Bill C-24 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act

This enactment amends the Salaries Act to authorize payment, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, of the salaries for eight new ministerial positions. It authorizes the Governor in Council to designate departments to support the ministers who occupy those positions and authorizes those ministers to delegate their powers, duties or functions to officers or employees of the designated departments. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act.

Salaries Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thornhill for coming back to this issue, because the only thing of substance happening in this bill is probably this strange tying of the hands of future governments, which might quite reasonably decide they want to have separate ministers for each of the regional economic development agencies. The Liberals made a choice. They decided to consolidate all of those under one minister, one individual. That was their choice. It was a choice available to them under the law as it stands right now. The law, as it stands now, also allows a future government to make a different choice. I do not understand the desire to take that choice away from future governments.

The Liberals have their arguments. I do not think they are particularly good arguments. I do not think it is believable that someone from Mississauga will understand the regional economies of B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, or Quebec as well as he or she does the issues in southern Ontario. That is not because the person is not competent or well-meaning, but just because this is not plausible. The idea that it is not worth—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Maybe the member will be able to finish his thought in his next response. There is only enough time for a very brief question. This is questions and comments. I would hope that people keep their questions short.

Questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, a brief question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I just want to assure the member across the way, because he is definitely confused. If we read the legislation, it is not about gender equality. That is something the NDP have brought in, and I will expand upon it.

Can the member comment succinctly on why he believes there should be different tiers of ministers? This legislation equalizes the different cabinet ministers, something that we support and the New Democrats do not. Why do you not support that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, I remind the member to address the Chair.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, a brief answer, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals believe in a one-tier ministry, they should know that the structure of Global Affairs very clearly puts the Minister of Foreign Affairs above the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of International Development. It is clearly a hierarchical relationship. Those ministers report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The idea that we are going to have a one-tier ministry after this is just absurd. If they believe in a one-tier ministry, they ought to address exactly what that means, whatever it is.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we do believe in it. We do believe that all ministers are equal and that is what this legislation is all about.

I have been here for the full debate, whether the introduction of the bill or the second reading followed by what took place at committee, the report stage, and now third reading. It seems that the longer the bill is discussed, the more the speaking points of the Conservatives and the NDP have converged, and have now become one in essence. The unholy alliance has united on this piece of legislation.

The opposition members talk about regional and gender issues. We could take a New Democrat speech and say this is a Conservative speech, and vice versa. It is encouraging to see the opposition members come together on important issues, but I would suggest this is not something they should be opposing. It is fairly straightforward legislation.

Some members on the opposition benches ask why we are debating this, why we do not just get through it and allow it to come to a vote. Then others want to debate it endlessly. Believe it or not, I suspect there might be some who might like to see the debate never end on this piece of legislation.

The opposition members try to say to the government this is all about gender equality. They say there are members in the chamber who have talked about gender equality. Yes, I too, in addressing this legislation talked about gender equality.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member across the way heckled “why”. Let us go back to the reason we have the legislation. The Prime Minister made a commitment that if a member sits at the cabinet table, all ministers will be equal. That means that a minister of small business, or democratic reform, or defence, whatever it might be, will each have an equal vote at the table. There is one vote for each member, and each member has the opportunity to be engaged around the cabinet table as equal peers. That is a positive thing.

Stephen Harper had 40 cabinet ministers, compared to 30 in this government. One of the arguments members raise is that we increased salaries for some of those ministers. Our cabinet is far smaller than the Harper government's, but sometimes the NDP use that Conservative line also.

If we look at what the legislation will do, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn. It will ensure that there is more flexibility not only for today's Prime Minister, but also for future prime ministers in making up a cabinet and recognizing one important component, that all ministers are equal.

Members across the way say that the Minister of Finance has a much bigger treasury to work with than the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. Therefore, they are not equal. It is true there is a difference in the bottom line dollar amount, but to assert they are not equal is wrong. I would argue that the minister responsible for small business and tourism is of critical importance to the Government of Canada. How many times do we hear members across the way ask questions about small businesses? We hear it a lot. That may be one of the top four or five questions asked.

As the government day in and day out fights to protect and expand the interests of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, we look to small businesses as the backbone of the economy and one of the driving forces of job creation.

Many government policies over the last couple of years have fed into supporting Canada's small businesses. The minister responsible for small business plays a critical role in developing good sound policies.

I and small businesses across Canada were delighted when we heard the formal announcement of the reduction of the small business tax to 9%, which is quite significant. It will contribute to the growth of the Canadian economy.

