Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Perkins just suggested that we might suspend in the middle of my remarks until we get the ruling from the chair. So following that suggestion, I may have to find someone to run for the Conservative nomination in his riding—but all in good fun.
Mr. Chair, the point I was making before.... He says, “bring it on.” Okay.
Before Mr. Oliphant intervened, though, I was speaking to the importance of committees completing work on one matter before proceeding to another matter. I was making the case that this is generally a good practice. It doesn't mean that committees can't then return to issues as there are emerging developments. I suspect that, following the completion of an initial study on Ukraine, there may be subsequent developments in future years over the life of this Parliament, depending on how long the Parliament lasts, that will lead us to want to return to that matter and perhaps do an update and make a statement in the context of that.
But the immediate issue of the completion of the study and of being able to produce a statement.... We know there's been some discussion about a statement or a report. We could get to that work right away, of course, if there is a willingness on the part of other parties to adjourn the debate or to proceed to that matter. But despite our efforts to do so, as members know, that hasn't been the case.
So we've spoken about the value of completing, as opposed to just making a decision on, the study on Ukraine. I do want to say that, with respect to the issue of Taiwan, obviously the committee began its study on Taiwan prior to the creation of the special committee on Canada-China relations. The issues that are being raised with respect to Taiwan are ones that could also be debated at the special committee on Canada-China relations. I think we can't necessarily take a decision at this committee before a decision is taken on what the appropriate actions are going to be by that other committee.
I don't think we can presume the special committee on Canada-China relations will be studying it. First of all, I know there's substantial overlap between this committee and that committee, and my understanding is that, based on the conversation that happened at Monday's meeting, the first meeting of the special committee, there was an interest in proceeding with consideration at that committee on the issue of Taiwan.
Therefore, I do think that if it's the will of that committee, it would be very reasonable for this committee to work with that committee on ensuring that it proceeds with the work that had been done here. I don't think the rules allow a subsubamendment, but I could certainly envision a revision to the original amendment that was not as, let's say, expansive as the subamendment that's before us, but that actually just sought to carve out something particular with respect to the dynamics around Taiwan—that is, that sought to say that in the case of Taiwan, we wouldn't require that the study be completed on Taiwan at this committee if it were taken up at another committee.
But I will just say, on the other hand, that with respect to Taiwan, the original language that is removed by the subamendment says, “and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, Vaccine Equity and Taiwan”. I think one possible interpretation of that would be that the completion of the committee's studies could also mean the completion of the committee's studies by another committee. We would still, of course, want to see the completion of the committee's study on Taiwan, whether that be done by this committee or by the special committee on Canada-China relations.
I don't think anybody is speaking about not wanting to see the completion of that study. It's merely now, because we have this new committee that could potentially do work on that issue, that the question is whether that completion would move to another forum. It would still be the completion of the committee's study on Taiwan. It would be the committee transferring the study and the completion of that study in another place.
With respect to Mr. Bergeron's concern, when he moved this subamendment in particular he spoke about the Taiwan study perhaps needing to be considered in a different way in light of the fact that the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations may want to take it up. I don't think the language of the original amendment would actually have excluded the possibility of that work being transferred over, by mutual agreement, and proceeding to a completion at that point. Of course, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations is welcome to take up the issue of Taiwan on its own, in any event, but I think it would wish to do so drawing from the work that has already been done by this committee, being able to take that up and continuing that going forward.
Regardless of how the Taiwan issue is handled, I think it's very clear that there is an urgency to the completion of the committee's work with respect to Ukraine and vaccine equity. The dynamics around access to vaccines are, of course, changing constantly. There are different circumstances—