Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
For those folks who, in the words of Mrs. Shanahan, may be watching, I want to just bring them up to speed. We're dealing with a reasonable motion that was tabled by the Bloc Québécois to look at commercial contracts entered into by the government.
I've tried my best, today and in the past, to try to find a consensus path forward here. It seems as though we've made some efforts to get to that point, but it's clear that the government's interest in protecting the government from liability is outweighing its commitment to having transparency for Canadians. I take issue with that.
It's important. I told you folks before: I understand why you're doing this. Anyone in your position would likely be doing this—defending the contracts of the government. However, while you sit here in public accounts, your job is different. You should be looking out for the best interests of Canadians right now.
You agreed in your own amendment that this is a matter of interest for Canadians—a matter of national import. To disagree on semantics, to disagree and not answer a direct question.... As the reasonable member of this committee that I believe I am, I have asked for what would constitute the difference between the motion and the amendment. I would be willing to hear what that is.
The only difference between the motion and the amendment is that you want to bring liability to these members by having them sign an NDA. I understand that the government's dealings with corporations may or may not damage our international reputation, release these companies' proprietary information and cause supply chain issues.
These are reasons that ought not fetter this committee's ability to investigate commercial contracts between the government and the pharmaceutical companies. I'm disappointed in the level of obstruction and attacks I've just heard from the opposite members. I'm not happy with how this has all turned out.
If there was true partnership in the committee's sense that we would have non-consensus on these things, you would see that the NDAs are obviously a concern. A willing partner may look at that and say that we may not be able to get a consensus on the NDAs, but we can get a consensus on going in camera. That is a reasonable level of security.
It may not be reasonable in the legal opinion of the government to continue that way, but it is the legal opinion of the clerk of this place. Not the clerk of this council, but the law clerk who's delivered us a letter. You may look at it.
I'm not going to read directly from the Auditor General's report in a way that will waste committee members' time. I think that is offensive to our time. I think it's important to actually realize that the question on the table is whether or not we, as members of a committee of Parliament, should have access to documents.
The law clerk had to tell us how to do it. It's clearly in this letter that's on all your tables.
I want to repeat this, particularly for the government members who may be providing advice: This is not the Government of Canada. This is the Parliament of Canada. The Parliament of Canada absorbs no risk or liability that the Government of Canada enters into in its dealings with private companies.
Do you see how that's different? That's an important core principle.
Mr. Housefather, I know you know these things. I know you're a reasonable person. If you were on our side, you'd be doing the exact same thing. You'd be wondering. This is in camera, it's confidential, the rules of the law clerk are built within the motion and it's of reasonable import, but it may not be convenient for the government.
You would have to see the frustration this puts members of the opposition in. I've done my best to try to get to a consensus position that would guarantee the members of this committee, including the Liberals, a confidential process where you could review this information. It's a request of your colleagues on behalf of Canadians.
It's a reasonable request, but you seem to be obsessed with this idea that the government's risk is more important than Parliament's ability to review commercial contracts. That is not okay.
You need to see that the paramountcy of having this information for the sake of our institution is important. If a New Democratic government were there, you'd be asking the same thing. If a Conservative government were there, you'd be asking the same thing. What are the dealings of the Government of Canada, with public dollars with private corporations like pharmaceutical companies? It's wild, the level of obstruction we're witnessing here.
It's a really basic motion that gives credibility to the fact that there's risk, and it offers a solution, one that is highlighted by the letter from our law clerk. It's obvious and apparent to me—and probably to everyone who's following along with this—that you have information that we do not. It's motivating a tremendous refusal to co-operate with what I believe is a good and reasonable amendment.
I don't believe, as Ms. Shanahan said, that this is a highly partisan request. If it were highly partisan, the option would be to amend the Bloc Québécois' motion, take out all the procedures that would protect the government in camera and proceed that way. Alternatively, we can refer this to the House and do the same thing.
Why would the government increase the level of risk when right in front of you is a process that guarantees you an in camera session? You would rather protect the companies' interests and the government's interest than the interests of Canadians and Parliament.
