I would suggest the same thing. I think we're getting into semantics here. I understand Paul's concern. We weren't prepared to deal with a specific motion, but during the course of any discussion, any member could essentially put forward an amendment. The fact is that the Standing Orders allow for amendments or substitution. That's the way they read. If you don't like that, change the standing order. The fact is that they fall either under substitution or amendment.
I think, to make everybody happy, we're saying let's do it as an amendment so that we don't get into the substitution discussion now but talk germanely about what I think is a very important issue with regard to natural resources in this country and how it is that we want a level playing field. Surely this benign--because it seems that way--motion essentially says to the minister, take all the time you need beyond 45 days in order to make a good decision for what's best for Canada. Vis-à-vis what the Europeans are doing as they look at Inco and Falconbridge and what the Americans are doing with regard to Inco and Falconbridge, we're asking Canada to do the same thing as it relates to Xstrata and Falconbridge.