Yes, I have a couple of things.
First of all, I have no intention at all to remove the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, I'm sure, would be happy to attend and speak to these matters, so please don't interpret some tweaks to the language on her appearance to be that we don't want her to appear. I think we should have her appear.
The fundamental problem is that I don't think anybody on this committee from any party would want to be asked to agree to a motion that they don't agree with subject to future amendments that might not happen. That will set into motion things that, without future agreement, will continue to proceed in the manner that is listed in this motion.
The alternative that I suggested is the opposite of that. It says to take those elements that we know we can approve today, which is that we are going to have the study, that we are going to invite some of those witnesses, and between now and Tuesday, we are going to have a meeting to finalize this language. This is basically just acknowledging that we don't have time at this meeting and gives us time at the subcommittee to accomplish it.
That is less problematic than what you're proposing, which is to make us agree to a motion when we don't necessarily agree with 100% of the language.