There are two things.
First, I'm not sure everyone by the name of Carney would find you so friendly, Pierre.
Second, on the purpose of the motion, wouldn't it be possible simply to amend it? It's also possible for us to add witnesses in the future. Couldn't we simply say that we will hear from these two additional witnesses and then move immediately to clause-by-clause study? That would be consistent with the existing timeline and would then formalize the existing timeline, perhaps excessively in some ways.
We could vote it down and proceed as is, but if people just want the comfort that we're only going to hear from two additional witnesses, I'm fine with that too. It really makes no difference to me. As it stands, we have two additional witnesses and then we're moving to clause-by-clause study.