Yes. It would be after “the member for New Westminster-Burnaby” and would read “including all the documents that the government provided the law clerk in August” and then you would continue with “without any redaction, omission, or exclusion”.
It would now read:
That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the Point of Privilege put forward for the Member for Carlton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent sub-amendments moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the Member for Kingston and the Islands, and that the Committee adopt all evidence heard in the First Session of the 43[rd] Parliament during the committee's study on “Government Spending, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant”; and that the committee order that by November 24, 2020, the Government provide the Parliamentary Law Clerk with all documents as originally requested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, including all documents the Government provided the Law Clerk, without any redaction, omission, or exclusion except as would be justified in sections and subsections 69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act....
And rest would continue completely unchanged.