Yes, Mr. Chair.
I would be strongly opposed to the amendment. At some point in time we might want to hear from Mr. Wright, but at the moment, what we need, which the motion is very specific about, is the agreement with Onex on whether it is really a temporary leave of absence and the copy of the recusal conditions that would, I think, spell out for us whether there is a perceived conflict of interest.
Nobody is arguing the fact that this man is not qualified. But what's in the public domain at the moment in fact,is the untendered contract for $16 billion worth of aircraft, which one of the companies Mr. Wright is connected with is connected to. The contract's not signed yet. He's going to be here for the signing of that contract. How is he going to deal with those things?
The other point I want to make very clear, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not concede the right to hear from Mr. Wright after he is staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Mr. Poilievre tried to make the argument that there has been a precedent set here. No, there has not been. There is another committee looking at that issue now. In fact, we had the chief of staff to the current Prime Minister before this committee at one point in time, until the government changed its approach, which we believe is against the rights of Parliament. We've turned it over to another committee to investigate that matter.
I would oppose the amendment on the basis that it changes the intent. What we're looking at here is documentation in the first instance so that we can make a determination from there on whether we ought to call Mr. Wright at a later time, either before or after he is staff in the Prime Minister's Office.