Science and Research Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I believe it is important for all my colleagues in attendance to fully understand the rules so that everyone is aware of this way of doing things. It's important that you clarify the procedure to follow going forward.

Is this standard practice for the committee? Could you clarify the situation? Can the clerk help shed some light on the procedures? Is there a rule or procedure of which I'm unaware, but that I would like to delve into to fully understand how the committee works? Based on my experience as a member of this committee for the past four years, I must say this is the first time I've encountered such a situation. At this point, I find the situation quite uncomfortable. We have always acted with a great deal of transparency and respect. What I am seeing today is that the way things are done is changing, and I do not believe that this is the right way to achieve respectful and healthy collaboration. We need to ensure that we, as a committee, can truly be comfortable with the way we work.

Today, I have to tell you that the way you want to curtail this debate makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I'm simply trying to ask questions about the procedure. On two or three occasions, I asked you to confirm that you had made the decision before informing us. You don't seem to want to answer. I'm not looking for a confrontation between us, but the evidence is right in front of me. So, it's not just a matter of trying to buy time, but of saying that we need to set the record straight to prevent this kind of situation from happening again. Despite my attempts, I see that you don't want to answer so that all the members of the committee have the same information. That is also what equality means: everyone must be informed of the situation so that we all have the same information. Today, I wonder if my colleagues would like to receive the same information by email, or if they would like to take a little time out of the committee's meeting. Once again, I'd like to thank the witnesses who've joined us today for their understanding.

That said, we don't have an agenda for today's committee meeting. So it would be impossible to have that kind of discussion.

Do you think it would be possible to clarify the situation today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

In future, we'll make sure that you are consulted and that everyone is consulted, but in my capacity as chair, I have the power to make some decisions.

MP Mahal, please go ahead.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Chair, if you start a new precedent of consulting each member, I think it will take additional time away from the committee. We might not be able to do what the committee was designed to do in terms of its rightful purpose. The moment you send a notice, I believe it's on the members to raise objections if they have them.

I understand the concerns of my colleague, and I share them in part, but this is not the right platform to discuss those concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes. If any member wants to discuss anything in regard to the process by which the meetings are held, they should please feel free to get in touch with me by email or telephone.

I will make sure that in future I inform everyone in advance.

MP Rana, please go ahead.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think you did your due diligence. If someone doesn't like something, or they have some objections, they can respond to the email. If they don't respond, it means they're okay with it and we're on the same page.

I think we should move forward, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

I think we have heard the concerns, and I apologize.

MP Baldinelli, please go ahead.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

This is just a quick process question, Madam Chair. I'm hoping that we will have a full hour with these four witnesses who have been waiting patiently and that we can get to them—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

First let me start. After that, we'll see what the resource situation is.

I really want to apologize to the witnesses for the delay. Sometimes this happens in the committee. Welcome to all of you.

We will now proceed to five-minute opening remarks from the witnesses.

We will start with Mr. MacDonald from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Liam MacDonald, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of more than 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, and over 200,000 businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions across Canada.

Research and development is foundational to modern economies. Strong R and D ecosystems drive innovation, enable new technologies, improve existing ones, enhance productivity, and strengthen competitiveness across entire value chains. The benefits extend far beyond individual firms. Indeed, R and D generates knowledge spillovers, fuels long-term growth and supports the creation of high-quality jobs.

Yet Canada’s economy is at a crossroads. Global competitors—particularly the United States—are rapidly expanding incentives to spur business investment. At the same time, geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain pressures, and shifting global markets are reshaping the environment in which Canadian companies operate. Innovation leadership is increasingly tied not only to economic performance, but to national resilience and sovereignty.

However, Canada continues to lag behind its international peers in R and D spending. In 2023, Canada spent about 1.8% of its GDP on R and D, which is second-last in the G7 and below nearly two-thirds of OECD countries. We spend an average of 2.7% of GDP on R and D. Persistent underinvestment constrains productivity, innovation and long-term growth—challenges that are already reflected in growth forecasts of about 1% in the years ahead.

This competitiveness challenge is sharpened by recent U.S. policy developments. The U.S. has repeatedly moved with speed and scale, most recently through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which extended full expensing for machinery, equipment and R and D.

Canada's slow response to past U.S. reforms contributed to a prolonged stagnation in non-residential business investment, which remains below 2014 levels. To avoid falling further behind, bold, coordinated federal action is needed to strengthen tax competitiveness, drive private sector R and D, accelerate technology adoption and position Canada for long-term resilience.

