Debates of Dec. 12th, 2017

Salaries Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for my colleague on the other side, I wish him the same merry Christmas and happy new year.

I just want to touch on one part of his speech, particularly toward the end where he was talking about the openness and transparency of government and how he did not feel as though that was the case. I think this government has demonstrated time and time again that it is willing and sees its role to be one that is open and transparent by default. However, as it relates to this particular legislation, let us talk about the mandate letters to the ministers. Those were open for the public to see. Those mandate letters, by being open by default, have given the opposition the opportunity to be critical of them. The truth of the matter is that we did not see that over the preceding 10 years under the previous government. It chose the opposite. It chose to keep those mandate letters hidden and secret from the public.

How can he suggest that this government is not being open and transparent? This one example that I am giving is such a great example as to how this government is demonstrating that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my disoriented colleague across the way for his question.

The bottom line here is that, if he wants to talk about accountability, openness, and all of that, which was in his question, all he has to do is be present every day from 2:15 to 3:00 in the House. He will find out all about that. That is what is unofficially known as “non-answer period”.

Maybe before he stands up and makes a statement as he just did, he could view or sit in on that, and shake his head like the rest of us when no questions are answered. The finance minister has been asked a number of questions in this House. He never answered them when he was present, and now he just does not come to the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members that there is a certain level of respect in the House, and when we refer to our colleagues in the House, I would ask you all to not be derogatory to each other.

Also, please do not refer to the presence of a member in the House.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for another speech getting directly to the point. I thank him specifically for pointing out that example of regional economic funding, which was aimed at northern Ontario but went to the minister of everything's riding in southern Ontario.

This is just another element or outcome of the government's decision to strip the regional development ministers across the country, which is proven by the more than $2 billion that was meant to go out the door in infrastructure spending that the government could not get out the door and has had to be profiled for later investment.

I know the speaking time is always limited, but I wonder if my colleague would like to amplify on some of those remarks that he made, criticizing the government for removing the regional ministers.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Thornhill for a great question and his obvious understanding of the issue.

I mentioned the project that was approved under the auspices of northern Ontario but actually benefited a company in southern Ontario, in Mississauga—Malton. It does not matter how the letters are moved around on that, it all adds up and spells “inappropriate”.

Mr. Speaker, you come from northern Ontario and you know how important this kind of funding is in rural, isolated, northern communities. When we are trying to help these municipalities, the last thing we would do is give that kind of project to somebody nowhere near the area. It just smells a little when it comes from the minister's own riding.

I know the minister, and I have a lot of respect for him. However, if he and I were standing and talking in the House, even he would say this does not look good. I would call it downright inappropriate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again, this time at third reading, to speak in support of Bill C-24, an act to update and modernize the Salaries Act. I would like to focus my comments on the five positions Bill C-24 would add to the Salaries Act, positions that are currently minister of state appointments.

The bill would update the Salaries Act to reflect the structure of the current ministry by adding five titled positions. The five positions to be added under the Salaries Act are already occupied by ministers, ministers who are working on important priorities for this government and for Canadians: science, small business and tourism, status of women, la Francophonie, and sport and persons with disabilities. The amendments fully recognize that these are full ministers who lead on important matters and are directly accountable to the Prime Minister and Parliament for results.

The speakers who oppose the bill have said that the ministers of state are “junior ministers”, “little ministers”, or not “full ministers”; that they assist other ministers with their responsibilities and report to the ministers they assist; and that they cannot bring forward memoranda to cabinet without senior ministers sponsoring those items. They have remarked that the five ministers whose positions would be added under the Salaries Act were appointed as ministers of state and assigned, by order in council, to assist other ministers. They have asserted that this is evidence that the Prime Minister intended these ministers to be junior ministers, and they say that this should remain their status. They say that this bill would simply paper over a blunder when the ministry was originally put in place and would give junior ministers an undeserved raise in the bargain.

I understand the origins of this misperception. Conventionally, that has been the role of ministers of state, sometimes called secretaries of state. They have most often assisted other ministers with their portfolio responsibilities. They have not often been members of cabinet, and they have not been able to bring matters to cabinet for consideration on their own.

Ministers of state were not given, in previous governments, statutory authorities to exercise in their own right or statutory duties for which they were directly accountable. Instead, they were assigned to assist a senior minister in carrying out that minister's responsibilities. The senior minister retained the statutory authorities and accountability. The salaries of the ministers of state reflected their supporting roles.

These were policy choices former prime ministers were entitled to make in the exercise of their prerogative to design their ministries in a way they judged would accomplish the government's priorities and properly oversee the day-to-day governing of the country.

The former prime ministers relied significantly on ministers of state. Specifically, under Prime Minister Harper, there were 13 in office at the dissolution of that government. Some of those former ministers of state who are still in this House have said during the course of the debate on this bill that in that role, they worked on important matters. When invited to cabinet, they had an equal voice at the table. They said they considered it a privilege to serve in that capacity. I have no doubt that all of that is true. I am certain that past ministers of state were valued and contributing members of their ministries.

Successive prime ministers have favoured two-tier ministries, and current legislation allows for that kind of structure. Ministers have a significant workload between their portfolios, cabinet, and parliamentary and political duties and have responsibility for increasingly complex and quickly developing files. This workload burden can be shared by developing supporting teams for ministers that include ministers of state.

