Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for rereading the motion. I was getting somewhat confused because Mr. Bittle kept referring to Mr. Viersen. I don't think that name even appears in the motion that is before us today, which is to extend for 30 days.
I expressed before my frustration with our not proceeding with this study. We had some time. We should have called witnesses. I understand that the list of witnesses was provided to the chair some time ago. I had hoped that witnesses on this study would have appeared earlier this week, and I had hoped again that they would appear today. The Liberals are clearly playing games. For some reason or another, they don't want to hear what these witnesses have to say. They only want to hear what Mr. Viersen has to say, and I find that very frustrating.
I ask myself why we even need a 30-day extension to a 60-day rule. I think it would be useful to read what Bosc and Gagnon say about the 60 days so that we have it clearer and in front of us:
With regard to private Members' bills, the Standing Orders provide that the committees to which they are referred have 60 sitting days from the date of the order of reference to: conclude their consideration of the bill and report the bill to the House, with or without amendments; present a report recommending not to proceed further with the bill; or present a report requesting a 30-sitting-day extension....
I believe that's the rule we're up against. I did the math. The bill was referred to us from the House after a second reading vote on May 8. That's almost six months ago. Surely we could have had the time to have the study done since then.
I looked through the schedule of events as to what this committee has been doing all this time to see why it could not have come to us before and why it is now a crisis such that we need to get a 30-day extension. At the time, on May 8, there were two important studies in front of this committee. One was on anti-Semitism, and one was on Islamophobia. We agreed that these were two important studies, and the Conservative members of this committee were very interested in studying these two reports. This is what happened. On May 9, the committee studied anti-Semitism. We had witnesses come before us. On May 23, anti-Semitism was studied again, and we had witnesses come before us. There was a repeat of that on Monday, May 27; we had anti-Semitism witnesses.
I recall those meetings very well. They were interesting. It was good to hear different perspectives. I was very encouraged by the bravery with which these witnesses appeared and explained to us what was going on, particularly on campuses. I thought those three meetings were very educational; they certainly were for me.
On June 3, we switched over to the Islamophobia study. Again, we had witnesses appear before us on that day.