I have heard from the clerk that we just got a copy of this revised motion. There are a couple of things here. People need to see this. It's a significant rewrite. It's not just a change of date or something. There's significantly more added to it.
Technically, it looks like it is in order, but the other thing I'm struggling with here is that we have a convention that works in this committee. That's why I asked you to prioritize your witnesses. Then we'll do everything we can to get the witnesses that each party decides is a priority for them. I am really loath to start something like horse-trading witnesses in a public committee and having people say that they want this person for that reason and they don't want that person for this reason. I just don't want to see it happen. That's the reason we came up with the procedure, which I think has been working well, to have people prioritize the witnesses. Then we get the witnesses that you want.
It doesn't impact anything directly, I suppose, but I think this will make it much more difficult for us to do this job and to look into sensitive issues like this one if we insist on naming witnesses in our motion. It's nothing illegal or whatever, but it's just a caution.
I am going to suspend for a couple of minutes to make sure everyone gets a copy of this revised motion.