Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for quite some time and am learning some interesting things, but some of the confusion I have has still not been clarified. I keep hearing that Parliament is supreme. I agree that Parliament is supreme in many ways, but does it have absolute power when we say it is supreme? I am not very sure we have that.
The Canadian system of government, as we all know, has three branches. There is the legislative branch, which passes laws; the executive, which implements those laws; and the judicial branch, which interprets them. Both the RCMP and the Auditor General have expressed their concern that the separation of powers is getting blurred in this instance. Parliament has many powers, but we are subject to the Constitution. With my limited knowledge, I can say that we have a process to amend the Constitution, but as long as there is a Constitution, we have to follow it. Whatever we do has to be done within the confines of what is laid out in the Constitution.
Whenever the word “supreme” is used in the democratic context, it reminds me of the word being used to describe, say, the Iranian Supreme Leader, who has trampled on the basic fundamental rights of millions and millions of Iranian people. The current government, the current system, describes him as the Supreme Leader, basically giving him the absolute power to do anything he wants.
There are other countries in the world where the word “supreme” is used in the constitution, such as North Korea. The North Korean constitution explicitly names its chief as the supreme leader, who represents the state. Whenever the word “supreme” is used, I am slightly uncomfortable because, in my view, it denotes absolute power, and we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is something I am concerned about.
The Westminster system of democracy we follow is being followed in other parts of the world. Some follow exactly the model in the United Kingdom. Some others have small variations, but fundamentally they are all the same. In some countries, there is no clear division of power, although it may be in the constitution. In one of the biggest democracies in the world, where legislators interfere directly in the workings of the executive, the day-to-day administration that is the sole responsibility of the executive, there is constant and direct interference. We are not that.
We are a different society. We follow the Constitution. Some people ask me how Canada can be rich and successful when there are other countries that have more richness in natural resources than Canada. I explain to them that Canada is rich, successful and one of the best countries to live in in the world because of the way society has organized itself. Society has promoted the democratic concept, and elected officials at all levels of governments are answerable to the people who elect them. That keeps a good check on the powers of elected officials.
In Canada, we have always followed the rule of the law. There are many countries that may be richer in natural resources than us but are not as successful because the way Canadian society has organized itself is not practised in those countries. Again, whenever people say Parliament is supreme, this is the concern have. I think we should understand what is allowed by law and the Constitution and what the convention is. Convention is as important as the rule of law, just as the spirit of the law is as important as the letter of the law.
On SDTC, I am disappointed about what happened. Three objectives brought me into politics, and the third objective was to ensure that Canada continued to remain at the forefront of knowledge-based economies. The world is moving toward a knowledge-based economy, so I wanted to ensure that Canada was at the forefront of the new technologies and innovations that are heralding countries into the global digital economy.
Before joining politics, I was on the board of Invest Ottawa, a great organization that was set up to promote Ottawa and lead Ottawa into the new world by promoting the technology sector. Ottawa is a government town. We all know that. A maximum number of federal employees live in this beautiful city. However, the City of Ottawa, when the then mayor Jim Watson was elected, formed Invest Ottawa so that we could focus on using the knowledge power we have to promote the technology sector.
I was working in the private defence technology sector when I was asked to join the board. We are so proud that Ottawa is moving in the direction that was envisaged when Invest Ottawa was formed.
SDTC was a good addition to the various institutions that promote not only new technologies but sustainable technologies, all those things that help Canada get to its rightful place at the forefront of the knowledge-based economy. I was happy to see that SDTC was funding new and sustainable technologies. However, I was very disappointed when reports started coming out about the conflicts of interest being floated. The number of instances was very painful for me to hear.
Now that SDTC comes under the Natural Research Council of Canada, NRC, it is a matter of concern to me. I mean no disrespect to the bureaucrats and officials working at NRC. They have been successfully managing certain industrial assistance programs, like IRAP, the industrial research assistance program, but it is still a government department. It does not have the flexibility that an arm's-length body like SDTC has.
We have great Crown corporations, from Export Development Canada to other major Crown corporations. SDTC, on its own as a Crown corporation, had the flexibility of conducting its operations. Many things related to new technology are not available in paper well in advance for people to gain knowledge, understand them and take moves to promote them. That needs people in the field to help guide funding for new technologies and new companies. SDTC was a good way of promoting this, but now it has gone to the Natural Research Council of Canada.
I have a bit of a concern with the bureaucratic rules. There is certainly not a problem with bureaucracy by its definition, but sometimes the rules involved in bureaucratic systems tend to tighten the flexibility required to promote new technologies. That is an unfortunate development.
