No, that's understood. I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying that if you're establishing after the fact that it is consequential, then in a sense you have to allow us to discuss the two motions. I won't refer to NDP-1, but I would certainly like to refer to the logic around NDP-2, which you've now grouped with NDP-1.
I'm not admonishing you for your mistake. It's an honest mistake. It's a long committee meeting, because we've extended it, in cooperation--the opposition party is cooperating with the government. But now we have to have that debate on NDP-2, which is on a different clause from NDP-1.
We're talking about two different components here. The first component is very much about moneys that are owed to the government and stopping that penalty that companies would have to pay, the double taxation. But in this case, when we look at NDP-2, clause--