Members across the way say that the minister should not make as much money as the Minister of Democratic Institutions. They say that the minister responsible for small business is junior to the minister of democratic reform. Hogwash. That is what I say to the joint opposition, the unholy alliance of Conservatives and NDP members.

We recognize the importance of small businesses. More important, the Prime Minister understands and appreciates the importance of equality among the individuals who sit around the cabinet table. Only the opposition is giving the impression to Canadians that this is bad legislation. How can those members oppose equality?

[An hon. member]

It's not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says “It's not ”. Those members need to read the bill.

The members want to talk about gender equality, so I will talk about gender equality and how the opposition has tied that into the legislation.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

You don't need to, Kevin. We only brought it up because you did.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona seems confused, so I would like to clarify it for the member. The reason why gender equality is often talked about in relation to the legislation is because of the opposition's attitude when cabinet ministers were appointed. The Prime Minister announced that all cabinet positions were equal, that all individuals who sat around the cabinet table were equal. He told us legislation would come forward on this.

For the very first time, a historic announcement was made which stated that our Liberal government had a gender equal cabinet. Not only did this historic announcement hit news wires in virtually every region of our country, but it went international. It was about time Canada had a Prime Minister who recognized the importance of a gender equal cabinet.

I heard many stories, some from my daughter, some from my constituents, about how wonderful it was that we had a feminist Prime Minister, a prime minister who made a strong statement while at the same time ensured we moved forward on an important file.

Members across the way, as well as the member for Elmwood—Transcona, might have laughed at these appointments but Canadians received them quite well.

The NDP and their friends in the Conservative Party could not come up with anything to criticize, but they wanted to be critical the appointment of the new cabinet. Therefore, they said that small business was not as important as democratic reform or other cabinet positions. They said that the position of Minister of Status of Women was not worthy of being recognized as an equal player sitting at the cabinet table. That was the best they could come up.

I have news for the opposition. When government does something of that nature, there is nothing wrong in saying that it is a good announcement. It would be advantageous for those members to recognize that when announcements of this nature are put into place, they acknowledge them for what they are. In this case, it was a positive historic announcement that would ensure gender parity in the national Government of Canada. It was a powerful announcement, and I think the majority of Canadians received it that way. Criticism is not necessary.

Let us look at what followed from that. This legislation would ensure that all cabinet ministers would be paid the same. However, that is not the only change being made by the legislation.

There is a change to the title of the infrastructure minister. We all know this government has a huge focus on Canada's infrastructure. For many years, the Harper government did very little in terms of real investment in infrastructure. The legislation that the NDP has been conned into supporting with the Conservative Party also makes a change to infrastructure. The title of Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs will be changed to Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.

There are two things worth noting. One is that the Prime Minister of Canada is taking on the responsibility of intergovernmental affairs. For years, as the Liberals sat in opposition, we saw the lack of effort by the Conservative government in reaching out and encouraging intergovernmental affairs. The Government of Canada at the time virtually ignored our partners and did not reach out or encourage anything to take place. In two years, there has been significant improvement in that area. One of them is the fact that the Prime Minister is going to lead on that front. We have realized tangible benefits by doing that. I will provide a couple of examples.

We can talk about the Canada pension plan. Workers today will contribute more toward a national program, which Canadians love. When they retire in the future, they will have more money. Why? Because we have a government today that worked with provinces and was able to achieve an agreement.

That is not the only thing. The former minister of health went to every province and territory, and an accord was reached. The previous accord, which was signed back in 2003 or 2004, lasted for 10 years but the Harper government did not renew it. If members ask their constituents, they will find that health care is the number one issue, at least from my perspective. People love our Canadian health care system. We now have a government that understands this and it has taken direct action to improve it. The accord has been renewed and more money is being put into health care. Why? Because we have made changes in this legislation that says the Prime Minister needs to play a stronger role, especially after the years of neglect by the Harper government.

A third example would be the price on carbon. The Prime Minister went to Paris where an international agreement was reached. He came back to Canada and worked with the provinces on a pan-Canadian price on carbon, to which the provinces agreed. Many governments around the world understand the need for that. Provinces understood the need for that. At the time, only the Conservative Party opposed it, and still opposes it today, which is most unfortunate.

I would encourage my New Democratic friends to stay away from the Conservatives on that issue. They do not want to fall into that trap.

The other component to that change in the legislation is the renaming of infrastructure. Now, through this legislation, we will have the minister responsible for infrastructure and communities. Two things come to mind there. First, is the historical amounts of money, the billions of dollars, that are going into Canada's infrastructure. Every region of our country will see a positive impact. This government recognizes that we need to invest in our country. We need to invest in our infrastructure. Doing that will assist our country in continuing to grow into the future. That is worthy of having the designation being about infrastructure and communities.

