That's not allowed. You can't accuse me of that, Mr. Sarai, but I'll let it go. Maybe that, too, will become a practice of the committee.
Mr. Chair, on the point, it is my belief that we initially proposed to refer this and other motions to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, to be evaluated. After it was referred to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, the subcommittee could have come back with specific recommendations.
The majority of the committee opposed that proposal to refer the matter to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. As a result, we put forward an amendment which said, at the very least, let's not be too prescriptive with respect to the committee's foregoing agenda, because there are many emerging issues internationally.
If we proceed and say we must spend five meetings on this matter, we're handcuffing ourselves to scheduling a particular number of meetings on that matter. It may be more, but it would certainly be no fewer than five. Given where we are in June, we're likely looking at that going into the fall and displacing other matters that could be on the agenda. We don't know what the fall is going to bring in global events.
There is, of course, the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. We certainly hope for an end to that violence before the fall, but I think, realistically, the committee will need to prepare itself to be seized with whatever the situation is at that time, when it comes to the fall. It will be important for us to be ready to continue to study that issue.
It's my belief that in light of the circumstances that we're seeing globally, we should be having many meetings specifically on the issue of Ukraine, perhaps scheduling extra meetings on the issue of Ukraine to hear from more witnesses. Specific recommendations should come out of that, which we can make to the government on the issue of Ukraine.
That's why we moved a motion that was debated for a long time and was then retroactively ruled out of order. It was a motion that said, let's adjourn debate on this issue—