Thank you, Chair.
I do recognize that other members may want to speak to this. I also realize that only one member may speak after me, so I want to make sure that my points are very clear.
There are two important facts.
The perspective being taken by our colleagues from the Liberal bench is not one that is consistent with this committee or its traditions. Mrs. Shanahan can maybe answer this better: In public accounts, have you ever been forced to sign an NDA?
These are important aspects of questions. These things have just never happened—for commercial contracts especially. It's shocking to know that contracts were even entered into this way.
I digress from that point because governments make dealings all the time, but governments should also know that while they make those dealings, they are accountable to Canadians at the end of the day. This is a measure of accountability that is being requested in an oversight committee, which the opposition controls.
We need co-operative members to see that the value and import of Canadians to this issue is critical—first, to have consensus to end division on this topic, which is my greatest goal.
I would hate to see this motion voted on and just the opposition.... I really want to give you folks the benefit of the doubt that, in your perspective, the processes undertaken through the motion are truly insufficient. But, the request that you're making to compensate for that is just so extreme.
We're left in a very difficult position here. It's nearly unreconcilable, but it's not impossible. It is one where, if there's a more reasonable amendment that does not create a precedent where MPs need to sign an NDA to see commercial contracts—which is obviously an issue here—then I'm willing to hear that amendment.
I'm not willing to allow a precedent that would disproportionately harm all future committees this way to become the standard or norm when any private contracts are dealt with. I know you wouldn't want to be on the other end of that.
My position now is that, when we come to a vote on this, we utilize the goodwill that is within the Bloc Québécois' motion. There's goodwill present there. I don't want to take words out of the Bloc Québécois' or Nathalie's mouth, but those were built in there for the specific and explicit purpose that these documents are confidential. That's why the motion reads the way it does.
It's important you see that, as the opportunity presents itself, because that can have the effect of compromise between both sides. We see the documents and you get confidentiality. Those are both good things.
To be so partisan to say “our way or the highway” is extreme. To set a precedent that would have us sign NDAs for commercial contracts.... Come on. Canadians deserve better than that. The members of this committee deserve better than that.
MPs aren't out to hurt everybody. We're here to do a job that Canadians have duly elected us to do.
They've requested a reasonable motion, for which they have force because they have a number of willing members of this committee.
You're not reading the writing on the wall, which says that no one is going to go along with this amendment because the amendment is intrusive. That being said, the next best thing is the motion.
I do believe that if this motion began by demanding all documents publicly in committee, you would probably come back with an amendment of confidentiality in some way, shape or form. Then we would have agreed. Maybe it would have arisen in the way the motion, as originally tabled, is in terms of the confidentiality and the secure location. Those are important pieces to this.
I would like to see us get to a vote on this. I'd like us to do this without interrupting the procedures of this committee. I do maintain the fact that I know that members know the right thing to do here on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of the country: It's in camera.
Anthony, it's in camera. When you spoke about this, you offered a compelling argument about the need for confidentiality. I agree with that. That is what's offered in the motion.
On the risk that going in camera presents, yes, I agree, you never know what could happen in this place in terms of what someone says in the House of Commons chamber. But that was something you were never going to stop to begin with.
Han Dong even mentioned it last week, if I remember, accusing members that, when something goes in camera, it's going to end up in the House. The member from Edmonton West refuted that. That was reasonable. That was a good thing to refute, because we would never do that. To start from that position of fear and risk is a problem when we need to talk about transparency in the place of transparency.
I think it's a reasonable motion. We're not going to get the amendment agreed upon today. The motion is something that is reasonable and that we can get consensus on right now. The motion, the way it reads now, does have the quality of best ensuring protection and important aspects of confidentiality. I suggest that unless a new amendment can be tabled that takes out some of the important aspects that were mentioned, like the desire not to have an NDA, then maybe we can get to a point of agreement. But if that is the hard line of the government, that entrenched position to protect the government at all costs, the department at all costs, that is the opposite of what.... That is exactly what you are accusing us of, being in entrenched positions, when as a matter of fact, the position that's presented by the motion is actually on account of yours. It's directly a compromise.
I hope you can see the goodwill there. I still stand by my words that we all have a job, and our job on this committee is to be able to review these contracts. That is how the motion reads now, that we discuss that in camera. We review those contracts in camera and Canadians are better assured, or we continue down this path of creating more and more confidentiality clauses to continuously and onerously fetter Parliament.
Before I leave it there, Mr. Chair, I would really invite members to read some of the documents that were tabled and sent to our chair.
Thank you.