When I hear the argument from the other side about the regional agencies, I think about it and compare it to infrastructure. We will be spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars, over the next few years. I am surprised members opposite do not ask why we do not have a regional whatever to ensure those regional concerns are dealt with through the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, after all, a lot of money will go into the communities.

I say that because I want to highlight the importance of individual members of Parliament. At least within the Liberal caucus, we have individuals who constantly lobby for regional interests for the area they represent. I am an advocate for the province of Manitoba. I love the province of Quebec. I am a nationalist first and foremost. I believe in a sense of equality for all regions of our country. However, I ensure, as much as I can, that Manitoba is well represented when it comes to infrastructure.

We pose the questions. When it comes to P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, we all get our fair share of infrastructure dollars. We can look at the numbers. I think Canadians will feel good knowing that every region is getting its fair share of infrastructure dollars. This will be in good part because we will have a minister who is responsible for that and that alone, building our country, ensuring the national interest is served.

I do not hear criticism coming from the opposition on that issue. However, when it comes to the regional economic development issue, the NDP has joined the Conservative forces to say that we need to have a bigger cabinet. After all, Harper had six additional ministers dealing with regional economic development, so we should also have those six regional ministers.

I hope Jagmeet Singh and the leader of the Conservative Party, when door-knocking in the next election, tell their constituents that they will increase the size of cabinet, by adding an additional six members with responsibilities in regional development. I look forward to having that debate with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. How will he defend why the western diversification fund did as poorly as it did, in particular why Winnipeg did poorly, while Harper was in government? If we look at the allotment of money and if we look at the minister responsible for western diversification at that time, Winnipeg did not do well. However, the member across the way will argue that this is the ideal situation. I disagree.

I believe that there is a national interest and that our member from Mississauga and the minister responsible for the development of our nation cares passionately about the national interest, and we will ensure that the appropriate expenditures are being done in the communities that need that support.

I appreciate the words, and I look forward to some questions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Winnipeg North. His words are tremendously inspiring, particularly when he is wrong, because that gives me an opportunity to refute his statements.

My question is quite simple. The hon. member said a few minutes ago that the Conservative Party of Canada would like to create six more cabinet positions to be responsible for each and every region in Canada. That is not exactly the reality. When we were in office, our minister had other responsibilities than this one. Let me give this example, a great example I might say. The former member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who was a senior cabinet minister in the Harper government, was also responsible for the Quebec area.

Would the member explain to me why he said something that was wrong a few minutes ago?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the contributions from my colleague and friend across the way. At times, when we get into the heat of debate, we might at times refer to designations. Listening to members from the New Democratic Party and some of his own colleagues talking about the importance of these regional ministries and these regional representations, many would have inferred through the comments that they would need to have cabinet ministers who have that sole responsibility. I would attribute those comments toward this. Ultimately, as I said during my comments, I would welcome my opposition colleagues, both New Democrats and Conservatives, to go to the doors saying that we need to have regional ministers, period. Whether or not they choose to do that would be up to them. My best guess is that they will not.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for demonstrating for anybody listening at home who thought that I might have been unfairly partisan in my remarks the fundamental incoherence of the Liberal position when it comes to Bill C-24. We saw that very tail chasing that I was talking about earlier in my speech. I want to thank the member for putting that in evidence.

I want to say, with respect to some of his comments about the Prime Minister as the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs particularly with respect to the health accord, that what was noticeable was first of all it is not an accord and it certainly was not a renewal of the old accord. It was a series of bilateral deals. To somehow pretend that prime ministerial leadership got it done when the premiers wrote him a letter asking to have a meeting about a health accord and he refused them and would not have that meeting, is totally egregious. Therefore, let the record show that this Prime Minister, who apparently, according to the member for Winnipeg North, is providing leadership on intergovernmental affairs, particularly health, would not have the meeting on a health accord requested by the premiers and instead sent his Minister of Health out to conclude a bunch of bilateral deals.

I also said in my remarks earlier that I hoped that the Liberals would back off of the argument that somehow only by having a minister for something is it possible to take issues seriously. We do take all sorts of issues seriously. We have a critic for housing. We have a critic for seniors. I think that is kind of a silly argument, and I have said as much. Given that the member for Winnipeg North seems quite committed to debasing us all by continuing on this line of argument, I have to put this question to him. Why is it that the Liberals do not have a minister for housing and for seniors if their position is that the only way to take something seriously is to have a minister for it and to give him or her a full ministerial salary and title? Why is it then that we do not have a separate minister for housing and for seniors? I do not get it.