Thank you very much.
I'll be very brief. I think a lot of this has been covered so far.
I wish to reiterate that I find requesting an NDA—and I'll be polite here—offensive. If you look around the room, we have clerks, we have interpreters and we have other people assisting us in every committee meeting throughout government and in camera. We place a great deal of trust in all these people assisting us, and that makes Parliament work. Again, we have seen zero leaks. We've placed such trust in them that we can discuss anything in front of everyone here today, and now some say all of a sudden that because it's a government contract, it cannot be revealed to parliamentarians.
We had the same request from McKinsey and the same veiled threat: You cannot release this because of confidentiality agreements. But the operations committee did send for them, and we are receiving them. We had further requests from McKinsey, as Mr. Housefather knows, saying that the government had asked them to redact information before they gave it back to the government, and the committee said, no, the MPs will take a look at that. Without casting doubt upon my colleagues across the way, it sounds almost like they're trying to protect the government, not the taxpayers. The government seems to be the one putting up the fight, as opposed to the pharmas.
I understand the concerns. I think Mr. Desjarlais has commented very well on them. However, the reality is that we cannot allow something like this to stop parliamentarians from doing their jobs.
It makes you ask what's next. Does McKinsey get a pass because they have confidentiality agreements? Do we go to Finance and say they cannot look at budgets because of other issues? It sets a horrible precedent, because you know that the second an NDA is forced upon us, it will be at other committees, whether it's OGGO or another committee. As soon as it becomes a precedent that we're depriving parliamentarians of their rights and obligations to pursue issues, we'll stop functioning as we should, which is representing people and representing taxpayers in holding government to account.
I'll leave it at that. I believe the motion put through by our colleague is well written. Nothing is perfect in this world, but I think it covers everything. It allows us access but protects the government and protects contracts. Let's be frank. If I sign an NDA—or Mr. Housefather or anyone else—and then step into the chamber, I can speak about it.
As to requiring or requesting an NDA, again, I'll be polite and say that it's offensive, at the very minimum. I'll leave it at that.
I think we should get to a vote and be done with this so we can continue with the other important studies we have coming up.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.