Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to assure you that my motives are always to advance the common good, as I see it.
I want to just observe very pointedly that this motion makes a judgment about the claims the whistle-blower made. It says that claims made with respect to the minister are “unfounded”. We are certainly not prepared to pass a motion that slaps onto a request for information words that characterize the claims of that witness. What is the point of even requesting the information if the government has already come to a conclusion about the nature of it?
Therefore, I would propose an amendment that simply strikes all of the words after “within 14 business days of the adoption of this motion”, so the motion would read:
That given the committee received correspondence from the whistleblower who appeared before this committee on September 18th, 2024, as part of the committee’s study of the Auditor General’s report into Sustainable Development Technology Canada; given the whistleblower alludes to key evidence of a grave nature, that has yet to be presented to this committee; As part of its study into Sustainable Development Technology Canada, that the committee request the whistleblower send all evidence alluded to in their correspondence of September 23rd, 2024, within 14 business days of the adoption of this motion.
Period.
It requests the documents but removes this editorial characterization of the nature of the claims and the idea of having two in camera meetings. Once the evidence is received, the committee can decide how to proceed. Maybe it will be with public meetings. Maybe, if necessary, it will be with in camera meetings. That will be up to the committee at that time.
I think this amendment maintains the request for information, but removes the political editorializing the government is using to try to defend the minister.
That's my amendment. Is it clear to the chair and the clerk?