If I understand correctly, Mr. Lemire, if we imagine that there was agreement and we could go back in time and vote yes on BQ-32, would that be satisfactory? If the answer to that is yes, then can we not simply propose, using the exact language of BQ-32, that, through unanimous consent, we adopt that language? We can't call it BQ-32 without going back, so we'll just take that exact language and propose it.
I'm happy to do that through a motion, but I think it's probably respectful to allow Mr. Lemire to do that, as it was his. Then, if the committee adopted that by UC, we wouldn't have to go back. We've now amended the clause. Mr. Lemire is content, as are we. There's no need to stand it; we just move forward—unless I'm missing something.
Mr. Lemire, I apologize for explaining in English. Having said that, I think that is what you're looking for, isn't it?