Budget 2025 includes several positive measures, such as early changes to the scientific research and experimental design incentive, or SR and ED, funding for talent attraction, sovereign public AI compute infrastructure and enhanced venture and growth capital. While these are welcome steps, the competitiveness gap facing Canadian businesses remain substantial, especially relative to U.S. innovation incentives.

To close this gap, the Canadian Chamber recommends action in three priority areas.

First is strengthening Canada's tax competitiveness. We recommend offering a productivity and investment tax credit modelled on Ontario's enhanced 15% credit and the Atlantic investment tax credit to support new buildings, machinery, equipment and software. We also recommend permanently extending the accelerated investment incentive to allow full and immediate expensing of machinery and equipment. Permanence would give businesses long-term certainty to anchor production, innovation and R and D in Canada.

Second is modernizing Canada's R and D commercialization and intellectual property incentives. To do this, we recommend accelerating long overdue SR and ED reforms, implementing a pre-approval process, expanding eligibility to commercialization and digital innovation, and indexing expenditure limits to inflation. We also recommend implementing a national patent box regime that provides a preferential tax rate on income derived from IP developed and commercialized in Canada—a proven tool in jurisdictions such as the U.K., Belgium and France.

Third is building the workforce that Canada needs to support R and D growth and technology adoption. To do this, we recommend conducting a national needs assessment to align training with labour market demand and ensuring fast, predictable foreign credential recognition for in-demand occupations.

We thank the committee for undertaking this timely and important study. Strengthening private sector R and D is essential to our long-term competitiveness and growth.

I look forward to your questions and to continuing the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Now we will proceed to Mr. Kingston from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Brian Kingston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee members, thanks for the invitation to appear here today.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, or CVMA, represents Canada's leading manufacturers of light- and heavy-duty motor vehicles. Our membership includes Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. Those companies have been operating in Canada for over 100 years and they're responsible for most of the auto production in Canada, having built over 100 million vehicles since 1945—the earliest records that we have. They're also the largest employers in the auto manufacturing sector, supporting 20,000 jobs, the majority of which are unionized.

Automakers are among Canada's largest private sector investors in research and development. In-house research spending by automakers in Canada topped $898 million in 2024, according to Statistics Canada, and that's up from $830 million in 2023 and is quadruple the $210 million spent a decade earlier.

CVMA members are constantly innovating with investments in electrification, autonomous driving and connectivity. Ford, GM and Stellantis have recently made investments in Canada, specifically for R and D, over the past decade. I'll give you three examples of some of the activity under way right now.

Ford operates three connectivity and innovation centres—one in Ottawa, one in Waterloo and one in Oakville. These have grown to 500 positions since 2017. It's all part of a $500-million investment by Ford into Canadian R and D operations.

In 2021, GM announced the opening of the Canadian Technical Centre McLaughlin Advanced Technology Track in Oshawa, which supports engineering, development and testing of advanced software and technologies. That institute employs more than 1,300 engineers and software developers across four locations in Ontario.

In Windsor in 1996, Stellantis opened the Automotive Research and Development Centre, or ARDC. That was a $30-million investment and the first partnership of its kind with a Canadian university linking the auto sector to academia. The total research spend there now is over $1 billion. There are six road-test simulators, proprietary software development and a range of R and D support facilities.

More recently, as part of Stellantis' multi-billion dollar investments in Canada, the ARDC is becoming the first battery lab in North America. That will add an additional 650 skilled engineering jobs to support electrification.

We welcomed budget 2025 and the SR and ED program enhancement that was included there. Increasing the expenditure limit to $6 million will make a tangible difference for companies that are considering R and D investments in Canada.

However, I'd like to leave the committee with a recommendation here today. There is an important component of auto R and D that is at risk right now, and it's due to CBSA changes to temporary vehicle import letter processes. The temporary import letter provides a mechanism for automakers to bring vehicles into Canada for testing and then return them to the United States. There is uncertainty right now around that program. Any delays, administrative burdens and new costs that are added to importing these vehicles for testing will put at risk Canada's role as a location of choice to do R and D in the automotive sector.

We've had months of engagement with CBSA, and no options have been presented to manufacturers for review and input. The current process is set to expire at the end of December, and at this point, there's simply not enough time for manufacturers to introduce a new process, so we're asking for an extension to the way that vehicles are currently imported into Canada. We have to make sure that the administrative burden is minimized and that there is an adequate transition time for any sort of new process that the CBSA introduces.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to be here and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

That was less than five minutes.

We will now proceed to Dr. Morgan Lehtinen, representing RXN Reaction Hub.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Morgan Lehtinen, Executive Director, RXN Reaction Hub]

Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for the invitation to speak on this important topic.

