But I do, at this point, want to take a moment to express some frustration. I had hoped that we would get to a point where we could find a way forward as a committee. As much as I've been enjoying some of Mr. Perkins' remarks, I would like to hear from Canadians about the content of the budget bill.
For instance, I know that many people have been frustrated at airports. There's a proposal in this bill to fix up the air passenger bill of rights. Frankly, it's one that I don't think is adequate. I've been doing some good work with my colleague Taylor Bachrach, the NDP transport critic, who has a lot to say, and rightly, about the government's proposal on the air passenger bill of rights. I'm looking forward to Taylor suggesting some amendments to the bill. I would prefer that we get to hear from folks who are experiencing these challenges in airports. I'd prefer to hear from folks in the industry about how we can improve that. We're not able to do that if we don't find a way to resolve the filibuster.
I share Conservatives' frustration in the minister not agreeing to come for two hours. I think that would be helpful. I understand why my colleagues across the way are frustrated with the way this has gone down and the Conservative choice to filibuster. But I would really like for us to find a way past this.
We've all talked about the excise tax around this table. While we didn't get a freeze on the excise tax, the budget implementation act does lower the excise tax increase to be consistent with the inflation target rather than actual inflation, which in the current context is a good thing. I think it definitely will be a benefit to local breweries and vineyards that have been concerned about the outsized excise tax increase that they will otherwise face if this committee can't find its way to doing the work that has properly been assigned to it.
I think about some of the information-sharing provisions that are important to the implementation of the dental care plan. Conservatives colleagues have rightly pointed out that the attestation method of delivering a program does have a lot of pitfalls. I think it's important that we move past that. Some of the legislative proposals in this bill are meant to move the dental care plan out of an attestation and payment model into a permanent program model where Canadians are able to go to the dentist, get basic dental services, and have those directly paid instead of sending a cheque and having to pay it themselves.
I think we're working toward a better model. It's a model that I want to see and that I'd like to see applied universally to Canadians. I don't expect everyone around the table to agree with that, but I do think that if this is a democratic forum, we should be able to get to the point where we get to make decisions about that as people who are duly elected to represent our constituents, and to make those decisions around the table. We haven't been able to do that, because we haven't been able to get to a vote on anything.
I think of some of the anti-money laundering provisions in the bill. I think of the increase in the tool deduction for tradespeople, which, as an electrician, is something I can definitely appreciate that people would value. We need to get on to the study of the bill and have the bill pass in order for Canadians to get the benefit of these things. I also think of some of the provisions in here that will remove tax from veterans benefits. Again, while I can appreciate that my Conservatives colleagues might not be crazy about the whole package, that's something that I think is a good thing and we should be moving forward with.
The question isn't about how we get to the point where everybody around this table agrees with everything in the bill. I don't think we're going to get there. We don't have to get there. As Conservatives like to remind us when we talk about the electoral system and our Parliament, we live in a majority decision-making context. That's what the House of Commons is. You need a simple majority to decide virtually every question, but we have to be able to put the question in order to make those decisions.
At a certain point, having a minority of people on the committee hold up the possibility of making a decision at all, simply because they don't like the decision that's going to be made or because they want this thing or that thing, becomes a problem for the whole artifice of Parliament.
You know, I respect the right of members to filibuster. I certainly respect it more when there's an obvious point to the filibuster—when the body that's being filibustered has the power to grant what is wanted. This committee doesn't have the power to compel the minister to appear for two hours. It simply doesn't have that power. It never has had that power. Unless we substantially change some of the basic principles of the Westminster parliamentary system, we will not have that power. I think we shouldn't be in a position of having to contemplate that, because I think the minister should just come for two hours, for Pete's sake—like, we're there—but we can't do that around this table.
What we can do is invite Canadians from civil society to talk about their concerns about the bill. They can talk about their concerns in both the negative sense, in terms of wanting to see change, and the positive sense, in terms of the way in which the bill addresses some of those concerns. We can't do that if we're going to sit here day in and day out.
Originally, the motion we're amending and then subamending talked about a goal of 20 hours of study. Well, we've spent the 20 hours. We could have spent the 20 hours with real people, talking about their real concerns with regard to what's in the bill or not in the bill. Instead, we've spent the 20 hours listening to a handful of the same people talk about a small subset of issues.
I say this with all due respect to my colleagues. I'm frustrated. I'm not angry. I support the right of parliamentarians to engage in this kind of activity, but I would ask that there be a more obvious point to it and that when they want something and they filibuster on it, they do it for something that the committee can actually deliver rather than something that we can't compel. Then we could deal with it around this table. We could get it done. We could move on. But as long as the filibuster is going to be about something that is outside the power of this committee to compel, we're stuck. We're stuck. I find that frustrating. I would much rather have spent this time listening to others about the bill proper.
I think we're at the point where we are running out of time. Some of these things that I mentioned earlier need to be in place. Dental care is a priority for the NDP and it's a priority for me. I want to get done what we need to do in order to be able to institute that program on a better basis than the attestation basis. I am concerned about doing that. I will do what's within my power to get that job done, among some of the other things that are in this bill that I think are important, but we should do it with time to have a process.
Everyone around this table knows that the most valuable commodity on Parliament Hill is time. Money is important. Many things are important. But the real currency on Parliament Hill is time, and we're pissing it away right now. If we want to value the study of this bill, we do that with time. If we want to get this bill passed by the summer in order for some of these things that need to be in place to move ahead, such as a reduction in the amount that the excise tax will go up by, then we have only so much time between now and when the House rises.
We are making a choice right now—I would say our Conservative colleagues are making a choice for us—on how that time gets spent. I don't think they're making a good choice. I am happy to be part of conversations, and I have been part of conversations, to try to break the impasse. I will continue to show up in good faith to conversations to try to break the impasse, but at the end of the day, there's not a lot that I can do unless others are willing to play ball.
I certainly hope we can find a way to break the impasse, because I want to hear from Canadians on the bill, the good parts and the bad parts, and I want to ensure that the shenanigans at this table don't prevent some of the concrete benefits of certain things in this bill from proceeding. I think we're up against the clock in that respect. I really beseech my colleagues to find a way to move forward instead of leaving us stuck in this position for another 20 hours or whatever it's been. It's been about 20 hours, give or take, right? Let's not do another 20. That's the time we have to talk to Canadians about the bill.
Let's use it, please.