Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 368
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2021-07-12 16:06
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've read the subamendment, and I'm just wondering.... I understand the Liberal strategy here. The original motion that brought us in today was talking about a study on the conflict of interest related to taxpayer-funded contracts with Data Sciences and about the committee's inviting Mr. Pitfield to appear. Basically, it seems that we're getting further and further away from that. We're talking about everything else but this. It seems that every time the Liberals have an opportunity, it just brings it further and further.
Now we're debating a subamendment. I'm just wondering if it's actually in order with what we're talking about, with the original motion that we have on the table.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Once again, where is the relevance? If she would like to point to the section on the supplementary estimates, I am still waiting.
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
I asked if you wanted to respond to the points. However, I am prepared to rule.
I agree that we generally give wide latitude in asking about estimates. I believe that the microbiology lab is relevant. However, I take Ms. O'Connell's point. The direct line of questioning that you reference, Ms. Rempel Garner, is about a House procedure. It's far too peripheral. I would rule that this line of questioning is not relevant, and I would ask you—
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
The Chair: Thank you to the committee.
Ms. Rempel Garner, you may continue with your line of questions.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Oliphant has a point of order. I'll stop the time.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a concern about this line of questioning with respect to a committee of parliamentarians. It is not directly related to either the responsibility or the authority of the deputy minister who is in our presence. Also, the tone of the question is accusatory—
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
—and I don't think it is parliamentary in the way that it is being expressed.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Genuis, as you understand, as the chair, I have to hear a point of order. It doesn't mean that I'm going to rule in favour of the point of order, but Mr. Oliphant has the right to make his argument. It's important, therefore, that you show respect to members when they make their argument and not interject when someone is doing so.
Mr. Oliphant, would you conclude, please?
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, and I would also humbly remind the chair that if he doesn't have control of the meeting, he has the right to adjourn the meeting, should there be an outburst from a member while someone has the floor. It is in the Standing Orders.
As I was saying, I have two issues. One, we have officials here on a very specific study. We are doing a study that relates to our work and we have invited them to come from Global Affairs Canada, from the foreign affairs area. We have the deputy minister of foreign affairs. It is not within her purview or her mandate to understand, to know or to relate to us what NSICOP is about.
The second issue I have is with the parliamentary tone, which I think is absolutely essential for us to maintain. It is decorum. The word is specifically in the Standing Orders when it comes to how a committee needs to operate and how committee members should operate.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I would just say that the dilatory tactics by Mr. Oliphant are very frustrating. I won't deny that I sometimes cross the appropriate tone, but Mr. Chong never does. He's asking pointed questions of a witness. This is bizarre, frankly, and just tries to waste our time here. Let's get back to the line of questioning.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
It would seem to me that senior public officials should have a good sense about how the executive functions in relation to Parliament.
Thank you.
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In support of my colleague Mr. Oliphant's comments, I would like to say that, last week, we heard from the Chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICP. I think that was rather the time for these questions to be asked. So the questions being put to the officials in attendance are really inappropriate.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you very much, Mr. Dubourg.
Colleagues, this is a committee studying the Canada-China relationship. We are all aware of the motion that was passed by the committee regarding production of papers. We're aware that NSICOP has been brought into that, so I find the question to be relevant.
Mr. Chong, I ask you to continue, please.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Oliphant, do you have a point of order? I see your hand up.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a respectful point of order, Mr. Chair.
Before we get too far into the conversation, I would like Mr. Genuis to apologize for using inflammatory language, the word “hell”. I don't think that is parliamentary language. The rules at committee are the same as those of Parliament. I think it is inappropriate, especially toward a public servant who has come to this committee as a witness.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
Mr. Genuis, I'm afraid Mr. Oliphant is correct. I would ask you to—
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2021-04-29 17:42
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I was just wondering about the admissibility of the amendment.
Mr. Turnbull's motion was quite specific, but Mr. Vaughan's amendment is now talking about future studies that have nothing to do with the amendment. I was wondering if you could clarify if it's actually in order.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order on relevance. The member is going on another tangent..
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.
I'll just remind the member to keep to the amendment by Mr. Turnbull.
Thank you.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
Please allow me to speak, Madam Chair.
I'll be brief.
Dear neighbour, Lacolle is indeed part of my constituency.
I have a point of order regarding the relevance of my colleague's remarks. It's all very interesting and we can talk about it more when we recharge our Bolts at a charging station on the road to our respective ridings. For the moment, however, I'd like to hear you discuss Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Although this is an issue that is relevant to PROC because redistribution, renaming and all that stuff does come to this committee, could we refocus the comments towards prorogation and the current amendment we are on?
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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, as you know, is taking place in a hybrid format. We have our clerk present in the committee room and of course supporting staff, but at this point there are no members there.
The rest of us will be participating virtually. I'd just like to remind you to unmute your mike—I myself sometimes forget to unmute—and when you are about to speak, raise your hand on the toolbar below if you'd like to speak to anything, or call out if you have a point of order, so I can distinguish whether you want to speak on the regular speakers list or would like to raise a concern.
Other than that, just as a reminder, you have interpretation at the bottom. Let's make sure with the points of order and other things as well that we wait for the speaker to stop speaking and not interrupt so that it's easier for the interpreters.
We are still on Mr. Turnbull's amendment from the last meeting. We do have a speakers list. I do have both the motion and the amendment before me, so if anyone needs a refresher as to what the nuances are between the main motion and the amendment, let me know.
Ms. Shanahan had the floor when we suspended, so I will give the floor back to her. After her we had Ms. Lambropoulos, who she is not here at this time, so she'll probably be dropped off the list unless she's back to resume her spot. Ms. Petitpas Taylor is after that, and then we had Mr. Long who is also not here currently and will be dropped off the list.
We have Ms. Shanahan, and then most likely Ms. Petitpas Taylor would be after her.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I note that Madam Shanahan is relatively new to PROC, so I welcome her and I welcome her perspective. It's always good to get new perspectives, but I would encourage you, Madam Chair, to remind all members that the topic we are discussing primarily is on prorogation. I remind you of that, Madam Chair, because in weeks past, we have seen several members who had a propensity to veer off topic and at times become completely irrelevant to the topic we are supposed to be addressing.
I would hope, Madam Chair, that you will remain vigilant in your duties to keep people on topic, and if they do tend to veer off, that you offer a course correction to get them back to the topic we are discussing. That will, I think, allow us to have a far more productive meeting and stop the interventions coming from people like me and others, reminding of the rules of relevance and repetition.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski. I'm sure all the members are heeding your warning, and we appreciate the reminder. I'll do my best to keep everyone on topic.
Ms. Shanahan, I'll give the floor back to you.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do just want to note how pleased I am to be here in this committee and to make a reacquaintance with my good colleague Mr. Lukiwski, who was an excellent chair of the government operations committee. I think we did tremendous work together in the last Parliament, and I so respect his words of guidance and wisdom. I hope that what I will be saying today will be germane and useful to the topic at hand.
It's true that I poured out my heart last week. I have to say that, as members, we don't often have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings of other committees, especially those of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which considers matters of parliamentary procedure.
I'm very interested in the history and development of things, and I like putting things in context. I'm far from being an expert in the field, but it helps me when I look at matters in context.
However, I must say it's really unfortunate that we're here debating Ms. Vecchio's motion, which is under consideration, and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which is designed to rectify matters.
My opposition friends' attempt to make the WE Charity issue the focal point of several other committees was unsuccessful. I would have preferred that they stop that little shell game. I would remind people that I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and that I've seen a few things.
It's unfortunate because, as parliamentarians, we should focus on issues that really count for Canadians. We're currently in the third wave of the COVID‑19 pandemic. A year ago, we hoped we could overcome the first wave and resume normal life, but that's not what happened. We're now in the third wave of the pandemic because some provinces unfortunately haven't managed to introduce adequate measures to ensure people's safety.
I say that with all due respect for the various levels of government because it's very difficult to put those measures in place. I was very pleased to see that all the levels of government in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, in the Montérégie region, did a good job of cooperating. That was unfortunately not the case everywhere.
Canadians are rightly focusing on much more important issues, the millions of doses of vaccine in particular. The situation in Quebec is unfolding as it should, and we're very proud of the way vaccine distribution has been organized and of the booking system, which is very simple and accessible.
The government recently announced that we were able to vaccinate increasingly younger people, which is important, as young people are at risk as a result of the new variants. Large businesses are participating in this effort by offering vaccinations in their workplaces. Society stakeholders are showing the solidarity we expect of them and working together to combat COVID‑19.
We want to focus on an imminent economic recovery. It's coming. It will be one of the biggest in more than a generation. And that's truly the test of our generation, isn't it?
We often talk about how people lived through World War II and all the subsequent economic reconstruction and transformation in Europe. People from the generations of our grandparents and parents really did work to build a better world for us young people.
Our challenge today is to create a better world for our children and grandchildren. That's what we've done by developing the budget we introduced last week. It must be a good budget because the Conservative members, who form the official opposition and whose job it is to criticize the budget, found nothing to criticize in that budget, even though they voted against it.
They don't want Canadians to be aware of what's in the budget. On the contrary, we need everyone to talk about budget items, initiatives and investments in health, economic recovery, of course, and the environment, which is the next test we'll have to face.
View John Nater Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
I really don't know how the budget is relevant to the amendment at hand that's related to last summer's prorogation. I would encourage Ms. Shanahan to get back on topic.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Nater.
Ms. Shanahan, can you explain how you think the invitations in the amendment make your remarks relevant or not relevant? If they're not, could you steer back?
Thank you.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm happy to oblige, Madam Chair.
The prorogation was important in that it let us make the pivot we needed. Our world wasn't what it had been when we came to power in 2019. There was no pandemic then, or even the slightest hint of one. We were dealing with other problems; we had other plans and we had been reelected on another platform.
However, prorogation became necessary when the pandemic hit and we were caught unawares by the crisis. It was really the only thing to do at the time, and we did it.
Let me be clear: the original motion, which calls for a study of the prorogation, is a bit of a shell game. What can I say about this set‑up to keep the WE Charity scandal alive? It's a set‑up; that's all I can see here.
