Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion.
There's no need to apologize. This has been a long and difficult issue that we've been dealing with, and now other committees in Parliament have been dealing with it. I actually do appreciate the motion, because he is correct.
Unfortunately, part of the victimization includes a couple of things that I still want to see concluded—namely, to have the full restoration of compensation for employees and whistle-blowers. The confidentiality agreements and non-disclosures that they were forced into should be torn up at some point in time. We're just looking for the appropriate vehicle to be able to do that. With this motion, that wouldn't be appropriate, because it deals specifically with the Auditor General.
I think it's a very responsible motion, because it uses that third party of the Auditor General, and not the committee or Parliament. Going line by line through the different types of businesses is important, because we want it to be objective and independent. Many parliamentarians and Canadians have full confidence in the Auditor General process. I think that the mover's use of the Auditor General in this motion is actually very wise.
I will just conclude that we do not want to lose the opportunity for the good companies to be able to get the appropriate supports that they deserve for greening the economy. We need innovation and we should weed out the ones that didn't really receive these supports responsibly, so they can maybe return that money to make a better investment.
With that, New Democrats will be supporting this motion, and I thank the mover for putting it forward. It's straightforward, it's simple, and it separates the objective of Parliament by looking for accountability through the practical element of having the Auditor General as a third party to decipher exactly how to go about the next stage. I think that's a very wise way of approaching it.