Thank you.
As I was saying, I'm having trouble understanding. You've read out the mandate of the committee. It included many references to the budget, the budgetary process, prestudies, scrutinizing the economic updates, etc. There are a number of aspects of the mandate of the finance committee that are uniquely part of this committee. They don't apply to other committees in Parliament.
I was on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we had some responsibilities that were unique to that committee, which was unusual compared to some of the other committees. This one is like that as well; it is a central committee that has an important role to play. Members opposite seem to only take that role as necessary and as seriously as it deserves when it suits their purpose.
In my view, this is the work this committee is supposed to do, and members opposite don't seem to want to play that role. I know that they should all be operating as good-faith members of this committee, but I'm questioning that at this point, because they don't even want to do the essential work that is part of the core mandate of this committee, which is to study government legislation. To do a prestudy on the budget is the practice of this committee, as is hearing from witnesses. Again, they've wrongfully complained that we didn't hear from enough witnesses in the past, and they expressed a desire to hear from more witnesses on the budget, which is, in my view, sort of misplaced.
At this point, it seems that they're not interested at all in hearing from witnesses, so maybe what they want is to move to clause-by-clause analysis of the BIA. I'm sure at some point or another in the future they will want to hear from witnesses, so why can't we start that work and have that conversation this Wednesday? Why can't we structure a study that is reasonable, that moves us along to do the work of consideration of the budget? That is top priority for this committee, as far as I'm concerned, so it's just shocking to me that the opposition doesn't want to do that work.
Even if I were to take an opposition member and put myself in their shoes, they don't seem to even want to criticize the government on the budget, which is interesting, because, obviously, they're going to have different views and present views on the BIA on some things they don't agree with. They get the opportunity, just as all of us do, to present their perspectives, express their opinions, dig into the details and deliberate and debate all of those aspects of the BIA.
To me, that's operating in good faith. They have a job to do, as we do on this side, and we're trying to do that job. I think I would be neglecting my duties as the PS to finance if I didn't push this committee to do the work that it was mandated to do.
I will continue to do that, Madam Chair, and continue to remind committee members that the BIA should be a priority for this committee. We should be embroiled in considerations on it by now. In my view, we should have started this study already. The Conservatives don't seem to want that. You can't hide behind the curtain on this. They hid behind the curtains in the House. Although they didn't want to go to a Christmas election, they hid behind the curtains, and now they're trying to hide again from the fact that they don't want to work in good faith. They don't even want the opportunity to criticize the government about its BIA.
I find that very disconcerting, to say the least. I really hope that we can get beyond this impasse and work together effectively. Obviously, passing the BIA will come in time. Just begin the study on the BIA, hear from witnesses, get into the details of it and have some of those debates. I'm looking forward to that work. I know that it's an extensive study.
Maybe I'll leave it there, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
