Mr. Chair, first of all, I'm not sure of procedure, friendly or what not, but I think the amendment sits fine and it's in light of what we were discussing and the intention of this.
Just in answer to the parliamentary secretary's point, we were very glad, and I think I said so publicly at the meeting, that the minister came forward in such a timely manner. I would suggest, though, that the developments around this were particular, and to say, well, that's supplementary Bs, I would suggest that the chair would have had some trouble with my starting to talk about spills and containment and all the rest.
Secondly, the witnesses we heard following the minister are the reason for this motion. It was the testimony from AECL and CNSC that caused me concern and why I asked the minister, I think the following day or two days later in the House of Commons, to try to clarify the difference between what we heard from officials. That's the nature of the motion. So there is no disparagement on the minister's part in terms of showing up and being present, and her testimony to this point has been direct to the answers—