This is unfinished business, as has been mentioned.
Mr. Poilievre made some valid points in saying that people who made decisions and benefited from the decisions made should appear as witnesses before this committee. Whether or not these are those individuals, I'm not sure if that has been established. Some of that work could probably be done in the steering committee--perhaps part of what Mr. Hubbard was trying to achieve.
He may consider it as a potentially friendly amendment that we word it so that additional witnesses, those who were the decision-makers or who benefited, are called to appear. Then we could let the steering committee try to establish who those people are. We may inadvertently call people who are not necessarily directly in the decision-making process or benefiting. The way these names have been presented seems to have a political partisan colouring to it, and I'm sure that's not what Mr. Poilievre intended in presenting this motion. He truly intends to strictly clean up some unfinished business.
So if he would consider that as a friendly amendment, perhaps that would be beneficial to this vote.