Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is my favourite ruling you've made so far in this committee, and I think it will go entirely unchallenged. Thank you for your display of wisdom on that point. I appreciate it very much.
This brings us to why the amendment that is before the committee is important. The amendment deals specifically with the question of how much time is going to be allocated to this study. Transparently, my goal with this amendment is to be consistent with the general belief that most, if not all, of the matters of the agenda of the committee should be evaluated by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. That is the proper and appropriate place for these conversations to take place. We should generally be reluctant to pass motions at all on programming the committee's agenda without first allowing the matter to be considered by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, but at the very least, we should seek to be minimally prescriptive. Being minimally prescriptive creates that opportunity for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure to at least weigh in to some extent, and for us to be able to be a little more nimble and a little more responsive to the emerging circumstances that are in front of us.
It's my belief that the problem with prescribing the five meetings as proposed in this motion is that there are other urgent matters of ongoing study before the committee. One of those matters is, of course, the war in Ukraine. Notably, this committee began its work at the time.... Well, the Russian invasion had started. There was the occupation of Crimea and other areas, but it was, in fact, prior to the further invasion that began at the end of February that this committee began its work on Ukraine.