Thank you, Mr. Nater. I appreciate your points, as always.
I do have a little bit more to say, though, to fill out my argument. I've highlighted some of the architecture of the argument, some of the main features of it, the sort of beams, but I want to build out with some of the material that I've prepared to substantiate claims.
I don't make claims to things that aren't based on evidence and fact. Certainly, occasionally I would put my opinion into my argument and perhaps overextend a little bit—I'm only human—but, in general, I would re-evaluate if someone contested that.... I would think critically about what I said and try to find out whether my opinion was something that was based in facts and evidence. Then I would revise my opinion, if I found that it wasn't substantiated by facts and evidence.
Again, this is literally the heart of democracy. I think if we lose the sense of the pursuit of truth, then our democratic system will suffer dramatically over time. This is why I speak out against disinformation coming from the opposition, which I've seen over and over again. I cannot stand by and let the public be intentionally misinformed—at least, I feel—in many cases.
I'm going to go back to my argument.
Mr. Kent, the main point of my argument is that the global pandemic, in terms of economic impact, is at least 10 times greater than the 2008-09 crisis or recession. It's almost a blip at this point compared to what we're living through today. For me, when I think about it, the evidence that's out there is supporting the fact that this pandemic is greater, and exponentially greater, in terms of impact.
I see this through the sustainability lens, so I'm looking at the economic impact, the social impact and the environmental impact, and thinking about how we recover from this;, and how, at the time of prorogation, the government took some time to re-evaluate and reset the agenda so that it could really understand these impacts in a fulsome way and come out with an agenda that focused on the needs of Canadians. I think that process was rigorous. It was authentic. It was genuine. It was evidenced, informed. There was a lot of listening that was done. It was true to what I believe is good and responsible governance.
In terms of the economic impact, the depths of the economic impact cuts are uneven across industries, which I've said before. We've seen remarkable declines in output from the economy—five times greater in August 2020 than in 2008-09. We've seen historic declines, in all economic activity. The recovery has been uneven across industries. There have been historic declines in labour market activity, steep losses in the highest impacted sectors. There's an overall context of business uncertainty. This is where I went into more detail last time. Then, there are structural challenges in the heavily impacted sectors that are limiting them from being able to recover from this pandemic at the same rate. There are many examples that I have of this impact.
Last time, I went into depth on the heavily impacted sectors and some of the statistics on those. However, before I go back to some of those thoughts and remarks and some of the evidence I've gathered, I would like to outline the rest of my argument.
Notice that there are deep economic impacts that are unprecedented, and I've covered sub-points there that support that. This also provides a rationale for why the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister would be a good person to have appear before this committee.
Really, if we're entertaining that and the extending of this study, when it comes down to it, I don't think it's completely necessary because, as I've argued over and over again, the evidence stacks up in favour of the explanation we've given being sound, rational and well supported by evidence and data.
I am again saying that if there were a need to gather some additional testimony or have some additional testimony at this committee during this study, the Minister of Finance would be one of the most appropriate individuals to have before us, because who better than someone who has been studying this and has a whole ministry that is responsible for understanding the depth of economic impacts? For that reason, I really think it would be great to have Chrystia Freeland, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister come before the committee.
My second major claim is that there have been social impacts during this pandemic. I outlined a whole bunch of those many meetings ago, but I also have a lot more equity issues, inequities that the pandemic has caused. I shouldn't say that it caused inequities, because those inequities preceded the pandemic, but it exacerbated many of them. It highlighted them in a way that is unignorable at this point.
We cannot go back to the same systemic barriers that racialized minorities in this country have faced for generations. We cannot go back in terms of the hard-fought gains won by the women's movement in this country. We cannot afford to allow women's equality and equity and full participation in the workforce to be hindered by this global pandemic. We need to address these structural and systemic inequities that are present, and there are many more of them. I'm highlighting just a couple.
We've seen that there are unequal impacts on Canadian workers. These create challenges for robust and inclusive growth. Visible minority groups were at much higher risk of work stoppages during the first wave of the pandemic, but also, I think, in succeeding waves. There has been an unequal impact on low-wage workers far greater than in 2008-09. There are long-term effects of COVID‑19, depending on the degree to which layoffs become permanent job losses. This is just part of it, but it really highlights the unequal impacts on Canadian workers.
