Thank you Mr. Chair.
I'll start my intervention with a question for the clerk. Maybe by the time I'm done, he'll have the answer. I'm wondering if the clerk could confirm how many invitations the minister has accepted to come to committee that are not on legislation.
While I'm talking, perhaps the clerk would provide to committee members, for the benefit of new members, that the minister has not accepted one invitation from the committee to come to committee unless she's here to motivate legislation. There is a track record of the minister ignoring invitations to come to committee based on past motions with a request to invite.
I have great sympathy for my government colleagues who have to defend a minister who has chosen multiple times to not come to committee. In fact, the only reason the minister was at the industry committee yesterday was that it was a House order. Had the industry committee just sent the minister an invitation, which they had done in the past, she would not have come.
The only reason this minister comes to committee is for two objectives—to pass legislation and to avoid a contempt of Parliament. Every other time the minister has been invited by any committee in this Parliament she has not attended.
I respect Mr. Davies's immediate positions about his concern with what he calls the “heavy-handed” language in the Conservative motion, but the facts bear out that if that part of the motion is withdrawn, we will not get the Minister of Finance. History is not on the side of the government on this. I actually think the toughest job in Parliament is being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, because you have to constantly play defence on avoiding accountability.
The truth is that tabling the public accounts on the last day, which is the speculative rumour, is being done solely for the purpose of avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. It's being done in connection with the fall economic statement. Mr. Davies is right; they could table the public accounts any time they wish. They could also release the fall economic statement at any time or venue they choose.
There have been two ways and means motions dropped in Parliament. One was with respect to CRA rules and charities. The other was an updated version to the capital gains legislation that we have yet to receive. There are legitimate questions that I think all members believe the minister ought to be available to answer. The bottom line is that this committee has had significant challenges in the past with getting the attention of the minister and having the minister accept invitations.
I had a wonderful exchange with the minister yesterday. She is very capable of handling questions, even very tough questions. I don't expect we'll get lots of answers, but in my view, the reason that reporting to the House is in this motion is integral to ensuring that the minister shows up before Tuesday.
I would go further. I believe Ms. Bendayan, the parliamentary secretary, has made a good suggestion that the minister appear after the fall economic statement. This could have been easily solved if the minister had shown up in the last two months from the open invitation, but this is the position the minister has put herself in by waiting until the last minute.
She could have come here three weeks ago. She could have taken the opportunity to sit on the hot seat, not provide any answers and just say, “You'll have to wait for the fall economic statement.” It's the decision to not appear that is now causing us to force her to appear on basically the last day we are here. Frankly, I think it's the most reasonable path forward now.
I agree with my Liberal colleagues who would like to have the fall economic statement tabled before we hear from the minister. I support that 100%. After we dispense of the amendment one way or the other, I'll move an amendment on that, but to keep it simple, we'll deal with one at a time. I'll ask that the minister appear at the committee following the fall economic statement, but that she appear before we leave for the holidays—for Chrismukkah or whatever religious holiday people observe.
Bottom line, every invitation that has been extended to the minister in the past has been ignored. The only reason the minister showed up at the industry committee was that there was a House order. Therefore, the only way we're going to get the minister before we leave for the holidays is to have that order written into this motion.
I suspect that others may have differing views on this, but make no mistake that potentially taking the House order out of this motion will mean that we will not get the minister. A vote to do that is a vote to not get the minister. That is my basic reading of it, having been so lucky to be on the committee for three years.
This is what we've evolved to. This is the only way we're going to get the minister on the timetable that I think people would like.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.