Thank you very much, Chair.
To clarify, the amendment proposes that Mr. Carney appear for two hours. Ms. Byrne, who was in the amended motion, was slated to appear for two hours and will now appear for one hour. As for Mr. Singh, we don't really know where he fits within the context of this motion, but he should also appear for one hour.
I'm not really sure why there are different times assigned to the proposed witnesses. I also don't see any justification as to why Mr. Singh should appear. I don't think that any argument has been made as to how he fits within the narrative of Mr. Carney and Ms. Byrne. I think that this amendment is a little bit half-baked and a little bit suspicious, as Mr. Cooper would say, in that we don't know why there's a differentiation, and we don't know why this extra name is being added without any context for why it's being added.
Chair, I would really appreciate some clarity from the mover of the amendment.
If I can get back onto the floor once we've had clarity, that would be great.