Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to address the motion moved by Ms. O'Connell and the amendment put forward by my colleague.
I'll say a few words of clarification at the outset. Both Liberal members who spoke have referenced the fact that I was recording a social media post prior to this meeting. I don't think there's anything wrong with my communicating on a regular basis with my constituents about things that are happening in committee. Out of interest, it had nothing to do with fundraising. It was a video recorded on a parliamentary device, updating my constituents on parliamentary activities and making it very clear, in the context of that post, that Conservatives will be continuously advocating for families of victims, as well as their representatives, to be heard on this issue. There's nothing unusual about our view. That's a legitimate position, the right position, and something that constituents should be aware of.
I make no apologies for informing people about my activities in Parliament. It's curious that it became a real talking point latched on to by Liberal members. Respectfully, I would encourage them to be communicating with their constituents, too, about the things they are doing in Parliament—and in this case, frankly, their failure to work to include the voices of victims in this conversation.
In particular, chair, we are seized with this comparison between the motion that Ms. O'Connell has put forward and the amendment that my colleague has put forward. I think a couple of observations about this are important.
One, Mr. Bittle suggested that our motion provides less time to hear from people about this issue. On the face of it, that's obviously false, because the original motion says that the committee hold “a” meeting, one meeting.
Sorry, if you want to provide a clarification formally—