Thank you.
I just want to note that I've sat through many of these types of motions that regard highly politically sensitive actors: chiefs of staff, prime ministers, high-level ministers. They were all fair game when trying to explore the decision-making.
There has been a lot of conjecture about why Mr. Butts left, but certainly, the timing coincided with this affair, and certainly, he would have an opinion, as would many others. Only he would know, ultimately.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I am going to assume that the mover has included Mr. Butts and not the Prime Minister in hopes of providing some type of sworn testimony or accountability as to the facts relating to the possible involvement of the PMO's office in the SNC-Lavalin affair and ultimately the potential for criminality to be pursued by the RCMP.
Is that correct, or can you provide us with the rationale for wanting to have Mr. Butts here, who has already ostensibly lost his job from this affair and has moved on to other things?