Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the opposition's role here in scrutinizing the government. I think they would appreciate as well that we're all best served when we attract highly qualified people to serve in personnel roles, leadership. We have here, by Mr. Easter's own description, someone who has a breadth and depth of experience that is possibly unmatched by any potential candidate for this job. We think that he's very well suited for it, not in spite of but because of this breadth and depth of experience. Certainly Mr. Wright has been hailed by anybody who knows him and by some extremely credible Canadian champions of business achievement as one of the great leaders in his field. Mr. Easter's listing of his professional background serves not to contradict but rather to confirm those endorsements.
That said, the opposition is seeking to scrutinize him, and that's fine. I would only ask that we do so in a fair and reasonable manner and that we give him a chance to explain his arrangements and how they will impact on his future and justify how he plans to conduct himself in the Prime Minister's Office, and that he answer questions by members of this committee, of which I know he is more than capable.
As such, I would seek that we reorder the sequence of demands that we're seeking of Mr. Wright in the following way. I would simply suggest that we call him, first, to appear before the committee and that we call him before November 8, at which time he becomes a staff member and therefore would not be eligible to appear before committee, given that the convention of Parliament provides that staff members do not speak in these settings but rather ministers speak on behalf of their entire ministries. But if we do call him before November 8, when he takes office, there will be no breach of that longstanding convention.
As such, I would propose what I genuinely believe is a friendly amendment, which is that we call Mr. Wright to appear before the committee before November 8 and that this committee make the time available for him to appear between now and then to answer any and all questions about his past, present, and future work. That amendment would replace the wording of the existing motion, though it does not change in any way the essential goal, I believe, that my colleague Mr. Easter seeks to achieve. The way I see it is that Mr. Easter and the opposition are seeking to have questions answered about his past, present, and future work. They can ask any of those questions of Mr. Wright when he's here. If they are not satiated by the answers they receive, more demands can be issued at that time. This motion could very easily be reintroduced in its present wording the very next day, and we could proceed on the basis of the existing wording at that time.
Surely, Mr. Chair, no harm could be caused from simply hearing from the man before we ask him to turn over what could essentially be documentation that could be either unnecessary or unfair to seek. Again, we could hear from him. The opposition members could very easily, at that point in time, conclude that they have not been satisfied and that they seek more. At that time, a motion could be put forward to secure more.
I believe that this committee seeks to operate with a fair-minded temperament. The way to do that would be to simply ask the gentleman to come here and speak for himself and defend himself in a public setting before he becomes a staffer. Let's see what he has to say.
The opposition might be pleasantly surprised by what they see. I think they will be. I think they'll find him to be highly qualified for the position and also to be a man of tremendous and unimpeachable integrity.
I will propose that amendment, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to having it voted upon.