Thank you, Chair.
I think we've said everything we possibly can. You could go back to the companies and hypothetically imagine that every single one of them says, “No problem. This is going to be great. We want you to waive it.” First of all, I doubt that. I don't think, considering our clerk is being harassed about this, that the companies are going to welcome the government's request to waive it. That is not in their interest, and it's not in the government's interest.
The interests of this are transparent. That's the problem with this, Mr. Housefather. It's very transparent why the government would want to have an NDA. We're saying that the requirement to protect those contracts does not establish a reasonable risk to mitigate the request from the Bloc's motion. If you presented evidence that could suggest something other than the idea of being sued or protecting the company, then maybe we'd have a better way to establish that.
You have to know that I fully respect what you folks are doing. I understand the interests you have, very clearly. It's written into a contract. You're talking about not breaching that contract. It's the government's position that you should not breach that contract. I understand that, and I have sympathy for each and every one of you having to carry that into this committee. However, I'm saying Parliament deserves.... You never know. There could be a Conservative government, New Democratic government or Bloc government. You never know what could happen in this place, and in case that happens, I'm saying I would expect the Liberals to come out and say that they expect to see this contract. I'd also expect them to be reasonable and say that they're going to put in safeguards. I believe that's what the motion does. They're only in there because those aspects seek to protect our colleagues and the government.
I do agree, though, that legal counsel from the government will likely be furious and say, “My goodness, what a breach.” But that should have been a perception when entering into that contract knowing that Parliament had this power. I know that each and every one of you agrees that the government cannot circumnavigate the will of Parliament, and the will of Parliament is asking that these documents be readily available in conditions that continue to keep them confidential.
It may not be the kind of confidentiality required for dealings between a company and the government, but it is a kind of offering that I hope you can see as important, because the alternative is worse. This committee can summon this information publicly in the House of Commons. That is a real potential here, and it's not far from happening in just a few minutes if it gets down to that. I'm encouraging the government to see how valuable the safeguards built into the motion are, and to utilize and exercise your role as MPs to see the value of your colleagues asking for this information.
It may not be the kind of safeguard the government would like to see, but it is the kind of safeguard that Parliament has established. We have processes here, including in camera sittings, that are confirmed by the law clerk as important.
I hope you can understand the position this committee is in and how important it is to see the existing motion as more valuable than a motion that would otherwise summon all of this information in a far worse manner and penalize the government directly rather than limit risk. That's the real decision here. The real decision isn't between whether there's risk or no risk. The decision is between establishing a breach of contract or minimizing risk. That's the real position you're in.