Government Operations Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Ian McCowan]

What I was just going to point out, if I could, is that there are other examples of ministries, for example ESDC, where you have two ministers within the confines of one department. There are existing examples of what you're talking about.

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

There are, but the minister for whom departments are designated is nevertheless a new classification, and presumably the ministers we have now who aren't those kinds of ministers would nevertheless not become ministers for whom departments are designated.

Is it foreseen that only the five ministers that we were originally talking about are going to become ministers for whom departments are designated? The new minister of state, who is the Minister of Indigenous Services, is presumably going to eventually get her own department. I think that's the idea, or at least that was the stated intention of the government. It's not yet the case because her resources are just carved out of the larger ministry of indigenous affairs.

I'm just wondering. Is this really just about a title change? Granted, there are some other things having to do with salary, but those things are already done, and the legislation still maintains two different kinds of ministers. It's just clouded over by the fact that we're going to call them all ministers. What is really changing in this legislation? Why do we spend the time?

When your government was trying to get other legislation through the House and complaining you didn't have the time, we spent time on this at second reading. Now we're spending time on this in committee, and we're going to spend more House time on it in third reading, and largely things will remain the same after it's done. Why is this a legislative priority for your government?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

What's important to note, as I've said before, is that this formalizes what's already been taking place.

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

Indeed. I think that's part and parcel of my question.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That's essential. When it comes to these five ministers you're referring to, I believe that they are essential voices that need to be at the cabinet table.

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

They are at the cabinet table, and they would be at the cabinet table as ministers of state. Is it the case that, if you were called minister of state for business and tourism, when you have a good idea at the cabinet table, the Prime Minister wouldn't take that good idea seriously because you're called a minister of state instead of minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Blaikie, while I enjoy this debate, we're going to have to move on just because of time constraints.

I would perhaps ask Mr. McCowan and the minister one thing, and perhaps this can be answered in subsequent questions as a question from the chair. I think what Mr. Blaikie is getting at is that, now that the former ministers of state are becoming full-blown ministers, have their authority and/or responsibilities increased as well, commensurate with their salary increases?

I think that's a reasonable question to ask because, if they haven't, then it's merely just, as Mr. Blaikie suggested, an increase in salary and a change of title. Have their responsibilities and authorities increased? That's what I think Mr. Blaikie was trying to get at. That's my extraneous comment.

We'll now move on to Madam Ratansi for seven minutes, please.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Chair. You took the words out of my mouth because I was going to ask the minister the same question. Thank you for pre-empting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You're welcome.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Minister, thank you for being here. I will just clarify that Professor Margot Young, who came here, was really not suited to come here because she knew nothing about the Salaries Act. She was here to discuss gender equality, and I asked her which section of the press release even talked about gender equality.

That aside, the question was asked by the chair. Why has the Prime Minister chosen to elevate these ministers of state to full ministers? Are there examples from other, say, Commonwealth countries or other democracies that do that?

I'm going to put my question so that you can answer it, and then Karen will take over. This is a one-tier ministry. I can understand equalization. I can understand that you're trying to go with a streamlined, agile, flexible government, and that is so that everybody is on equal footing, and you're trying to reduce an administrative burden as well because all ministers are working together in a whole-of-government approach.

So give me some of the ideas behind the changes. Has there been any research?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Basically, the responsibilities have been shared with Canadians in mandate letters. We have committed to doing government differently by taking a whole-of-government approach. All ministers need to work better together, because when we are making decisions, we impact other areas by default. By bringing us to the table and having equal voices at one table, the single-tier ministry, as you referred to it, better serves the approach that I believe is in the best interest of Canadians.

When it comes to other Westminster jurisdictions, the prime minister decides on the organization of his or her cabinet and what the challenges and needs are at the time, as the prime minister has the discretion to do, similar to what this prime minister has done and what previous prime ministers in Canada have done.

