Mr. Chair, if I may say respectfully, what's before this committee is not about getting a warm feeling, as Glen has suggested. It's about giving a voice before a parliamentary committee to two communities who in recent years have felt increasingly unsafe because of the drastic rise in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. We've seen 2020 become a record year for hate crimes in this country.
To me, reducing it to getting a warm feeling when this is an action we can take.... As parliamentarians, we offer this space to these groups to make their demands known and public and to hear what actions they'd like to see the Government of Canada and Parliament take.
It's not about getting a warm feeling. It's very important that we proceed with this motion.
I fail to see, really, what the issue is here. Pam has just suggested that we reduce it to one meeting, as was initially agreed, and that we move the meeting planned for the 23rd to the 14th or the 16th, next week, so that we hear from these groups on these pressing matters.
I would move to amend Pam's motion so that the session planned for the 23rd be moved to the week of the 14th and that we have the border study, CIJA and
the National Council of Canadian Muslims appear before the committee the week of the 14th.
I'm sorry. I just switched back to French. My mind gets a little confused between French and English at times.
We would have one meeting. There would be 90 minutes for CIJA and the National Council of Canadian Muslims and then 30 minutes to draft a motion for this committee to report back to the House on what we've heard from these two groups.
I think that's very important. It changes none of what we have planned. The only thing it changes is the order. I fail to see why we can't agree on this.
I would move to amend the motion. I hope the analysts can work something out from what I just said.
Thank you.