I want to thank my colleague Mr. Cannings for his comments, but I want to implore him to think about something.
There is no committee studying the impact that the mismanagement and freezing of this fund has had on Canada's ability to both research and deploy clean technology, particularly as it pertains to ensuring there are readily available, affordable alternatives to high-carbon consumer products and practices. SDTC is the key fund in Canada to do that. There is a lack of movement forward on this. I know Mr. Turnbull claimed the government has taken action on it, but they haven't. This has not been rectified. We're sitting here hearing the government talk about climate change every day, but this is the key fund for academics, small businesses and other people in Canada who are looking at ways to develop made-in-Canada solutions that address greenhouse gas emissions within the Canadian context, which is different from contexts in many other parts of the world.
I reject my colleague Mr. Turnbull's assertion about my party and colleagues. I spent years of my pre-political career, as well as time in cabinet, looking at ways to address climate change in Canada. Just because I question whether or not the carbon tax is working doesn't mean it's a rejection of the need for policy; in fact, it's a responsible question. If our greenhouse gas emissions inventories show that Canada won't even be 50% of the way to making its target, it's incumbent upon the committee responsible for looking at research and development to look at what.... When our key fund for climate change research has been frozen and is under mismanagement, this is our job.
With respect to both Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Cannings, no other committee is looking at that key aspect. I'm sure they're going to be looking at governance. As a committee, shouldn't we be asking whether we're funding climate change research appropriately, or deploying those technologies appropriately, when there is all this mismanagement in the fund? The answer to that is yes. There is a big problem here, so how are we going to fix it? The ethics and public accounts committees are going to be tasked with looking at the governance issues. Our committee should be looking at the funding mechanisms that have been royally messed up by this scandal. There has been no action taken in a year.
For my colleague in Quebec—because I am always trying to ensure there is a Quebec rationale for this as well—SDTC lists Transition énergétique Québec as one of its key partners for funding innovative clean-tech start-ups. It also has multiple other linkages into Quebec. The ability of this fund to fund research not just in other parts of the country but also in Quebec is impacted.
I'm going to say this: Colleagues, a carbon tax only works if there are alternatives available to move consumer behaviours toward a substitute good. In most parts of Canada, carbon fuels and practices are highly inelastic, because we haven't developed and deployed substitute goods. A lot of people in Canada will think, for example, that maybe they won't buy an electric vehicle because we don't have a national system of electric vehicle charging stations or we haven't thought about the electrical grid. We haven't inserted any other technology that could help us displace that behaviour. That is sound public policy. It is for us to ask, “How do we do this more effectively?” That is our job in the science and research committee.
We have a $1.5-billion fund that has been likened, by a senior bureaucrat, to “free money” and at “almost a sponsorship-scandal level”. How can any member of the government stand up and talk about taking climate change seriously, or research and development seriously, if they are unwilling, in this committee, to examine whether our funding mechanisms are appropriately working in this area?
I want colleagues in the Liberal Party to think about this vote carefully. We should be looking at whether or not the key fund in our country that we spent.... This is not an insignificant amount of money, guys; this is $1.5 billion. Think about what that could do for any community in this country. It could be anything. It could build infrastructure in anybody's riding.
We put $1.5 billion into this fund, specifically to combat climate change, and it has not been working for over a year. There are significant allegations of mismanagement and the funding is frozen, and we're saying that we shouldn't be looking at it in the science and technology committee? I'd challenge anyone in this room to get up in the House of Commons and say after this, with good faith, that they are taking a science-based approach to climate change after refusing to look at it in this committee. Think about that. I will certainly be bringing that up this week.
I'm amenable if somebody wants to amend the motion to have fewer meetings, but we need to actually look at the impact of this situation and give recommendations to the government on how to fix it. Having it sit for a year and then having the CBC article come out.... Guys, this is our committee's mandate. We've got to do this. We've got to get this done.
Mr. Cannings, I implore you as well as my colleague from Quebec to really think about this. There's no reason we can't chew gum and walk at the same time. We should be looking at this in this committee specifically from the angle of our country's ability to bridge that delta between our emissions reductions target and reality right now, which we're missing by 50%.
Giddy-up.