and industries of the local economy here. I've heard what's working, what's not working and what their concerns are.

We can look at the chief statistician of Canada and the work that was done, which I've cited before. It is a substantive body of evidence that was collected. It's been updated since then. I found the updated version, which is “COVID-19 in Canada: A One-year Update on Social and Economic Impacts”. I've been going through that. I don't know whether I'll get to that today, but certainly, if this debate is extended, I'm happy to cover a lot of what's in that report as well, because it does support the trends that we've seen from the first wave of the pandemic.

We saw between the first and second waves there were some industries and businesses that were hard hit but that were able to start to come back, yet not fully recover. Some industries did better in the crisis. I know that sounds strange. There are some that did better and were more profitable. There are others that suffered dramatically, but between waves when restrictions were starting to be lifted by provinces and territories, they were able to come back quickly. There are sort of three categories. There's another segment of businesses that were in industries that were hardest hit and that couldn't come back as quickly.

There's this resiliency that's built into some industries. I think it's important for our government, and was important at the time of prorogation for our government, to assess the level of that impact to see what industries were bouncing back on their own and to understand the structural barriers some industries were encountering that would limit their ability to recover just by virtue of the nature of their business model.

That's really important information to process. It was really important at the time for doing a deep reflection. In listening and talking to those stakeholders, we know that in every industry we have very strong associations that do incredible work to survey their members.

I have reports here from the airline industry, the food service industry and the tourism industry. I have some others from the hotel industry. They're all really substantive reports that those industries have prepared with their associations helping to survey, consult and collect data and really understand what those industries are going through. It's interesting. If we think of industry-specific measures and supports, that's part of some of the complexity of dealing with a global pandemic, how that pandemic has affected industries differently and how they're challenged by economic recovery in very different ways.

We know this with some of the steep losses in highest-impacted sectors. Let's look at net employment losses, for example. I have some numbers here. I like numbers. I'm not a mathematician by any means, but I definitely like backing up the things I say with data. I realize that data can be interpreted in different ways, but when you're relying on the chief statistician of Canada, you're talking about a pretty reputable source of information. We can all question the data and evidence we find on the Internet from time to time, and I think we have to evaluate where information comes from and certainly do some due diligence, but I think there are trusted sources of information, and I try to use those as best I can when formulating the arguments I use as a member of Parliament.

Some of these hardest-hit industries—accommodation, food services, retail, construction, transportation, warehousing, manufacturing, information, culture and recreation—have been hard hit, but not all equally. These are statistics collected between when the pandemic first hit—let's say from about February or March 2020—to August 2020. It really only covers the first wave of the pandemic. There were 260,000 net job losses in the accommodation and food services industry. That's a pretty significant net loss of employment. In retail there were 120,000 net job losses. In construction there were approximately 120,000 net job losses. Transportation and warehousing was about 100,000 or a bit more than 100,000 net job losses. Manufacturing had 80,000 net job losses. Information, culture and recreation was approximately 100,000 net job losses.

If you add that up, you have—just off the top of my head—about 800,000 net job losses right there. There were probably more than that, but I think the statistics show that those were the industries that were most impacted in terms of net job losses.

Construction and manufacturing seemed to rebound to more than 90% of pre-COVID levels as businesses reopened. There's construction going on across the street from my house and there's a lot of development happening in my riding. Some of that construction has stayed pretty constant throughout this pandemic. I've been surprised that some of those job sites have continued and that workers are continuing to work. I suppose they've been social distancing and have been able to continue.

What's interesting to note here, Mr. Kent—I like to use members' names once in a while just to make sure they're still paying attention to me—is the 90% of pre-COVID levels in construction and manufacturing. That's between the first and second waves, so you could see that that industry rebounded a lot more quickly than accommodation and food services. By contrast, employment in their industry remained 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so it was less likely to rebound as quickly. I think there are reasons for that. Our government took the time to assess and reflect on those reasons, when you look at the throne speech.

Today my focus is on the hardest-hit sectors or industries and how the throne speech, I think, really reflected the consultation work, the evidence that was available and the information that industry associations were providing to the government at that time. It was very rational and very logical in terms of one thing following from another. There is a sort of chain of causality there which really backs up the interpretation that flies in the face of the narrative that I think opposition parties are trying to build, which is that somehow prorogation was some abuse of power.

I've heard members say that this was precedent setting. I don't agree that this was some abuse of power. I think it was done for legitimate reasons that show up and are evidenced by a whole bunch of factors, which I've continued to bring to this committee and represent as the more plausible and more rational narrative. I think if Canadians or, as they say in law, people who are rational judges.... The heart of the idea of a jury is that people have this ability to reason. If impartial, rational people were to judge the evidence that we've provided, the vast majority of them would side with the most rational explanation.

