I think as I and the Prime Minister and others have said, in general terms, we're always open to amendments, because anything that will make the bill a better bill, anything that will improve it, we're open to it. In this particular case there were two amendments we were able to agree on together. There is this firm and absolute commitment I've made to move forward on the grounds for appeal for citizenship revocation.
There are various different models that could be followed. I'm not sure exactly which one I think.... You heard a lot of witnesses. Some of you may have views on that. We would like to work with you to figure out the best way to implement this appeal right. I've said for a long time that I was open to that, and would welcome that. The exact form remains to be discussed. There may be some amendments that we would have gone with had they been in scope, but they were not in scope. It's possible that at a future date there are other changes we might also consider, but I think in terms of firm commitments we have the two amendments that I think were proposed by the NDP. Perhaps I shouldn't say that; perhaps it was collaborative. However they came, we welcome them, and there's a firm commitment on citizen revocation, and there could be other things but no commitment at this time.