Evidence of meeting #137 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
A pause will trigger a vote, so why don't you keep talking. I will just ask them to move to the back of the hall if they're going to be disruptive.
It's over to you.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair. It is quite distracting when I can literally hear what they're saying just across the table.
As I was saying, what is the objective of this motion? Are we talking about vilifying the clean-tech industry specifically? I realize and understand and appreciate the three-word campaigns they love to go on. Are we vilifying the clean-tech industry here? Are we going down the rabbit hole of producing all these documents and all these contracts without setting any barriers or any boundaries?
I spoke earlier about this regarding a number of points Mr. Perkins had raised with respect to the purpose, with respect to why we are doing what we're doing here and with respect to creating that balance of ensuring that our clean-tech sector is protected and is able to thrive, able to continue to engage not just here in Canada with their research and development but also as leaders on the world stage, and able to engage with international organizations as well.
As I indicated earlier, what are the dangers of vilifying an entire industry? I know and understand that the majority of the Conservative Party votes come from Alberta. They have a specific narrative that they want to go down—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Let me make my point, Mr. Perkins.
I really think that in this instance, in this committee, we need to put partisan politics aside and say, look, folks, the clean-tech industry is a growing one. We need to help it grow. We need to make sure that small businesses, enterprises and entrepreneurial minds and ideas are able to thrive, are able to grow and are able to ultimately help not only progress Canada's economy but also deal with the climate-change challenges that Canada has been facing. It's not just Canada. The implications are worldwide.
Why are we picking on a minister who is trying to promote this industry here in Canada? Why are we trying to vilify an entire industry that is trying to thrive and set the stage for Canada? I think it's important for us to really reflect on the objectives of what this motion is really all about.
For example, I know that members opposite continue to call the SDTC a green slush fund. Well, the “green” in their term is important. Clean tech is relevant and important to Canada. It is relevant and important to the world. It is what our young people are innovating on and focusing on. I think we need to do justice to this growing industry.
That does not take away from the study that we've been conducting thus far. It does not take away from accountability or from transparency, but as I outlined earlier, by putting in these types of motions that have no purpose whatsoever other than to vilify the clean-tech industry, it sets a stage for what the future of the clean-tech industry will look like in Canada.
As I have said again and again in this committee, we have seen small businesses that are innovating and that are ensuring that we're progressing, that there's research, that there's development and that there's collaboration not just here in Canada but across the world. When we vilify an entire industry here in Canada, then we're doing Canada an injustice.
I can outline so many ways that does not help clean tech, that does not help Canadians and that does not help the people who are—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Excuse me, Ms. Khalid. I have a point of order from Mr. Perkins.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I would ask if the member could be relevant to the motion before us. The motion before us is about releasing a contribution agreement. It isn't about anything to do with whether or not you support or don't support the green-tech industry. It actually doesn't have anything to do with the Auditor General's report and the issue of the list of companies that inappropriately got money. It's simply about contribution agreements. Perhaps she could stick to the relevance of the contribution agreements.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
You will have an opportunity. Ms. Khalid is well within the universe of the motion. I'll turn the floor back to Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you for highlighting the universe of what this motion is, because I don't think it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
I think this is exactly what I was trying to say. The objective of the motion—as I was trying to put the context together—is to vilify the clean-tech industry. I don't think that's fair to Canada. I don't think it's fair to Canadians. When we go down the path of contribution agreements, etc....
I'm so sorry, Mr. Perkins. I really can hear you across the chamber. It throws me off my thoughts. If you can speak a bit more quietly or in your mind, that would be really helpful. Thank you. I will try to do the same out of respect for you, as I know you care about the issues we're talking about here.
As I was saying, Chair, it's about going down a rabbit hole that is expanding and vilifying the clean-tech industry here in Canada. I can cite so many instances of contribution agreements that have been signed by previous governments. I think I remember Tony Clement signing one of them.
When so much happens, so much is done. It's for the good and the purpose of making sure that the clean-tech industry, which is a thriving and growing one here in Canada, is able to strive....
