Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate everybody's comments so far.
I agree with Ms. Dzerowicz. The minister has been here three or four times, however that hasn't been on invitation of the committee. That has been because the minister has to appear to advance legislation through the committee.
In fact, the minister has been invited on three separate occasions: twice for 90 minutes, once for 120 minutes, and I believe one other time for the inflation study, which has an open invitation for three hours, i.e., for 180 minutes. The minister has been invited to come to the committee for 480 minutes and the committee is supposed to accept 60 minutes next week to satisfy the number of outstanding requests. The only reason the minister is appearing is to advance the budget legislation.
I actually think that maybe we've been a little unfair to the Minister of Finance. After having listened to my colleague's interventions, I think maybe the minister actually does want to come. I think the minister wants to come for two hours but it looks like more and more now that the Prime Minister's Office doesn't want the deputy finance minister to appear before this committee often.
I actually think the minister wants to appear, so maybe instead of “finding Freeland”, it should be “free Freeland” because clearly the minister and Deputy Prime Minister....
I have an incredible amount of respect for the Deputy Prime Minister. She is in a very tough position: inflation is raging three times over the target. She's obviously very accomplished. She's very smart. Maybe the Prime Minister's Office is worried about leadership politics starting to enter the fray.
The Prime Minister is being attacked from multiple angles. We have other cabinet ministers starting their leadership campaigns. Maybe the Prime Minister's Office is trying to prevent the de facto leader of the upcoming leadership race from getting more exposure. Or maybe, someone on another leadership campaign has convinced the Prime Minister's Office to not allow the finance minister to appear before committee.
I have full belief in my colleague from Windsor, Brian Masse. I believe he said it best, that ministers, when they know their file, can bat around any questions from any parliamentarian here quite easily. The minister has done that on a number of occasions. She's quite capable of it.
Now having listened to the debate, I think I owe the finance minister an apology. I think she wants to come here but she's not able to come. Maybe it's her who is being prevented from appearing before a committee for a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the budget bill.
I would submit to the committee that there are also multiple ways to resolve this impasse. I agree that we should start to talk to stakeholders. We could have done that if we struck the clause-by-clause part of the motion in the original motion by Mr. Beech. I also accept or support the subamendment by Mr. Blaikie. It's something I've advocated for here, but there is that saying, “Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times”.
Again, perhaps our frustrations on the committee as members of the opposition have been misguided. I think, perhaps, we should be encouraging the Prime Minister's Office to free Minister Freeland and allow her to come to committee, share her talents with us and defend her government's record. She's very capable of doing that.
I don't know why the Prime Minister's Office is not allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to appear at a finance committee meeting for more than an hour. I think they're very concerned about the leadership politics that are starting to enter the discourse.
I have full faith that the minister wants to come. I hope she will be allowed to do so. I think we could give some comfort to the committee if she could confirm the time when she is available. I suspect that this will also have to be vetted by the Prime Minister’s Office.
You know, we hearken back to the days of the controlling Harper PMO. Well, let me tell you, there has not been a Prime Minister's Office more controlling than the one we currently have. They actually vet every single chief of staff hiring. That didn't happen in the last government. For all the talk about Prime Minister Harper's PMO being so controlling, there isn't anything that gets done in this town without the okay from the Prime Minister's Office.
I'm actually more imploring those individuals and the staff members of the government to plead with the Prime Minister’s Office that the Minister of Finance be allowed to shine at this committee and answer questions from parliamentarians and from Canadians. I believe there are multiple ways to broach this impasse. I look forward to other thoughts from my committee members.
I will end on a point about the subamendment. I do agree that it does create a challenging precedent, but that precedent was created by the languages committee, which was supported by Liberal members at the time. I appreciate the chair's ruling that this subamendment is admissible. It is not substantially similar to the one previous. The other previous motion included asking multiple ministers to appear. It is unclear to me, as a member of this committee, what the will of the committee was when we voted that down. Was it that we didn't want both ministers to appear together? Was it that we didn't want the finance minister to appear? Was it that we didn't want the Minister of Public Safety to appear? It's unclear to me what the will of the committee was when we voted that down.
In my view, the amendment is admissible. I think the chair agrees with that, on the advice of the clerk. I'm happy to support this subamendment. I look forward to seeing the Minister of Finance here next week for two hours when we break this impasse, but we could move to committee study with stakeholders on Thursday through a few different paths. One, we agree to the subamendment. If that's not going to happen, two, we get confirmation from the finance minister that she will be here for two hours, after she is approved to do so from the PMO. Or three, we actually strike the requirement to move to clause-by-clause starting on May 18.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll pass the floor to the next speaker.