This is why I can't stop speaking to this amendment I have put forward. I feel very strongly that this rational argument we have been making is supported by data, evidence, research and consultation. It seems contradictory to rational argument to assume some other motive that is not backed up by evidence, especially when we know that much committee business in other areas that some of the opposition parties have been consumed by, or focused on, for some time has, in fact, continued.

It's really shocking to me to see that we can't get past this and move forward with other committee business. I have been trying to provide some alternatives in my remarks and some, I think, worthy studies and debate and discussion we could be having that would truly be beneficial to Canadians right now, beneficial to a future election process whenever that time comes. I really feel that PROC, because of its mandate, could be studying some of these other issues, such as hate groups registering in our election process, and misinformation online, people presenting that knowingly within an election process to affect the results. These are extremely important and concerning issues that I think we should be seized with rather than this, but I will get back to my argument.

I want to talk about the structural challenges in heavily impacted sectors. Again, I'm presenting information that was pulled together by the chief statistician and is in the report that I have referred to about five or six times now.

The transportation and warehousing sector employs one million people across Canada. Some 22.1 million tourists come to Canada from abroad in any given year. Obviously, that hasn't happened this year. Travellers spend over $22 billion in Canada. Just think about the impact on our economy not to have those revenues or income for the many tourist-related sectors and businesses, everything from hotel stays to excursions to visiting.

We have all kinds of destinations in Ontario, from campgrounds to beaches. My favourite is Wasaga Beach. I have been going there since I was a kid. It's the biggest freshwater beach in North America. Just think about these small communities, often rural communities, how their economy has been drastically impacted by the pandemic through no fault of any government. I think the government is doing its best to implement public health restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. In some cases, some provinces have been more successful than others for sure, and I have some critical remarks on that from time to time, but I will leave those for a moment.

Just think about the economic impact. The average spend per trip in 2018 was $1,640. I did some work many years ago mostly on food-related or agri-food tourism. There is a lot of evidence to show how even travel inside a province supported local economies, specifically around sustainable food and local food economies in Ontario but also across Canada.

Because people spend more on these small trips on food and accommodation, and that money really stays in local communities, it really helps support small family businesses and restaurateurs. My favourite is in Stratford county, the Savour Stratford festival, which I used to go to. It really demonstrated the power of food, agriculture and restaurateurs.

We have them all over Canada, and these are a big part of our culture. You can see how travel, food, accommodation and cultural recreation, all fit in some cases together, or at least intersect in a way to support local economies. They've been drastically hindered in terms of their growth or prosperity during the pandemic.

I think I've said this piece before, and I'm not sure if I've provided the statistics, but the decline in the airline industry from 9/11 was 26%, from SARS was 26%, and from the global pandemic was 97%. Again, you can understand the level of exponential impact that COVID-19 has had on our economy, and the airline industry is no exception.

There are many others. With public transit, ridership is down significantly, and rightfully so. We understand why. People are being asked to stay home. To prevent the spread of COVID-19, that makes sense. We understand that municipalities are having trouble running their public transit routes. Some of them have cut back on those routes, which I think is a responsible thing to do in a pandemic, but they are experiencing shortfalls.

Our government, through the safe restart agreements, offered them support. The local regional government here really benefited from those funds. Again, this is all part of a pretty thorough reflection and reassessment of our government's priorities during prorogation.

The commercial real estate industry in quarter two of 2020 fell by 3.1%. That may not seem like a lot, but it has a significant economic impact. This was during the first wave of COVID-19. Just think about how commercial rents would have been affected again and again.

The original version of CECRA, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program , its initial iteration, I can definitely admit to committee members that it wasn't my preferred design for that program. I think our government did its very best to design a program that would help both landlords and small businesses that were renting space.

We know that some of the hardest-hit industries from COVID-19 are the ones that have the highest overhead costs. It's very hard to shift a business. Some businesses in my local community have even gone out of business mainly because of the overhead costs that are often tied to property, or a facility that they rely on. For example, we have those places that are like indoor playgrounds for kids. They work a bit like a child-minding place for parents, but you can have your kids go there and play with other kids. Obviously, they were shut down due to public health guidelines fairly early on, but many of them had significant costs associated with their overhead. Having a program for commercial rent assistance was extremely important to those businesses.

What I witnessed between the first and second wave, and exactly at the time of prorogation.... I actually had conversations with the Minister of Finance at the time about redesigning that program, and about some of the challenges I'd heard about from landlords who were not participating in the original version of that program.

