No, Chair, I'm sorry. I had my hand up.
First of all, Conservatives want to thank the Liberals for bringing forward this motion. We share your belief in its importance and we certainly have seen the same information from NSICOP and CSIS.
To that end, Pam, would you accept a friendly amendment, or see it as friendly, if we expanded it and added to the scope of your motion rather than leaving it narrow in the way it is now, just given the fact that both CSIS and NSICOP, for example, say that religiously motivated violent extremism continues to be a top threat? In fact, Jewish people in Canada are the top people who are threatened the most in Canada.
By this phenomenon of violent extremism, through which there is often an online component, as you had said earlier, I wonder if, to make it more inclusive, rather than limiting and prescriptive, you would be open to adding the words “politically motivated violent extremism and religiously motivated violent extremism” immediately following the words “ideologically motivated violent extremism” so that this study would encompass the diversity and the variety of threats to individual and public safety that, Conservatives agree with you, exist and are growing.
Just to account for that, the second reference right now in the motion that says people “who have been impacted by IMVE” would then just say “who have been impacted by violent extremism”.
Does that capture it?
Chair, do you want me to make a formal motion?