Several other parliamentary committees examined more than 5,000 pages of documents in detail, heard hours and hours of testimony and found no evidence that anything inappropriate had taken place, nothing at all.
The real problem here is that the opposition parties can't stand the fact that they've wasted all this time, which they should have devoted to combating COVID‑19 and taking positive measures that might have helped both the federal government and the provinces organize the purchase and distribution of vaccines. On the contrary, they preferred to devote their time to the WE Charity issue.
We saw the frustration on their faces as they listened to officials testifying, one after another, that nothing had happened, which was subsequently confirmed by thousands of pages of documents. We saw the frustration on their faces after the Prime Minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. His chief of staff and the ministers who appeared before the committee all said the same thing. They all said that the Canada student grant for full-time students was theoretically a good program.
That program was one of the dozens of programs that we introduced during this critical period, and we thought we had done a good thing. Unfortunately, we failed in its execution. The program didn't work. These are things that happen. Who has ever had a 100% success rate every time? I don't think it's ever happened, and certainly not in our profession.
We've seen this kind of thing before. That's why we have committees that conduct studies on government operations and the public accounts. This kind of work is always being done. We have to look at what we've done and determine how we can do things better. Sometimes that doesn't work. In some cases, we cancel everything, refund the money and the matter's closed. Then we move on to something else.
I heard the opposition members' comments on the subject. They definitely noted that more money was allocated for summer jobs in this year's budget. That measure was well received in Châteauguay—Lacolle, and it was a big success.
Officials and politicians worked countless hours to ensure that assistance programs for Canadians in difficulty were implemented. Some members previously mentioned this, but I repeat that programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy were very well received, especially here in Châteauguay—Lacolle. I think the same was true in ridings across the country.
As I said earlier, however, mistakes were made and the Prime Minister was the first to admit it. He apologized to the Canadian public. We were working at breakneck speed at the height of the pandemic's first wave, and that inevitably happened.
Members on the other side tried many times to fault the government. That's the reason we're here and why we're spending hours on these issues and committee hearings, particularly those of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on which I sit. Opposition members see an opportunity to fault the government. They didn't succeed in doing so and apparently have nothing else to do but keep trying.
Late last fall, after hearing hours of testimony, supported by documents, and examining thousands of pages of documents, the opposition realized that it had overplayed its hand and rightly moved on to something else. I imagine all the members were contacted by their fellow citizens and urged to focus on the pandemic because that was, and still is, the only issue of any importance.
And yet the committee is once again considering a motion that clearly concerns the WE Charity issue but is disguised as a study of the prorogation in August 2020. What they're doing is so obvious it's almost funny. Mr. Turnbull's amendment is designed to make the scope of the main motion much more reasonable. It's an attempt to come up with something that satisfies everyone.
As some witnesses stated before this committee, under our constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister alone has authority to consult the Governor General on prorogation; that decision is no one else's. We also learned that the Prime Minister didn't need a reason to prorogue Parliament. Prorogation has been used throughout this country's history to reset the parliamentary agenda, as it were. The period between dissolution and a new throne speech has varied from a few hours to several weeks. It's a tool that prime ministers have used since our Parliament's inception. It's one tool among many, but it's nevertheless very important, particularly in a period of crisis.
I think it's interesting that the opposition used the time between the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne in September to claim that it was related to WE Charity. We were in the midst of a pandemic, and that was the concern of our government and of Canadians. We had to decide how we were going to organize our response to the pandemic. We obviously didn't know how long it would last. We knew it might go on for months, but no one knew exactly how long. And we're still in the midst of this crisis, aren't we?
Here are a few historical facts. In the fall of 2008, the former Conservative prime minister prorogued Parliament for several weeks before returning to the House. So I find it ironic that certain members who are sitting here and who were part of that government are now opposed to prorogation.
Prorogation as such is a political act based on political considerations, and there's nothing wrong or inappropriate about it. Politics is a set of activities and policies; it's the way we decide to organize the country's affairs. In times of great change, as is the case of the COVID‑19 health crisis, prorogation is definitely a political decision. We need to reset and turn the situation around.
Notwithstanding the opposition's claims to the contrary, there's nothing inappropriate in the Prime Minister's making that decision. The Prime Minister has the right to make that kind of decision.
Why is prorogation political, and why is it acceptable? Because a government's legislative agenda is political. Colleagues must distinguish between a political act and a purely partisan act.
Sometimes people here in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle tell me they don't like politics. It's not politics they don't like, because they're all involved in non-profit groups: they campaign for social housing or wetlands conservation, for example, and work to reduce poverty. We have good conversations. I tell them they're engaged in politics precisely because they're committed to various causes. Those are political acts. What they don't like is partisanship. I can understand that because they feel it makes no sense. They don't understand the disputes among elected members. That's why I always say that every party presents its policies and platforms during an election campaign, but elected members represent everyone once the campaign is over. They must avoid partisan actions. They must be there for everyone, and the same is true of the government. The government is the government of all Canadians, and it's elected based on its political agenda.
The Speech from the Throne is a political manifesto that lays out the government's roadmap. A responsible and transparent government provides a statement that clearly outlines for Canadians the basis on which it addresses the challenges facing it. Consequently, the decision to prorogue Parliament and reset that political agenda was entirely acceptable.
My friends, the present government delivered a Speech from the Throne in December 2019 that was based on the political promises it had made during the campaign leading up to the October 2019 election. However, no one could have foreseen the global pandemic that arrived in the space of only a few days in March 2020.
We all remember that week in March. We were in Ottawa and I had organized a small party at Darcy McGee's to celebrate St. Patrick's Day on the Monday of the week in question. There was a whole group of us, members from all the parties were present, and we had some good music. Some members are good singers and it was fun. I'm very pleased the party was a success. A few days later, Parliament shut down and the parties stopped. We love our political parties, but we enjoy our social parties even more.
All Canadians found themselves in the same situation at the same time. In the coming years and even decades, people will definitely study this historic event in an attempt to understand how we reacted to this unprecedented health crisis.
Of course, the agenda we put before Parliament in December 2019 became moot because there was nothing more we could do.
Madam Chair, will we have to go and vote in the House soon? You will let me know, won't you?
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I didn't want to interrupt. I was thinking maybe you would end and I would make an announcement. The bells should be going off any minute now and there will be a vote in the House.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
As just a brief observation, given that members all have the remote voting app, perhaps we could best use time by continuing Ms. Shanahan's remarks through the bells.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes. Maybe this committee would like to really surprise me by giving unanimous consent to continue through the bells. I would say I would be a little surprised.
Definitely when something productive is happening, committees would like to work through the bells to achieve their goals. It's up to you guys whether you want to work through the bells. I don't see the notice yet for bells, but if you already give me unanimous consent, we can do so.
Okay. It seems that nobody is saying otherwise, so we'll just go through the bells.
Ms. Shanahan, go ahead.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Pardon me, Madam Chair, but I can't keep speaking and vote simultaneously because I don't have the technical knowledge I'd need to take part in both Zoom meetings at the same time. Perhaps we can change our minds on that.
It's not really comfortable for me.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I require unanimous consent to carry on, so if even one of the members is not comfortable doing so, we would just suspend for the bells and then resume after the vote is done.
I don't think we are hearing the bells, so I guess you can continue. It was expected by 11:52, but maybe things are running a few minutes behind.
Ms. Shanahan, you can carry on until the bells start ringing and then we can suspend.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, very good.
All the plans, priorities and aspirations we might have had for the parliamentary session in early 2020 of course disappeared and were replaced by an urgent need to help Canadians get through the biggest international event since World War II.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll have to interrupt you. The bells are ringing, and we will resume after the vote is completed.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I call the meeting back to order.
Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor from where you left off.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll pick up where I left off.
How and why, indeed can and should, a prime minister decide to prorogue Parliament? All the plans, priorities and aspirations we had for the parliamentary session in early 2020 disappeared and were replaced by an urgent need to help Canadians get through the biggest international event since World War II. Consequently, it was entirely logical for the government to take stock of the situation once the first wave had abated in the summer of 2020 and to determine whether it could pursue the agenda it had established in December 2019.
No one around this virtual table can claim it was unnecessary to re‑centre the government's priorities once the first wave of COVID‑19 had subsided. We had to focus on economic recovery and continue vaccine planning. We were fortunate because the pharmaceutical companies informed us that the vaccines would be arriving. Incidentally, I commend all the scientists, physicians and researchers who worked around the clock to create vaccines.
We were completely absorbed in preparing for a potential second wave. Now we're preparing for the third wave, but, this time, several vaccines have been developed. Managing this new situation was essential. It was a situation in which prorogation was necessary and appropriately used.
We heard that it was a political decision. As I explained earlier, politics is what we do. That political decision was made by the Prime Minister. My colleagues may have had other ideas about what had to be done. It's entirely understandable that the reasoning is still subject to debate. However, this committee heard the government's reasoning from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Pablo Rodriguez, who appeared before this committee and confirmed the government's position. It wasn't absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister or his chief of staff to appear. As we explained—I know this is a topic of debate within the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—the Prime Minister, under the principle of ministerial solidarity, always has the right to delegate his responsibilities to his ministers.
Frankly, the only relevant witnesses on the list proposed in Ms. Vecchio's motion are the Prime Minister and his chief of staff. They're the ones who are responsible. As I previously mentioned, the Prime Minister always has the right to delegate his responsibilities. It's the Leader of the Government who appeared before the committee to explain the government's position and to answer questions.
Let's not mince words here. My opposition colleagues want these witnesses to say that prorogation was connected in one way or another to the WE Charity issue. They want these witnesses to appear so they can try to establish a connection with that affair. Frankly, the idea is simply absurd.
Why should we receive the witnesses named in Ms. Vecchio's motion if they're already guilty of something in the court of Conservative and opposition party opinion?
Which brings me to the two witnesses whose names appear on that list: Farah and Martin Perelmuter.