There's another point that I would like to make related to equity. Immigrants and visible minorities have been the hardest hit. There is the September 2020 report on the the social and economic impacts of COVID‑19, which is a six-month update. Again, I'm using data from the point in time that I think would have been most relevant at the time of prorogation and would have informed the throne speech. It only included data from March through to August, I believe, the point being that the data shows, I think, that this would prove over and over through updates that have been given by the chief statistician of Canada to this report.... I haven't gone back and done the comparison, but I do have the other reports. I just haven't had time to go through them, but if this debate were to persist, I could always do an analysis.
I'd be happy to do that, because I feel that this is an opportunity for me to learn, to be a better member of Parliament and to be able to advocate for my constituents and in fact all Canadians by understanding the depth of the social, economic and environmental impacts of COVID‑19. I should say “and/or” opportunities, because I think that with some of this what we can see is that these challenges and this crisis have shown us that there are opportunities to address the systemic issues that we have in this country.
I think that's why folks, like my colleague, Mr. Amos, and his work as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, are so important to me, and inspiring. Our ministry, under his leadership and Minister Champagne's leadership, and Mr.Bains' before him, is really looking to build back better and find innovative solutions that are market based and that leverage our strengths and deal with inequities.
They launched the 50-30 challenge, for example, which I was over-the-moon excited about. It encourages much more diversity, equity and inclusion within all organizations and employers across Canada. People can voluntarily sign up for that challenge, to ensure that at least 50% of the workforce is represented by women, especially in management and board level positions, ensure that there's upward mobility in those companies and organizations for all women, but also for 30% to be from equity-seeking groups.
I think workforce diversity is something that, if we can get more employers to be voluntarily signing up for this program that was launched.... Based on evidence and research that's come to light during this pandemic, there are these massive inequities across our economy, and we need to address those inequities.
It's great work. It's great to have you here, MP Amos, with much love and respect for you. I'm really, really glad that you're here.
I'm going to get back to my argument.
Immigrants and visible minorities have been hit the hardest. They have been disproportionately represented in jobs with greater exposure to COVID-19. I've covered a little about this in the past. The hospitalization rate is much higher. I think four times higher was the amount that I recollect—I have the notes somewhere here—and the mortality rate was two times higher. Again, it's tough now.
The chief statistician's report talked about this being double and triple jeopardy for visible minorities and immigrants who are working in many of the lower-wage jobs and front-line essential services. Visible minorities were more likely to work in industries that have been the worst affected by the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on immigrants' employment could reverse gains made in recent years. These are conclusions that were drawn from that report.
Immigrants and visible minorities are more likely to face harassment and stigma as a result of COVID-19. This is unacceptable to me. When we see the increased incidence of anti-Asian racism and anti-Black racism in our country, it breaks my heart. We cannot let this happen.
This is the result of a pandemic that has disproportionately impacted certain groups, and other portions of our society are blaming those groups and taking their frustrations out on those people. Honestly, I could cry over this. It breaks my heart when I think about those people, who have already been marginalized and excluded, systemically, in many ways, who have been on the front lines, who have taken the health risks, who have been in the lowest-wage jobs, and whose gains in our economy will be jeopardized by this in years to come.
They're the ones who are experiencing an increased incidence of hate, violence and stigma. I don't even know what to say. It's just appalling. It's appalling on so many levels. How much are they expected to take? How much are we going to let this be a reality, a lived experience for those people in our country, our precious country, our Canada, our home?
That's not my country. I don't believe in a country that fosters hate and intolerance. I won't stand for it. That's for sure.
I know my colleagues here won't stand for it. We've got to do a lot of work on this, and I think it requires systemic or system-level change.
That's what my life has been about. That's what my whole career has been about: how do we work collaboratively towards system-level change? It's like a concert with many instruments playing and resonating at the same time, because we have levels and layers within our society and its complex systems.
I am dealing with the motion because this fits into the architecture of my argument, so I'm not sure why Ms. Vecchio is interrupting me, but go ahead, Ms. Vecchio.
We can't hear you, though.