Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move amendment NDP-1.
This amendment would accomplish three things: first, it would eliminate the portion of the bill that removes the separate economic development ministries from the list of ministers; second, it would eliminate the portion of the bill that transfers what are currently five ministers of state into the category of ministers, presumably for the new designation of the department; third, it would enable government to pay ministers of state out of the consolidated revenue fund, which is really an issue of housekeeping.
I know this bill has been promoted as a housekeeping bill, but one of the real housekeeping issues is that while ministers of state with a ministry of state are able to be paid directly out of the consolidated revenue fund, ministers of state to assist are not. That usually gets covered in departmental estimates later, out of the departmental budget. This way, governments wanting to have ministers of state would be able to pay those ministers directly out of the consolidated revenue fund.
The reason we think these amendments are warranted is that through the little testimony we've had, the bill has shown pretty definitively that it is deficient in the two things it aims to do, and the government has been a little unclear on what exactly the bill aims to do.
On the one hand the government says it's meant to modernize legislation to reflect the current practices of government. Of course, it fails to do that because the current practice of government is not to deploy ministers of state, not just for practical reasons, but for principled ones—at least, that's what we understand from the government: there's something wrong in principle with using ministers of state, because it creates a two-tier ministry. The bill doesn't address that.
We've heard it doesn't do that because they also want to leave things open for future governments to be able to make their own decisions about how they want to build their cabinet. This is why we think it's inappropriate, based on that reason as expressed by the government, to remove the separate economic development ministries from the list of ministers, because leaving them there allows future governments to make a decision. Clearly, the current legislation did not prohibit the government from making the decision they have made to consolidate those ministries. The reason for that portion of this amendment is to do what they've done with respect to ministers of state and leave the decision-making open to future governments as to whether they'd like separate regional economic development ministers or a consolidated ministry that covers all the areas.
With respect to moving the current ministers of state into the ministry, again, what we've heard from government is that the reason to do that would be to establish a one-tier ministry. The bill doesn't do that, because when you examine all the different senses of “equal”, it's either unnecessary to change the legislation or it doesn't accomplish that.
When we talk about “equal” with respect to title, clearly it's not necessary to change the legislation to give them the equality of title, as they already have it. There's nothing wrong in principle, in my view, with having ministers of state. If the government wants to call them ministers, so be it, but they don't need to change the law to do that or to change their salary, because the government has already done that. The legislative change isn't necessary. For ministers of state with ministries of state, the law already mandates that they must be paid the same as a minister. Ministers of state with a ministry of state already get their own resources, and they're not accountable to any other minister, so you don't have a two-tier model except maybe in title.
I submit to you that this isn't really important, except if it's the culture of government to be dismissive of ministers of state, but presumably if the Prime Minister invites someone to sit in the cabinet table as a minister of state, he won't be dismissive of them. It seems to me to not be that important.
These changes don't establish a one-tier ministry anyway, because you're going to continue to have distinctions in administrative powers among ministers. That's clear, because even though the government wants to transfer these five ministries into the list of ministers, they'll continue not to have a department. Those resources will still continue to be allocated not just by the Governor in Council but by the minister of that department, so we'll have one minister answering to another.
Then there are other examples of “full ministers” who actually report to another minister. We explored that example during testimony in the instance of Global Affairs, where it's very clear that the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of International Development answer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. These changes will not create a one-tier ministry, but I think unfortunately may create the impression of a one-tier ministry when in fact there isn't.
Because I don't have a principled objection to the idea of a two-tiered ministry, that's not a problem for me, but I do wonder why, if it is a policy objective of the government to establish a one-tiered ministry, they would fail to do that and give the impression that they have.
For those future governments that are prepared to be more forthcoming about their cabinet compensation options, and given the fact that some ministers may not have quite the same administrative role as others, this amendment would allow them to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. I think that is a more straightforward way of doing it, and better than having to do it each year under the estimates process.
That's the rationale for the amendment. I'd encourage members to support these amendments. I think they're consistent with at least some of the goals that the government has said it has for this legislation, and it would accomplish some important housekeeping tasks that were not accomplished by the original form of the bill.
Thank you.