I don't understand, and it bothers me, that members are asking Canadians, ordinary citizens who in this instance have a business and are taking care of their employees, their families and customers during the pandemic, to appear and thus drag them into this affair for solely partisan purposes. Mr. and Mrs. Perelmuter previously appeared before us in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the situation was appalling. I'll tell you what happened.
Those two individuals own a business called Speakers' Spotlight, which has been operating for 25 years. The business acts as an intermediary for groups and organizations wishing to secure the services of speakers. Speakers' Spotlight finds people who can give speeches, represents them and connects them with the organization. There is absolutely nothing nefarious or partisan about this kind of service, which incidentally is used by all kinds of companies, charities and civil organizations.
Why would we have those people come and testify as part of this study? It makes no sense, and that's why I support Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
I'm going to discuss the appearance of Mr. and Mrs. Perelmuter in greater detail. The way their appearance took place was truly disgusting. It's a disgrace for members of our Parliament to treat Canadians that way.
Despite the fact they had nothing to hide, they were treated as guilty parties and publicly portrayed in social media as though they were pawns in some game. They were attacked online and threatened in person by members of the public. We know that some individuals just look for opportunities to attack people. Some even called their office to threaten their employees.
That situation was the direct result of the behaviour of certain members. I'm really sorry to have to say it, since we're all colleagues here, but some Conservative Party members played that game.
The Perelmuters felt so threatened not only at work, but also at home, since their personal address was exposed, that they even had to call the police. These people have families. It was really…
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I fully support where she's going and understand, but in the amendment that Mr. Turnbull has put forward, this isn't part of that. It is removing it, which I respect, but I'm almost wondering about relevance, because she's talking about WE. The Kielburgers are actually in this motion. They too are private citizens. I'm just listening and hoping that we can get back to Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
Thank you.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, the Kielburgers are still in. You're right. So is Bill Morneau, who is also a private citizen at this point. They are in the amendment, but I do think that she's still speaking to whether she thinks that's a good idea or not, so it is relevant to what we have at hand. Maybe you'd like her to reveal more of her position on it, but I think that at this point I would say it's still relevant to the matter that we are speaking to. In terms of relevance, I think there's not an issue at this time.
Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's unfortunate some members don't want me to discuss the Perelmuters because we put them in such a terrible situation I don't think we can apologize to them enough, although the Liberal Party and NDP members nevertheless did apologize when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on December 7.
The couple described everything they had personally experienced. It was the first time in a parliamentary committee setting that I've ever felt truly ashamed to be involved in a situation like that. As the English expression goes, it was an incidence of
“dragging people under the bus” and running the bus over them many times. This is what is in Ms. Vecchio's motion and what is happening here again. Yes, I support the amendment by Mr. Turnbull to remove those two witnesses.
The Perelmuters were not the only witnesses. I could go on about other witnesses who were dragged in front of the ethics committee. I'm sure there are other members who have seen things happening in other committees. There were so many going on at the same time, you couldn't follow them all. What was the idea? Drag as many people in front of as many committees to try to find something, that “got you” moment. Who were they trying to get? They were trying to get innocent Canadians. It was disgusting.
For those who didn't understand what I was saying in French before, that's what I am saying now.
Mrs. Perelmuter was not leaving her house. It was not for isolation's sake. She was afraid to leave her house. The degree of harassment and intimidation that they were subjected to since last August 2020.... That's when Conservative MPs began publicly calling on the company to disclose speaking fees earned over the past 12 years by the Prime Minister, his wife, his mother and his brother, even though it would have contravened privacy laws.
I will continue in English, because I want the members here to understand this.
That is what was going on in social media.
According to the Toronto Star, “In one Facebook post, which is still online, deputy Conservative leader Candice Bergen provided the company’s toll-free phone number and urged people to call to press the point.”
What were they looking for? It was records for the last 12 years. If that's not a witch hunt and a fishing expedition, I don't know what is.
Ever since, Mr. Perelmuter said, with that online harassment.... This is what he told us at his appearance on December 7, which happened after prorogation. Nothing was stopped because of prorogation. It continued.
His company faced harassment, personal threats and a social media campaign that he described as “designed to discredit him and his wife” and damage their reputation. It was real harm against them—both against their reputation and indeed, as I have said, Madam Chair, even to their persons. They were already struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
He said, “As a leader of a small company I feel that my first obligation is to ensure the physical, emotional and mental health, safety and well-being of our employees. For the first time in my 25-year career I was in a situation where I didn’t feel that I could properly protect everyone from what was going on."
Imagine what he was going through. He said, “We had to get the police involved. It was a really nasty situation.”
What Canadian doing business and trying to survive the pandemic asks for that?
Mr. Perelmuter said that one individual who responded to the Conservative call posted his wife’s photo and private cellphone number on Facebook, along with a rant calling her “disgusting and derogatory things. Her phone started ringing day and night”—
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
I fully respect this, but when she's talking about these photos, we've seen the exact same thing done to Charlie Angus. We have seen some of this. Yes, it's absolutely inappropriate, but I'm really hoping we can talk about—
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ms. Vecchio, I think this is a point of debate, perhaps, more than it is a point of order.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Chair, since Ms. Shanahan is referring to witnesses whose participation would be cancelled by Ms. Vecchio's motion, perhaps people are ready to vote on Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Then we could move on to another motion.
I raise the point in the event members of the committee are ready to vote. We're discussing a point that would not be included in Mr. Turnbull's amendment or Ms. Vecchio's motion in any case.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's absolutely the committee's prerogative if they'd like to continue to vote. At this point, though, Ms. Shanahan has the floor, so I'll give the floor back to her. When she doesn't have the floor, we can, if the committee likes, proceed to a vote. It's up to the committee.
We do have other speakers on the list. I will let you know that we have, after this, Ms. Petitpas Taylor, Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Samson.
Ms. Shanahan.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I can understand that there are members of the opposition who don't want to hear what I have to say—
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
It's been going on for three months. Of course we want to hear it.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
—but it's not actually what I have to say; it's ordinary Canadians who have been dragged into this, and they have a right to be heard.
Mrs. Perelmuter was in fear for her own personal safety for a while. She didn't want to leave the house. Some of their 27 employees, particularly young women on staff, were also concerned about their safety. Maybe it's laughable to some members here. Maybe it's something that's not important or germane to where they want to go, but this is what Canadians are in shock about. This is why we are here.
Chair, if in some measure I can protect at least a couple of Canadians from this kind of abuse, I will feel that my time has been well spent and that I am doing my job here.
Mr. Perelmuter says he understands that politics is a tough business, but he said that his company is not partisan. Again, the difference between politics, policy and sheer partisanship, just to score political points, drag anybody down with you, it doesn't matter, because we have to score those points.... These people were unfairly caught in the crossfire. His company had only a tangential connection to the WE affair and had nothing to do—nothing—with the student services grant at the heart of the controversy. The information they were looking for was from the times the Prime Minister and his wife, before he was prime minister, would have spoken to maybe a Legion or a charity affair; I don't know. It was ridiculous.
Mr. Perelmuter goes on to say, “It's something that I never thought we would have to deal with. We're not in a controversial type of business.” As part of its investigation into the affair, the ethics committee asked Speakers' Spotlight to turn over documents related to any fees earned by the Prime Minister and his family members for speaking engagements over the past 12 years. At that time, Parliament was prorogued, so the clerk informed Mr. Perelmuter that he no longer had to submit the documents requested by the committee. “Aha,” says the opposition. “There—you see? They wanted to stop those documents from being produced. That was the evil plan.”
At the same time, Conservative MP Michael Barrett sent the company a letter the following week, which he released to the media before Mr. Perelmuter said he'd had the chance to read it, asking him to do the right thing and turn over the documents directly to the members of the then disbanded committee. So you see that Mr. Barrett had a plan to get to the bottom of all of this nefarious wrongdoing.
Mr. Perelmuter said the company's legal counsel informed him that releasing the documents in that manner, without an order from the committee, would violate privacy laws. We work by the rule of law. We have parliamentary tradition and parliamentary rules that we follow. Mr. Perelmuter said that he was upset that a member of Parliament would ask the company to break the law. This is what he told the committee.
Ms. Bergen's Facebook post came shortly after Mr. Barrett publicly released his letter. By making the request public, Mr. Perelmuter said, he “definitely felt like [he was] being intimidated” by Barrett. He said, “It was frankly quite shocking [to me] to be completely honest,” adding, about launching a lawsuit against Conservative MPs, that “certainly it's crossed my mind”.
That is where those Conservative MPs have brought us as parliamentarians.
I don't know about you, Madam Chair, and about other colleagues here, but my reputation, the honour, the privilege, as a parliamentarian is that what we do here is for the good of Canadians. We would never, never bring our position, our role.... I take my role as a parliamentarian on a committee, when we ask for witnesses and require witnesses to appear.... Anybody who has seen the work that we're doing on MindGeek and Pornhub will know that.
We are doing some very important work there, and we want to get to the bottom of those issues because that's what's important to Canadians. But to use those same powers against ordinary, innocent Canadians for partisan purposes, I cannot condone. I'm not one of those parliamentarians who gets up and rants and raves, so I think I may have surprised a few of my good friends here. This is what gets me, innocent people being dragged in.
Mr. Barrett participated in that committee hearing but he did not address the matter. He did ask Mr. Perelmuter several questions about some specific speaking engagements. I am extremely disappointed and shocked, but maybe not surprised. This is me saying that Mr. Barrett was present here and he did not use his time to offer a complete apology for his actions. That's what I said at the time, to give Mr. Barrett some time, the ample opportunity, to do the right thing. He's so keen on doing the right thing.
I and other members on the Liberal side, and Mr. Angus from the NDP, did take that time to apologize to the Perelmuters and the chair of the committee. Mr. Sweet, as chair of our ethics committee, did the right thing by offering a sincere apology on behalf of the committee for any of the unintended consequences that came from any actions of the committee members in regard to the obligation of our office. Then once the committee...remember when the prorogation happened, that must have been the evil plan, but the committee was reconstituted in September after the prorogation was over, after we had the new throne speech and after we had done the reset.