That re-evaluation was reflected in the throne speech, and subsequently there was a re-engineered or redesigned commercial rent assistance program that was significantly improved. If we had not taken the time to reflect and check in with stakeholders, if that program hadn't been redesigned in such a way that really meets the needs of many commercial tenants, I believe that wouldn't have happened. Businesses in my community have now been able to access direct support instead of through their landlord. By the way, these are mostly small businesses, as far as I can tell, at least in my community.

I was getting a lot of feedback in and around the time that prorogation happened. It actually worked out well for relaying that feedback. That program was redesigned, and it now goes directly to tenants. It's indexed to the proportion of revenue loss for small businesses and gives them up to 65% rent support. It also adds a top-up, which wasn't there before, of up to 25% if the business is shut down due to a mandatory public health order.

These were such welcome changes in my community for the local businesses here, like the ones that I was talking about that are hardest hit: the small family-run restaurants as well as the small family-owned hair salons—I could use a hair salon, but I can't get a haircut these days. There are all kinds of others, such as the independently owned optometrists, etc. I have many examples of small businesses in my community.

Even in downtown Whitby we have the Fart Café. That's not their name, but it's the term they use. It's an art café, but it's often referred to in that way as a local joke.

The point is that the supports that were extended to the small businesses and were redesigned were really tailored based on the time that we took to reflect and gather evidence and data.

Many of the tenants who are in those commercial buildings, the ones who don't absolutely need space, may rely less on renting space in the future, or be reassessed about how they operate. We've seen a lot of that as well.

I've heard from local cleaners, for example. Some of them operate with the model where they actually don't do all the cleaning on site, but they have a separate facility to do the cleaning. They're often small family-owned businesses. Some of them have given up their storefront space, which is very small, like a small kiosk, where you walk in and drop off shirts to be cleaned, or have alterations done, or whatever. Those businesses have shifted their attitude to thinking that they really don't need a storefront and they'll operate online now. They've opted for an online model.

I have a local catering business that specializes in some really unique kinds of baking for people who have special diets. They're really famous in my community, and they've done a really great job. They shifted a lot of their work from having more of almost a delivery truck, and they just have a commercial kitchen facility and then deliver, but they do everything online now, other than the actual baking and delivery, which does require some physical space. They've looked at ways to shave off their operational model so that they rely less on space that they need to rent so they can reduce their overhead costs and remain viable during the pandemic.

Those are strategies that many small businesses have been encouraged to do. By necessity, they have had to alter their operations and business models and re-evaluate how they reduce their costs and remain viable during this global pandemic and get through this.

There's likely to be downward pressure on new office building lease rates, and longer-term impacts on commercial real estate that I think are going to be substantial. I think the evidence shows that. Again, I think that taking the time to reflect is important for our government, and I would welcome opposition parties to participate in the fruitful dialogues that I think can happen to ensure that we tailor supports for the hardest hit industries.

I want to say a few words about the retail sector and industry. At the time of prorogation, the retail sector had actually rebounded very quickly from storefront closures in the first wave. Many elevated their efforts based on e-commerce: having an online website where they could actually sell their products online. Our government actually supported initiatives for the Digital Main Street. I was very proud of that, because it allowed a lot of retail stores in my community, small ones that were like boutique shops that were doing all kinds of.... That's a lot of the heart of our local economies, especially in our downtown areas. Mine in Whitby is quite small. There are two actual centres in Whitby, Brooklin and downtown Whitby. They're filled with these small, local, beautiful boutiques that are family-run businesses. In some cases, they've been in the family for generations. In other cases, they've changed hands. Sometimes businesses have gone under and new ones have emerged, but in terms of really making a vibrant kind of downtown, I think it's really important that we don't lose that.

Many in my community at the two BIAs we have are very vocal advocates for ensuring that those businesses don't go under. What's interesting is that many of them needed support. I shouldn't say “needed”, because I think entrepreneurs are very resilient and really innovative. When push comes to shove, they find a way to get through the hard times, but I do think that our government's support through that Digital Main Street initiative was really helpful in helping a lot of small businesses catalogue their inventory and move to online sales and marketing.

That gave them market access at a time when their physical locations were closed down. Some of them were able to.... I remember that back in the Christmas holidays—the holidays over December—which are such a big, important time for many of those types of businesses to generate their sales and carry them throughout the year, those businesses, despite the fact that COVID-19 continued in our community, did better as a result of having that digital platform, the e-commerce sites and the support that our government offered through the local chambers of commerce, which I think are pretty important supportive structures to help.

I really believe in the local chamber of commerce here in Whitby. I think chambers of commerce are fantastic. They're run by great people, a lot of business owners are involved. They really are a strong voice and don't give up. They really persist through the challenging times and the bumps in the road. They continue to be constantly in communication with me in my office and continue to inform us about how the different industries within our local community have been affected by COVID-19.

