I have no problem with correcting the typographical error.
The suggestion that the committee didn't know of the existence of a recording is one that I do not accept. We knew that there was a call initiated by the veteran; there was a call initiated by the department. We knew it was the policy of the department to record those types of calls. The suggestion that this is somehow a surprise, I reject.
However, I have no problem with the tenor of the motion. The only concern I have is with the limited scope of the redactions in the motion. Therefore, I would propose an amendment to expand on what can be redacted.
My amendment would be to delete all the words contained between parentheses and to add wording at the end of the motion that reads:
furthermore, that Veterans Affairs Canada redact from the transcript any personal identifiable information of the veteran or Veterans Affairs Canada employees, and any personal medical information.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the identity of the employees of Veterans Affairs Canada will not be divulged, and that any personal medical information will not be divulged over and above the information that Mr. Richards suggested should be redacted.