Now I am waiting and seeing. The funding streams have been restored; I believe they are working now. I am looking forward to seeing how companies are getting funding through the NRC house they are in. That is a matter of concern.
Speaking again of SDTC and new technologies, I am very interested in the mines-to-mobility sector. At this moment, the world is moving toward a clean economy. It is a trillion-dollar opportunity, but more than that, it is a necessity. It is necessary for us to be part of the clean economy, but this necessity also offers an economic opportunity. Mines to mobility is a small part of the larger movement toward that. This strategy is expected to position the government at the forefront of the new electric vehicle sector and everything connected to batteries, including energy storage.
The potential of energy storage is huge. It makes wind and solar power much more viable propositions. Today, wind and solar power are economically viable on their own, but the efficiency that would allow us to achieve energy storage through batteries makes them much more viable and would transform the movement toward a clean economy.
I am from Ontario, and I am glad to say that Ontario is one province that has moved away from power generation using coal. I wish the rest of Canada would move toward that. Recently, I heard a report that one of the G7 or OECD countries had become the first country to move entirely to power generation without using coal. I think we should move toward that.
Coming back to SDTC and mines to mobility, there are certain things organizations like SDTC can do, including identifying new technologies. However, these new technologies have to be implemented. When the Liberal government was formed in 2015, it renamed the industry ministry as Innovation, Science and Economic Development. I told the then minister to please not use the word “innovation” in any sentence unless the word “commercialization” is also in the same sentence.
There are still problems with mines to mobility. There are regulatory barriers regarding the time required for the development of new mines; for the exploration of new mines, it is still too long. I know the federal government is working with the provinces. It has formed, for example, what is called the Ontario table with the Province of Ontario so we can align our resources; stop the sequential approval process, as opposed to what we can do concurrently; and reduce the time required to develop new mines.
While that is a problem, in mines to mobility we also have a problem related to the processing of minerals. Today, China controls 70% to 90% of the processing of the critical minerals most essential to the electrical vehicle industry and energy storage industries using batteries. We do not have enough projects in the pipeline to be comfortable that we will take our rightful position in the entire mines-to-mobility spectrum. That is pending. Hopefully, we should be able to address this.
Our system of federation means certain powers are not with the federal government but with the provincial government. Under the mines-to-mobility strategy, one key component is transmission and distribution. The electric grid is under provincial jurisdiction, and I do not see a lot of things happening there. I hope the federal government will take a step forward, working with the provinces, to make sure that with the huge usage of electricity that is expected to come, we have enough power generation and a grid for the transmission and distribution of it.
On the power generation front, I have no issues. I think we can crank up power generation by using the natural gas we have. However, the electricity grid for transmission and distribution is something we need to look at.
Again, SDTC was a small part of our bigger objective to move toward this clean economy, these trillion-dollar opportunities. I think we have to refocus on bringing back its original objectives.
On this particular motion, there are some concerns. Both the RCMP and the Auditor General have expressed deep concerns that we are blurring the separation of powers described in our Constitution.
I was first elected in 2015, and for the first four years, I was a member of the public accounts committee. I did not know the importance of that committee until I joined; then I realized it is the most important oversight committee the House of Commons has. That is where I interacted, for four years, with the then Auditor General, and I learned quite a bit about the role of the Office of the Auditor General and how important it is in the functioning of our country's system.
Whenever the Auditor General expresses any concern about any of the things we do, I take it with the utmost respect and seriousness. That is where I have a problem with this motion. The RCMP and the Auditor General are concerned about the blurring of this division of responsibility and separation of powers.
In July, the RCMP wrote to the law clerk of the House of Commons. It had difficulty accepting and using the documents, or the records, that have been contemplated through this motion in its investigation because that would trample on the charter rights of the suspects.
My problem is that if the RCMP is unable to use the records and the files we intend to pass on to it, then are we not defeating the very purpose we want to achieve? What we are doing here, in my view, is counterproductive to the ultimate objective of all members of the House. Our objective is that any suspected corruption should be thoroughly investigated and the criminals brought to justice. However, the process we are adopting here may act as a barrier to achieving that. That is the major problem and the major concern I have.
I have listened to many of the members here and asked questions several times. The RCMP is an independent body, and it knows what to do and how to do it. We do not have to tell it how to do it. If the RCMP wants any record or any file, it knows the process. There is a legal process it can go through and obtain whatever it wants to complete its investigation, but we should not hinder its ability or capacity to do its work.