I see you unmuting, Madam Chair. I have a lot more to say, but I suspect you have something that you want to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I could see you ending one thought process, so I thought maybe it was a good time, considering the timing, to just survey the committee. The clerk is also asking me, virtually tapping me on the shoulder, to see if the committee is going to decide to suspend at some point. This is around the time a decision has to be made.

I think the agriculture committee is the committee that would be using this space after us. I want to just get an idea. I also would have to suspend anyway a little bit before three, regardless of what the decision is at this point, for the vote that's going to happen, which I was going to remind you is coming up soon as well. There will be no bells for that.

Are there any comments from anybody on that?

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

Madam Chair, I think we all recognize the importance of all the committees' work, and by no means do I think that we want to end any of it. Perhaps we can have a vote before the end of the time. I believe 2:30 is the cleaning time. We are very aware of this and don't want anything else to continue to be impacted like last week's HUMA committee.

If we could go to a vote, that would be great. Is that something we are able to do?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I can put the question again. There is a speakers list.

Would you guys be willing to go to a vote? Vote or no vote, I still need a decision.

Are you saying, Ms. Vecchio, that only if a vote is to occur that—

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

No, I'm just trying to see where we are because honestly it's just.... We recognize this, but what we're going to be doing is what we're going to be doing from now until the election, as Mr. Lauzon had indicated months ago. Those are my concerns.

I think we're all good to suspend for the day, to be honest, because we understand the impact, but I do believe that at some point there must be a decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

As Ms. Vecchio was asking, is everyone willing to vote before the close of this meeting at 2:30 today?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You mean a vote to suspend, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, not a vote to suspend. I think we have a consensus to suspend, but Ms. Vecchio just wants to put the question out there as to whether you're willing to vote on the amendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right.

Mr. Turnbull, are you okay with us suspending at this point in your remarks?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sure, as long as I have the floor when we come back at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

We will suspend until next Thursday's meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 2:23 p.m., Tuesday, May 4.]

[The meeting resumed at 11:03 a.m., Thursday, May 6.]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are resuming meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the order of January 25, 2021.

It seems that for now all members are participating virtually today. It seems that there are no members in the room, but I'll remind them of the rules for in the room if any members do wish to attend in person.

For the people attending virtually, I think a reminder is always helpful. Unmute your mike before you speak. Mute your mike after you speak. All of us sometimes forget that in every meeting we attend. That's just a reminder. Also, there are to be no screenshots or photos of your screen. Other than that, I will remind you to make sure your interpretation channel is correctly selected so you don't miss out on any of your fellow members' comments in committee. For anyone wanting to make a point of order, you can unmute your mike and make that point of order. Then there can be, obviously, debate on that point of order.

As for a speakers list, we do have one from the last meeting. Mr. Turnbull is at the beginning of the speakers list. Some of the speakers are not here yet today, but some are. I'm just going to eliminate the ones who aren't here, but you may indicate your desire to speak by using the raise hand option on the toolbar.

Also, I want to remind the committee that the deadline, which seemed so far away, for the main estimates is getting a little bit closer now. Maybe the clerk can let us know. He has already spoken to House administration and the relevant parties we would have to call to committee for that. As always, they are willing to appear.

I don't know, Justin, if you have any more updates as to where you would see that fitting into the calendar if we were to get it done by the deadline.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I do have House officials as well as officials from the Parliamentary Protective Service and Elections Canada on standby, so to speak, in case the committee did want to pivot to the main estimates at some point before the May 31 deadline. It is, of course, a hard deadline. At that point, if the committee hasn't taken up the main estimates, they'll be automatically referred back to the House. In many ways, the officials from the House, PPS and Elections Canada are in your hands. They are on standby. They are available to come. Probably more than 48 hours' notice would be best for them, but they can scramble on relatively short notice if that is required and if the committee does choose to go to the main estimates prior to the May 31 deadline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. That's perfect.

My experience is that they do accommodate quickly, but 48 hours is usually appropriate, at least for us to be able to provide that. I just wanted you all to be aware that we should be providing a few days' notice before deciding to jump to that. We can't just plan to jump to that the day before, and of course not the day of.

There were some questions last time about relevance and repetition. There are no hard and fast rules for committees per se, but we look to the rules that the Speaker goes by when it comes to enforcing or reinforcing how to follow the rules of repetition and relevance. Generally, I take it that currently, since we are on debate on Mr. Turnbull's amendment, the debate must always be centred on the provisions of the amendment, and members must always relate their comments to the amendment. Determining relevance will be based on this principle. This is grounded in the procedural authorities set forth by the Speaker.

However, as you know, members are given leeway to relate what they are speaking on back to the amendment. You can alert me to any repetition. Generally—we have talked about this before, too—any word-for-word repetition of paragraphs will not be allowed. If that is done and the person is reminded or alerted and continues to repeat previous paragraphs word for word, we will have to remove them from their spot and move on to the next speaker.

