Wonderful.
If you recall, when we had Dalian and Coradix here, we had a fair number of requests for documents. One was from Mr. Genuis for documents he was asking the government to provide, but we kind of need to restate it for Dalian's benefit.
On October 26, the order for production of documents that was adopted was ambiguous as to who was tasked to provide the documents to the committee, Dalian or the government. It is the government, but Dalian is just looking for us to confirm that. They have some concerns about being held in contempt for not providing it. To do so, though, we need to discharge the original order and replace it with one that is more specific, indicating who we want to oblige with providing the committee with the documents.
The original motion was as follows:
That the committee send for all contracts between a government department, agency or Crown Corporations and GC Strategies, Dalian, or Coradix going back at least twelve years; and that the unredacted documents be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages in three weeks.
I have proposed new wording here from our wonderful clerk:
That the order pertaining to sending for contracts between a government department, agency or Crown Corporation and GCstrategies, Dalian or Coradix, adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, 2023, be discharged and replaced with the following:
ORDERED: That the clerk of the committee inform government departments, agencies or Crown Corporations that the committee sends for a copy of all contracts between said departments, agencies or crown corporations and GCstrategies, Dalian or Coradix going back at least twelve years; and that the unredacted documents be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages three weeks from Thursday, October 26, 2023.
It's the same motion. It's just specifying that it's the government in order to alleviate Dalian's concerns about responsibility.
Are we fine with that, colleagues?
I do need unanimous consent.