The Auditor General’s reports on SDTC were worrisome. Today, we had Ms. Annette Verschuren and other witnesses before us. There are indeed several reasons to be worried. Furthermore, I think we should recognize that Minister Champagne did, to a certain extent, acknowledge his responsibility. It is true that we were lied to. In any case, when we had the former minister, Mr. Bains, before us, I think we were lied to. I think we were unable to get the truth during that testimony. Evading questions and not giving answers do indeed worry me. However, the current minister did indeed suspend funding, transfer responsibility for it to the National Research Council of Canada, or NRCC, requested an internal investigation, and so on.
That is why I think the motion—I’ll come to the amendment later—has merit. Insofar as the current minister took responsibility and reestablished funding in another form, I think it is legitimate for the committee to look into new contribution agreements concluded since June. I may move an amendment, but I think the motion is valid.
I am now looking at the amendment. When it comes to the issue of documents, it goes back a long way. I am not saying it’s without merit. I am not saying that looking into those documents is not a task for a parliamentary committee. However, to a certain extent, I concur with the analysis by my colleague, Mr. Drouin: committee time is supposed to be valuable. Its time is limited, and the more limited it is, the more valuable it is. In this context, my impression remains that, regarding the documents dated from 2018 to 2023 in the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Généreux, it may be premature. I think we would be duplicating what the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is doing.
I have not yet decided how I’m going to vote. I do not want to presume to know anyone’s intentions. However, I think we understand the analysis up to 2023. Even today, we received a document revealing that Ms. Verschuren changed her version. I don’t know how many times a week she changes it. She certainly changes her version of the facts every time she comes before the committee. I think the work up until 2023 is the Auditor General’s responsibility. If we want to look more deeply into it here, at Parliament, that falls under the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.