I was just going to say, in follow-up to Ms. Vecchio's and Mr. Blaikie's comments, I think, really, we have tried to put forward what we thought was a reasonable compromise. I realize that you don't necessarily see it that way or share that perspective. I understand that, but I really think the impetus is now on the opposition parties to say what is a counter-proposal. You obviously can put forward a subamendment. As Ms. Petitpas Taylor said, I think rightly, what do you want to see the outcome of this to be?
It sounds like there have been several opportunities here to compromise even on having written submissions with the Prime Minister, and to get answers to the burning questions that you have. That's fine, but it doesn't sound like there's an interest in that potential solution.
I'm just wondering if we are still at an impasse or if there is a genuine, concerted effort to compromise here. That's not really what I'm hearing. I'm hearing quite a bit of talking about it, but how do we get past this? If you really want to get past it, then put forward a substantive amendment in writing that we can have some confidence in.
I've put forward a substantive amendment in writing that we're now debating. I have lots of reasons left to speak to that and the rationale for why I think it's reasonable. I think some of my colleagues do, as well. In an effort to try to get past this moment of deadlock that we seem to be in, it would be great to have that in writing, if possible. Whenever the opposition members are ready to put something forward, I think it would be great. I'm very open.