Our committee then sent a narrower request to Speakers' Spotlight for records of the speaking fees earned by Mr. Trudeau and his wife. The company complied with that request and those records were provided to the committee members for a week. I think committee members are familiar with how that's done, in privacy. We had all the time in the world to peruse them and guess what? No one, including Mr. Barrett, asked any questions about those documents at our meeting in December.
So that was the story of dragging in innocent witnesses with absolutely no connection to the matter at hand, except for a family name. Yes, that'll be just enough. They were dragged in front of the committee and their reputations and their personal well-being put up as fodder for the mill.
I'm going to keep saying that the opposition members on the committee presupposed the conclusion in this matter, exactly as the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tried to do. They're doing everything they can to make the narrative fit the facts.
Unfortunately, we won't be satisfied with that response. Canadians have understood the game the Conservatives and their opposition collaborators are playing, and they aren't buying what they're selling. As Canadians, we will never allow a tribunal, whether parliamentary or otherwise, to render a decision before hearing the case put before it. That's the kind of judicial procedure used in dictatorships and oligarchies, not in Canada.
So I find it very interesting that, on the one hand, my opposition colleagues condemn authoritarian dictatorships that don't abide by the basic principles of legal fairness yet, on the other hand, sit on the committee and try to advance a process that has completely abandoned any semblance of legal fairness.
The scope of the motion before us is so broad and the motion itself so unrelated to this study that we, as members, have no choice but to reject it.
Rather than do that, my colleague Mr. Turnbull has introduced an amendment that will give the opposition another chance to take a crack at the settled matter of WE Charity's involvement in the student grant program. They're doing it under the pretext of a study on the prorogation of Parliament without however seeking the cooperation of the Prime Minister and his staff.
Reading the motion, which I hope will soon be amended, I thought it was interesting to see how obvious it was that the opposition had attempted to disguise its secret WE Charity study as a study of the prorogation. By simply looking at the dates of the documents requested, you can see that the opposition members aren't interested in the prorogation but rather are trying to connect WE Charity to this study.
If we support the amendment to the motion, they can still play that game, albeit in a slightly more limited way. I understand the frustration of my opposition colleagues, who have tried for months to raise the matter in several committees and the media, but without success. Now they're trying once again to make a final effort to embarrass the government over WE Charity. Seriously, where are their priorities?
These requests for witnesses and documents are nothing more than another set‑up designed to slow the government's work, bog down officials in paperwork and make them waste time sorting, examining and sending documents to an overworked Translation Bureau rather than work on implementing the government's programs.
I say that ironically, but I find it amusing to hear the opposition leader say he wants the government to succeed in providing vaccines to Canadians and restarting the economy. He should speak to certain members from his party, who take a different view. However, the opposition leader is allowing his members to slow down the machinery of government by introducing frivolous concurrence motions that effectively achieve that end. We need to move on to other matters. The Conservatives have to stop playing their games, and we have to focus once again on what's important for Canadians: economic recovery and emerging from the COVID‑19 crisis.
And on that note, I conclude my speech.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-04-27 13:14
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a hard act to follow, in terms of following after my colleague Mrs. Shanahan, whom I have great respect for. I attended a couple of those meetings of the ethics committee, just a very small number. I know she has done great work on that committee and I thank her for speaking so passionately. I, too, share many of her concerns when it comes to bringing forth private [Technical difficulty—Editor].
In just a moment I will speak to my amendment, which does relate to that, but before I get started, I just want to say that I'm sorry I was away from the committee over the last two weeks. I want everyone to know that I wasn't avoiding this important and riveting debate. I was under the weather, but I'm feeling much better now and feel increasingly better every day. I extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleagues and my teammates who filled in for me while I was gone and checked in with me regularly. I really appreciate the fact that we have such a compassionate team.
While I was resting and trying to get better, I probably held on to some vain hope, a small grain of hope and optimism for returning and finding us having made progress on this motion and the proposed amendment, but alas, here we are, still debating this. It's unfortunate.
I have quite a few remarks. I've had lots of time to reflect and had lots of thoughts prepared before I fell ill and was away for a little while, and I'd like to get them on the record.
First of all, the amendment that I put forward was an attempt to compromise. You have to give something to get something. However, the members of the opposition on this committee have to give too, and so far, I don't think there has been a willingness to be flexible and to give a little on the original motion.
I really don't think we need to hear from the Kielburgers and the Honourable Bill Morneau. Let's be honest. I think Mrs. Shanahan's comments are really poignant and point to the harm that can be caused, inadvertently, of course. It's not necessarily intentional, but it is harm that members of the public—private citizens, business owners, and so on—can experience as a result of being called before these committees. I think that's an important consideration.
Now, I left those two invitations, those renewed invitations, in the proposed amendment as a way to say to the opposition parties, “Okay, here is something perhaps that would appeal to your interests,” which I think clearly we all know are for partisan purposes, or at least I suspect that, based on all the comments I've heard.
What I really think is that the added testimony from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth would actually be relevant to extending the study, and hearing from them would add to the testimony something perhaps that we haven't heard before.
These witnesses are important because we can get a sense of the depth and breadth of the economic impact, as well as the significant data and evidence, not to mention the first-hand experiences relayed to us from our constituents about the inequities and vulnerabilities that Canadians are living with or are experiencing due to COVID-19, which is a reason that the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth would be appropriate, in my view, because this is her expertise. This is her mandate and file.
We also know that economic impacts have not been distributed evenly across our economy. Quite the opposite, they've been distributed unevenly. It goes without saying, and I think we've all heard this over and over again, that some industries have been decimated while others have prospered. Some will bounce back quickly and others will take years to return to pre-pandemic levels.
I remember in one of the previous meetings, before I was away, Mr. Blaikie made a comment. I think he said that the pandemic “also matters”. I don't mean to quote him out of context, because it was within what he was saying and I'm sure he didn't mean this, but it seemed to me that it was sort of implied in his remarks that the pandemic was the distraction from what the opposition was really looking for in this study. Only a party focused on playing political games would characterize a global pandemic as an afterthought or a distraction.
The pandemic clearly is what we all, and certainly this committee, need to be completely seized with and focused upon at every moment. We are in a third wave of a global health crisis of epic proportions. Canadians need us. They care that their government is working for them, at all levels, to essentially meet their needs and protect them from the worst parts of this crisis—or help them get through this.
Canadians are rightfully exhausted by this and are counting on us to help. We can't afford to be looking backwards and to be distracted with partisan games, which is really what the original motion is about.
I think extending it, with a couple of witnesses, is a more than reasonable solution. It's an attempt at compromise. However, I see that this doesn't satisfy the opposition.
I want to quote someone. There's a gentleman I heard recently, who I'm sure some of my other colleagues probably know and admire. In a recent interview, Dr. Michael Ryan, the executive director of the World Health Organization's health emergencies program, said:
I think what we've learnt in Ebola outbreaks is you need to react quickly, you need to go after the virus, you need to stop the chains of transmission, you need to engage with communities very deeply; community acceptance is hugely important.
You need to be co-ordinated, you need to be coherent, you need to look at the other sectoral impacts, the schools and security and economic.
So it's essentially many of those same lessons but the lessons I've learnt after so many Ebola outbreaks in my career are be fast, have no regrets; you must be the first mover. The virus will always get you if you don't move quickly and you need to be prepared and I say this.
One of the great things in emergency response—and anyone who's involved in emergency response will know this—if you need to be right before you move you will never win.
“Perfection is the enemy of the good,” which is something our Prime Minister says often, “when it comes to emergency management.”
“Speed trumps perfection and the problem in society we have at the moment”—and he's speaking to this global pandemic—“is everyone is afraid of making a mistake, everyone is afraid of the consequence of error.”
“But the greatest error is not to move, the greatest error is to be paralysed by the fear of failure and I think that's the single biggest [lesson] I've learnt in Ebola responses in the past.”
That's what Dr. Michael Ryan said in a recent interview. I thought, wow, this is powerful advice. It really speaks to the need for us to move quickly, to focus on the future and not the past, and to not be debating, for months, a motion that has absolutely no relevance to managing the crisis we're in.
It is nothing but a political game, and the opposition parties, for some reason, persist. I understand that they want to win political points and get an uptick in the polls. I understand that. I understand that there's partisanship here, and it's always present. However, can we not put that aside and focus on what really matters?
We're heading into a wall, and we're looking in the rearview mirror instead of being focused on preparing for the fourth wave. I hope we don't have a fourth wave, but my colleague Dr. Duncan and people who have studied virology and understand pandemics....
There is so much work for us to be doing. I'm lying in bed for two weeks trying to get better, and all I can think about is how I can possibly rest when there is so much damned work to do that matters to people out there in the world—work that they're counting on me and us to do for them.
Here we are—what is it?—one month later, still debating. I don't know how many weeks it's been, but it seems like forever to me, because there are so many more pressing things coming into my constituency office, and so many other things, even within this committee, that we could be focusing on. It's just disheartening, to say the least. I say it's really disheartening.
Some of my colleagues on this committee have made it seem as though this is just a matter of how much time we use for this study, but I think it's about more than that. It's about what we invest our time in, what we choose to spend our time on. We're making decisions about what to focus on. We know that standing committees are masters of their own domain. We could be pursuing other more important topics, and there's a long list.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, Mr. Kent. Are you going to say “Let's vote”?
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
No, not at all. I respect Mr. Turnbull's passionate words, but with regard to his urging that the committee vote to invite Minister Freeland and Minister Chagger to appear before committee, has he spoken to them about the committee's open invitation, to which they have still not responded?
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I guess that's an interjection of some sort, but I'll give the floor back to Mr. Turnbull.
I can tell you that from my position—
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, it was just to Mr. Turnbull's point about the value of time. I would think that if they responded to an existing committee invitation, that time would be addressed.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I guess I can put on the record that I have no responses at this point to any of the previous invitations.
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-04-27 13:26
Thank you.
