Madam Chair, I thank my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor for her important remarks. I appreciate several of the things she chose to focus on. In particular, the importance of the grassroots organizations across our communities to help people who are vulnerable is something that struck me as important for us to remember. Also, there's the importance of the public health measures which, when lifted too early or not applied as rigorously as needed, can lead to spikes in cases and waves of COVID-19 that certainly, at this point, I think, have become....
I don't know what the right word is, but I'm certainly ready for COVID-19 to be over. I'm sure all of us are. I know the constituents in my riding are at their wits' end. Their lives have been so dramatically impacted on so many levels that it's really the challenge of a lifetime that we're all living through. I want to bring empathy to the challenges associated with this on every level, but also work across the aisle with my colleagues to find a way forward in the important work of this committee.
I appreciated the opening discussion that we had, which was impromptu. It seemed to be on a cross-partisan scale such that maybe we could find a bit of a way forward. That's always encouraging. I relish those moments when they occur in our Parliament today and in our committee work as well.
I've been making an argument for quite some time that I feel is important and worth making. It's really an argument for the amendment that I put forward to Ms. Vecchio's original motion, which, as most of you know by now, was an attempt to compromise. I understand that the opposition parties still are clinging to seeing the Prime Minister appear.
That wasn't in my amendment. My amendment focused on providing further rationale and evidence and testimony from witnesses who I think would be able to give us additional perspective. The Prime Minister's perspective has been shared with us through the report that was tabled concerning prorogation, which I probably don't need to remind anybody at this point was a change to the Standing Orders that our government implemented in the last Parliament and which I think is a positive step forward.
I know my colleague Mr. Blaikie talks about its being precedent-setting that our committee is delving into the reasons for prorogation. I think it's great. We really have set precedents, both in requiring a report to be tabled in the House and referred to this committee, but also in the willingness our government has shown to study the reasons for prorogation.
Further to that, the two main witnesses who, I think, based on every bit of information I've been able to gather, would be really helpful are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I've made a pretty detailed argument as to why I think they're important and why I think these two witnesses can offer some testimony that could enhance our ability as a committee to finish our report and make recommendations.
To me, that's the nature of the study we were undertaking when Ms. Vecchio put forward her motion, which looked as though it was just trying to assume a motive—a rather nefarious motive—on the part of our government for proroguing Parliament, whereas I think there's a completely rational explanation for why it was necessary and why the time was well used to connect with stakeholders and reset the agenda the government had at the time.
I want to continue with that, because what I find again and again—and I will repeat this point for emphasis' sake, because I really do think it's important that we recognize that really, if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason to prorogue Parliament, then, really, nothing is. I stand by that claim. I've made it in every single speech I've given in this committee since Ms. Vecchio put forward her original motion. I have focused on arguing that it really is the crux of the matter, in my view, which is that, for some reason, opposition parties don't see the global pandemic as a good reason for the Prime Minister to use his prerogative—or her prerogative. In this case, it is “his”, but I hope that one day in the near future we will have a female prime minister in Canada. I would just say that the global pandemic has been deeper and more severe in terms of economic impact, and I'm not even focused, in this particular debate, on the health impacts, which are far greater and should be the primary concern, and I've said that as well.
I've focused my arguments and all the data and evidence gathering that I've done to make my argument on understanding the depth of the economic impact, the severity of that, how it impacts different segments of the population across Canada unevenly. It disproportionately impacts people who may be historically disadvantaged in some way or who may be from an equity-seeking group of one kind or another. I've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that to this committee in the hopes that the members opposite would see the light and come around to hopefully supporting my amendment.
That may seem like a vain hope, but I maintain there is good reason and rationale to support hearing from two more witnesses, i.e., the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I will say that the recession in 2008-09 really pales in comparison to the global pandemic and its economic impact. I've gathered some additional information on that, which was relevant at the time. I've been using a lot of detailed statistical data that was gathered by the chief statistician of Canada for a report that was published in the early fall of 2020, so it was right around the time of prorogation that this information would have been utilized to make decisions, and we really see that it informed the throne speech.
I have also done a little bit of research in my spare time, of which I have tons. Ha, ha—that's not true, but I have found quite a bit of really good information to substantiate how different and deep the current economic crisis is in comparison to the 2008-09 financial crisis, sometimes referred to as the great recession, which really seems like kind of a blip at this point compared to what we're going through today.
I'm going to refer to a document published by First Policy Response on June 3, 2020. It highlights the differences between 2008 and 2020. The subtitle of the article—it's a compilation—is “What's different this time around?” It had several contributors. I'll quote some of them. They're all very renowned professionals. One is Kevin Milligan, who is a professor of economics—