Thank you, Chair.
The last intervention is proof positive that they don't want to hear from Conservative members, who are asking appropriate questions that Canadians want answers to.
The other concern I have with the proposed amendment is the duration of the meeting. The original motion had individuals appearing for one hour each. Let's take a look at the logistics behind the passing of the amended motion. The passing of the amended motion would give every member of this committee one hour with two key witnesses. Their evidence, as I've indicated already, is far more important to Canadians and reaches further than what the Global News reporter asked. The Global News reporter simply asked what the surname of the other Randy was.
There is a multitude of other probing, relevant questions that need to be put to both Ms. Poon and Mr. Anderson. However, the amended motion would deprive us of a fulsome opportunity to ask those probing, relevant questions. Let's look at logistics. With possibly two opening statements of five minutes each and an opening round of six minutes each for each member, we're at 34 minutes. There would be another 15 minutes for a second round and possibly another 15 for a full third round, presupposing that we don't have interpretation issues, that we don't have interventions and that we don't have points of order.
It does not move like clockwork. Ultimately, at best, we might have three rounds for two highly relevant, important witnesses. I'm strongly suggesting that we reconsider having one hour and that we go back to the original motion terms, which had them appearing for one hour each, because quite frankly, we're simply going to scratch the surface by having interventions of two key witnesses in one hour.