Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I always find the interventions from my NDP colleague to be fairly persuasive on a number of matters.
He and I share a similar frustration: I would much rather be listening to witness testimony.
I apologize to Mr. Baker. I believed that he was trying to move the amendment, but I now realize that it was just a notice, which I think is in order, and my apologies for the point of order.
Mr. Chair, I'll provide notice of a subamendment to Mr. Baker's proposed amendment, which is “May 26” being moved to “June 8”. When we get there, that subamendment will be made to Mr. Baker's amendment.
I will also give notice of another amendment that I would seek to move once we get out of this rabbit hole of subamendments and amendments, which is to have the chair draft a letter to the Prime Minister's Office that asks that the Deputy Prime Minister be freed up to appear for two hours.
Mr. Chair, we've entered something of a twilight zone. We are now at a point where the government would love to see the filibuster continue.
Let me explain. The answer that the minister has not confirmed for how long she might be available is a little too cute by half on behalf of the government. If the minister were available for two hours, I think she would say that she's available for two hours, but to suggest that the minister is unaware that she's being requested for two hours because she hasn't been formally invited I think is quite disingenuous.
As I mentioned in my intervention last meeting, which I think sent shockwaves through the buildings of downtown Ottawa—in particular the former Langevin Block and the Prime Minister's Office—there are multiple ways in which this impasse can be resolved, and one of the simplest and easiest ways is a confirmation from the finance minister that indeed she is available for the two hours.
I don't think there needs to be a motion from the committee to change the invite, but perhaps I'd just simply ask the chair, have we asked for how long the minister is available or have we just sent the invite? I think we could pretty quickly solve it instead of trying to hide behind, “oh, we haven't actually formally requested the two hours”. I think everybody knows the game. Now I think the Liberals would be happy to see us filibuster through next Tuesday because they don't even need to be held accountable for their own budget.
Also, May 26 is quite an aggressive timeline under which you'd like to conclude clause-by-clause. Last year, we were short of witness testimony. This year, we'll likely be short of witness testimony. Again, we talk about majority will. The minister has been invited to this committee for 480 minutes over the last year and is intending to appear for 60 minutes next week.
In a weird way, I think the government is actually quite happy to let this continue, because they'll try to get a news article saying that we're preventing the minister from coming and that she's ready to come. Yet, they could easily solve this whole thing by saying, yes, it's going be 60 minutes, it's great, we'll see you next Tuesday and Bob's your uncle. We all go home and we make it.
I'm wearing my flying pigs socks. I know that the parliamentary secretary is wearing his flying pig socks.