Yes, because I just asked the question, and I appreciate that.
To follow up on that, I don't know about the appropriateness of going in a different direction. I think Madame Demers has given some backdrop as to why she wants human rights groups to be part of that, but with all respect to the various speakers on this question, I think there aren't agendas here; it's just that there are differences of opinion in terms of how one would perceive the changes, for example, in the terms and conditions, how that plays out, what are the practical implications of that. There are differing views on that, and I think we should be able to have a civil discussion about those issues without having to elevate it into discussions about who has a political agenda and who doesn't.
I think what we have here in the committee is a presentation in front of us, and Madame Demers has added some different context to the motion. From a practical point of view, I assume this type of amendment is in order.