It's understandable, which is why I'm making all best efforts to sympathize with you. I understand the two hats with which all of you play, but I need you to see how important this is. If you build goodwill and co-operate at this portion, whatever bogeyman you fear on the other end of this may not come to fruition.
Canadians have decided that the Liberals don't deserve a majority government. You can't make these decisions without co-operation from other people. We're asking for co-operation.
You're scared that we're going to leak this information if it's in camera. If that's not what you're saying, and you're saying that the process that the Bloc have put forward is not secure enough, then I need to know why you believe that's not secure enough. I believe it's a secure process. I believe that the items outlined by the law clerk about going in camera are an option that protects us and likely protects the government.
These corporations are definitely upset about this. I fully agree. They're probably phoning each and every one of you, probably phoning the government—not you folks, the government. They're phoning the Government of Canada, we know that. As for the risk of having that information presented to members of Parliament, you're qualifying your decision by saying that Canadians are more dangerous than these companies. It's quite shocking but not unpredictable.
The government came into a contract. It agreed to the terms of that contract. Now you're here in front of us telling us that those terms of the contract, which we members were not a part of, is our problem somehow. What I'm telling you is that there's an opportunity to do this work in camera to give the government the benefit of the doubt about what is within these contracts, and the process this committee's asking for is done in a way that meets both of the requests halfway.
You seem to think that this is a decision between risk and no risk. It's a decision between risk and risk: full documents ordered by our House of Commons or the documents we can see in camera here in this committee. The option you're presenting isn't an option that is going to have the result you want, which is complete nullification of all the risk by having individual members of Parliament sign NDAs.
That's an extraordinary procedure. It's one fit for National Defence.
We're talking about a commercial contract. There's nothing to hide here. If there was, I'd be more concerned, but I believe there's nothing to hide. However, in fairness to Canadians, they need to see that. They need to have members of the opposition, like us, go in and verify those things in a way that is transparent to us and to Parliament.
That's a fair thing to ask for.
The reality is that the NDA, if it's the the pill you can never swallow, and the kind of precedent that sets.... It's very plausible that this becomes a common occurrence if you allow this to happen. In committee after committee, MPs will be shut down in their ability to second documents.
Why would you do this to our institutions? No wonder Canadians don't trust these institutions, when this is the level of difficulty MPs have to go through to get a very secure process to analyze information.
I need you to listen to your colleagues, not the narrow advice of a lawyer in the government department. Their job is very different from our jobs. Of course they're going to tell you not to release any information. They're going to tell you it's going to blow everything up and everyone's going to sue us. It's their job to tell you those things, but your job, my job and this committee's job is to ensure that we have access to documents and that we're able to review them.
We understand the sensitivity of it. That's why the motion is dealt with in the way it is. It's reasonable. You're asking members of the opposition to come to an agreement to review documents. This is a pretty good deal.
However, to go so far as to suggest that we bind ourselves to an NDA to exercise our privilege and our right is strange, and it creates a dangerous precedent. It's one that I would not want to be on the other end of, but we find ourselves there.
It's morally deplorable, because Canadians don't deserve that. They deserve better access. They deserve co-operative committee members who see that we're offering you the very thing you want.
You're asking for confidentiality. We're using the utmost tools at our disposal to do that within the prospective vote-infringing privilege, which includes the notes by the clerk and the law clerk that have been read into this motion. Rather than seek the advice of parliamentarians, your colleagues in this committee and the colleagues we have who serve us here in Parliament, you'd take the narrow advice of the department, which is a narrow interest. It is not to release or divulge information to Canadians. Their narrow interest is to ensure that their contracts are protected.
I understand the advice they're giving you. It's good advice, because that's their job, but you need to listen to different advice. Listen to the advice of your colleagues who, in committee, have the power to second these documents, whether you agree or not. We're offering you a solution.
We will go in camera, we'll review the documents and we'll protect the government's dealings, which is what you want. That is the compromise. To suggest that you want more on this scale makes it unfair, and you're hearing that from the members here. If it was easy to do the NDAs, everything else would be done already, but the reality is that's too much. You're asking for extraordinary circumstances that set a terrible precedent, because you would not want to be on the other end of that.
