Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief.
Ms. Dancho has shown that she has had questions answered, because she's establishing a narrative around this particular amendment. She does say, and I take her at her word, that this isn't a filibuster. The repetitive nature of some of those questions or the questions that go beyond the bill are something that she says is helpful to her in doing the analysis of the amendment. I would ask her through you, Mr. Chair, if then, as I believe they should, the Conservatives consent to additional meetings. If that is indeed the case, if they have an understanding now of the amendment and if what they are trying to do is get answers, that is certainly their prerogative. What I find disturbing is at the same time as they're using up this committee time, which is their prerogative, they are refusing to have additional meetings. That's the problem, Mr. Chair.
If we're talking about a potential filibuster, or if that's the intent of the Conservatives, again, at this rhythm it will take us until October—not of this year but next year—2024 to complete clause-by-clause analysis of this bill. Ghost guns are right now at an epidemic level in certain parts of the country. The provisions in this bill that deal with ghost guns and crack down on criminals are needed. I hope that the Conservatives consent to those additional meetings because they're obviously needed. I don't object to their asking questions. I do object when they're clearly questions that have either already been answered, or that have nothing to do with the bill. I do object to that. I find that's not a useful use of our committee time.
If the Conservatives are not filibustering then I think they can show good faith by agreeing to a substantial number of other committee meetings so that we're not in this same position in October 2024 when law enforcement has said the provisions around ghost guns are needed now.