—but the reason I want to speak on this is that when Mr. Kramp did allude to it earlier on in the conversation, my understanding was that, when I signalled to you as well, Chair, saying let's deal with the amendment that Mr. D'Amours was dealing with first, the amended motion would be voted on; that then we would go back to that main motion, which was being amended; and that Mr. Kramp then had the intention of providing, I believe, his amendment.
So there was a genuine misunderstanding, and from my point of view, I think that's where we should stand. I agree with Mr. Christopherson: I think there was genuine misunderstanding.
When Mr. Kramp alluded to the fact that he wanted to make an amendment, he was alluding to the fact that he wanted to make an amendment to the amended motion. And we wanted to vote on that first. That's how I interpreted it as well, Chair, when I was speaking to Mr. Kramp off the record and not through you.