It's a simple request. I really believe and I really hope there are folks who are watching, particularly those folks who may be concerned about the level of risk present in the government...good job, because these members are heeding your advice at the disservice of Canadians.
The law clerk has been clear. We can do this. I recommend all of you take a look at that note from the law clerk to our chair. It's an important piece of information that allows us to do the things that Canadians need us to do. To think otherwise is an act of partisanship.
I fully expect, following my remarks, the same rhetoric we've already heard from the government members, who are sliding into, so far, detracting from this subject. We need to find a process where you look at the evidence that's tabled in front of you by your committee colleagues, who have the right to have these documents seconded. We're not asking. It's a demand. It's important that that perspective is heard in this minority Parliament. You can't do whatever you want in this place. There's oversight that's reasonable, and that oversight is being presented to you in a reasonable way. You're saying that the processes that are identified by our colleague from the Bloc are insufficient and that going in camera is ignoring the information presented by the law clerk in favour of advice from the department, whose narrow interest is to defend its contracts, not to disclose them to the public.
Who do you think the department is talking to about these things? It's the pharmaceutical companies. Of course, the government doesn't want you to have us look at these documents. Of course they're sitting here in front of us asking us to sign NDAs. It's because the companies want that. It's important.
It's not because of partisanship. The Conservatives and the New Democrats are probably the furthest distance...in terms of ideology, but we agree with the basic principle that oversight in this committee is an important piece to how this government, or any government in the future, ought to function. I would never want to see, which could possibly happen, the honourable member from Edmonton West sitting across from me asking me to sign the NDA and saying, “Well, remember in the last Parliament that happened.” We need to have some foresight here.
The narrow interest of protecting these contracts is not worth it, my friends. To sacrifice so much, to go this far, I'm aghast by it. To use this much time and effort.... I'll talk all day, because that's obviously what's going to happen here. If I give up this time, you're going to go on forever. I know that, and so I'll use that time to continue to talk to each and every one of you about that.
It's a serious thing. We're talking about billions of dollars here, billions and billions of dollars between a private company that we want oversight for, and you're saying they need to sign an NDA. That's wild. That's a wild level of extraordinary protection when there are already clear safeguards. Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to accept those safeguards? You can play strong all you want, but these safeguards are built in. What you are asking for is there, absent of an NDA, something the corporations want of the department, something this committee is obviously not willing to do.
With that fact, you're presented with two options. One option is to vote on the amendment the Bloc has tabled, which is reasonable, has safeguards. It takes your position into account far greater than any other party here in hopes to build consensus. You know just as well as we do, and the law clerk apparently, that all of these things aren't necessary for us to have oversight over documents. Why would you gamble like this? If you really care about the government and you really care about Canadians not being exposed to risk, you would take the opportunity that the security of the motion provides, rather than force us to go to Parliament to have these documents seconded to us.
It is one of the worst instances of risk management I've seen. It is not appropriate risk management review. There is no option that is presented to you that says zero risk and 100% risk. That's a fallacy. Both motions and the amendment present the exact same risk—maybe differently to the government rather than to Parliament, but to us parliamentarians, the exact same risk.
You have an option to take what I think is a pretty good deal, and that's to go in camera to have these documents reviewed. It's not so hard. It's not going to be a big deal like you think it's going to be. If you get sued, defend Canadians. Don't push them away like you are now, asking that they don't deserve to have oversight because you're going to get sued and it's a risk to all Canadians and the taxpayer. You should never have come into a contract like this, that would require NDAs, knowing that Parliament has power to view these documents. Why would a government seek to make something secret, knowing that Parliament could make it un-secret?
I'll say it again for Peter: Why would you as a government enter into a contract with a confidentiality clause knowing that you could not stop what is happening right here today? It was going to become public. It's going to become public one way or another, because this committee has decided it's important, and Canadians have decided that it's a matter of national import.
Thank heavens for the Bloc Québécois. You know what? There is some risk here. Maybe we should review this in a reasonable way. Maybe we should look at this within a committee. MPs are duly elected. Who's going to look at these other than MPs? It should be MPs.
I thank Mr. Housefather for bringing those rights up. I wish he'd rely on those principles of good governance now. It's the right of MPs to view these contracts. To suggest anything else is a “request”, a “please”, and you've heard “no”.
