Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. I'm going to continue a bit on what my colleague, Ms. Saks, was referring to.
We've been sitting here with opposition parties for about a year now. We've engaged on some really important questions. We've put forward motions that I think are really important to study and we have done them. We had the FRT study, which the NDP proposed and we completed. We had the mobility study, which the Conservatives proposed and we completed. We had the RCMP study, which the Bloc proposed, and it's completed.
We've been waiting about three years now to get one of our studies started. I realize that the ATIP study, which was up next, was proposed by the Conservatives. I'm happy to get that done.
Calling a 106(4) when we've had ample opportunity to have discussions, to put this on the list, to actually do the job of this committee, whether it's to hold government to account or to ensure that the public is well aware of what we're doing.... I think we could have handled this situation a bit better.
On the second point of Ms. Saks, with respect to the scope of what this motion presents, in the letter, it is kind of all over. Are we looking at whether this is an immigration issue or a public safety issue, or we are looking to see what the general procurement process is? We need to have those conversations. We need to engage with each other.
I have noticed over the past months and months that I, or we, have put in an effort to make sure we're having those conversations. We want better government. We're sitting at the table and we want to engage with you folks. It is very strange to me that you, members of the opposition, got together and had your substantive discussions and put together a letter, and now we're sitting here in a 106(4) situation when we could have just included this as part of our study agenda for the year.
It's not uncommon. Obviously it is the way that the odd committee has operated. We talk about being open and transparent. We talk about holding government to account. Well, the opposition has a responsibility to do that too, folks. We're here; we're ready to engage and we would love for you guys to engage right back and have those important conversations.
I absolutely agree that we need to have these questions put on the table. We need to ask these questions. We need to have the study, absolutely. However, to Ms. Saks' point, what is the urgency right now? Why are we doing this at this given time? Why could we not have, in an open discussion, put this within the framework of what we're doing for the year?
I personally have two motions on notice and I'd like to get those on the agenda too. I'm willing to work with you guys to see how we can push forward these issues. I want to have those conversations. I want to be included in the conversations that you guys have with each other. It would be nice to work together. We talk about open and transparent government, and I would love to see an open and transparent opposition also and see how we can bring it all home.
I have some specific amendments that I want to propose, but perhaps I'll cede the floor to other speakers to get their initial thoughts in first.
Thanks, Chair.