Government Operations Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Please, colleagues.

Minister, with respect, the door has been opened to speaking about a variety of ministerial responsibilities.

You may not choose to answer, or you may not have a good answer, but Mr. Shipley is just asking you to respond to a direct quote from the Prime Minister. It was about getting politics out of the process, whereas now you have a minister from Mississauga who is responsible for the Atlantic regional development authority.

He is just asking a quick question. I'll ask Mr. Shipley to perhaps rephrase it, and then move on. I don't think we need to spend a long time debating this.

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Asking a minister to comment on somebody else's.... It's like asking me to comment on what you said. It doesn't make any sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin. With respect, I believe Mr. Shipley was quoting the Prime Minister and asking for the minister's comment on that quote.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

If the Prime Minister.... I don't know why it wouldn't be clarified. He has obviously talked about a number of quotes. We've had this discussion about equality around the table, and responsibility. No one is talking about the change of responsibility in terms of budgets, in terms of deputy ministers, and in terms of authority, but about a voice.

What you are telling us is that, without taking those responsibilities, the voice is just a voice, that he would not accept the voice of a junior minister, because it was a junior minister. Quite honestly, it sort of flies in the face of.... If I were a junior minister, and he wouldn't listen to me because I was just a junior minister.... So what I'm going to do is give you more money and change your name. That makes all the difference, and now you have input.

Isn't that really what this is saying?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That's not at all what it's saying.

At the same time, it's essential that we recognize that the regional development agencies will continue to do the essential work they do in the regions. They are also able to work together and share best practices. I believe this is a better model. It's important that we allow the country to function as one country.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

So, do the responsibilities change—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Shipley, I think we're going to have to cut it off there. We've expired our time.

Mr. Peterson, you're up for five minutes, please.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, Mr. McCowan, and Ms. Boyle, for being with us here this morning. We appreciate it.

I just want to maybe get an elaboration on.... We know this act obviously formalizes the salary increase and formalizes the change of title, but what it also does is provide departmental support to these ministries.

I'm wondering if you, Minister, or one of your colleagues, can elaborate on the importance of that and why this legislation is necessary to empower or give authority to that operational role.

[Ian McCowan]

There is a series of rearrangements of powers, duties, and functions you can do in terms of ministers of state.

You're quite correct in saying that this legislation actually allows for the same thing to happen in terms of the listed ministers in terms of the act. It allows for those appropriate transfers to happen so that the mandate letters that each minister has been given can be pursued. The only other additional piece in terms of the shift to functions, to go to one of the earlier questions, is that there are the three new positions that are created in terms of possible assignments for future ministries that some future prime minister, or the current one sometime in the future, might choose to make.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you for that elaboration.

Do you have anything else to add, Minister?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I would say that with regard to my other hat, I am provided with all the supports necessary for me to carry out my mandate letter, to ensure that I can succeed in the mandates the Prime Minister has given me.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

Maybe we can take a step back and look at the new full ministries: Minister of La Francophonie, Minister of Science, Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, and Minister of Status of Women. I don't think any of us—at least, I hope none of us—sitting around this table wouldn't agree that those ministries deserve the full support of departments. They deserve the full resources of any other ministry. Without this Bill C-24, that support, those resources, that empowerment, that authority to do these important jobs for Canadians under these important topics simply would not exist.

Therefore, to say Bill C-24 is unnecessary is to almost say, “La Francophonie is not important.” It's to almost say, “Science doesn't matter.” It's to almost say, “We don't care about small business and tourism. We don't care about sport and persons with disabilities, or the status of women.” I know nobody around here thinks that, or would ever say that, so I just think we want to make sure that we appreciate that legislation is necessary under the Westminster model to authorize and to allocate resources as the government of the day sees fit. That's why we're here today: as part of the legislative process.

I don't think it's a waste of time. I don't think it's an unnecessary use of parliamentary resources. In fact, I think it's an essential use of those resources. Without having a committee to do it, without having first, second, and third readings in the House, these things wouldn't get done. You can't just wave a magic wand and make some presidential order like some governments can do, and make things happen. The legislative process, my friend, is tedious, takes resources, takes time, and takes effort, but it's important, it's necessary and, in fact, it's fundamental to our democracy.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make sure that everyone around the table is aware of what we're doing here and what this process is.

I don't know, Minister, if you have any thoughts on the process itself.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I would entirely agree.

It's really about formalizing what's already been put into practice, and it's important that we do that. That is why we are brought to this place. I totally appreciate that you understand the value of this legislation and how important it is.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

How's my time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We have either Mr. McCauley or Mr. Shipley, unless you give your time to Mr. Blaikie.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll hand it to you, Mr. Blaikie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Blaikie, you'll have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. McCauley, for your time. I appreciate that greatly.

I know because you're reforming these acts, you're familiar with them. Currently, there are two types of minister of state. I'm just wondering if you could name them for us.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Do you want to name them?

[Martha Boyle]

There's minister of state and there's minister of state with a portfolio.

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

With a ministry of state.

[Martha Boyle]

Ministry of state, thank you very much, pardon me.

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

A ministry of state is effectively like a small department, with all the resources of a department accorded to it by the government.

[Martha Boyle]

That's right.

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

They're completely responsible for it in the way that full ministers are responsible for a department.