Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to Mr. Lemire's amendment, I'd like to second Mr. Vis's reminder that committees are independent.
We regularly get gentle reminders in the House of Commons that committees are independent. As such, I hope that my Liberal colleagues will have the decency to follow this recommendation from their ministers, who constantly remind us about that independence in the House.
That said, Mr. Lemire, I just want to say that, during the Charbonneau commission in Quebec and the sponsorship scandal right here in Ottawa in the 1990s, elected representatives, public servants, and even whistle-blowers in some cases, had to put a huge amount of effort over a long period of time into bringing these scandals to light.
Can we use the word “scandal” in connection with the matter before us today? It sure looks as though we can.
As my colleague, Mr. Vis, just said, the fact that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry literally froze all funds administered by Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, suggests at the very least that something fishy is going on.
That's why I think we should be able to have six meetings. We're here to work. I understand Mr. Turnbull's point of view, and I respect it. We certainly do want to avoid having two different committees do the same work.
However, I agree with Mr. Vis that it's up to our committee to deal with all matters relating to industry and innovation, especially all the funding that goes to that.
That's why, quite honestly, I think six hours is not too much. As far as witnesses go, we can leave our options open. I'm not opposed to that, but I think we definitely need to hear from the whistle-blowers and the SDTC executive, who need to come and be accountable.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.