Okay.
That's what I suggested. I didn't hear any other suggestion about anything. I suggested that.
Then, I suggested that, okay, we'll even bring the legal representatives of the department to the next meeting so they can actually explain to the committee directly what they feel the risk is. I think I'm actually the only person tonight who has actually presented any alternatives whatsoever and offered different suggestions to move forward.
I haven't heard anything about a suggestion, a concrete proposal to deal with the concerns that I legitimately have, not as a government person, but as a Liberal member of Parliament who doesn't want to go beyond what it is that we should do to avoid risk. I don't think it's unreasonable. I don't think I would be in a different position whatever side I was on. It's not unprecedented for a member of Parliament to sign an NDA, as Mr. Fragiskatos pointed out. Other committees have had NDAs. In fact, in my last job.... Every employer has their employees sign an NDA when they start work with the company. That's normal.
In this case, members of Parliament, because we're elected and we're in an unique position, don't sign NDAs. But what is the real harm of suggesting it?
Again, if there's a desire not to sign the NDA, okay, that's fine. What is the other alternative?
We don't know, because we haven't explored it with the suppliers or heard from the people who are the most knowledgeable and who have access to the agreement and can talk to us about the scale of risk.
I don't know what to say other than tonight, I don't feel that I'm in a position to suggest things other than what's there, because I have no new information to provide than I had when the meetings started. I do believe it's up to parliamentarians, even though they do have an absolute right to see documents, to consider whether or not there are ways to see them that mitigate risk or not. I don't think that's inappropriate.