I've lost track of whether or not a subamendment is possible, because I don't know where we are. We have an amendment, and this is just the first amendment. We have a motion and an amendment, so we could subamend.
My concern about the motion is the second part, because I think we could end in an endless loop, but I also have a concern about the first part, in that when we decided to do—and started—a study on Taiwan, there was not a special committee that the House had set up on Canada-China relations. It seems to me that we need some discussion about whether or not we can get that work over to the Canada-China committee. We can't dictate to another committee what work they do, but we can transfer to them our testimony that we've already done at one meeting with the suggestion that they do that work so that we could do work like food scarcity. Based on Mr. Bergeron's comment, I think there's some important work.
I just don't like the way this is tying things. It feels like our hands are being tied and we can't be nimble and do stuff. We know that we have work to do on two things. We have to finish the COVAX study, the vaccine equity study. We have to finish the Ukraine statement. We know that when those are done, we have 60 days—maybe an extension—to get two pieces of legislation done. That's what we know we have to do. I would like to focus on getting that done and leaving a little flexibility for something like food and energy coming out of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I'm just worried that we're tying this down needlessly, because we have a motion to do a future study and that's all we've got.
I guess I'm now thinking against the amendment because it just ties our hands, and I'd sooner like us just to get rid of the motion, pass it and send it off. It will go into our hamper of work that we want to get done and, as we said, our work plans will come back to us.
Also, we may have other things. I mean, we have a notice of motion from Ms. McPherson. I think it's very good, on....it just left my mind—