Certainly. Of course, before I finish my minor submission and read it again, I would be quite happy to give members an opportunity to review it if the clerk could circulate this version of it.
Substantially, I was going to say, it's very similar to Mr. Poilievre's motion yesterday. The only significant change from our perspective was drawing a bit of a box around what the law clerk will do with the documents, but I think the motion explains it in a rather straightforward way.
I will read it once more for the benefit of members.
It reads: That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the point of privilege put forward by the Member for Carleton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent subamendments 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 43rd 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 Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with all documents as originally requested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, 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, that the information remain in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be used exclusively by him to determine the government’s compliance or non-compliance with the July 7, 2020 motion, and that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear no later than November 25, 2020 to discuss “cabinet confidence” exclusions to public disclosures, and that the law clerk testify before the committee regarding documents received from the government pursuant to this motion to provide his views on the government’s compliance or non-compliance with the July 7 motion.