That's a great question. I have not heard anything from them to date. This is the whole point of the amendment that I put forward: to focus our time on something reasonable that adds a little more testimony, if that's the wish of the committee, but that doesn't extend too far into the witch hunt that I think the opposition parties are looking for, the “fishing expedition”, as my colleague Ms. Shanahan called it, which is how I would characterize it, too.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Kent. I definitely appreciate it.
I just want to continue with my remarks here.
The list is long. The committee did a study—I think some exceptional work was done—on preparing for the possibility of a pandemic election. Now, we know that's only going to happen if opposition parties thrust it upon the government, because there's no way we want an election during a global pandemic.
Bill C-19, however, has been tabled in the House. I understand it's still being debated, but I think we could be doing a prestudy of that bill, which would help expedite its passage through second reading. I think that would be a much better use of our time.
Another priority, which my honourable colleague Dr. Duncan has raised, is evaluating the effectiveness of infection, prevention and control measures on Parliament Hill and a bunch of other factors related to looking at how we responded during the pandemic. That's useful for helping us prepare for future waves or future pandemics, and I think it's a really important one.
I understand that my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor also put a motion on notice which I think has lots of relevance. I too have put a motion on notice which focuses on another topic that I think would be much more relevant for us to focus on. It's the one that focuses on the Ontario Superior Court decision to strike down changes to the Canada Elections Act that help protect Canadians against misinformation during elections.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-04-27 13:29
I have great concerns, within the election process, about the amount of misinformation that I've witnessed. In my riding Conservative Party of Canada fund flyers went to every primary residence in my riding, which provided misinformation to the public—it was actually stamped by the Conservative Party—in the last election.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-04-27 13:29
This really concerns me. Of course it's a part of election readiness, and we know that it's relevant, given the pandemic.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I recognize that we're talking about other things that we could be studying, but if we could get back to the motion, that would be great. It's a little on point, but he just seemed to be elaborating a little more than necessary.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-04-27 13:29
I do think this is relevant because what I'm advocating for is an amendment to the motion. It would narrow the scope of the motion that was put forward, which would free up our time to focus on other items. It is therefore relevant to the argument I'm making. Again, there are much more important tasks here in my view, and I think many members, in the Liberal Party at least, would agree with me. They would be a much better use of our time and Canadians would appreciate our focusing on them.
Misinformation in elections and deliberate misinformation are issues that we all need to be concerned about, especially given the time we're living in, a time when people are consuming a lot more information online. I think there's a lot more partisanship and lots of polarization within our democratic society. That's deeply concerning to me, especially given what we saw happen during the election in the United States. I think we can all agree that it would be good for us to to address some of the root causes there and look at how we can avoid making some of the same mistakes that perhaps precipitated the insurrection in the United States.
I will leave it at that, on those points anyway. I have lots more to say, so I'll get back to the motion by Ms. Vecchio.
It has been said, which I need to say myself with conviction, that there was a motive, and the opposition is assuming that prorogation couldn't have happened for legitimate purposes. I find that so hard to believe because if a global pandemic is not a good reason for proroguing, what is a good reason? Honestly, I can't think of a bigger crisis and issue.
Stephen Harper and his government prorogued twice, once in 2008 and once in 2009, and cited the economic recession as their primary reason for proroguing. Certainly everyone suspected there were more partisan reasons and political reasons for doing this, but, legitimately, they cited that as their reason. Why, therefore, in a global pandemic of epic proportions, the biggest crisis in 100 years, can we not see a rational justification for proroguing Parliament?
I will go further in my remarks and say that there is no justification for prorogation that will satisfy the opposition parties because they are not interested in evidence, facts, data, arguments, reasons or reality. This is not about facts and getting to the truth. This is about pure partisanship, facts and reasonable arguments be damned. It seems the Conservatives have a tendency toward, and a growing fascination with, adopting views and positions that have no basis in evidence and reality.
If it's evidence you want, the committee has received a substantive report, which has been tabled, on the reasons for prorogation. It has heard from a selection of witnesses, and the majority of them were of the opposition's choosing. Our witness list had almost none. I don't think we even submitted any witnesses. The opposition parties are the ones that submitted the long list of witnesses they wanted to hear from, and many of them came forward and attended the committee. Members had ample opportunity to ask questions.
I've put forward a motion that allows a few more witnesses to be reinvited, which is a compromise, but there is still no movement. They want the Prime Minister. They have a vendetta against Justin Trudeau. This is not about anything other than a ploy to spin a story, get a headline and cause a small uptick in the polls. We know what this is about.
This is all at the expense of the Canadian public. The public is relying on us.
I shouldn't even be laughing because, in a way, it's just absurd that we're here and that I'm speaking to this.
Let me again represent my views on prorogation, which are supported by the evidence and facts. I have maintained and argued that the social and economic impacts of COVID-19 are deeper, more substantial and in fact many times greater and exponentially more severe—at least 10 times greater, according to many experts and our own chief statistician, on many of the indicators—than those of the 2008-09 recession.
Again, that recession was cited by Stephen Harper as the reason for two prorogations and, some would say, to avoid a confidence vote, and there are other reasons. I would just say that if those were good reasons for the Conservative Party back then, why is it so unbelievable to cite the same sorts of reasons for the most recent prorogation?
I think this is why, from my perspective, hearing from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland would be beneficial, because who else can speak to the significance of the economic impact? Similarly, I thought that having the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth come to testify might help illuminate the many inequities that COVID-19 has laid bare. This makes sense. In fact, it's common sense, in my view, and if you were looking for the truth and looking for facts and information that are relevant, I think that would be more than acceptable to focus on.
Let us not forget that it was our government in the last Parliament that made the change to the Standing Orders that led to the submission of a report that provided a rationale for prorogation. For the first time ever in the history of our great country, we have a report tabled in the House of Commons and referred to this committee that we've all had a chance to review. Let that sink in for a minute, colleagues and Madam Chair. Never before has any prime minister or any government in Canada's history been required to provide a reason for proroguing Parliament. Never have they had to write and table a report. Never has PROC had to study such a matter. I think there have probably been some other studies that were decided on by the standing committee, but it was never required.
Mr. Blaikie has remarked several times that this would be precedent setting, and I think we've already set the precedent to a much higher standard and to a higher degree of transparency by having a report be something that's necessary, by following through on that and by even entertaining a study. We weren't required to have a study on prorogation just because a report was tabled. This committee chose to do that. We were willing partners in that pursuit. We voted to support that. We heard from witnesses, but now this is still not good enough. It's still not enough. Why? The opposition members didn't hear what they wanted to hear.
To be honest, I haven't even heard opposition members speak to the merits of the report that was tabled. If you were really concerned about that report being deficient in some way, you would be able to provide me with real reasons and arguments as to why it was deficient. Where is it deficient? It provides a great rationale that I think is very sensical and very much based on evidence and research. I think the opposition members have decided from day one what they want to get out of this and never for a second have they entertained any other possibility.
I have mountains of evidence to demonstrate that proroguing Parliament made sense; that it has led to a process of consultation and re-evaluation; that it was timed perfectly between the first and second waves and to reduce any losses in sitting days in the House of Commons; and, that the priorities and themes of the throne speech, the specifics of the fall economic statement and the budget all reflected what we heard from Canadians. It's responsive. It makes sense. It's backed by data and evidence. It's consistent with the report that was tabled and the testimony given by the government House leader.
What more does the opposition need or want? If this were about reason and evidence, this would have been over a long time ago.
The timing made sense. Between the first and second wave of COVID-19, we took some time after many months of an all-hands-on-deck, full-court-press agenda supporting Canadians. We were moving an agenda forward that supported Canadians. Everyone was working full steam ahead.
We took a hiatus, a time to reassess priorities, to reset the agenda. Did that not make sense, between the first and second wave? It seemed to make sense to me.
I think any Canadian listening in could understand that this government had been working around the clock to serve Canadians, getting supports and programs designed in weeks instead of years, and that it took some time to re-evaluate priorities [Technical difficulty—Editor] at a time when Parliament would normally not be sitting anyway, between the first and second wave of the pandemic. It just made sense.
Why can't the opposition compromise a little on their original motion?
Opposition parties act as though they haven't had a chance to study prorogation, but we've had numerous meetings on the topic. We've heard from the government House leader who was willing to attend and who answered our questions. We heard from multiple other witnesses who testified before this committee. It was fair and transparent. All members had a chance to ask questions. The opposition provided their lists of witnesses and they now have testimony from academics, procedural experts, historians, officials and the government House leader. We have material that could be used to write a report.
Some of the opinions shared by witnesses even favour the opposition's preferred interpretation. Why can't we move to writing a report? They already have some evidence or some opinion, I would say, that supports their narrative. What more do they need?
The opposition has also, over and over again, claimed that the throne speech had no substance, which I emphatically deny. I say that's false. They still won't listen or concede that the throne speech has substantive themes and very specific measures that reflect the needs of Canadians. It is in fact true that it outlines priorities that relate directly to the information gathered by the chief statistician of Canada and the extensive consultation that was done during the time that our government was prorogued.
To be clear, our caucus was not on vacation during the time of prorogation. We weren't twiddling our thumbs or sitting on our hands. There were many stakeholder consultations, constituent surveys, caucus consultations, meetings with opposition parties, departmental and interdepartmental discussions during that time, all of which helped to inform the throne speech. Again, these things led to themes that appeared in the throne speech that were new and the relevance of which was directly tied to the pandemic and its deep, far-reaching impacts and were evidence-based.
Notable examples include additional supports for small businesses: the wage subsidy, the commercial rent subsidy, the redesign and improvements to the Canada business credit availability program, and expansion of the CEBA. These are huge supports for small businesses. I've heard over and over again how these have literally saved very many of our small businesses from going under due to the effects of this pandemic and the public health restrictions that have been necessary to protect Canadians.
Our supports for workers, the wage subsidy, the Canada recovery benefit and the central reforms to EI were outlined in the throne speech. They were not in the previous throne speech. They were new initiatives that were a direct result of taking some time to reflect on what Canadians needed.
On supports for the hardest-hit industries, we know there's a long list of industries that have been hard hit: hospitality, tourism, retail, and cultural industries. The list goes on and on.
