I understand the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, and I share some of those concerns as well. But to me this whole argument is about striking a balance. We're asked to pass judgment on this right now. If we have every bit of information and we scuttle a deal, perhaps we've made a wrong decision. If we have no information or not enough information and the deal progresses and isn't satisfactory to the taxpayer, then perhaps we've made a wrong decision.
We are going to be subject to a right decision or a wrong decision, regardless of where we go with this. We are assigned, and we ran for this office, to make some decisions and to gather the best information we have at our disposal.
I'm going to vote against this, not because I don't want more information—of course, I would like more information—but with all respect, Madame Bourgeois.... It's not because I just don't want the motion; it's because, from the testimony that has been given at this committee, I have a deep concern that if more information were to come out, we could just tip that balance to where it could adversely affect the deal and/or the taxpayer.
So I'm going to make a decision. You may make the decision otherwise, and I respect that. But I hope you would also recognize that my, or perhaps our, thoughts on this are not to simply counter a motion so much as to recognize and try to do what is best for the taxpayer.
I really believe that if we mess up this deal and/or the potential of this deal—because this deal is not a done deal.... This deal is only accepting proposals, and then the minister and staff and deputies are going to assess the information. They don't necessarily have to go ahead with this. As they've said, they're only entertaining proposals.
As this information comes forward—information that has to be collected with a fair bit of confidentiality, for competitive reasons—they're going to pass judgment. I'm satisfied that we've had enough information from the various witnesses here that there is a level of protection for the Canadian taxpayer and a level of expertise in place to guide the minister and/or the departmental officials, regardless of which party they are, to making a right decision.
Their duty is to not do something wrong for the Canadian taxpayer. There isn't one member or one minister here who's going to deliberately make a wrong decision and adversely affect the Canadian taxpayer. They would be held wholly and highly accountable for it if they made that wrong decision.
Quite frankly, I'm personally satisfied that there has been enough information given, not to give me a 100% level of surety and/or security, but that I'm inclined to let the process proceed. If I take a look at the other option I have, with this striking of a balance, and go the other way such that we stop the process basically in its tracks and the Canadian taxpayer loses out, then we have made the wrong decision. We're all going to have to come to terms with that decision.
I don't know whether I've adequately explained my position on this, but it is certainly not a partisan position, not a political decision, but a decision based on what we feel would be a good decision for the Canadian taxpayer in the long run.
Those are my thoughts on it.