Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm returning to the result of my question. It was a reasonable and straightforward one.
It was to establish a great enough risk present to the government that would be able in some way, shape or form to convince members of this committee that extraordinary safeguards are necessary. I am not necessarily convinced that the evidence provided today can establish that risk. Risk to the government is different from risk to Parliament. This risk is present to the government.
The role of Parliament in this case is to ensure that we protect Canada's and regular Canadians' abilities to have trust in our institutions. It's part of why our committee is present here today. I believe the perceived risk would have to be greater than the principle of oversight in this case—which I say in agreement with our chair—for us to suspend aspects of our privilege in order to do this work.
I perceive the actions and advice being offered by our Liberal colleagues today. I respect them. I want you to know, first and foremost, that I understand the role you're taking right now. You need to protect your government's ability to come to contracts regarding, in this case, pharmaceuticals for a better outcome in some instances, as you believe, for Canadians. However, you must be able to see the need of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party to provide oversight on behalf of Canadians.
I hope we can come to a consensus. That's my greatest hope today. That consensus could be worked on in building a foundation of our core principle, which is that this is in the interests of Canadians. That's number one. We share that. Every member here shares the belief that commercial contracts entered into by the government require a level of oversight, in particular the oversight that this committee has asked for.
The second aspect of this is an NDA or a time limitation, which is a request from our colleagues to this committee. That is the request we need to contemplate. My goal of getting to a consensus on this is important to that process.
However, I'm beginning to see that it's unlikely we'll get consensus today. I would like to give the government one last opportunity to read into the Bloc Québécois motion. I believe it is made with good intent. I believe that the intention is to ensure there's oversight for Canadians.
My last point is that none of us, not any one of us as members of this committee or Parliament, should or ought to breach our ability to represent not only our constituents but our role here. I don't think they would in the case of going in camera. The institutions that built this country and the institution that we're in right now have built safeguards to ensure that a thing like this could very well be done in a secure place like Parliament and in a secure way like at committee and done in camera. I think that is a reasonable request by the Bloc Québécois.
That is the part you can see I'm trying to get to. They have a reasonable request to view documents on behalf of Canadians. They understand—which I agree with—that there need to be sensitivity safeguards to this information. We agree with that. That's why the motion is the way it is. I agree that we should be able to do that.
What I'm seeing is that the government—at least those whose job it is to protect the government from liability—thinks that we, in some way, shape or form, may in fact breach that confidence. That is an accusation that I believe to be an insult. I don't believe that's what we're saying, but I believe if we move forward without a good reason that establishes greater risk, it would be perceived that way.
I believe that our institutions are strong. For our institutions to work properly, we need to ensure that we follow regulations and the nature of in camera meetings. They are built to protect this country and built to protect committee members. They are built, in this case, to protect the government.
I don't see how I could disagree with the advice that our members opposite are receiving in relation to risk. I believe the risk is negated—not entirely, of course, but that shouldn't be the goal of our opposition colleagues here. The goal should be to limit risks the best we can.
The enemy of the perfect is the imperfect. In this case we have an imperfect motion that I agree with, because in this case we're never going to get to a perfect motion that gets to the position the government would like to see, which is immunity from this Parliament.
I believe this committee should take up the charge of having this information released in an in camera setting, a setting that can safeguard the information in a way we can see, but also in a way that doesn't breach these members' or any member's privilege. Some suggest that an in camera setting or the requirements and safeguards built into the motion as read by the Bloc Québécois would in fact do that, but I don't believe that is a sustained claim. I don't think we can say that the Bloc Québécois motion will bring risk to the government. I believe it was built in good faith. The Bloc consulted me. Our party consulted everyone else in advance, and we walked through some of those steps. I'm just a bit confused as to those two points. I request that my colleagues across the way see that what's built into the existing motion is sufficient for the purposes of our viewing information.
Your opinion is that it is insufficient, if I understand correctly. It is insufficient to negating the legal risk present to the government. If that's your claim, then we as parliamentarians can't make a decision that would otherwise be the mandate of this committee, which is to see that information, while also satisfying your requirement to have no risk. I see mutually exclusive positions here, which I'm not a fan of. I would rather us come to a consensus that this is important for all Canadians. Every Canadian and all parties believe that it's important we see these contracts. We all agree there's risk, and that's why we have safeguards.
The safeguards that are being imposed by the amendment are onerous, I believe, and, to the chair's statement, could breach privilege. Any one of us members could then take this to the House and have these documents ordered there. However, I believe we can do this in committee. We have reasonable members at this committee who have come to a reasonable conclusion to see these documents, which are in the interests of Canadians and have existing safeguards. That seems to be a very reasonable path forward.
I agree with the members opposite that it doesn't negate all the risks, but I'm saying that most of the risks are negated this way. I believe and have faith in our institutions and that when we go in camera in a closed setting, we will not breach that confidence. To suggest otherwise would be to attack our integrity and our institutions. The in camera setting is built to protect from the exact situation the government is afraid of. I acknowledge that, which is why I agree with the safeguards put in place.
I hope those facts are clear enough to establish that we have a common interest—all of us here. The safeguards are proper and important, and they are there. I believe that a consensus on this is also important. For us not to divide Canadians on this important issue, the government and the opposition should come to a consensus. Madam Shanahan often speaks about the requirement and need for consensus on these items, and I'd ask that the government see this request for what it is. It's an important and honest request to public accounts and members of Parliament to see the contracts that were entered into—commercial contracts by the government—while also offering the government safeguards.
I believe those are entirely reasonable. They don't negate the complete risk; I accept that point. I thank all the members opposite for doing their best and their due diligence to protect the government and the dealings of their ministers in this work. That's honourable and commendable. I'm sure anybody here, if they formed government, would be in the same position you are. However, the reality is that this is Parliament. This is not the government. The Parliament is requesting that this information be presented to us, and safeguards are in place.
I believe this may be my final statement before we go to a vote. I will give the government one more opportunity to look at some of what I've said and attempt honestly and earnestly to come to a consensus position to ensure that Canadians have the advantage of knowing that we are working to provide oversight of these documents properly and together.
Thank you.