Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
People are going to wonder at home why we keep talking about socks, but I'm wearing them today.
I appreciate the amendment by my friend Mr. MacDonald. As I understand it, the inflation study is open. It does not currently have an end date. I can't speak for the rest of my colleagues, but on its face, it's kind of a good-faith amendment that doesn't really alter the principles or the genesis of the initial study.
I would simply mention that we very much enjoy having the minister at committee because it is an opportunity outside of question period to hold the executive branch accountable. It's worth noting that the original inflation study we passed did have a requirement—or a request, I should say—for the minister to appear, and that appearance hasn't occurred yet.
This is a slightly different approach to make it a little bit less onerous than a three-hour appearance, an approach that enables parliamentarians and the House to hold the executive accountable on, basically, the biggest issue affecting Canadians, which is inflation. This isn't like a once-a-month appearance. This is every quarter while we're in this inflationary period. How are we helping Canadians with inflation?
I think that's the genesis of the initial motion. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to hear other amendments. I also respect and appreciate the officials who are with us and waiting on the line. I have more questions for them as well, so I'm happy to get back to that.
However, don't worry; I will send the questions to you, Mr. Chair. I have full confidence that you will ensure that I receive written responses. We had a bit of a hiccup, or challenges, last week in committee in having this motion attached to the prestudy motion. Now it's separated, and I think it's a good-faith effort to ensure the accountability of both the executive branch and the governor—who, by the way, we have on Wednesday. I don't know if we requested that or if he requested it on his own, but I certainly appreciate having the governor and the deputy governor, Ms. Rogers, appear anytime they wish. This, at least, puts a marker in their calendar for them to, when they release their monetary policy report, have a more fulsome discussion with parliamentarians.
I note that, generally, the Senate actually has much more frequent opportunities to question the governor than we have had in the past. I think parliamentarians deserve that same amount. This isn't about questioning the governor's intentions on not appearing. It's just, kind of, as a matter of good practice as we are outside of the inflation target, which is the one thing the bank is required to focus on; it's that while we're outside of that, every quarter we hear from the governor and get to ask some questions.
I'll leave it there and yield my time to the next speaker, but I appreciate it.