Sure. That's not problem at all.
Where to begin? Before I get into any remarks, I am sincere in saying that I am going to try to fix this. I want a chance to look at what Mr. Poilievre has put forward. I've had a few conversations with him and others over the past number of weeks. I'd like to get on with business as much as anybody would.
The reality, though, is that it was probably not on the point of relevance, when Mr. Poilievre was making arguments about Canada's position compared with our global comparators. Much as I disagreed with just about everything he said, I kind of enjoyed getting to hear somebody's perspective on the fiscal track of our country.
I'll turn to the subamendment, since that's what we're debating, and I'll do my best to bring it back to solution-oriented topics as we go.
The original motion that caused so much consternation at this committee was made pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), and it asked the committee to order that any contracts concluded with WE Charity and Me To We.... Where am I? It reads as follows:
all briefing notes, memos and emails, including the contribution agreement that the government and organizations...from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with WE Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet Confidence
—Obviously that has been the subject of a lot of our more informal chats—
and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
If we start with the motion, I think the controversy that seems to be the subject of the current piece is the fact that some of the redactions were made by the Clerk of the Privy Council as opposed to the law clerk. For weeks, we debated whether cabinet confidences ought to have been redacted by the government or by the law clerk.
It's pretty clear, from my initial reading—