Thank you, Chair.
This is in response to something that was raised by Mr. Desjarlais. He said something to the effect that we would want to understand as a committee more about the nature of these agreements, how certain decisions were made and a number of other things, obviously. Questions could be raised about NDAs and these kinds of things that Mr. Desjarlais was talking about.
Notice that the amendment concludes by saying, “Furthermore, the committee requests that PSPC officials be available for future in camera meetings to discuss the topic.” Built into the amendment is a provision that would allow us as parliamentarians to engage directly with public servants from PSPC to understand more about how these agreements came together. From there, I think we as a committee could formulate recommendations to the government on what to keep in mind as far as best future practices are concerned for these kinds of agreements.
Hanging in the balance, of course—and I don't think it's a small matter—is what Ms. Yip raised earlier. I was glad to hear the opposition acknowledge it. It's the matter about the future availability of vaccines. From a public health perspective, this is incredibly important. Yes, we do have engagements and relationships with pharmaceutical companies on a range of different vaccines, not just with respect to COVID-19. I think all of that has to be kept in mind, from a public health perspective, when we take this topic up. I think it's incumbent on all of us to understand the issue from that perspective.
The obligation of members of Parliament to live up to their responsibility to understand the business of the day is not just an idea. To be able to examine documents as part of that is sacrosanct in any parliamentary democracy. The government is the government. We as parliamentarians have an obligation, yes, but we also have the ability to decide on what's in front of us. Again, let's not lose sight of the fact that we can look at these documents unhindered. I'm not sure how our privilege would be violated.
Mr. McCauley spoke before. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I disagree. I disagree on the point about being insulted. I don't see how my parliamentary privilege as an MP would be breached here, but again, I emphasize that I speak for myself. Others clearly feel differently. I think all of these things must weigh on us when we're making this decision.
By the way, I think what Mr. Housefather just proposed is quite reasonable. It's not as though he's saying let's put this off for six months and give PSPC the ability to get back to us in six months' time or something like that. No, not at all; it would be a few days. In fact, if I remember correctly, his suggestion was that we look at this at the next meeting. What is wrong with that?
The Liberal side has moved very significantly in the past few days, going against what was originally proposed but thinking about it further and coming back to the table constructively with a compromise amendment that doesn't water down the substance of our Bloc colleague's desire at all. It doesn't in my humble view, at least. We still would be able to look at the documents unredacted.
This is not just about living up to our responsibility on this side. I think all of us would have a collective responsibility to do whatever due diligence is required to ensure that we've ticked all the boxes, so to speak, when it comes to understanding the question of risk. In that vein, what is wrong with going back and asking PSPC to examine this whole issue of the non-disclosure agreement more thoroughly, and to waive it in the way that was suggested, potentially, for this committee by Mr. Housefather, if I remember the exact wording of what he proposed? That is beyond reasonable, in my mind. Again, that could be put off for months and months and months. It's not being put off.
Humbly, I put it to colleagues again to really consider this and delve in. What we could do is continue to remain firmly in our corners, so to speak. I think the easiest thing to do would be to remain in our respective positions, stay in the corner and not want to compromise at all. This is my view and I'm not changing it.
We've taken a few steps forward here. I would ask that the opposition recognize this by entertaining, at a minimum, what was just proposed by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Housefather. It would advance the dialogue in a constructive way. Let's see what PSPC says. It could be they come back with something we agree with collectively as a committee—or not.
Yes, the government is the government, but as I said before, we're all parliamentarians. I don't think it should be assumed that the Liberal side, if PSPC came back with something that... Whatever view they held, it's not automatic that our side would be forced to agree with it—not at all. We've disagreed before, every single one of us on this side. Mr. Housefather is an associate member of this committee, but the regular members, as a common practice, have asked very difficult questions.
I'm looking in that direction, because I'm used to the Auditor General being there with officials. Every one of us has asked very difficult questions of officials since this committee's inception. I'm a relatively new member of the committee and didn't know what it was all about when I joined. It's a different kind of committee. It's the audit committee of Parliament. It gives a great deal of freedom and leeway to all members of Parliament, including those on the Liberal side, to ask challenging questions of officials.
With that in mind, and thinking about our roles and responsibilities as parliamentarians, not Liberal members of Parliament in the first instance—