Yes.
I don't agree with that. I mean, look, my question was not based on the procedural issue. It's obviously in order, as the chair pointed out. Are we moving to a point, which I'm afraid we may be, where we're going to do one-offs and ad hoc motions all the way through? This is the Canada-China relations committee, which was struck to come up with a response on the whole issue of Canada-China relations. This is an aspect of it. We're not doing a study on Tibet. We aren't doing a study on Hong Kong. We hearing witnesses on Hong Kong. It's all part of the relationship between Canada and China, and they are intertwined.
I have no problem with the motion, by the way. Obviously, a dialogue would be a positive thing. I did hear two different motions from Ms. Alleslev and Mr. Genuis, but that's beside the point.
I think we should decide whether we're going to have this piecemeal approach to our work or not. That's a fundamental way of proceeding as a committee, because we can have one of these after each witness if it suits someone to bring a motion. I don't think that's a very positive way for our committee to work.