National standards for long-term care weren't in the original throne speech. That is something I've spoken to before. My colleague, Mr. Lauzon, is not here today, but he speaks very passionately and is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, and he has spoken to this as well.
Those national standards for long-term care were in the throne speech. They were a direct result of the consultation that was done. Many of my colleagues and I advocated for that national standard to be in the throne speech. We're quite happy to see that it got in there.
These are just a few examples, but I'm going to give you others as well.
No one can say that addressing systemic racism was not in the previous throne speech. There were numerous actions outlined. I'm very proud that it appeared in the throne speech after prorogation, that it was a direct result of realizing the inequities that many racialized Canadians and many others were experiencing due to the pandemic. It's not that they weren't experiencing those before. They, in fact, had been for generations, but the pandemic and its impacts laid it bare. It showed us and taught us all about how deep those inequities are, and how deep racial injustice is in our country.
That appeared in the throne speech. It wasn't there before. It's something I'm very proud of, and I take very seriously. It speaks to the responsiveness of a government that took the time to reflect, and ask what Canadians need us to be focusing on. How are our agenda and priorities shifting and changing?
Some of the things in there are already under way, which is incredible. I'm particularly passionate about the inclusive and diverse public procurement, which has been an area of passion for me for a long time. Seeing that in the throne speech was something I felt very proud of.
I was pleased to see that we were taking action on online hate, making sure we have disaggregated data, so we can see the inequities better and identify how those play out, and how we can then develop policies based on that information.
There is also an action plan to increase representation in hiring and appointments in the public service. There are steps to acknowledge artistic and economic contributions of Black Canadians. Included are justice system reforms to address the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and people of colour in our justice system. There is training for police in law enforcement. These things are incredible steps toward realizing greater degrees of justice in our country, and eliminating to the greatest degree possible systemic racism.
The opposition parties still continued to maintain that our throne speech had no substance to it, that it was no different, that we didn't need the time to reflect and re-evaluate. Would these themes and important measures be a priority for our government if we didn't take the time to do that work? I would say maybe not.
What about gender equality? There is an action plan for women in the economy, the Canadian-wide early learning and child care system, acceleration of the women's entrepreneurship strategy. These were all in the throne speech. Our government is deeply committed to realizing greater degrees of gender equity and gender equality. We have been working on that from day one. To have these specific measures identified confirms continued action and continued priority on realizing gender equality in Canada which, again, is something we've learned—
View John Nater Profile
CPC (ON)
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I notice that Mr. Turnbull is talking about gender equality and gender equity. I notice we have a new member of the committee with us, Mrs. McCrimmon. I wonder if she might want to take the opportunity to apologize for shutting down the national defence committee meetings, which were looking at issues of sexual misconduct in the military.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I don't think that's an appropriate point of order, Mr. Nater, and you know that as well.
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-04-27 13:49
Thank you.
The other thing that appeared in the throne speech that I'm also very passionate about and pleased to see was the disability inclusion plan. That's a threefold commitment to income support, employment support and changes to eligibility criteria. This is very welcome.
Last, the throne speech also had the term "build back better". I know opposition parties—and I'll speak to this a little more later—have claimed that this is some token phrase. They've said this over and over again. I'll fight them to the end of the earth on that one and argue until the day I die. Literally the most important thing we need to do, in my view, is to build back better. That message is not a token phrase. It refers to realizing the many deep impacts and inequities and the ways in which our economy doesn't support full social and environmental responsibility.
It's referring to building our economy in a more intentional way so it really supports people and the planet. This is not socialism and communism, and the oppositions parties and the conspiracy theorists out there will tell you this is the great reset.
It's not the great reset. It's dealing with the very specific ways in which our systems are flawed, that are impacting people and the planet and creating the massive inequities and injustices that we see jeopardizing our future and our children's future. Things in the throne speech related to build back better, and that message is exceeding Canada's 2030 climate goal. We've seen our government put forward a new ambition and an ambitious target for a better target. I want to be more ambitious about that, as ambitious as we can possibly be.
This is really important. There's a new fund to attract investments in zero-emission products and to make Canada a leader in clean technology. I will say more about this because it's an area that I feel very strongly and passionately about. I think we still have lots of work to do. We have to go much further.
I want to reiterate that I find it just doesn't respect the value of that build back better phrase.... I know it sounds like a key message or a marketing strategy, but I think it's a very small packet of words that has a lot of meaning to it. For me, it really is important. It's what we heard from a lot of constituents.
Certainly in my riding, I have many climate activists and people who want serious and progressive change to be made on addressing climate change. They feel that this pandemic is a wake-up call for us to begin to realize just how better prepared we need to be. We have to realize how much better our systems and our politics and political system have to work to address major crises that we have not addressed over many generations. They have been accumulating in importance. We've left it to the bitter end. We can't do that anymore. We have to collaborate and find ways to address the impending climate disaster that I know climatologists have been predicting for at least 20 or 30 years. It's probably even more than that.
I have a colleague who was a part of Pollution Probe, which is one of the first environmental organizations. He was one of the co-founders. He's been actively working towards climate action for over 40 years. He's been frustrated. He is now retired but still active, no matter what.
Anyway, I want to get back to my main argument. I feel like I have so much to say and I don't want to take up too much time. I was away for two weeks reflecting, so a lot of things have been percolating. I really value the opportunity to express myself fully and give my point of view, which I know is part of my responsibility. I take it very seriously.
Let me tell you a little bit more about my argument and why we need to get on with things but also hear, at least, from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I'm not going to speak too much more to the Kielburgers and the Honourable Bill Morneau. I left those reinvitations in there as a compromise with Ms. Vecchio and the Conservative Party members. I really want to speak to my argument as to the importance of hearing from two more witnesses. I think it would be valuable. This speaks to the heart of my proposed amendment.
Again, I'm going back to a document I've referred to multiple times before, because I love data. I'm a bit of a data nerd. I think we have to base what we're doing on research and data. It's a report on the social and economic impacts of COVID-19, a six-month update released by the chief statistician of Canada in September 2020.
The reason I'm referring to that particular report is that the whole thing looks backwards in time and talks about why we prorogued. That report took statistical information on the social and economic impacts up to about August, then released a report on it in September. It really would have been some of the most relevant and substantive information available at the time. The reason it's relevant and important is that it demonstrates why the government did the things it did and how that information factored into resetting the agenda during prorogation, which is reflected in the throne speech.
I'll try to quickly summarize the main findings and then I'll go into more detail. I will summarize by saying there are three major findings. There's a lot to say about each one of them. I could probably talk for two or three meetings on each one, but let's just start with the first. The evidence collected shows there's been an unprecedented depth of economic impact in every category. It's also been uneven and inequitable across industries. I've already said this but there's a lot more information on the extent and the depth of that economic impact, which I think is pretty substantive.
For example, it's uneven across industries. The declines in outputs are five times greater than in 2008, and that was only in August 2020. Just think, we've now been through the second and third waves of this pandemic. The economic impact of COVID-19 has been far, far greater, at least 10 times greater. It could be even more than that by now. I haven't looked at the most recent statistics yet.
There was a historic decline in all economic activity. This comes directly from the chief statistician's report. It doesn't matter what measure we use. There's a historic decline in imports, exports, business investment, household spending, real GDP and market prices. The recovery is also uneven. In other words, we saw some industries bounce back between the first and second waves. The retail industry, for example, started to bounce back much more quickly than some of the other industries. Just how resilient different industries are to this specific type of shock to the economy is very uneven. It requires a lot of exploration, reflection and data gathering.
I remember at that time I was saying, "What is the economic impact of all of this?" I remember in August that I didn't know about this chief statistician report. It was only later that I found it, and I really find it valuable.
There is also historic declines in the labour market activity. There are steep losses in the highest-impacted sectors. We can think about retail, cultural industries, hospitality, tourism and many others. I have that data here as well.
There are also structural challenges in heavily impacted sectors. That impacts the recovery of some of those heavily impacted sectors. It's not only that they had the highest losses, but they also have structural challenges within them in terms of recovering. It's also led to an overall context of business uncertainty, which the report goes into quite a few details about.
This is just the economic impact. Understanding how historic those declines are and how significant and deep the economic scarring was, or the potential for economic scarring, highlights the importance of hearing from Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
Understanding that depth of economic impact.... And I'm not even speaking to the health impacts, which are really the most important parts of all of this. I know my colleagues Dr. Duncan and Ms. Petitpas Taylor have spoken to those in previous meetings. I feel just as passionately about those. I perhaps will bring more comments on those at a later time. Because they've focused on those areas, are extremely knowledgeable and have expertise in that area and are very eloquent, I'm focusing on the economic and social impacts in my remarks today.
The other major finding of the report is inequity. If you were struggling or were on the margins before this pandemic, it only got worse. This includes the impacts on women, immigrants, visible minorities, people with disabilities, low-wage workers, youth, and the list goes on and on. There are other groups, but those are some of the main ones that are identified in the statistical data that was provided by the chief statistician.
When I spoke to what was in the throne speech and hearing the evidence and data, you can draw direct links between them. I could create a map if you wanted me to—which I like to do—and I could draw lines between things and make those associations and connections. This is reasonable. For a rational person and someone who is very much interested in research and evidence-based thinking and policy solutions, this all connects. It adds up. If there was something fishy going on or some other nefarious activity, things probably wouldn't add up so well. They wouldn't make sense. They wouldn't be rational. There wouldn't be all of these very logical conclusions and arguments that could be made.
This is why I think it's so important for me to provide these sorts of rational arguments and draw these connections, because it goes to the heart of what this study is supposed to be about. We're now debating a motion and debating an amendment, which I'm trying to be very reasonable about, when opposition parties keep claiming that we don't want to study this or do that or provide reasons. They're assuming all of these motives. I thought, “ We've provided evidence and rationale. We've been transparent. It makes sense, so what do you want?”
I digress on that. Getting back to the point I was making, there are three main conclusions that I drew from the evidence that the chief statistician provided.
