Thank you very much, Chair.
I thank the member for his outrage, however that may be. I want to clarify that when I was talking about my first amendment, striking “Minister of Innovation” and replacing it with “Government of Canada”, it was not to go willy-nilly all over. It was specifically in the context of this motion: How do we get to what this motion is asking for?
What I'm trying to say is that, based on my experience, based on what we've heard in testimony, it is not one department that is responsible here in terms of recuperating the funds. It is, practically speaking, better for this committee to expand it. Let's make this process easier. Let's not get wound down, going after a single minister. Clearly, members spend a lot of time on that minister's Twitter feed. I'm sure they can find better things to do with their time, quite frankly, because the minister gets around so much everywhere. What I'm trying to say here is that I proposed this amendment for us to be practical in how we're able to do what the motion is asking for.
Secondly, when I listed a company, I was talking about the general disdain for how Parliament is currently conducting itself with businesses. We heard PCO officials tell us today how worried they are about the implications, about people's dissuasion from actually engaging with any public office because of the kind of bleep show they have to go through as they try to do the right thing for the country and as they try to grow their businesses. It is not about percentages. It is about public perception. It is about the trust we can build within our industry—within the clean-tech sector, for example.
I'm not disagreeing with the member on the intention of his motion. I am trying to make two small tweaks that will help us to get to the objective he's trying to reach in the first place. Again, we're trying to have an open and honest debate here about how we're going to achieve what we're trying to achieve in this public accounts committee, which is to hold departments and organizations to account for every single dollar they spend and to ensure that there is public accountability. At the same time, I'm also saying that there should be public trust in the institutions that are functioning here. By doing what the opposition has been doing thus far, we're diminishing that trust.
The clean-tech sector is a massive part of what is happening in the future of our industry. We have heard from witnesses here in this committee how important it is, what the objective of this is, and what we can achieve if it's improved and it's made sure that there is further accountability and oversight, which the minister has taken responsibility for and has taken action on before, and the Auditor General has provided recommendations on, which also are now on the way to being implemented.
What I'm saying in these two amendments that I'm proposing is let's find the balance, guys. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's make sure we are being responsible with the privileges we have and with the responsibilities we have in this committee. Let's ensure that we are trying to practically achieve the objectives of what it is we're trying to achieve.
Now, I can go ahead and say, well, perhaps the opposition doesn't want to achieve the objectives. They want to go down another path. They want to go down and find and accuse anybody and everybody and kill a complete industry, but I'm not going to do that, because I believe in my heart of hearts that the members of this committee genuinely care about the clean-tech sector.
What I'm saying is that your actions are not showing us that. Let's be nuanced. Let's be balanced, and let's ensure that we go about this in a such way that industry is still maintained while also ensuring that we are creating further accountability for taxpayer dollars.
Again, I'm happy to receive any comments from colleagues, but I really think that these two amendments.... Well, it's actually one amendment with two points, and it proposes a very reasonable way for us to move forward on this motion. As I said to Mr. Perkins, I really appreciate the intent of this motion, and I'm hoping, on his gentleman's honour, that this is not another clickbait-type scenario where the industry ultimately gets punished collaterally for the actions of a very few.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.