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.