Again, I know the Conservatives love to clip me and put out whatever it is. I want to reiterate that this is not about holding government, government organizations or arm's-length organizations to account. It is about going down a rabbit hole and killing an entire sector. I don't think this motion fits within the spirit of what Canadian industry is about today.
I spoke at length earlier about small businesses that have suffered because of this vilification of small business. What happens if...? What may happen if...? What if this? What if that?
Well, what if clean tech is able to strive in Canada? What if clean tech becomes the industry that Canada relies on in the future, within the G7, to deal with and fight climate change, while also growing our economy? What if? Why are we trying to kill this industry?
When I say “we”, I really mean the Conservative Party, Chair. I think this motion is a way to go down a rabbit hole and try to nuke what the clean-tech industry has to offer here in Canada. I think it is a way to create a negative rapport with small businesses and research and development, and to ensure that Canada is pursuing and supporting what is going to be the future of all of our country from coast to coast to coast.
When we order the production of documents and we say, “Find us this document” and “Find us that document,” parliamentarians absolutely have the privilege to request all of those, as does this committee, but to what end and why? Why are Parliament and parliamentarians abusing their power?
Why are we breaching our Constitution to force the RCMP to do what is its prerogative? Why are we trying to dictate to the Auditor General what she should or should not study, which is her prerogative? Why are we trying to kill the clean-tech sector?
That is exactly what I think that this motion is trying to represent here—not to me, Chair. I'm not an expert in the clean-tech sector by any means, but that is the message we are sending to small businesses. We're saying, “Look, guys. We don't want your business here. If you try to come and do your business here, we are going to make sure that you come before us. We're going to haul you through the mud and make sure that you are not successful.”
What kind of message are we sending to that industry? What kind of message are we sending to those young people especially, those entrepreneurs who are trying to create an innovative field not only to try to enhance the economy here in Canada but also to try to combat one of the biggest challenges of our time: climate change.
I think that we need to do better. I think that we need to take the partisan politics out of what the Conservatives are trying to do here and focus on the issue at hand. This motion is not that at all. This motion is a blatant political play in trying to kill an entire industry. This motion is a blatant play in trying to expand and go down all of these rabbit holes to try to find something, anything, that will vilify the clean-tech sector. I think that, as the public accounts committee, we cannot and should not be responsible for its death. I think that the responsibility of this committee is to ensure that we are effectively using taxpayer dollars for the betterment of our country. What this motion represents is the exact opposite of that.
I'll stop there for a second, Mr. Chair. I would like to get back on the bottom of the list.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
There's so much.... I believe Mr. Perkins is first.
If that's not the case, every one of your colleagues wants to speak to it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
You gave a look as if you had nothing to say, Mr. Perkins. I know that is probably an impossibility. The floor is yours.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'll be quick and give my colleagues a chance to add in.
I'll just point out that, while heartfelt, the last statement really had nothing to do with the issue before us. The issue before us has nothing to do with this bizarre claim—
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
That's okay. That's okay, Larry.
The issue before us is the question of the government releasing the secret documents of the contribution agreements, which lay out where SDTC can and cannot spend money. It is those documents that are the basis of the Auditor General's report. They're what the Auditor General used to see whether or not $58 million out of the small sample was misspent or not. That doesn't have to do with every clean-tech company that exists in Canada. Every clean-tech company in Canada has not applied for money through the Liberal green slush fund. Only a few select ones that are attached to well-connected Liberals got the money—82%, according to the Auditor General's report.
The issue that's before us isn't the broad public-policy discussion on how best to grow our clean technology companies. It's about this: Why does the government want to hide the contribution agreements? Why do Liberals want to hide the contribution agreements that lay out the restrictions on the green slush fund—on what it can and cannot spend—the billion dollars that this minister gave it, and the $22 billion that this organization has spent of taxpayer money since its inception in 2001? That's what this is about.
It's about just simply asking that they show us the documents. Show us the documents so that we can judge correctly the report that the Auditor General presented to this committee. I thought it would be incumbent upon this committee in its role of scrutinizing the Auditor General's reports to get access to the documents that the Auditor General's report is based on. However, the government seems intent on trying to hide that too.
Conservative
Conservative