Before we discuss how to promote more private sector investment into university research, I'd like to pause and rethink the question itself, because invention is not innovation. What leaves a university lab is an invention, an idea unconstrained by real-world requirements. Universities excel at generating these breakthrough discoveries. Canada is globally recognized for this strength. However, the private sector invests in innovation—technologies that have been validated, de-risked and ready to scale.

In the sectors I represent as the executive director of Reaction Hub—a scale-up and commercialization hub for chemical technologies and processes that span natural resources, energy, critical minerals and advanced materials—those real-world constraints are substantial. These are energy, safety, labour, environmental impacts, economics and physical scale. Universities are not designed to apply these constraints, and nor should they be expected to function as industrial innovation agencies.

This is the gap where so many Canadian technologies stall. The question is not how we grow private sector investment into emerging innovations from Canadian universities. The question is how we better prepare university inventions to become private sector investable innovations. There's no shortage of researchers eager to commercialize their work. Such national programs as i2I, or invention to Innovation, and Lab2Market are building the crucial talent pools, transferable skills and awareness, but interest in education alone is not enough. To advance innovation and enable the scale-up of Canadian technologies in Canada, I have three recommendations.

The first recommendation is to establish a standardized national framework for technology validation. Canada lacks a consistent, evidence-based way to assess the commercial feasibility of early-stage technologies. Without a shared framework, researchers, investors, industry and regulators often operate without clear communication, specifically around risk mitigation and potential incentives. That disconnect is a major contributor to what we all talk about as the valley of death.

Canada already has an international standard, ISO 14076, the environmental techno-economic assessment, or eTEA. Reaction Hub was one of two Canadian contributors on the ISO standards committee. These eTEAs translate scientific inventions into metrics that matter for economic and industrial decision-making. To accelerate the adoption, federal programs like IRAP, NSERC, ISED and NRCan can fund qualified providers to do eTEAs, integrate them into federally funded research and commercialization programs and expand existing training programs so that researchers can apply them themselves early.

The second recommendation is to facilitate early and structured engagement between universities in the broader innovation ecosystem. Innovation happens within a community of stakeholders, not within a single institution, so we must establish these consistent practices for engaging partners earlier to limit late-stage surprises due to insufficient analysis, poorly planned commercialization projects or incorrect budgeting practices. Establishing these new KPIs and reporting metrics for funding programs that promote this early engagement between academic researchers and ecosystem partners can help align incentives and minimize unforeseen roadblocks.

The third recommendation is to fund national programs that connect fragmented provincial innovation efforts. Across Canada, government investments are often under-leveraged, because our funding programs operate in regional silos. National mandates delivered through provincial frameworks often lead to duplicated programs, gaps for the mid-stage of development, barriers to accessing infrastructure across the different provinces and a patchwork of funding strategies that make national coordination difficult. We need true connection funding, programs that link research outputs from universities to pilot facilities, demonstration sites, service providers and industry partners across the country. These programs should build on experienced agencies and existing infrastructure, not create new layers of competition. Since ecosystems generate retained operational knowledge, each subsequent project an ecosystem works on advances more efficiently and with lower risk than the last.

To end off, Canada is a world leader in invention, but invention alone does not build companies, industries or national competitiveness. This is a global challenge. If Canada wants to lead, we must evolve our systems to enable innovation by, one, preparing inventions to scale; two, supporting the ecosystems that de-risk them; and three, aligning our national policies with the full commercialization pathway.

Current estimates suggest that more than $275 trillion would be needed to reach net zero by 2050 with existing technology development systems, a sign that our models of innovation are not working fast enough. In a moment of nation building, we can strengthen our domestic supply chains and build critical infrastructure, but we can also build the processes and policies that turn Canada's research excellence into a global competitive advantage.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Madam Sultan, chief data officer and vice-president for health at the Vector Institute.

Ms. Sultan, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please go ahead.

[Roxana Sultan, Chief Data Officer and Vice President, Health, Vector Institute]

Honourable Chair and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Vector Institute to speak on this important topic today.

You've heard from other witnesses about challenges in Canada's research ecosystem and how these challenges impact private sector investment in research and development. We would like to focus on a specific actionable solution that's delivering measurable results right now: the capacity to translate research into real-world application across industries.

Canada possesses extraordinary AI research strength. We are home to global pioneers, leading universities and AI institutes, and breakthrough discoveries that have shaped the entire field, yet there has been a translation gap between innovative AI research and direct impact for Canadian companies and their customers. While the global AI adoption rate for business is 34%, Canada lags at 26%. We've fallen from fourth to eighth place in the Tortoise global AI index, and we risk continuing that trend.

