Well, first of all, I got on the list to start with to suggest an amendment to Ms. Sahota's motion, because she was talking about a very general motion, as Mr. Genuis has pointed out, but what they left out of the list was one that I was moved to add to the list—which now includes Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Venezuela, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. I would add Palestine to that. That is a country in which there are very vulnerable children. The state has no funds to operate with, and their vulnerability is increasing. I don't think they could be left out of any list dealing with displaced vulnerable refugee children as they exist in Palestine or as Palestinian refugees elsewhere.
I would want to include that as an amendment to the motion, but what I think Mr. Bergeron has given rise to, along with Mr. Chong and Mr. Oliphant—and it has been in my own thoughts as well—is something I've discussed with some members of the committee before.
Back on March 12, just before the House closed, this committee adopted a resolution coming out of a series of proposed studies—none of which have been done, obviously, and some of which may have changed focus as a result of what Mr. Bergeron has to say and the role that Canada might play in the current pandemic crisis. In particular, assisting countries that need help may be a priority.
Priorities is not going to be resolved by coming up with four or five or six different motions today. We do have a plethora of motions that were available. Some of those can be repeated easily, Mr. Chair, as I'm sure you know, between now and Thursday and be available for our committee on Friday, if it's the will of the committee to study them. That makes perfect sense.
Mr. Chong's motion suggested having both ministers come. I would say yes to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who's been before the committee on supplementary estimates, as well as to the Minister of International Development, who should be here on the estimates but perhaps also on her mandate letter, which would give some broader consideration for questioning by members of the committee. There should be two separate meetings. These could be done fairly early, without a lot of preparation by the analysts, and time would then be available for whatever study is given priority in order to arrange for witnesses and to get that process going.
I think that's a very good approach. The fact that Ms. Sahota's motion may be the first one considered doesn't mean that it's going to be the top priority of the committee. That's ultimately at the will of the committee.
What I think it would be wise to give to the subcommittee to consider is what we had on our plate already, as passed and adopted by the committee. That no longer exists, but the work was done, the thought was given to it and there were a lot of considerations given at that meeting by all members of the subcommittee and by the full committee when it adopted, on March 12, the motion that it did.
I don't think we should throw that work away, but obviously we should also modify it in accordance with the fact that for the last seven months we've been dealing with the extremely difficult coronavirus circumstances worldwide, and clearly that has to change our views. The other studies will be equally interesting for us to give priority to and perhaps modify, along with whatever other new ideas might come up between now and Thursday.
I'm of the view that we should either dispose of Ms. Sahota's motion or refer it to the committee, as amended or not, and deal with it that way. Procedurally at least, we could refer that to the committee if someone wants to move that and get it out that way, without Ms. Sahota having to withdraw it. She may want to withdraw it and submit it to the committee; that's up to her.
Those are my views, sir.