I want to support Ms. Nash's motion. I want the minister here.
This is not an amendment, but I'd like to get some feedback from committee members, pursuant to the wisdom of Mr. Cannis, and it is truly that. I'd like to see this motion read something to the effect that the committee requests that the Minister of Industry appear before the committee within the next—I'm thinking we have three weeks, we're off a week, and then we're back for three weeks—four- to six-week period.
I have questions, obviously, about this, whether he can choose to answer or not answer, Mr. Carrie, but I also have other questions, and I want to talk about a whole range of issues. I don't know how long it's going to take before we get to the estimates, but I wonder if the committee will consider the specificity of Ms. Nash's motion to deal with something that he may not be able to discuss for obvious reasons, recognizing that a number of the concerns the member has raised with respect to treaty compliance, RADARSAT-2, and consistency with the land mines treaty, all sound so much like the foreign affairs committee. That aside, this period of time would also let us know whether there is a regulatory bar that has been lifted as a result of the regulator saying yes or no.
So let's have the minister here, let's get him here in the next five weeks, and I think that would probably solve a number of concerns, rather than this back and forth about what the minister can and cannot say.
Frankly, Mr. Carrie, I think it has been six months. I know the minister will probably want to come before the committee. A whole host of issues have emerged, including some of the work we're doing on servicing, on the dollar valuation, on energy costs, on manufacturing. We've not heard from this minister, and I think this would be a great opportunity to do that, among other things.
So I'm offering it as a friendly motion to Ms. Nash. I'm trying to find what I think we all want. I want to hear from the minister.