To address the gap, the Vector Institute has demonstrated leadership through the creation of a dedicated AI engineering capability that bridges fundamental research and business application. This isn't traditional tech transfer: It's a fast-follow capability that can rapidly translate breakthrough research into deployable solutions while managing implementation risks.

Vector's AI engineering team consists of scientists and technical professionals who understand both cutting-edge research and business problems. They can define how an AI breakthrough can solve real-world challenges and help Canadian companies implement the technology safely and effectively.

Vector's private sector partners derive return on investment through direct access to Vector's AI research innovation and its ability to rapidly convert academic outputs into practical applications that can be deployed to drive measurable improvements in quality and efficiency. A recent Deloitte study commissioned by the Vector Institute reveals that for every federal dollar invested in AI, there was $10.64 in private sector investment in Canada. That's not a theoretical future return; it's happening right now. Last year, close to 80% of start-up and scale-up companies that participated in Vector's industry programming reported new or improved products, services or processes as a result of their engagement.

Here is why such results matter for private sector investment: Canadian companies need confidence to invest in AI. Vector serves as a trusted partner in a context where business leaders recognize that they need AI capabilities but lack the expertise to deploy and evaluate AI solutions. Vector helps companies navigate from research to implementation while maintaining the highest standards for safety and governance.

The Vector Institute has also observed that government and public sector adoption as a first customer for Canadian AI start-ups and scale-ups can help demonstrate that AI advancements can be trustworthy, beneficial and Canadian-controlled. What we are hearing from our ecosystem is that Canada needs to double down on its investments in this translation capability to continue driving private sector investment and measurable returns on that investment.

This can be summarized as follows.

First, Canada can prioritize sustained funding for research-to-application translation capabilities, not just fundamental research. The distinction between fundamental and applied research is increasingly irrelevant in AI: Commercial breakthroughs often emerge from fundamental discoveries within months.

Second, Canada can support not-for-profit institutions that can work across sectors. Here in Ontario, organizations like the Vector Institute, the Creative Destruction Lab and Mitacs generate economic returns because they bridge academic research and private sector applications.

Third, Canada can consider AI adoption requirements in government procurement and funding transfers. When government demonstrates confident, transparent AI adoption, it builds public trust that enables broader business adoption and strengthens the retention of Canadian start-ups and scale-ups as they build their markets.

Canada's AI ecosystem gave us a head start in the global AI competition, but we risk squandering that lead unless we rapidly increase AI adoption rates. Vector has proven that responsible research-to-application translation creates measurable economic impact through increased AI adoption by Canadian firms. That adoption leads to increased productivity. We stand ready to ensure that this trend continues and that Canadian AI capacity makes its way into Canadian firms.

Thank you, and we welcome your questions.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I must admit that I'm quite uncomfortable with the situation we've just experienced.

I would like to share with committee members and those listening to us the content of the email sent by the committee clerk on November 13, which I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting.

The email informed us that Ms. Roxana Sultan would be testifying remotely before the committee at today's meeting and that her testimony would be given without a video camera to prevent images of her from appearing on the Internet. He announced that the chair had agreed to this request and specified that the witness's sound quality would be tested before the meeting. He then asked committee members to share their concerns with the chair and send her their comments.

Madam Chair, as a member of this parliamentary committee, I am unable to identify the person who just spoke. I think that the people who are here today and those who are listening to us can also hear that the voice was altered and sounds robotic. The credibility of the committee is currently at stake. This makes me very uncomfortable. Going forward, are we to accept that witnesses need not identify themselves?

After hearing testimony, we must draft reports and present them to the House of Commons. Madam Chair, I understand that you wanted to make a rather exceptional accommodation. However, I repeat that the committee's credibility is at stake if we hear testimony from people we cannot identify. Is this real testimony? Can it be included in a report by the Standing Committee on Science and Research that will be presented to the House of Commons and then to the government?

I would like to hear my colleagues' opinion on this matter. Doesn't this situation undermine the committee's credibility and the way people perceive the committee and the democratic institution it represents?

I don't know what led this person to take that step. I am willing to respect it, but I would still like to understand the situation, which seems to be causing quite a bit of discomfort, judging by the behaviour of several people I can observe in the room today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Please give me time to discuss this.

Thank you, MP Blanchette-Joncas, for your concerns. I just want to let all the members know that two tests were done before her testimony today. One was yesterday, which was done with the video, and before the meeting, it was done without the video. Just to make sure that everyone is comfortable, I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes and we will ask her to turn her camera on. The proceedings will be paused and everyone can verify, and then she can turn the camera off and we can go into the round of questions. That's the resolution I have.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to make sure I fully understand the situation. Is there a procedural rule for that? I've been a parliamentarian for the past six years, and this is the first time I've encountered such a situation. I'm not trying to make this personal. Rather, I want to avoid setting a precedent.

