Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I did leave my last comments in regard to a question, so I appreciate the answer from our Liberal colleagues in relationship to the risk. I think there has to be an established risk, a great risk, if we are to ask members to sign an NDA to view documents that are within the purview and the responsibility of this committee.
I am of two minds. One, the question still stands on whether or not there is sufficient risk here, and if there is sufficient evidence of that risk to suggest that the comments from Madam Yip, one being proprietary information, supply chains and international reputation.... Those three risks are risks that are present, not because of this committee's willingness to review the contracts, but because the government itself accepted those risks when signing an agreement with corporations, pharmaceuticals, that would bind the government to these outcomes.
I sympathize with the government on how difficult the circumstances would be. I recognize as well that maybe in extraordinary circumstances this would be required, but that argument alone is enough for this committee to want to investigate the reasons these things happened. Canadians, I think, deserve to know that.
I'm really torn on this, because I think the interest of Canadians would demand—not just of me but of all of us as committee members—to take that approach. I would offer one more opportunity of the government to present risk beyond those three factors, but I believe those three factors aren't the responsibility of this committee. It is the responsibility of the government to be doing its dealings so that, one, that would not damage the credibility of our country internationally; two, there is no risk to the proprietary information and dealings it has with these companies; and three, there is no risk to supply chain management.
These three things, I think, are beyond the scope of Parliament and committees, but are really within the scope of the government. I think those are the same reasons this committee is asking for these documents. They are the same reasons that Madam Yip was mentioning, that three items—international reputation, proprietary information, supply chains—are at risk.
That is to me a great enough risk to want to investigate this even further now, because it makes me very concerned that these contracts could have this kind of level of risk and no oversight. I think that's an important piece we need to answer because, of course, this committee's job is not to protect the government's dealings with companies, but to protect the interest of Canadians. That greatest interest in this case would be to ensure that the documents, which I think are important for us to review, and you agree with.... I think honourable members from the Liberal Party agree that this is in the interest of Canadians to see.
My problem in the amendment that's tabled, which I share with my colleagues in the opposition, is not understanding the difference between the request of the amendment and that of the motion. The motion itself establishes risk-mitigating factors from the letter from the law clerk of Parliament, which has outlined several recommendations to ensure there are reasonable safeguards. Those safeguards are built into the member of the Bloc Québécois's motion.
I need to know what the difference is between the advice provided by the law clerk of Parliament, from which his recommendations are read into the motion, and the requirement of the amendment tabled today, which would ensure that members of Parliament sign NDAs other than to bind these members to the liability of the government, which is outside the purview and requirements of these individuals.
I need reasonable grounds from the members opposite to establish why an NDA is necessary beyond the three aspects mentioned that I believe are insufficient to the requirement of an NDA, and I will cite them again, as Madam Yip so eloquently did. They are the international reputation of the government, proprietary information and supply chains.
I hope you know that's not the goal of this committee; it is just to ensure that those things are properly investigated. If that risk is present to the government, we deserve as members to know why these contracts have such a great risk. I'm more concerned now, but I want to have a very narrow question, which is an important one to my understanding of this, which is why you feel the NDA portion of your amendment and the 30-day portion is a requirement for you to vote in favour of the interest of Canadians, when I believe the Bloc Québécois's motion establishes reasonable grounds, as noted on page 3 of the letter sent to us by the law clerk on safeguards.
Do you understand what I'm saying? I can't understand the difference between the safeguards tabled by the motion and the safeguards established by the amendment, which to my mind only brings greater risk to members of this committee, rather than the other potential risks mentioned by Ms. Yip.
Thank you.