Typically I agree with Ms. Glover, the parliamentary secretary, and again I do this time. It makes total sense.
I don't really understand how this scheme would be accomplished. In one situation, you're suggesting to take away the discretion of the minister—which, of course, is ministerial discretion and the reason that they are ministers—and have all the accompanying requirements. But then you're adding in some other things, such as the stability of the Canadian economy and the best interests....
Somebody has to make a decision on whether it is in “the best interests”. You always have A versus B. You've included “stability of the economy”, for instance. That is a subjective opinion of people based upon a set of data that are by their nature subjective.
So I think this is at cross purposes, but I would disagree with it just because it does not fit in with ministers' discretion and the discretion of the crown generally. It doesn't make sense.
What I think it does point to is that you believe you're never going to be in government and will never be able to be a minister. I'm not trying to cause antagonism here, but certainly if you reached government and became a minister, you'd want to have the discretion to do what exactly is in the best interests of the Canadian economy and base it on the stability of the economy as well.