The last one is the looming existential threat of climate change. It's not mentioned that way in the report, but what's mentioned in the statistics is just how much environmental services, clean-tech industries, are almost pandemic-proof or shock-proof. They represent massive economic opportunities for a country that's in the deepest economic crisis probably since the Great Depression.
What's interesting is the evidence shows that those industries really represent a lot of hope and opportunity for us, not to mention help us. Not only do they create the economic growth and prosperity we're looking for, after the deep scarring and hardship experienced by Canadians, but they also are the right thing to do. We must think about this pandemic as a wake-up call to the impending climate disaster that will be coming in the near future if we don't wake up and act in the way that Dr. Michael Ryan was speaking to, in the quotation I gave, with the same degree of urgency and immediacy that is required for this pandemic. That's the kind of full court press we need for fighting climate change.
I would say that our party and the throne speech and the data support this as not only being the right thing to do for many reasons, but as also representing some of the biggest economic opportunities for our country. When we say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, this is why. There is actually evidence to suggest that this makes sense, too.
I want to speak a bit more about the inequities. No, let me say a few words just briefly about the economic impact, because I covered some things that I wanted to say in comments I gave in previous meetings, but I didn't cover everything I wanted to say, and there are quite a few important impacts.
One in particular that I feel pretty passionately about is the level of business uncertainty that the pandemic has created for business owners and entrepreneurs. Just in May 2020, that is, three months into the pandemic, a quarter of businesses had been granted rent or mortgage deferrals. At this point, the number is probably much higher than that, but just think about their being granted mortgage or rent deferrals at the time. This was before we had the rent subsidy. It was redesigned later on and I think worked much better. That was another example of our government's listening and responding to the needs of businesses.
Just having those deferrals add up—and remember, a deferral is a deferral; you still have to pay for a small business....
I was a small business owner for 12 years and helped other small businesses. I've helped more than 250 small businesses start up. I only worked with businesses that had a triple bottom line, ones that believed in social and environmental impact and integrated that sense of sustainability into their business models. That's my specialty.
For me, when thinking about business uncertainty and the impact of this pandemic and the kinds of opportunities it creates, but also about the way our government is responding to it, it's important to understand the kinds of uncertainties businesses are facing—or I should say “were facing” at the time we prorogued.
There's also evidence in the chief statistician's report that says many businesses will be reluctant to invest in the near term, and that means invest in their own businesses. They talked about businesses trying to protect their balance sheets and debt service.
The idea is that many businesses have planned expenditures in their businesses as they made a profit. They put the money back into their business to continue developing. It might be opening new branches, facilities; it could be in HR, personnel. There are all kinds of system improvements and operational pieces of their business that they might be planning in the near future to invest in.
I remember, as an entrepreneur, going from being a sole proprietor to a corporation to a mid-sized consulting firm over 12 years. You did business planning in order to anticipate the growth. Then you hustled to meet these targets so you had enough as an entrepreneur or a business owner to invest back in your business so you could continue to grow and develop and achieve your mission and purpose as a business. Just think about the fact that many businesses were reluctant to plan any expenditure and were protecting their balance sheet by saying, “We're not going to spend any money.” Think about what that says about our economy.
Seventeen per cent had an annual decrease in private sector capital spending as well. Firms sharply downgraded their capital spending plans, so private sector decreased planned capital spending by 16.6%, which is equivalent to going from $178 billion to $147 billion. That's only a 16.6% decrease, which seems small at this point. Now, after a second and third wave, I'm sure it's much, much, much higher. I don't have that number for you right now, but I think the chief statistician's most recent update would probably provide a useful comparator for us to understand the trend. For now just know that at the time, in August, it was literally a $30-billion hit to private sector capital spending. That's huge. There was a 39% decrease in planned capital spending for accommodation and food services—a 39% decrease in that industry. It was much greater in some industries versus in others. A 27.2% decrease in capital spending planned for the oil and gas industry is another example.
Also, small service-based companies were disproportionately impacted. Three-quarters of small businesses have taken on debt as a result of COVID-19. I'm sure, again, that number is much higher today, but at the time 75% of small businesses had taken on debt. You can just think about how that's going to impact their ability to recover. Some of those businesses have told me that if we come roaring out of this pandemic with economic recovery, it will be almost a miracle if they can service the debt they've accumulated over the course of the first, second and third wave of this pandemic. That's why I've been a vocal advocate for “COVID zero”, which is an approach that is different from what some of our provinces and territories have taken. I think the Atlantic provinces have shown us the light and the way in terms of managing the pandemic without the continuous open-close, open-close, open-close disruption of our economy and our society over and over and over again.
Anyway, that's a bit of a side note.
I'll go back to the small service-based companies that have been disproportionately impacted. Sixty-eight per cent of those with debt estimated it would take them more than one year to pay that debt off. Again, that was in August 2020. A lot has happened since then. If 68%, almost 70%, would have taken a year to pay off their debt at that time, just think about how many years it's going to take them now. That debt has only gotten greater through the open, close, open, close of our economy.
On new firms and start-ups, again, I was highlighting these before I knew only too well. Since 2015, when the Liberal Party formed government, the number of new firms, so new business start-ups entering the market, was on average 16,500 on a quarterly basis. Every three months there were 16,500 new businesses in Canada from 2015 until the time this report was written in September.
Start-ups account for 45% of gross domestic product, so 45% of the output of our economy is essentially new start-up businesses. There were 88,000 business closures in April 2020 and 62,600 closures in May due to COVID-19. Those were closures, not bankruptcies or anything. Those businesses closed down. That's not to say they necessarily went completely out of existence or folded up, but they closed down.
You can see how many businesses were impacted. There were 100,000 fewer active businesses in May 2020 compared to May 2019. One hundred thousand fewer active businesses—that's unheard of. Think about how many businesses are going in the opposite direction. Whereas we have had 16,500 new businesses being started up in every quarter in Canada since 2015, now we have the reverse direction, which is these 100,000 fewer active businesses in May 2020 compared to the previous year.
I don't know if we can even really fathom.... I spent 12 years working with about 250 businesses, and I can tell you about the work those people put into building their businesses. To have all of that lost due to a public health crisis is just astronomical. It's very hard to fathom the depth of that impact, how far-reaching it is and how much it impacts those family-owned businesses, those individual entrepreneurs and those small partnerships and franchises: so many businesses and good people working their tails off to make a living and to do something they believe in that's often good for the community, good for the economy and good for them at the same time.
Business failures among small firms dwarf the lack of new entrants. Again, the amount of failures in the economy of those small businesses was far greater than any new start-ups during the pandemic.... There's a quote in the chief statistician's report that says, “The pace of...job recovery will depend in large part on the extent to which...companies...can remain viable...”. That's on page 66. It goes without saying that if our small businesses make up such a huge portion of our economy and employ the largest number of people in our economy, I would say that they're the engine of our Canadian economy, and if we're seeing that many failures out there or that many closures and not as many new entrants, we're going to have a severe problem that's long term, right?
Our measures and supports that our government launched and were in the throne speech were designed specifically to help the most small businesses get through this crisis. For me, I've heard over and over again that for some small businesses that were family run or run by sole proprietors, the wage subsidy and the CERB were life-saving measures, supports and financial assistance for them.
The work on the commercial rent assistance and how the program was redesigned was done after prorogation. It was something we heard strongly during the prorogation. The small business tenants in commercial properties wanted the support to go directly to the small business owner so that they could pay the rent with resources instead of having it go through a more complex scheme, through their landlord, which clearly wasn't working, although it was a good intention on the part of our government. It didn't work as planned or as well as we had hoped, and it was redesigned promptly. I think it really was appreciated.
There were higher operating costs for many small businesses and definitely weak demand. They were anticipating a weakness in the demand for their services.
This wasn't the case with every industry. Certainly, I know of some examples in my community where some larger businesses did quite well in the pandemic. For the most part, though, the highest impacted sectors and industries and the small businesses that operate within those really were affected by a weak demand for their services and products.
Also, if they were to operate, they had higher operating costs. They had social distancing. They couldn't service as many individuals or take the volume of sales. There were all kinds of things they had to do to manage or prevent infection, control and operate with health and safety at the forefront, and develop protocols. There was all kinds of extra work they had to do and there were some extra costs for many of them.
Trade flows between the U.S. and Canada were impacted greatly by case numbers. As the case numbers went up and down in the United States and in Canada, they impacted the trade flows between the U.S. and Canada despite the fact that our government, I think, has done a lot of work to try and keep the trade flows between Canada and the U.S. going during the pandemic and to not have major interruptions. There's some evidence in the report to show that the trade flows with the U.S. were impacted by the case numbers of people suffering from COVID-19.
I also want to speak a little bit about the structural challenges in heavily impacted sectors. The transportation and warehousing sector employs a million people across Canada. Fifty per cent of employment is in accommodation and food services. For tourism, 22.1 million tourists from abroad would have come into Canada. Travellers spent over $22 billion in Canada previously, and spent approximately $1,640 per trip. That's in 2018. Just think about how many fewer people came into Canada. I think we heard from the Minister of Public Safety back then that travel was down about 98%, if I remember correctly.
Just think about the 22.1 million tourists who would normally come into Canada and all of the economic activity and revenue that would be generated for businesses that serve those travellers, which was estimated at $22 billion a year. When tourism is down that low, just imagine how much our economy is impacted by that.
In 2001 after 9/11, the airline industry declined by 26%. In 2003 after the SARS outbreak, the decline in the industry was 26%. These were unprecedented numbers for impacts on the airline industry. It was 26% after 9/11 and a 26% decrease in the industry after the SARS outbreak. In 2020 after the global pandemic, decline in the industry was 97%.
Have I made my point clear yet? This is unprecedented. I hate to use that word at this point because people use it so often. I'm sick of hearing it and I'm sick of saying it, but it literally is unprecedented. The evidence is clear. After 9/11, there was a 26% decline in the airline industry. It was 26% after the SARS outbreak, but 97% during COVID-19.
