Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the committee's attention to all of these things.
Look, I think it's pretty clear that we're right now at an irreconcilable difference over the question of the NDA. I think that we're all agreed—and I felt very strongly about it, as strongly as many others do—that the committee has a right to see the documents in an unredacted way. I think we all agree that it should be done in a way that retains confidentiality.
The real difference, based on the information that I have, is that as I best understand the situation, there is a process under the contract that needs to be followed.
Mr. Chair, you mentioned before—and I appreciate your saying it—that you were concerned about the issue of the NDA in the motion. I would refer you to the justice committee. It has adopted motions saying that any members of the justice committee who wish to see certain things have to sign an NDA. That's related to, for example, Supreme Court appointments and vacancies. When I was allowed to see the application forms of the candidates, I had to sign an NDA. I don't think it's unprecedented.
I hope that I'm not doing this only because I'm a Liberal MP saying that I think an NDA is required. I think, no matter who I was, whether I was in government or opposition or whichever party I was part of, that it's my responsibility as a member to say, “Yes, I want to see it. Yes, I insist on my role in seeing it, but I want to mitigate any potential damages.”
I don't believe in filibustering and rambling. That's not me; I don't do that. I'm very honest and candid about stuff like that. It's not me.
To me, there has to be a solution that allows the committee to achieve consensus. We're not going to achieve consensus today on an NDA or no NDA. What I again ask is to let us go back.
I get what you're saying about the fact that the companies are unlikely to waive NDAs willy-nilly, but maybe they'll have an option other than an NDA. Maybe what should happen is that not only should the committee be informed by the department, but, at the very first meeting coming back, we call the department's legal advisers to explain to the committee in an in camera session what they see as the legal risks of not signing the NDA. Then the committee can make that decision based on full knowledge and not just my hearsay knowledge.
I'd like to be clear—
I believe it's “décision éclairée” in French.
—and lucid about exactly what the risk is. Nobody here is making this decision knowing the exact risk. If we know that there is some risk to the Canadian taxpayer if there's a breach, why wouldn't we at least try to inform ourselves of exactly what that risk is?
Today is the first that I've heard about any of this. I think that's my best suggestion. Let's, again, all agree that the documents come in an unredacted way. The committee is free to vote, after they hear the information about why the NDA is required, to reject that advice. Hopefully, they'll even come and say that we've found a solution that doesn't require an NDA.
The only way that I think we'd find consensus is to suspend the discussion and bring it back at the next meeting. If you want, call as witnesses the people from the department who can explain what their interactions were with the suppliers over the last couple of weeks and what the risk is. They can provide that to the committee in camera. Then you can assess whether it's reasonable or not. Maybe we'll listen and all agree that it's not reasonable either, that it's an over-legalization of the problem and there's not really such a great risk. Maybe it will be the reverse, and you guys will say, “Yes, there is a risk we didn't really understand. As a result, we think this is the right way forward.”
That's my best suggestion. I'm not going to talk any longer.