Thank you, Chair.
Yes, I agree that we have a work plan that was adopted. I know there are several new members on our committee, and they might make a little effort to go and have a look at it. There may be some proposed changes in that work plan, but that's something that perhaps the subcommittee can look at.
Today, we're dealing with some complexities, of course. The idea of an interim report on Hong Kong was probably agreed to. We moved into that study because of the urgent nature of things that were happening in Hong Kong. That is why we wanted to get the committee back together again, and why it was ultimately agreed to. The events in Hong Kong were extremely important, and still are. It's a moving target, as Mr. Genuis has pointed out. We did diligent work on the Hong Kong study. We didn't quite finish it.
I don't know whether one meeting will be enough. I would suggest that should be discussed at the subcommittee along with the scheduling issue. We just agreed to deal with Tibet as soon as is it is practical. That's a scheduling issue. The idea of the general agreement of going by the work plan is a good starting point. I had a brief look at it today, and it seems to me that we had a lot of work done by the committee, the subcommittee and the analysts in preparing a work plan. We may need to make adjustments to it, add different witnesses or whatever. Depending on availability, it may be totally different,
I am in agreement with Mr. Bergeron's motion. The notion that we complete the work on Hong Kong as soon as it is practical going forward can be incorporated. I don't know if it's excluded by Mr. Bergeron's motion, because the work plan was there when we embarked on the Hong Kong study. Perhaps the details can be more readily dealt with by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. That's inherent in the positive support for Mr. Bergeron's motion.