However, repetition for the purpose of emphasis, or short statements or sentences would be allowed but not repetition of the whole speech or of entire paragraphs. Is someone repeating the context or is someone trying to put emphasis on the context in a stylistic way by repeating certain things? There is a difference between the two, and you can definitely alert me when you think that difference has crossed the line into actual repetition, and I can rule on that at that point.

I just wanted to remind everyone about the framework that we have been working within all along.

We will go back to the speakers list on Mr. Turnbull's amendment. We are currently on the first speaker, Ryan Turnbull.

Ryan, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, thanks for those opening remarks and helpful reminders. Last time there were a few interruptions to different speakers on the basis of repetition, and I appreciate the clarifications you've made. I certainly feel that repeating some points within an argument for emphasis' sake is one of my stylistic preferences. It is not in any way meant to waste time or to be overly repetitive, but is simply to drive home very specific points that I think are key within an argument.

There is one that I would repeat again, which I've made over and over and which, I again hope, opposition members will take to heart and maybe reflect on. This is the heart of the argument I've been making and what I've been expounding on in many different ways, and that is if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then I would say nothing is.

I've been continuing to make the argument that the economic impact of this global pandemic—and I understand that it is first and foremost a public health crisis, so we really should be focusing at all times on public health, because you can't have a livelihood without a life. We've seen the tragic loss of human life. We must never lose sight of the fact that every life matters. I say that for all of the people and families and communities that have been so deeply impacted. The grief is almost unthinkable for those families.

One thing we've become slightly desensitized to is seeing numbers and statistics and focusing on public health data and graphs. We have to realize that these hundreds and hundreds of deaths and individuals who are in ICUs and who are on ventilators are all individual human beings with networks and relationships. They have made massive contributions to their communities and their families. They're loved and they have this fulsome life that is being taken away by a virus.

It's no one's fault. We need to get away from the blame game. At the same time, we need to really cherish those lives and honour those lives in everything we do. When we're doing this work and this study in this committee, we tend to be focused on the rear-view mirror and on how the prorogation happened. It's almost a distant memory at this point. I have tons of information on the reasons for proroguing, but it's faded in my memory just because there are so many more pressing things for us to be paying attention to that are immediately in front of us.

It is very disheartening that we're continuing with this. I've continually tried to be appeasing and flexible and adaptable to the perspectives of my honourable colleagues from the opposition parties. With that intention, I proposed an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion, that maybe we can do a little bit more study on prorogation but quickly move on.

We see that the opposition parties are not interested in negotiating or being flexible or really working with us on the things that I think are even more pressing. That's really unfortunate, and I really feel there's quite a bit of work to be done that is more immediately pressing.

The main estimates, which you mentioned, Madam Chair, are a pretty important responsibility for our committee. I think that would take one meeting. Perhaps that's an opportunity for us to fulfill some of our other duties.

Division 37 of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, is an area that I've certainly been affected by and concerned about for some time. That's the prevalence of disinformation within election periods and just how much that can have an impact on our democratic institutions and some of the fundamental rights that we hold dear here in Canada. I really feel it's important for us to do the work on the pieces of the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, that are really required of us, if I were to be really honest about it. The Standing Orders define the parameters of PROC. This fits clearly within our mandate. I don't see how the finance committee will do that work, and the other pieces of their work that have to be hived off and given to other committees, if we don't do our part.

That's enough said on that, at the moment. I really feel strongly about that and Bill C-19. It's important for opposition members to realize that the adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada come into effect upon royal assent of Bill C-19. Those adaptation powers would protect the health and safety of Canadians should opposition parties trigger an election, which they've been coming dangerously close to doing with some of the votes in the House. We're playing roulette at this point, or opposition parties are playing roulette, with people's health and safety, in my view, and I really think that's irresponsible.

I'll get back to the main argument that I've been making here. I have a lot more to say about the hardest-hit industries and sectors and some of the structural barriers to their recovery. They're no fault of any industry, or any industry players or businesses. Really, it's by virtue of the fact of how those business models are. I'll talk about restaurants or the food service industry. I spoke last time more about the airline industry. I covered a little bit about tourism, transportation, warehousing, public transit, commercial real estate and the retail trade. I left off talking about our local chambers of commerce and some of the work that was done around the digital main street initiatives, which I really felt helped some of the retail businesses pivot within the pandemic.

