First allow me to say that I think that's regrettable. While I believe in the efforts you made in order to arrange this meeting, I still contend that part of that decision could have been returned to at least the subcommittee.
Marleau and Montpetit talks about the role of the chair. One of the main aspects is as follows:
Chairs of standing and special committees also often assume a leadership role in planning and co-ordinating the committee's work and in conducting its investigations.
I think given the context, and given the to and fro we had with the parliamentary secretary at subcommittee—and we then had a to and fro at the committee—and how important this was as a topic to committee members, and I know you realize this, I think a mistake was made. When a mistake is made, I think apologies are in order.
I actually don't see this as a confidence motion. I respect that you do see it that way. I wish you wouldn't, because while I believe in correcting that mistake and perhaps learning from it, and changing some of the processes that we use around really contentious issues--I'm not talking about everyday things, but this was important--it's a good thing for us as a committee to learn and for you as a chair to adapt. But to raise the stakes up to an issue of confidence--and in our day-to-day interactions, you know I have confidence in your chairmanship—I think overinflates the severity of what's going on.