Chair, I'm sorry. I misspoke. It's the motion from his side, the government side. Mr. Bittle defended it by saying that it in fact allows for more discussion of the issue than the amended version. Mr. Bittle's argument is incorrect, because the motion put forward by his colleague, Ms. O'Connell, references “a” meeting, one meeting, and I will note that the amendment the Conservatives have put forward calls for a minimum of three meetings.
If Mr. Bittle is authentically concerned about the fact that our motion doesn't provide enough time for consideration of this issue, we could, of course, consider a subamendment that would have a minimum of four meetings or five meetings. I don't think that would be objectionable to members on this side. It does say “a minimum of three meetings”, which I think would provide an opportunity for the committee to go further down this road if the committee wishes to.
It is a bald-faced fabrication to suggest that the amendment provides less time for consideration of this issue, and I think it is a fairly obvious and easily verifiable fabrication. It's evident in the first line, in the first phrase of both: “that the committee hold a meeting” is replaced with “that the committee hold a minimum of three meetings”—