Government Operations Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Martha Boyle]

That's true.

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

That's interesting. So it's not the case that you need to make these reforms to have all the resources of a department at your disposal, because you could create a ministry of state for a minister of state, which brings me back to my main theme, why it's important to allocate the time that we have already and will yet to this bill, both here and in the other place.

One of the things I found interesting in the debate around the ministers for regional economic development is that under the current model, you have choices as a prime minister. You could have a different minister for each regional economic development agency or you could consolidate them into one, as this government has chosen to do. Removing them from the act limits that possibility, because then a future government would have to change the act to then have the separate ministers, and the rationale that we've heard today from the minister is that she wants to change the act to reflect the current practices of the government.

Why is it that Bill C-24 doesn't eliminate ministers of state to assist and ministers of state with a ministry of state, if the goal of Bill C-24 is to update legislation to reflect the current practices of government and the one-tier ministry model?

[Ian McCowan]

A number of questions have been asked that go to the raw question of what this does. I think the best I could do in summing that up is it comes down to three things, first of all, formalizing the cabinet in—

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

I'm just wondering if you're answering because the minister doesn't know the answer. Because there's a political dimension to this as well, I'm just wondering if maybe she wants it particularly for the regional economic development ministries. There has been some discussion of the politics of regional representation, so I'm just wondering if the minister would like to answer to ensure that those political dimensions are adequately represented in the government's answer.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

The regional development agencies will continue to do the work of the RDAs in the regions.

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

Yes, and they're being removed from the legislation.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

The Prime Minister had a vision—

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

Why are ministers of state to assist and ministers of state with the ministry of state not being removed from the act to represent the current practices of government?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Let's come down to why we are here for Bill C-24. The Prime Minister spoke about the decentralization—

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

Is it not the case that we're here for Bill C-24 to make the legislation cohere with the current practices of government? Is it not the case that the government says they won't use ministers of state, both kinds, because that creates a two-tier ministry, and if so, why does Bill C-24 not remove ministers of state from the legislation?

[Ian McCowan]

You're asking why ministers of state aren't removed as a possibility for future governments? Is that—

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

That's correct. If there's an objection to ministers of state on the basis that they create a two-tier ministry, which this government thinks is wrong because it means that voices are not equal at the cabinet table, why wouldn't the government remove them from the legislation?

I'm asking the government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Future governments should be able to do what future governments need to do, even other—

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

Well then, why get rid of the six separate ministries for regional economic development ministers? You've already consolidated them under one. Why are you getting rid of them in the legislation to not tie the hands of future governments?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Drouin.

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

I'm trying to listen to the answers, but the member keeps interrupting. I'm just wondering if you can referee this a little better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'm not sure about refereeing it, but I will advise all members that, just as a general operating principle, regardless of whether our witnesses are part of the government or independent witnesses, the practice of every committee is of course to treat them with respect.

I'm not suggesting that you're being disrespectful, Mr. Blaikie, and I'm not suggesting that you're badgering the witness, but I am suggesting that perhaps we could give her some time to give a direct answer to a question, which I think is legitimate.

Minister.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Respectfully, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure that the member's looking for an answer. I think the member wants to make a statement, so I think it's important that I also make a statement to remind members that this is about formalizing legislation. It's about regional development agencies being able to do the important work that they do in the regions. They know their regions better than any minister or any member of Parliament will, and we have to give them that regard.

Regional expertise with national expertise is a way for it to work better together to create a synergy, to take a whole-of-government approach. Talking about quotes, during the campaign, the Prime Minister said it was about decentralizing the Prime Minister's Office, empowering ministers to be able to do the important work they do, working with members, making ourselves available, to ensure that we achieve the end goal, which is I'm sure every member's goal, to serve their constituents and to have a better country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Unfortunately, we're out of time.

Mr. Drouin, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have to touch on the regional development agencies. I have to say a few comments because I remember—I wasn't in Parliament—working with the previous government on behalf of clients. I recall when the member for Calgary Nose Hill was the minister of western economic diversification, but she was not the one we went to, to get things done out west. We were going to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who was the Honourable James Moore. To say that somehow eliminating regional ministers is going to take away those voices, I disagree with that premise. I believe that we've now empowered members of Parliament to advocate on behalf of their regions.

That brings me to this point. How important is this to having a whole-of-government approach to decision-making, and how important is it for the MPs' voices to be reflected in that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

We were all elected to be members of Parliament to be the voice of our constituents. That's really when we are able to shine. It's also when we're able to see that there is regional diversity, but our ridings have so much in common, and we can work better together by having tough conversations in our interest. I believe the voice of a member of Parliament, regardless of where they sit, is essential because Canadians need to be heard and reflected in the House of Commons.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Something else I find a bit offensive is that the number of people who work for a minister and the powers they have or don't have are the criteria being used to determine their value.

I represent a riding where 70% of the population is French-speaking, and I can assure you that if we didn't have a Minister of La Francophonie, people would be protesting all over the country. I just want to say that the Minister of La Francophonie and all the ministers affected by this bill are important to each of the populations they represent.

I'd like you to explain something to us, without revealing exactly what's going on in cabinet. Clearly, there are cabinet confidences. Immediately after the election, the Prime Minister indicated that the decisions made by cabinet would carry significant weight in the government's eyes.

Decisions by cabinet will be an important way forward for us. You mentioned the team. I'd like you to elaborate a bit on this and how you're working with your other colleagues to make decisions.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Taking a whole-of-government approach and having people represented from across the country has, I believe, resulted in better decision-making. Regardless of the cabinet table, members of Parliament in the House are able to debate legislation. We've noticed on numerous occasions that this government has listened to amendments and debated them to ensure the legislation was going to achieve the ultimate goal of benefiting Canadians. In that view, we've also worked better with the Senate to ensure that they are able to do the important work they do, once again, for the betterment of Canadians. Diversity of opinions matters. Having yourself represented and reflected matters to Canadians. It is a new way of doing things.

Something I believe most of us have heard is that Canadians expect members of Parliament to work better together. Canadians expect a government that listens, and not only listens, but hears and is able to respond. That is the purpose of government. I really believe the approach of this Prime Minister and this government is the right one. The whole-of-government approach is something that previous governments have spoken to but never delivered on. This Prime Minister and Bill C-24 formalize what we've already put into practice. I believe it modernizes the way government needs to work, and it also provides greater flexibility to ensure that any opportunities or challenges can also be considered as time advances.

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

Thank you.

There's one last point that I want to touch on. This act allows for 35 ministerial positions, but we obviously don't have a cabinet of 35. It's important to have voices at cabinet, but it's also important to be mindful of taxpayers. I recall the previous government had one of the biggest ministries, 40 ministers. Forty ministers is an embarrassment. I think they were tied for the largest cabinet in history.

I want to thank you, Minister, for coming to this committee. I appreciate your time.