Again, I want to make it clear, just for the sake of relevance, that I believe in making an argument that's relevant at all times. This is relevant because what I've been claiming and substantiating with facts and evidence is quite clearly that the economic impact of COVID-19 is, at the very least, 10 times greater than the recession in 2008-09. Again, the heart of this argument is to say that this global pandemic, because of the economic impact being so much greater, if we were to say that an economic crisis or recession were a reason to prorogue Parliament and to reassess and re-evaluate and reset the agenda, and that's been a valid reason to prorogue Parliament in history....

I think this provides evidence as to why our Prime Minister chose to prorogue, and to use the prerogative that he had, between the first and second waves of COVID-19. I've been speaking to how this is rational. It makes sense. The process was substantive during that time. It really got to gather evidence and qualitative feedback from many stakeholders, which then fed into a throne speech that reflected that.

What I want to focus on today in my argument is just the depth of the impact on some of the hardest-hit industries, and then some of the things that were extended and even added, with some of the programs and supports that our government offered and that were redesigned coming out of that re-evaluation period during the time when Parliament was prorogued.

Again, I have to say this, because I feel that opposition members have implied many times over that the government sort of took a break at that time and essentially prorogued to just sit around and twiddle their thumbs. They have also claimed that the Speech from the Throne had nothing new in it. This is so false. It's factually false. If you look at the throne speech, it reflects the data, evidence and consultation work that was done during that time.

If you look at how much consultation work was done, as I've said before, I went to at least 15 different sessions. In my community, I did hundreds of surveys and consultation sessions—just me, and I'm just one member of Parliament. I know that my colleagues did the same. When I step back from this, even when I am trying to be charitable to my opposition colleagues, I still cannot find any evidence of how the overall narrative and story that we have provided, which are based in reason and evidence, are somehow deficient.

There seems to be no effort to assess the merit of the reasons that were given. I don't know how we got to this place. In my view, our government has done everything it can to be there for Canadians every step of the way.

I'm not saying we're perfect. I absolutely would not say that. I'm not perfect; none of my colleagues is. I think we all have things we can....

I know, Mr. Amos, you might be the exception, my friend, but for me, I can certainly admit various flaws.

We need to assess the merits of the report that was tabled and look at it on face value and ask what is deficient about the rationale. I can't find anything that doesn't make sense to me.

Okay. I'm in the governing party and I'm a Liberal. I get that. But I try to step outside of my perspective and critically evaluate and ask if there is any charitable or generous way that I can interpret the merits and the truth of the perspective of those who oppose my perspective. That has to be a part of our democracy and our debates at all times, because if we can't get outside of our own biases and perspectives, then we truly have lost our way.

However, when I do that, I still cannot find anything that doesn't make sense based on what I've seen and the data I have at my fingertips. I don't know where opposition members are really coming from when they are pushing the narrative that somehow prorogation was done for some ulterior motives that they seem to want to push. It seems just like a partisan political agenda that has no basis in reality.

I'm sorry to say that but, honestly, that is how I feel. I don't see any argument the opposition has made that really holds any water. I will continue to provide more data and evidence and to back up the claims that I am making, because I think they are the closest approximation of the truth. Until opposition members can actually engage in a fruitful debate on that, I think we're at an impasse.

You have your narrative and preferred interpretation, which are not based in facts and reality, and I have mine, or our members have ours. The difference is that we are providing evidence, data and reasons that make sense. The process makes sense. The themes in the throne speech make sense. The timing makes sense. The report is consistent with that. The testimony given by the government House leader was consistent with that. So what is this really about, when it comes down to it? What is it really about? I would say to you it's not about Canadians.

We're here to serve Canadians. I want to do things that are valuable to my constituents and not waste precious time that we as leaders in our communities have. We have been afforded the privilege and honour of representing the people of our constituencies, and I take that responsibility seriously and with great pride and honour.

At this moment in time we have a third wave that is.... We had the emergency debate last night in the House. Madam Chair, you were there on House duty with me, and I'm sure some of my other colleagues were as well. At least in that debate, things that were being said were starting to get beyond—or at least there were moments when we started to see just a glimmer of hope of getting beyond the partisan politics and focusing on what Albertans need right now to get through this third wave. I would say that at those brief moments in which we seemed to almost transcend the partisan swordsmanship and jousting, I thought okay, let's just go a bit further, one step further, and collectively come together and do our job for Canadians. That gave me just a glimmer of hope, but it was gone so quickly, and here we are back in committee basically ensnared in the same political jousting that to me is just unfortunate. It's more than unfortunate. It actually makes me feel sad. It really does. It's disturbing that this is what we're up to.

Anyway, I'll get back to my argument. Let me say a little bit about the retail industry. By June 2020, the retail activity had surpassed pre-COVID levels while payroll was 15% lower. This is kind of interesting just in terms of, again, understanding the impact on our economy and how unequal it is across industry. The retail industry in June 2020 was coming back. It rebounded very strongly. Retail activity surpassed pre-COVID levels, for a brief time, of course, because when we then had the full-out second wave, obviously that all changed again. Payroll was still lower, so in a way you would anticipate that in fact many retailers were more profitable in that time because their payroll was down but their sales activity was up, which is interesting.

