We'll have to see how it all works out. The difficulty is that we have two very distinct.... We're talking about a major study here. Madame Barbot has asked for all the NGOs, the civil society groups. We've talked about CIDA, DFAIT, finance, and about all-party parliamentary groups coming to speak about their knowledge. It's not just specific to investment. That's the problem. The motion says that they are to speak about their knowledge of Canadian public and private funds or investment in Sudan and then go from there.
We've asked for straight investment types of things. I don't know if that's really what we want.
Mr. Martin has stated how this whole thing is changing from not just Darfur but throughout all of Sudan. His comment was that it's going to make Darfur look like a backyard brawl. That is more than just Canada's role in investment. You better take a look at what this motion is saying, because if it changes from the investment to a whole study on Sudan, I'll rule it out of order.
A friendly amendment is not an amendment that becomes friendly to the person who gave it. It doesn't change or increase in a substantive measure the scope of what the motion is talking about. That would not mean that you could not resubmit a motion immediately. We would deal with it at the next meeting. But it has to work within what you're speaking about here.
We're going to go to Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Obhrai.