It's probably both. It was not able to be a formal amendment, because I didn't have the text of Mr. Bergeron's motion. I have it now. It's hard to make an amendment to something when you don't have the text in front of you.
Right now the motion that has been presented calls for the committee to undertake to hold a maximum of three meetings to study the present situation of the blockade of the Lachin corridor. I would amend those words to say that the committee would undertake to hold one additional meeting to the already agreed-to two meetings with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh, with the third meeting focusing particularly on the Lachin road.
I will try to do that again, but I'm not writing this down. It's that the committee undertake to hold a meeting in addition to the two meetings already agreed to on Nagorno-Karabakh. It's that we hold an additional meeting, so it's for a total of three meetings, on the Lachin road. I'm sorry, but the clerk may have to help me with this.
What I'm trying to do is simply say that instead of three more meetings, which would make five meetings on Nagorno-Karabakh—which I think is too many, given Iran and the other topics we are concerned with talking about at these meetings—I think a total of three meetings, including one dedicated to the Lachin road, would be appropriate for this study.
I'm not getting into the timing of that. I'll leave that to the chair and the subcommittee. That has been raised as well.
The intent of my amendment is that instead of five meetings on the topic we would have three meetings on the topic, including one dedicated to the Lachin road issue. One meeting has already been held, just for information. We've had one meeting. We are already scheduled to have one meeting when we first come back. This adds a third meeting, which I think would be useful and important, but I don't want five meetings.