Government Operations Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

In my opening comments I gave examples of where ministers in these positions will have the authority to do the work they need to do. Wearing my other hat as Minister of Small Business and Tourism, I am responsible to make sure the voice of small businesses and the tourism industry is represented. I work hard on their behalf, and on numerous occasions I have reminded colleagues that small business and tourism is the thread that connects all departments. When people are making decisions, it's essential that they consider the benefit of all Canadians to ensure we have opportunities for Canadians to succeed.

[Ian McCowan]

Mr. McCauley, if I could just come back to the first question you raised, if I understood correctly, you indicated that there was some issue in the first couple of weeks. We can certainly undertake to look into that. My understanding is ministers were paid the same from day one, but if there is some issue about a—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Well, the minister said from day one, so I'll accept that.

I just want to get back again to the ministers. We've heard so much about their being equal. We had a very learned professor here on Tuesday whose comment about what your government is doing was, “I would say it's dishonest”, that's the word I would use. She was talking about the equality of the cabinet.

You kind of confirmed what I have been asking, which is does the Minister of Status of Women not have the same authority as another minister, such as the Minister of Heritage? We also see it in the responsibilities and in the budgets. Our friends at public accounts were here just before us, and we were looking at the spending. Minister Bains, who signs reports too, has $2 million spent. Minister Duncan spent $885,000 in her budget, you spent $837,000, and heritage $1.9 million. Sports was $770,000 under Minister Qualtrough; Ministers Monsef and Hajdu spent $900,000. It seems that a very specific set of responsibilities is given, not only power and authority.

I just want to move over now to the changes under the economic development. Your comment was, “It's better for the regions”, but I just want to read a couple of comments from stakeholders. La Presse, for example, says that Quebec manufacturers and exporters in the chamber of commerce are happy. Montreal ministers, however, are worried about what will happen with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec, which seem to have dropped off the radar. Business leaders used to have an attentive ear in Ottawa under previous systems.

Here's a quote from the Cape Breton Post:

How much attention will the minister pay to Cape Breton based on his political influence? Not much, according to White. The more you push those (agencies) out to big centres like Toronto, Ottawa, or maybe, Montreal, as the base of decision-making for those organizations, the less they are in tune with the regions that they're trying to help the most.

We have limited time but I have nine pages of quotes from various stakeholders, including stakeholders that your east coast MPs heard at various round tables. I am just trying to figure out how you can say it's better for the regions, when you're actually taking away direct input from the stakeholders in the regions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We've only got about 30 seconds for your response.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Hence, I only read two quotes.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

The RDAs will continue to fulfill their mandates in the regions. The voices of the regions will always be heard. The work being done in the regions will remain in the regions. What they do is essential. That's how economic development takes place. That's why the regional diversity of the country is essential. We will always take that as—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

So, you're saying that moving it to Toronto is better for Newfoundland, better for the region.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Nothing is moving. The regional development agencies will continue to fulfill their mandates in—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But the ministerial—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. McCauley, we have limited time here, so I'd like to hear the completion of the minister's comments.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The regional development agencies will continue to fulfill their mandates in the regions. The RDAs are not moving, and we should not ever give that impression because we want them to have confidence in the system.

What's happening here is that you have regional expertise as well as national expertise, and it's essential that regions be able to work together, that they be provided the supports. Nothing is changing for the RDAs in the sense that they will continue to have the economic impact within the regions to best respond to the challenges and opportunities in the regions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Blaikie, you have seven minutes, please.

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

We heard today that the ministers appointed as ministers of state under the current legal framework already have the same salary and the same title, and presumably they're already taken just as seriously around the cabinet table. There won't be any new departments created, so they'll continue to be supported by departments, as they are now. Ministers of states for whom a department is designated will be effectively served in the same way as ministers of state are now. In what sense does this bill make ministers more equal in a way that they are not already?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That's a great question. It formalizes what's taking place already. It also provides opportunities to be able to respond to new challenges that might come. We want a government that's able to respond, ideally to be proactive, and this provides—

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

So, strictly speaking, this legislation isn't actually necessary in order to accomplish the equality of cabinet ministers.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

It's true that we have already put into practice what this legislation is asking, but I believe it is essential to formalize it to also provide future governments the opportunity to recognize the importance of these portfolios as equal ministers.

The work that the public service does is essential work. I will tell you that, with respect to my other hat as Minister of Small Business and Tourism, it's not just Innovation, Science and Economic Development that provides me with support. I—

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

The kind of equality that might be addressed in this legislation would be administrative, let's call it. Right now you have ministers. For the most part, all those ministers are responsible for a department. Usually, the language in the legislation says that they preside over or have the management and direction of a department. Will the new kind of minister have those same powers and authorities?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Every minister is provided with the resources necessary to accomplish—

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

But, strictly speaking, they won't preside over or have the management and direction of a department.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I'll give you Innovation, Science and Economic Development as an example. Minister Bains, Minister Duncan, and myself work closely together. We work as a team.

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

But if the inequality under the law right now is that we have ministers—and that's what we call ministers—who preside over and have the management and direction of a department, and ministers of state don't, is it the case that the new type of minister will preside over or have the management and direction of a department? If that's not the case, then doesn't the same administrative inequality continue to exist under this legislation, just under a new name?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

What's clear is that this government is taking a whole-of-government approach in doing government differently to better respond—

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

I know, but we're here talking about a law, a law that's supposed to address some kind of inequality. The press release about the law talks about recognizing the equality of all cabinet ministers. It's not just about the pay because the pay is already done. It's not just about the title because, obviously, you can style ministers of state as ministers, so presumably it's meant to address some kind of other inequality. The remaining type of inequality seems to be that they don't have the same administrative function as other ministers, but this legal change doesn't actually give them those powers because it creates two types of minister. There is the minister in the traditional sense, let's say, and then there is the minister for whom a department is designated and whose administrative responsibilities are clearly less than those of the other kind of minister, otherwise we would just have one kind of minister in the act.

How is it that this act actually addresses what the only kind of standing form of inequality is: a difference in their administrative roles and responsibilities? Can you just explain that for us? The one thing about this debate that I've found very elusive is just kind of pinpointing the relevant sense of equality that's being addressed by the bill. If not, it seems to me that this is, quite frankly, just a colossal waste of parliamentarians' time. If they're already being called ministers, if they're already being paid the same as ministers, if after this legislation is in effect they're essentially going to be supported in the same way as ministers of state who are being called ministers and are paid the same currently, then it's not clear to me that the time we're spending on this is warranted.

[Ian McCowan]

I have a couple of thoughts in response. First, I think, in terms of the broad strokes of the bill, the intent is to formalize in legislation the ministry, as has been done a number of times over the past few ministries. In terms of the link between a minister and a department, I'd just point out that there are a number of situations—

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

It just seems to me that it's a lot of time to spend to formalize a name change. If the issue is one of being called ministers, everyone at the table gets to be called minister because that helps, I guess, in terms of their status.

What's odd is that it seems to me that the implicit claim is that somehow sitting around the cabinet table, our Prime Minister would be less inclined to take their views and ideas seriously if they're called minister of state than if they're called minister. This is more a question for the minister, frankly. Did he decide to call them ministers to help him take them more seriously around the cabinet table?