Anyway, the point is that between February and May, sales had fallen by 18%, but e-commerce sales had doubled during the same period, which is interesting as well. I would say to you that many of the non-essential retailers were able to pivot to e-commerce, and I would link this back to our government's support. In my community, I know for a fact that the Digital Main Street initiative and the efforts made by our business improvement area in both our downtowns—because we're fortunate enough to have two in Whitby, in my riding—along with the work that the chamber of commerce did to help in the region of Durham, including my riding and others adjacent to mine.... They did incredible work to help local retailers move to online sales.

This didn't allow them to fully recover. It didn't insulate them fully from the impacts of COVID-19, of course, during the first and eventually second wave, but it did help.

It was interesting to note as well that many of the essential retailers, the retail stores that were deemed essential, continued to operate and actually increased sales dramatically. Again, just think about the equity issues here within the economic impact of COVID-19 and how important it is for our government to target support by taking the time to understand these dynamics and really listen to the industry associations that quite vocally were giving feedback.

Again, it was to inform our approach. Have we lived through this before? I haven't lived through a global pandemic. Has anybody here? Anybody here who has, please raise your hand. I see hands raised. Please give me a signal if you've lived through a global pandemic before. No. Nobody has.

Some of us may have studied global pandemics, but I would say that this one is not the same. It may have some characteristics that are clearly similar, which I'm sure Dr. Duncan can speak to, but I think that the state of our economy, the point in time, the moment in history, how this happened and the specific nature of the virus and how it's affected us are really things that none of us could have anticipated. I think it has had a unique impact in a way that we couldn't have comprehended before it happened.

It's interesting to think about it in terms of reflection and how important it is to learn from this, but also to realize that not every virus, not every pandemic and not every communicable disease is going to impact us in the same way. That's something else that we need to take from this. Being prepared for public health emergencies and other climate-related emergencies is going to take real adaptability and an ability to predict the various different ways in which things could unfold, based on different types of threats and risks, etc. I really welcome those conversations in the future to learn all we can from this experience.

Just to go back to my point here, we couldn't really have predicted that some businesses were going to stay open. In many respects, some of those decisions clearly were not within federal jurisdiction. We had provincial governments doing different things and doing them in a way that we couldn't. We weren't making those decisions. Sure, to some degree, we were providing some guidance and advice, but not always. Many of those decisions were made by provincial and territorial governments.

What I've heard in my community is that those really had impacts. The way that public health restrictions were rolled out and then rolled back, and how they were targeted to different industries and sectors, really had an impact on the different industries and sectors. Businesses were struggling with different scenarios. Again, how were we, as a federal government, supposed to understand that if we didn't take the time to prorogue, re-evaluate and listen to those stakeholders?

I find it hard to share in the perspective of some of my colleagues who seem to think that prorogation was not an appropriate or good use of time or was even for some other nefarious purpose. It just makes sense to me that you have to take time to re-evaluate. It's a lot of work to reflect and re-evaluate too. It's not easy. To learn and re-evaluate is not a holiday. It takes great commitment to ensure a good responsive government that is working for the people. It has to re-evaluate all the time. I would actually suggest that we probably need to re-evaluate constantly. I think we are, but perhaps there are ways to do that even better, too.

I'll get back to my argument here, which is that I've gathered some facts and figures from the hotel industry, as well, that I think are pretty important. These were collected in quarter three of 2020. The hotel industry or accommodations industry identified situational factors that I think we're all aware of that were really impacting them. Ongoing travel restrictions, obviously, were a big one that they identified. They also identified rising case counts, economic uncertainty, the Canada-U.S. border closure to non-essential travel, the reinstatement of gathering rules, the reopening rollbacks, the support program extensions. These were all situational factors. These were things they identified that were in the context they were dealing with.

I used to do strategic planning for organizations before getting into politics. With any organization, any large business, you would do a situational analysis—sometimes it was referred to as an environmental scan—before you developed a strategy. We did this work collectively, but I also did it with individual organizations. I think it's better to do it collectively, but it's more complex when you do it collectively because there are many different situational factors that are affecting different stakeholders within a system.

When you think about the complexity of doing this at a national scale with different levels of government, with many industries, with industry associations, with members of the public, with non-profit organizations, and the list goes on and on and on, just think about the complexity of how this virus has had ripple effects through our entire society. Just think about the challenges of different people, depending where you sit and stand in that system, and how what's relevant to you looks different depending on where you are. Again with those situational factors and that situational analysis, situational leadership depends upon that intelligence. Those are things that prorogation helped our government do. It helped it to stay attuned to those things, those factors and the differences of perspective out there. That, to me, is part of a responsible, responsive government.