The list goes on and on. I have so much more data and information that I feel like I could speak forever. I don't know whether my other colleagues want a chance to speak, but I have a lot more to say, Madam Chair. I also don't want to dominate the airwaves and not give my other colleagues time to speak.
I want to follow through with my argument, but perhaps I'll take a little break and let one of my other colleagues say a few words. I'll get back on the speakers list to continue my argument because by no means am I finished and I have quite a bit more to say on this matter. I would be grateful for some more time to express my thoughts.
I'll turn it over to the next member on the speakers list. I'm not sure, but I think it might be my friend and colleague Darrell Samson, if I'm not mistaken.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull, and I hope you're feeling okay.
I wanted to survey the committee. Ms. Petitpas Taylor, maybe whatever you have to say will inform me as to what I have on my mind.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I did not mean to interrupt your thought.
I'm just wondering if we could perhaps survey the committee members to see what the plan for the day is. Are we prepared to suspend or are we going to be continuing?
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
My question was similar, just so the staff, the clerk and everybody in the room can prepare. They're asking me for direction as to whether the cleaning staff can come in for the next committee. They need about an hour's time, but I don't have any direction as to whether this committee would like to continue past 2:30, which is generally the time that is needed to switch over if the next committee is going to have their slot.
Are there any ideas? Has anybody spoken to any of the party whips? You can maybe give me information.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I think we're good to go until 2:30. We know that the human resources, skills and social development committee has a very important piece of legislation coming forward, so we want to honour the fact that it needs to be heard today.
I would ask that if we do suspend that we return on Thursday, but also to ensure that we do have coverage because we're continuing to try to make sure all the committees are able to sit. It would be great if we could get this one over and done with, this filibuster. Ryan was saying it's been going on for a few weeks. It's been exactly two months and a few days now. I know we all want to get it over with, so perhaps we can focus on making sure it's done on Thursday, and block out Thursday.
Let's get this done.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. I like the ambition and maybe the motivation that's being provided by Ms. Vecchio.
Seeing that it's 2:27, I'm sorry, Mr. Samson, but I feel that giving you a couple of minutes would probably be unfair, knowing how passionate you get when you speak. You would be on the speakers list. We would only be suspending and carrying the speakers list forward.
Perhaps we may have some resolution and votes on these motions or a new path forward, I don't know, but I do encourage everyone in committee, and also in your personal time to try to see if we can find a path forward.
Having said that, I will suspend until Thursday's scheduled time.
Thank you.
[The meeting was suspended at 2:28 p.m., Tuesday, April 27.]
[The meeting resumed at 1:59 p.m., Thursday, April 29.]
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I realize, just like Ms. Duncan, we are all very concerned with this, but we are going further and further each moment. Instead of talking about the fact that we didn't close our borders, they were talking about long-term care homes and what the provinces were doing. Now we're talking about international things.
This motion is about prorogation. It would be as if we're talking about the budget. It's a big thing, but I really question how far off we're going to go when it comes to relevance. I do believe questions should be relevant when we come here. I've questioned the relevance for the last 10 minutes. I find we're so out of the realm of what we're talking about, even from two months ago. At least two months ago we were talking about the motion. Now it's just whatever we can put in to fill in time.
I'm asking that we get back to the motion on prorogation. By the way, I have not heard the word "prorogation" in the last hour, so I'm wondering if we're going to start talking about the motion.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll remind the member to link all her remarks to the issue at hand, prorogation.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Got it.
Madam Chair, although I respect where Mr. Turnbull is coming from in talking about systemic racism, as well as the information regarding women, I have a point of order. I'm looking at what we're actually studying. We're studying prorogation.
I want to inform him that because of prorogation, two studies, one on systemic racism and policing that was started in spring 2020 has yet to be tabled. They're still working on that because prorogation put a two-month stoppage on it. In the status of women committee on July 7 and 8 as the chair, there was the plan to be tabling the status of women report on what has happened to women during this pandemic. It talked about child care, domestic violence. Once again, because of prorogation, we could not do the final steps of interpretation because of prorogation. Once again more studies have been delayed.
I believe because of prorogation, we've made this worse and longer because the studies we had done on these really key issues that we saw in the first three months when we studied, not in PROC, but in status of women and in public safety.
Perhaps the member could get back to relevance. If he wants to talk about these things, he should keep in mind that due to prorogation, some of these studies have yet to be tabled, and the government has actually delayed work on racism.
I want him to note that and maybe get back to relevance.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm not sure what the relevance is of all the animals—to Old MacDonald Had a Farm maybe, but not to the prorogation motion that we're talking about.
Perhaps you could remind the member to make it relevant.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order, Chair.
The minister is here to speak to the public safety estimates and not about his staff and what they might have done or what they're being asked to do. This has nothing to do with that.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I see it as a valid point of order. I usually allow members a fairly wide range.
If Mr. Motz, by some means or another, can tie his question into the estimates, it would be helpful to the chair.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm a little concerned whether you or your colleagues on this committee will put the women who suffered harassment from General Vance ahead of your own Liberal membership and ask the minister to answer the question that he was asked twice.
View Wayne Long Profile
Lib. (NB)
I think my colleague is basically grandstanding here. I think he's off topic, and I question the relevancy.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
The relevancy, Mr. Chair, is that budgets can include changes to employment insurance benefits, so for the government members of the committee to insinuate that our party is holding up the legislative process—
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2021-03-09 16:35
In terms of ruling on the point of order, it's Mr. Vis's time, and he can use his time as he sees fit.
Anyway, I think everyone has retreated to their corners. We can move on.
Mr. Vaughan, you have five minutes, please.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, out of respect for the minister's time, I wanted to wait until the minister was gone to address this issue. I am a bit concerned about a decorum issue in relation to Mr. Weiler's intervention and interruption of Mr. Patzer's line of questioning.
I have been consulting O'Brien and Bosc on committee procedures on this matter. It says that it is the sole prerogative of the chair to interrupt members if their observations or their questions are off topic.
Mr. Chair, I would encourage you to state to the committee that it is not the job of other members to use points of order, and in this case, the inappropriate use of a point of order. The purpose of a point of order is to raise an issue regarding the violation of a standing order of a committee, or not usual practice of the committee.
However, it is the practice of a committee that if somebody is asking a question that's off topic or making an observation, that is the sole prerogative of the chair. I would not want to see any member of this committee usurping the role of the chair in making that decision. You can imagine a situation where any member of this committee could raise repetitive points of order about members stating things off topic. The Speaker of the House of Commons has granted a great deal of leeway in speeches on topics to get back to the point.
I would encourage you, Mr. Chair, to not allow your position to be usurped by members. Maybe in this case, it was an honest intervention, but it is your role, Mr. Chair, not the role of members, to interrupt our fellow members when they have very limited time to ask questions.
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Lloyd, thank you for that intervention. Had you gone on longer, I suspect you would have met the definition of a monologue, so I'm glad you stopped when you did.
If it makes you feel any better, if Mr. Weiler hadn't said it, I was about to. In the context of a meeting, relevance is always important, but when a witness is appearing before the committee, pursuant to the specific wording of a motion brought by one of your colleagues, I remind you that the context becomes even more important.
Thank you, and I will agree with you this much, in that I would hate to think anybody on this committee would try to usurp the functions of the chair. We all appreciate that reminder.
Mr. McLean, is this on the same issue?
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
Yes, it is, Mr. Chair. As much as I appreciate your comments, I'd like to acknowledge that Mr. Lloyd's point is well taken, and you'll enforce that better next time, because the ability of other members to step in and usurp your role needs to be clearly defined as a non-starter.
Also, I noticed that if you're going to cut off members when they're asking questions off topic, I'd like you to also cut off witnesses when they're equally off topic.
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
We're on the record and I'll say this. My practice, if we hit the time on the button, is to not interrupt witnesses if they appear to be close to finishing an answer. I did it when you asked your last question. I try to do that with everybody regardless of who's asking the questions. Sometimes it doesn't work out as precisely as I would like. I plan to continue that practice unless the will of the committee is that I stop people no matter what, right on the button. If you were to check the blues for this meeting and other meetings, they would reflect that I'm pretty fair with everybody's time regardless of which party they are with.
But again, I thank you. I will admit that sometimes it blows up in my face when I let them go on, and I regret it, but that's my burden to bear.
Mr. May, go ahead.
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2021-02-26 14:18
Mr. Chair, I would seek some guidance, maybe from the clerk, if we're suggesting that members of Parliament do not have the right to call a point of order on relevance. First of all, that's a misinterpretation of the rules, and for the future, yes, the chair should be jumping in, but if the chair isn't jumping in, members should have the right to call relevance on an issue.
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. May, I thank you again for the comments.
I'm not a fan of frequent and repetitive points of order. Relevance is always a guiding principle at this committee and everywhere that we are carrying on our business. I don't intend to let anybody on this committee usurp my decision-making, but if people want to raise a point of order, they are within their rights to do so. It's then up to me to rule on whether it's appropriate or not.
I don't know that we need a ruling.
I see Mr. Cannings' hand is up. I'm going to let him speak, of course, but I would like to move on to questions because we do have witnesses who are sitting here patiently watching this. As much as they may be enjoying it, I'm sure they would rather have questions from us.
Mr. Cannings.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, when we have the minister before us to question about the estimates, most of the questions that are put to the minister at that time have very little to do with the estimates. Basically we can ask the minister anything and that's what we do.
I'm siding with Mr. Patzer. I think it was fair game, as much as I thought the minister did face a lot of questions about forestry. I wanted to point that practice out. It's probably not in Bosc, but I think it should be considered.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but we have very limited time, and I don't know that listing all of the bills that have to come forward to the House is actually how we want to move forward on this. We have not had sufficient time to talk about the actual meat of this motion yet, despite the fact that I tabled it some time ago, so unless the member is going to actually talk about this motion, not, in fact, all of the bills coming forward in the House.... I would prefer that we stick to this motion.
View Sven Spengemann Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ms. McPherson, I believe she was addressing consequences of the motion, so I will allow this thought to be expressed. I think it is part of the consequences of what would happen if we go down this path.
Results: 1 - 100 of 368 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data