Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To save time, I'm just going to say that I concur with what I heard from my colleague, Scott Brison. Also, I often don't agree with the NDP, but I must say right now that Mr. Julian's comments could have quoted me verbatim. I certainly agree completely.
I believe the motion is in order, but there's only one thing about asking to have another minister present. I don't think it's wise, and I also don't think there's enough time, to have both ministers here at the same time. I would ask us to rethink when we want to have the two different ministers. I think we should have the ministers separately as opposed to simultaneously.
On the other hand, I want to make a point. It's still my understanding that shipbuilding falls within that department. At least, it did when I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry. Is that still the case? Would the parliamentary secretary know?
If so, then it would only make sense to invite the minister responsible for shipbuilding, contrary to what I believe my good friend, the parliamentary secretary, stated. I think it's important that we have him here. As Mr. Julian clearly pointed out, there are questions, and one witness does not suffice.
I think that's our responsibility as a committee. We could not face the stakeholders in the future. Whether they live in my riding of Scarborough or not, that's not the point; they would call me anyway if they're coming from Nova Scotia or somewhere. I have an obligation to respond. I could not, in good conscience, say to them that I didn't hear any witnesses, that I didn't do my work.
That's my position, Mr. Chairman.