We now need to take the reasonable perspective of having some level of protection versus no level of protection. I suggest that we as colleagues accept the level of protection that is offered to this committee and to the government by way of going in camera, a verified option by the law clerk in their letter to us and to our chair. These are reasonable steps.
Why is the perspective of the department greater than the perspective of Canadians? It's an important piece of this work. It's unfortunate that we've evolved into the position we're in now. I'm going to keep saying these things until you can really hear how important it is, really hear it, and listen to your colleagues about this, or you can do what you accused us of doing and have a narrow perspective. The narrowest perspective present at this committee is the perspective of the department, which would seek to protect itself at all costs, even at the cost of transparency, which is how institutions break. It's how institutions die.
The in camera portion of this protects each and every one of you. It protects the government even against the department's legal recommendation. Perhaps that's true. You're probably all concerned about that the most. But that's a different thing you're doing than looking out for the interests at public accounts. You need to be transparent about that. That's what I find offensive. And then you would accuse us of being partisan for that. I won't name the member—unless, Housefather, you want me to.
It's important. This is really important. It's billions of dollars. This isn't your money. This is Canadians' money.
They deserve to have MPs, especially MPs, get a chance to review these documents. It's a reasonable request, one of compromise, one that has thoughtful input on your behalf.
It's gotten to the point now where I believe our member from the Bloc is offended. You're breaking down collegiality in this place. You're breaking down the purpose of this institution, of the laws that are already in place to protect in the exact circumstances in favour of an opinion from a department whose narrow interest is to defend itself. There's a difference there, a pretty incredible difference, actually.
You've recognized it yourself, Mr. Housefather. The Government of Canada is not a Liberal MP, but in this case we have Liberal MPs not wanting to look at the motion put forward in a reasonable way because the department is concerned about liability so much so that it would request that these members table an amendment that would force NDAs upon members of this committee, and duly elected members of this House whose rights are paramount in this place.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a Parliament. We'd have a dictatorship where the government would enter into any contracts and any agreements it wants, without any oversight. The extraordinary circumstances you're requesting in this committee are being rejected. That doesn't mean your principle of ensuring the confidentiality of those agreements is there. No, that's very different. There's a process that's been identified.
Should any one of us breach the requirements of going in camera, we all have rights to ensure that that member is held accountable. That is a level of security of this place, a level of trust that's been going on for over a hundred-and-some-odd years. To change it now for the benefit of a department of the government is inappropriate. I know that these members, our Liberal colleagues, would not want to be on the other end of that, should it be another government. They would not want to be held liable for the dealings of a government from whom you never even had an opportunity to see the contract or dealings of.
I know each of you understand that. You're good, reasonable people. I believe everyone in this place is a good, reasonable person. I also understand that we have a job to do and there are interests involved. I can see your interests very clearly. I'd hope that you can see our interests as clearly as well, and see that our interests are paramount here to the interests of protecting the department. That is, the interests of transparency and trust for Canadians in one of the greatest times of division in our country. To do this, to ask members to do an NDA, will very much verify the things that some of our opposition colleagues often fearmonger about.
That's why I believe we can come to a position absent of the department's recommendation, that each and every one of you take upon yourselves in your roles as duly elected members of this House, and see that one of your colleagues, another duly elected member, has tabled a motion that seeks to benefit Canadians and is a matter of national import. In addition, it takes into account your position and the department's position. That's the offer. It's a reasonable one.
I trust that when the Bloc tabled this, it was of the perspective that there was obviously confidential information in there. It's obvious that there was information related to confidentiality clauses. It was built right into the motion.
In the time that we have remaining here, I hope that my colleagues would see there's a reasonable request, a reasonable motion on the table, that would do away with this circumstance we're in now.
Otherwise, we return to the subject after two weeks. I'm sure some people fundraise. Why even give the opportunity when you have a chance and the goodwill of the mover of this motion?
There could be a time when that goodwill runs out and the worst-case scenario for the government becomes possible—the release of these documents without the protection of in camera—because of how important it is for Canadians to understand that there's trust in the expenditure of billions of dollars. I hope you can see those things for what they are.
