I have three points, Mr. Chair.
Building on what Mr. Oliphant just mentioned, I think the position of various Canadian governments has been exactly that: the Sino-Tibetan dialogue needs to restart. That's been consistent. I also think there's a fundamental misunderstanding among large parts of the Canadian populace about what the middle-way approach is. That's the first point of concern, just having people have a better understanding of what would be in the content of the motion.
The second point is that Dr. Sangay very rightfully raised a number of issues that bear a lot of scrutiny and a lot of understanding and consideration by this committee about what a potential motion might look like: things such as reciprocal access and other nations that have passed legislation that relates to this principle of reciprocity.
A third issue that was raised was the commonality between various human rights causes—such as Hong Kong, the Uighurs, Taiwanese—and the Tibetan cause. In my view, having as broad and as sweeping an analysis before putting forward a motion might be the best way forward. I think it's clear, from Dr. Sangay's testimony, that what we are upon is an opportune time to shine a light on human rights abuses, but doing that with a more multilateral approach, bringing in multiple issues, multiple stakeholders and multiple nations.