You can't have good governance without being responsive. You can't. I mean, what does it even mean? What does good governance even mean if we're not listening to the various voices and stakeholders from across the country, especially in a 100-year public health crisis?

Again, we listened to the hotel industry. It had situational factors that it identified. The year-over-year change to occupancy for the accommodations industry in quarter one was down 10 points. In quarter two, it was down 49 points. That was when the pandemic hit. In July and August, it was still down 37 to 42 points. In quarter two, their revenues were down 82%. Basically, it started to get a bit better in July and August, but you can imagine that there was not a free-for-all. The pent-up demand—everybody wants to take a vacation, travel somewhere and stay in a hotel and—hadn't happened yet. In July and August 2020, we saw a moderate return of some revenues to the hotel industry, but they were very minor compared to what we saw in the retail industry.

Again, what I'm pointing to is the inequity of the impacts of the pandemic and the economic impact being greater—at least 10 times greater—than those of the previous recession in 2008-09.

Linking all this back for the sake of relevance, for my colleague Ms. Vecchio and others, these are all good reasons to have the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance testify before this committee and give us some testimony as to how she understood all of these various impacts at the time and how prorogation gave us the opportunity to re-evaluate some of our programs and eventually, I think, target more support for these industries. Some of that work is still ongoing, but lots of work has been done.

In particular, going back to the hotel industry....

Again, Madam Chair, I'm sorry for taking up so much time. I tend to be a bit verbose. Hopefully, as my political career continues, I may get more concise in the future. I struggle with this at times. I'll work on that.

Look, Madam Chair—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Ms. Vecchio.

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

Actually, Mr. Nater called a point of order, too. If you want to pass it to Mr. Nater, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Nater, do you have a point of order?

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

Yes.

Very briefly, in response to Mr. Turnbull's comments about getting less verbose as time goes on, I would remind him of Mr. Blaikie's predecessor on this committee, David Christopherson, who used to say that a three-hour filibuster barely gave him enough time to clear his throat.

Using the Simms protocol, I just wanted to interject that. Mr. Christopherson was a wonderful member of this committee in the previous Parliament. I wanted to throw that in.

While I have the floor, perhaps Mr. Turnbull could inform us of whether he's had any conversations with Minister Freeland, inviting her to respond to the previous invitation of this committee from January or February.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for sharing that memory of Mr. Christopherson. I myself have fond memories of him. I do really miss him. He had such a long and impactful career in politics. He definitely impacted all of us who served with him. Serving with him on this committee especially, in the previous Parliament, was quite interesting. I learned a lot from him. You're right that he used to make us laugh when he said that he was just clearing his throat.

At any rate, maybe Mr. Turnbull can help clarify your other question.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, but before I do that, I have to tell you that I wasn't part of this committee when Mr. Christopherson was here, but I heard the many stories. He's sort of a legend.

What's funny is that I did a lot of work in Hamilton with the YWCA Hamilton. Mr. Christopherson's wonderful, absolutely fantastic, lovely wife is the CEO of that organization. I know her very well. We are very good old friends. We worked together on a whole bunch of YWCA-related programming in downtown Hamilton, including their social enterprise café for women on the main floor. Prior to getting into politics, I wrote proposals and business plans for non-profits and charities, and they were one of them. They got significant funding from some philanthropic private foundations to renovate their entire downtown location to have this café, a social enterprise that actually employs women who experienced domestic abuse or were living in their transitional housing.

Mr. Christopherson is a legend, in my mind, but through his wonderful, absolutely fantastic wife, who is a real community leader in downtown Hamilton. I just had to tell that story, because although I didn't know Mr. Christopherson on this committee, I really feel like I know him and his family. I really believe in their leadership and their massive contributions to Canada and their local community. This is a shout-out to them. Maybe I can clip this piece and send it to my friend, Denise Christopherson.

Anyway, sorry for that. That was a bit of an aside. What was I going to say?

Oh, yes. Mr. Nater had asked about the Honourable Chrystia Freeland. I haven't had a chance to talk with her. She's been very busy. I think Justin, our wonderful clerk, had reached out prior. I think that was mentioned before. I'm sure if opposition members are willing to support the amendment that I put forward, we could send an invitation and reinvite both the ministers who are included in the amendment. I would certainly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. She's absolutely wonderful.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, the other day, Ginette Petitpas Taylor mentioned trying to reach out as well. Perhaps one of the members of the committee on the government side has had an opportunity to speak to the minister. Could we check on that? It was something that was said would be a point of action on Tuesday.