I might not be here forever. However, I hope that anyone who sits in this room—anyone who sits in public accounts in the future and any government—has the respect, and that their rights are respected as MPs and as members of Canada's chamber in Canada's national Parliament to be able to do really basic things, like always have the opportunity to make sure, as per the laws of this country that allow us to, let or hinder.... The signing of an NDA is one of those things.
It's the goodwill I'm requesting on behalf of all members of this committee. When the Bloc brought this forward, it was one of the very first questions. Is it secure enough? That was the first thing that was brought up. That's why the motion is the way it is. It is one of the most secure processes we have in this place. It's one of the most secure processes in this country, and you're requesting...and it was made mention by our chair that he's concerned about the breach of privilege. I don't take that lightly.
If we begin to pick away at the institutions that protect Canadians by adding barriers and requirements of law, and binding them to NDAs, you would not agree. This will happen one day. The Liberals will be in opposition one day. That's how democracy works. You would not want this to bind you.
What a request of this committee.
I don't even know if this has ever happened, where commercial contracts dealing with medicine like this were so secretive in a time of great division and when you would think we would unite to ensure that we can get consensus on these things.
The best way forward is to have consensus at this table. That's what I'm interested in. That's why this motion, I believe, is well written. It's fair to all persons here. It utilized the existing processes of Parliament. It used the precedent that has been set in this place for a hundred-and-some-odd years.
We have a note from the Auditor General and a note from the law clerk, but those aren't enough. The department wants NDAs, because the department knows it's going to have to have dealings with these companies and their interests are far different. Whatever their interests may be, they are not the interests we are asking about here.
I would humbly request that members.... I doubt we're going to get to a vote on this today, so I hope that later on, during the break, you take opportunities to talk to folks and see whether or not you would want to be on the other end of this, because it puts us in a difficult position. It's a really difficult position. It's an unfair one that you wouldn't agree with yourselves.
If Stephen Harper was around and asked you to do that.... It would be a historic moment watching Peter Fragiskatos sign an NDA in the Harper government.
That's what's being requested here.
Even in a minority setting, you'd think our members would want to be as co-operative as possible, knowing that they don't have the will of the majority of Canadians, which is a really important piece to this, because you're going to have to go home and and tell your constituents all about this. You're going to have to say the same things that you said to us. “It's really important. The government's going to get sued, so we don't want to release these contracts.” They would say, “What?” You know that. You know that they'd be aghast by this, but that's what we're faced with.
I want to summarize the fact that there is will at the table to come to a consensus on this. The Bloc Québécois, New Democrats and even Conservatives are willing to go in camera to protect the confidentiality of these agreements. It may not be the perspective the department wants you to take, but it should be the perspective you take on behalf of Canadians, because you're not in the department itself.
If you were an ADM or even deputy minister, your job would be very different. It would be to protect that contract and to protect the agreements within it. I understand that's the perspective you're taking now, but there's another perspective, a perspective of being MPs and maybe even future members of the opposition after this becomes a precedent.
You know some parties in this country would use that as a process to forever exclude members from seeing contracts. I really suggest that these members take seriously the will of Parliament and the will of duly elected members instead of the narrow perspective of a department that seeks to protect a contract of private dealings with a commercial company, because that is ultimately what's happening here.
The corporations want an NDA. Maybe the government even knew that. Maybe the government, when entering these contracts with these corporations, said, “Let's put an NDA clause in here, just in case those parliamentarians of Canada want to review it” or, even worse, “Let's put in a confidentiality clause.”
This is the reason committees in Canada exist. This is why one of the oldest oversight committees in the country is here. Public accounts is one of the oldest standing committees for this purpose.
To not see the opportunity and the cover that the motion provides you is foolish, because the alternative is worse. Read the note. The law clerk tells you what the alternatives are and what options this committee has, and it doesn't say to make the members sign NDAs. It says the opposite. It says that there are many actions we can take to protect information.
I refer to page 3 of the note from the law clerk. We have any of those options. Look at it right now. We're all going to be here for another 50 minutes or more. I'll read the whole letter, since it's important.
It says, “To the Chair....”
