I am pleased to have a better understanding of what is going on here.
First of all, this is not at all in keeping with my amendment, which sought to have Mr. Carney and Ms. Jenni Byrne appear before us for two hours each. I don't know if they would necessarily have to appear separately or together, but that's the kind of discussion the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure can have.
The reason we want to hear from these witnesses is to study an issue, not to get into the details of each person's life or background. We want to know their point of view, how they see their work and what measures they have taken or considered, or not, to manage not only their conflicts of interest, which is important and which any professional is capable of doing, but also any appearance of conflict of interest.
This is a group of witnesses that could be quite interesting. We are asking that they appear for two hours each, but that could also be done in a two‑hour meeting with the two witnesses. They are professionals, not adversaries or competitors, as far as I know. Both serve as financial advisers to federal party leaders here in Canada.
As for Mr. Singh, again, I have no idea what his background is. There was quite a preamble for the other two people, but there is nothing about this gentleman, unless it was in Mr. Caputo's amendment. For his part, Mr. Williamson wanted to eliminate all the preambles that talked about the background of each of the witnesses we want to invite, but there is nothing about Mr. Singh. So I'm having trouble understanding what's going on.
Furthermore, I share my colleague Mr. Simard's frustration at the fact that there seems to be no end to the amendments and subamendments presented.
Mr. Chair, you are able to give us some time and perhaps even suggest that the stakeholders agree to draft a motion that makes sense. I have already seen that at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and everyone was satisfied with the result.
That said, I will definitely not support this amendment, which proposes that we hear from one witness for two hours, but the other for only one hour, which is completely illogical.
Thank you very much.