It's important to have flexibility when it comes to changing times so that we can serve the purpose of government. It's people who elect us and send us here, and we need to have all members of Parliament empowered to do that good work. We need ministers who are listening to colleagues on both sides of the House and to Canadians. That is an approach we wholeheartedly believe in. That is why we have consulted. That is why we believe it's important that we formalize what we have put into practice through Bill C-24. It's important that these voices be recognized, not only in practice but in legislation, as equal.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Perhaps what would help clarify this is if we had an idea of what previous ministries or ministers used to do. The mandate letter is the basis of what a minister's responsibility is. Perhaps you've already increased their responsibilities, in answer to what Mr. Blaikie was asking. Maybe you have, but if you could give us a comparison of what others used to do before, that would give us some idea. If you don't have it now, you can give it to us later. It could really answer the question of whether they have more responsibility. I believe that they do, because of the mandate letters. There were no mandate letters before, if I am correct. These letters may give them responsibilities that are very much different from what they previously had.

Do other democracies, such as the U.K. and Australia, have similar ministers of state? Could Mr. McCowan or Ms. Boyle answer that? Do you have any idea if they have ministers of state, and are there any best practices we could share?

[Martha Boyle, Privy Council Officer, Governance Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

A common feature in other Westminster jurisdictions is that the salaries of ministers have to be authorized by law. In the U.K., there are opportunities for two-tier ministries. In fact, currently there are about 21 ministers and up to 100 ministers of state and parliamentary under secretaries.

The flexibility exists for two-tier, but the option also exists to have just one tier, and that's the structure in Canada. Every prime minister, as the minister noted, has the responsibility to structure the cabinet in a way that responds to citizens' needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Ms. Ludwig.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

In terms of formalizing this in legislation, I first want to give you an example from the Atlantic region. As a member representing New Brunswick Southwest, one of the comments I have heard about this different style, certainly in the ACOA mandate, is that businesses are very pleased with the quick responsiveness and the involvement of members of Parliament in working with ACOA on a regional basis. Last night the president of ACOA was here working directly with MPs. I just wanted to give that as an example.

Looking at formalizing this in legislation, why is it important to Canadians? You talked, Madam Minister, about flexibility and adaptability. Why is it now important for Canadians to understand why we're going to formalize this in legislation? What would be the outcome for them?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That's an excellent example of being able to work with the RDAs and their feeling that they have a role here in Ottawa.

It's important to Canadians because the diversity of opinions matters. Having an equal voice at the cabinet table matters. When decisions are being made, for us to not recognize the economic importance of these portfolios would be unfortunate. What is good is that the Prime Minister recognizes economic potential and growth opportunities for the betterment of Canadians.

What it comes down to is that these ministers are not seen as assisting. They are seen as equal ministers making decisions, being part of the conversation, and speaking equally. It's essential that we be able to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll have to stop there.

We'll go to Mr. Shipley for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

It's an interesting question or scenario that you put forward.

What you are saying now is that the minister who lives in Mississauga.... What you are saying to those MPs who represent their regions, whether it's the west, the north, or ACOA in the Atlantic, is “We're sorry. You folks who live in this area and carry that responsibility aren't capable of taking that message and being a national representative at the table.” That's what you're saying.

How does that make it better, having someone from Mississauga be the national voice on the diversity of this country, and understanding that when he comes to the cabinet table?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, respectfully, regional development agencies will continue to do the work they do in their regions.

I will speak for myself. My country has 10 provinces and three territories. Regardless of which part of the country celebrates or hurts, it impacts me the same. It's important that we recognize that we cannot be pitting regions against each other any longer. We need regions to work better together, and that's what it comes down to. The voice, for me.... Once again, we have 10 provinces, three territories. When Canadians succeed, I believe the country succeeds. That's what it comes down to.

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

We'll remember that. What we are finding is that, quite honestly, this is not the case.

What I am also interested in is this. This is what your Prime Minister, our Prime Minister, said, referring to the appointment of the Mississauga MP as the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: “reducing the kind of politics that we've always seen”.

Could you elaborate and tell me what that means?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

The minister you are referring to is responsible for economic development, and economic development is essential for the country.

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

No, no.... What kind of politics is it, when he said, “reducing the kind of politics that we've always seen”? I would say that this is sort of bad politics, but maybe it's something different.

Could you explain what he meant by that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am here to talk about Bill C-24 and the context of Bill C-24. I welcome any questions in regard to what Bill C-24 stands for.

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

But we are...Chair, quite honestly.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I don't believe I have been called here to explain what other people's comments are.