Madam Chair, I'm speaking to you. I would like you to listen to me and respect me. From what I can see, that doesn't seem important.

Hello, Madam Chair. I'm here. Are you listening to me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, I hear you.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

When you speak to me, I listen. It's a matter of respect. I had questions to ask and I was speaking to you, but you weren't listening to me. I find that disrespectful. I understand that you have questions for the clerk, but you must listen to me first.

I know you're looking for a solution. I'm looking for one too. Is there a procedural rule that governs such a situation? Can people appear before the Standing Committee on Science and Research anonymously? Has that been validated and verified? That's more or less what I understand from the information I have.

I don't know what you want to do now. Do you want to suspend the meeting? Why suspend it? I think it's about transparency. You said earlier that transparency was important. I think it is important. The people who are listening to us and have confidence in this committee and in Parliament—our democratic institution—need to know what's going on. I'm concerned that you're contemplating going in camera. That way, people would no longer be able to follow what is going to happen. That would not be transparent.

I would like you to clarify this situation. I'm still in the hands of the clerk. I know you're having discussions with him. This is a new situation, and I rely on your good faith in the hope that you will find a positive outcome so our committee can maintain its credibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thanks for the issues you have raised. Let me consult with the clerk, and I'll get back to you.

I'm suspending the meeting for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm calling the meeting to order.

I want to clarify that we have verified the identity of the witness who is appearing by audio only. There have been instances where it has been done in the past to accommodate. We have to make sure that all the witnesses are accommodated. If there are any security concerns or any risks for them, it is our responsibility to accommodate them. I am very clear that everything is okay and we should proceed with the meeting. If anyone has problems, you can challenge my ruling.

MP Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be very brief in my comments and they really pertain to the conversation that we've been having.

There have been studies, as you note, in the past. In fact, at the request of my friend from the Bloc, my colleague, Monsieur Lemire, there was an entire study done on sport where witnesses all appeared anonymously or appeared after being verified without their faces on the screen. The witness we're talking about is somebody who I asked to appear. She's one of the most accomplished leaders in AI. She's an incredibly accomplished scientist, the kind of woman who I think a lot of young women look up to as a role model in the sciences, in fields that have historically been dominated largely by men.

I'm interested in what she has to say. She's clearly identified who she is. I think we have to be sensitive to a world in which people are deeply concerned about why their features appear on the Internet. There's a reason why my kids don't appear on the Internet; there are lots of folks out there who can do some very unsavoury things. I don't know what her reasons are. It's not for me to say.

It's not for me to say, but I would say that if we want to have the ability to have the best folks appear at these committees, we're going to have to find ways to make sure they are comfortable giving their testimony. To Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas' point, we have to be comfortable that we're getting testimony from the people who we think we're getting. Clearly, we know who she is.

I can tell you that I have had dinner with her. She is an extremely intelligent, real person with lots of good things that I want to hear her say, and I think others do. I think these are the types of conversations that would give pause to others who may want to come and testify because nobody wants to have their reasons for doing something litigated, when in fact what we want is their testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP Noormohamed. I just want to clarify that we have verified it, and I will be proceeding with the meeting. If anyone has any problem, you can challenge my ruling.

Please go ahead, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, for all our sakes, would it be possible for you or the clerk to explain the situation? Are there any rules or procedures around this situation? Is there some ambiguity here? I understand that attempts are currently being made to find accommodations and reach a decision.

A small group of individuals in the room were able to identify the person, who was appearing anonymously. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I respect that—whether it was for security reasons or other reasons unknown to me.

My colleague Mr. Noormohamed seems to have information that I do not possess. I appreciate him sharing that information with the committee. Will that ensure the full credibility of this testimony? I doubt it. That's why I insisted on this point. Once again, the committee's credibility is at stake.

We committee members were able to identify the person. However, the public—that is to say the vast majority of people listening to us—will not have the same experience. The public will not know how we managed to identify this person through the camera lens.

That's what I'm concerned about today. I fear that some kind of precedent may be set. I also understand that there seems to be some procedural ambiguity and that accommodations are being made on a case-by-case basis in an attempt to clarify matters.

I am trying to determine whether or not we can retain the testimony or whether it will be possible to postpone it. If other witnesses return before the committee in the future, how should we proceed?

Personally, I would like us to take a moment to discuss this situation so that we can move on, either during committee business or at a meeting of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

Thank you.