Thank you.
I don't know why this ended up in one notice of motion. It's really three separate motions. I thought it was clear, but maybe there was a misunderstanding somewhere.
Personally, I would have postponed the motion on Taiwan. However, I think Mr. Oliphant's idea is a good one. He was suggesting that we ask the analysts to come up with wording for the motions that deal with the study on Taiwan. That would be fine with me if we discussed it next week.
As I was saying earlier, if something happens over the summer, which it probably will, we would drop the current motion and just move on to a new study.
In response to my Liberal colleague, every committee plans long-term studies. Even the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development provides for three- or four-month studies on situations that may change. At some point, study projects must be proposed. In any case, we have no control over the time or the terrain in countries where there are conflicts. It is the same thing in the subcommittee I just mentioned and, perhaps, in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and in several committees. Of course, when a study is planned and the committee's schedule means that it will not take place for four months, there is a risk of changes. You can't fight against that. It's the same thing at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
I think a consensus is developing in this regard. After hearing Mr. Chong's idea, Mr. Oliphant's comments, and the chair's wise advice, I think we could ask the analysts to come up with a draft study on Taiwan that would be agreeable to everyone, so that we could discuss it at next week's meeting. We could table that motion, somehow, next week, to make sure it's on the table when we come back in September.
I don't know if that's acceptable to everyone, but I think that's pretty much the consensus around the table right now.