There are two points. One is that I appreciate the original motion, but the amendment sounds perhaps even better.
In terms of process for this committee, though, this feels as though we're into the discussion about the committee's agenda again. Initially when we set the agenda overall, we talked about having a reconvening, I think, six weeks in to say how the study was going and what we needed to tweak, if I'm correct in that, Chair. After the two-week break, we said we would devote some time to say.... And I can be corrected. I'm not worried about that. It's just about the process, about the way this committee makes its agenda, because the temptation will be to bring in a forestry motion or a motion on X or a motion on Y that disturbs the way we.... It's not that I'm against this motion. I'm talking about process.
So first of all, I would like some clarity on when we were meant to come back together as a committee and reset our agenda, and as well, on the point about how this committee makes its choices about how we're going to spend our time. I don't want it to be this way, because--