Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My perspective is maybe slightly different from that of my colleagues who have appeared.
First, by my research, the last appearance of the minister before this committee was May 2024. That's over seven months ago.
Second, this committee, on September 26, passed an omnibus motion setting out our agreed-upon, consensus schedule for the fall. We all remember the torturous negotiations and the difficulty we had in reaching that. In fairness, the Conservatives were filibustering at this committee and wasting some time, and it took a lot of effort from all parties to come up with a schedule that satisfied everybody. Everybody had to concede something. My colleagues will remember that this included agreeing on eight pre-budget meetings and proceeding with some of the CRA issues my colleagues from the Bloc and the Conservatives wanted. We talked about writing the two reports, one on green financing and a report on the financialization of housing. We remember all of that.
Included in that motion from September 26 was the following:
That the committee hold Pre-Budget Consultations for the 2025 Budget, and that:....
b. The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and departmental officials be invited to appear before the committee.
c. That these meetings be prioritized with the goal of tabling a Pre-Budget Consultations report by Friday, December 13th, 2024.
I can only assume, Mr. Chair, that you extended that invitation to the finance minister. This means there has been an open invitation for the minister to appear before this committee for over two months. As my colleague pointed out, the minister found time to appear before the Senate banking committee, and properly so. She also appeared before the industry committee yesterday, but has not found time to appear before what I consider to be her primary committee—the finance committee. That's why I support the 106(4) request to call her before this committee.
My Liberal colleagues have said that one of the reasons she's been late to issue the fall economic statement is that there is a filibuster in the House. That is partially true, but there's nothing stopping the Minister of Finance from issuing the fall economic statement at Château Laurier, if she wants to, or anywhere else she likes. It doesn't have to be in the House.
Now, if we really want to talk turkey here, the Minister of Finance might drop the fall economic statement on the second-last day before we break for the holidays. If rumours can be believed, we might expect the public accounts to be dropped on Tuesday next week, which is the last day. I don't know this for sure, but that's the speculation I'm hearing. Were we not to hear from the Minister of Finance before then, we're talking about reconvening in February—months later—to hold the minister accountable for two of the three most important documents she's responsible for tabling in Parliament besides the budget.
I was initially sympathetic to my Liberal colleagues' position that the Standing Order 106(4) request was filed relatively late. It left only three meetings for the minister to appear at. Generally, we know how busy ministers are. However, when I went back and researched this, I thought, “Well, she's had an open invitation for two and a half months. There's been ample time for her to find time in her busy schedule.” To me, it's a fundamental issue of accountability to Parliament.
I have a feeling there is good news in the fall economic statement and bad news. I think there might be more bad news than good news in the public accounts, if they come out. I would point out as well that the public accounts, by my research—there are people in this room who have far more experience in finance than I do—are typically filed in September or October. They're not filed on the last day. By the way, if they're not filed on Tuesday next week, they won't be filed until I don't know when—the end of the year or maybe next year.
Let's remember that the public accounts provide the final state of affairs, fiscally, of the government as of the last fiscal year, which ended March 31, 2024. I think it's a matter of primary responsibility to Parliament and to this committee that the Minister of Finance appear before this committee and that she be prepared to answer questions.
The fact that she appeared before the industry committee as well is no comfort to me because that's a different committee, which doesn't have the experience or expertise that this committee has. I was thinking to myself, “If the Minister of Industry appeared tomorrow and I had to ask questions of him, I would not be in nearly as good a position to ask questions of him as my colleagues on the industry committee would be.” This committee has been seized with financial matters for a long time—since the beginning of this Parliament—and we are best placed to put what are going to be necessary questions to the minister.
I will say that I'm attracted to Ms. Bendayan's amendment to this extent. What I find a bit heavy-handed about the Conservatives' motion is the idea of reporting to the House and then having us order the Minister of Finance back here. That is very unusual for me to see. I'm more comfortable inviting the minister. If I read Ms. Bendayan's motion, she's invited to appear “for two hours at the next available opportunity”. By the way, the two hours is also a bit of a concession. I can't remember a minister who has ever been in a committee for more than one hour. I may be mistaken, but the norm is one hour. Then it says, “with the intent that this appearance take place before the House rises for the winter recess.” It's a clear invitation to the minister from this committee that we want her to appear before Tuesday, without the heavy-handed threat of reporting back to the House and then for us to be able to order her here.
The reason I don't think the heavy-handed approach is necessarily appropriate is that, quite honestly, the Minister of Finance will have a lot of questions to answer if she doesn't appear next Tuesday. If she's dropping a fall economic statement on the nation and the public accounts come on Tuesday, and then she decides that she's not coming to the finance committee on Tuesday to answer questions and be accountable to Parliament just before it breaks until the last couple of days of January, but effectively until February, then I think that's going to be a very difficult case for her to maintain. If we do accept the Conservative motion and report it to the House, I don't think we're going to be able to call her back to this committee until February anyway, unless we reconvene, I guess, at a different time.
Those are my thoughts. I've not yet made up my mind on the amendment or the motion, but I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say.
I'll conclude with this. One would hope that any minister of finance from any party in the House, when faced with a request by the finance committee to appear that's been outstanding for two and a half months, when important documents are being filed and given the state of the Canadian economy.... Mr. Hallan could have gone on longer about this, but I agree with him that there are serious issues across this country for many Canadians, for our businesses, for our economy and for our provinces and territories, so I would very much hope that any finance minister would take his or her responsibilities seriously, would come before this committee to face the music and would be prepared to answer the tough questions that are obviously going to come and that need to be asked.
Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair.