Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, the letter we received from the Office of the Law Clerk talks a bit about some of the aspects in instances of refusal regarding the production of documents. It outlines what would otherwise protect the government in these types of contracts. I understand that Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné's motion reads, in many parts, in direct relationship to these aspects.
My proposal would be for evidence, from the government or the members of the Liberal Party present here today, as to the necessity. Why do you feel these qualifiers aren't enough? I think that's a reasonable.... At least, that's what I read from the amendment you're tabling: The existing safeguards that are tabled aren't enough. Therefore, I think it's reasonable for Canadians to ask why an amendment like this, from your perspective, is important. I believe the Bloc's motion creates safeguards that are reasonable and in, I'd say, nearly direct citation of some of the language used by the law clerk.
I understand there may be a difference between absolute risk and minimizing risk. I feel that in this approach, the amendment may be attempting to dissolve all risk of the government's divulging information that is the right of these members to see. That second portion is important to note, because, if there is risk present for the government, we have to determine whether or not it outweighs the benefit of Canadians getting transparency for this work.
You need to establish that the motion presents a reasonable risk to the government, other than, “We think they might sue us.” I don't think that's a compelling enough reason for this committee to engage in an amendment that would otherwise seek to do the same thing the original motion does. The difference between the two is important for me to understand. Is this difference trying to ensure all possible legal risk to the Government of Canada is negated, or is it far deeper than that? I think that's the important question for Canadians.
I'm satisfied with everyone's co-operation on the fact that we've established that this is an important piece of information we all need to see. I'm happy with that. We can get to that point. On the rights of Parliament.... We can obviously agree we all have, as parliamentarians, rights established there.
The last question remains, what is the risk? Why are you presenting an amendment that would otherwise create such a closed, tight seal, in some ways to limit the government's liability, but also asking that these members give up, in some aspect, a piece of their rights? It would have to be a reasonable exchange for risk...in order to establish why we would vote in favour of signing an NDA, for example, as opposed to agreeing to the original motion.