The appointment of ministers of state has served various purposes in the past. They can support other ministers on general or specific files; with particular tasks, such as taking a lead role developing a policy falling under another minister's authority; or in day-to-day functions, such as meeting with stakeholders. These assignments can both help alleviate a minister's workload and highlight areas of priority for the government's mandate.

Minister of state appointments have also been useful in rounding out the skill set for a portfolio. For instance, the minister might benefit from the assistance of a minister of state who has a background in a particular sector or profession. Minister of state appointments can be used to give a minister a supporting role in policy development or in stakeholder relations that fall under the mandate of another minister. For example, the former minister of employment and social development was cross-appointed as minister of state to assist the minister of Canadian heritage in relation to multiculturalism.

In a compact ministry, ministers of state can be paired with ministers who carry significant workloads. They can function as generalists, offering support on functions or files as requested. In a larger ministry, where ministers have a single portfolio and a defined set of priorities to pursue, there may be less need for the support of a minister of state. Still, having a small number of ministers of state focused on particular priorities might be helpful.

In short, the position of minister of state and the Ministries and Ministers of State Act offer useful options to a prime minister in designing his or her ministry. Bill C-24 does not eliminate the position or repeal the act. I note that I said “options”. That is because the appointment and roles of ministers of state in any particular government are decided by its prime minister.

In launching his ministry, this Prime Minister determined that he did not require a group of ministers to take traditional supporting roles as ministers of state. Rather, he preferred to have a group of ministers who led their own files and were accountable to him and Parliament for results.

The Prime Minister decided that his government's priorities would be delivered by a one-tier ministry. He created a ministry in which all members are full members of cabinet, have an equal capacity to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned to them, and have leading roles to deliver on the important priorities of government.

However, in November 2015, five of these positions the Prime Minister wanted in his one-tier ministry were not positions listed in the Salaries Act. As has been explained, because the Salaries Act could not accommodate those priorities at the time the government took office, the five ministers were appointed pursuant to the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. That act offered a way for these ministers to begin their important work right away, to be paid under the Appropriations Act, and to be fully supported by existing departments in carrying out their responsibilities until legislation could be amended. In other words, they were provided with what was possible within the legal framework that existed in November 2015. However, it did not properly reflect the intended status, and the Prime Minister made a commitment to introduce legislation that would. Bill C-24 would fulfill that commitment.

As speakers before me have pointed out, these ministers have statutory responsibilities vested directly in them, and they are accountable to the Prime Minister and Parliament for results. The Minister of Science is responsible for the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

The Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities has policy and program responsibilities under the Canada Disabilities Savings Act. The minister is also responsible for the sport component of the Physical Activity and Sport Act.

The Minister of Small Business and Tourism is responsible for the Canada Small Business Financing Act, the Small Business Investment Grants Act, and the Canadian Tourism Commission Act, including Destinations Canada, the federal crown corporation that works to sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry. As the member of Parliament for the Niagara area, I know the importance of a successful tourist industry.

The Minister of Status of Women presides over the federal department known as Status of Women Canada.

Let me be clear. Those are just statutory responsibilities. They do not represent the sum total of the significant policy and program work in which these ministers are engaged. I list these items simply to make the point that these ministers are not in conventional junior minister roles and were never intended to be. The Prime Minister worked with the legislative framework he had in November 2015 and committed to updating it to reflect the current one-tier ministry.

The point has been made that these updating exercises are not new. The list of Salaries Act ministers has been amended several times in the last decade, most recently in 2012 and 2013. In each case, the changes aligned with the priorities of the times and with the then prime minister's preference with respect to the composition of his ministry and the organization of the government's administration. Perhaps in 2012 and 2013 changes to the Salary Act did not receive due attention from Parliament because they were included in long omnibus budget bills. This government prefers to be more transparent.

Some members have suggested that the scrutiny of Bill C-24 is not a good use of Parliament's time. With respect, I disagree. The ministerial system is essential and characteristic of our form of government. Its development should be a concern of Parliament. That is why this government brought forward these changes in a stand-alone bill, and I appreciate the lengthy engagement on the bill.

Let me anticipate a question my remarks might prompt. As I have said, the bill would not repeal the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. We think it would offer a useful degree of flexibility for the Prime Minister and future prime ministers in designing their ministries, just as the three untitled positions Bill C-24 would add to the Salaries Act would.

Why then are we removing regional development positions from the Salaries Act? Do they not offer flexibility to a future prime minister too? As one member put it, how can the government put forward a bill that eliminates the possibility of appointing a minister responsible for the development of a particular region that has its own unique issues?

To be clear, the bill does not do that. There will continue to be a need to appoint ministers to oversee each of the regional development agencies. The bill would retain two options to do that and would add a third.

First, as was the practice in the former ministry, a minister can be cross-appointed to a regional development position, assisted by a minister of state. Second, a minister of state can be appointed as the responsible minister. Finally, and this is the new option Bill C-24 would add, a minister could be appointed under one of the untitled positions to oversee one or more of the regional development agencies.

In this government, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been appointed to oversee all the regional development agencies. We think that makes good policy and operational sense. Others have spoken on that point.

The removal of the regional development positions would not affect the agencies themselves, which would continue to exist as separate entities located and working in the regions they serve. It also would not eliminate the requirement for ministerial oversight of them. What it would do is safeguard the installation of an oversized cabinet. The proposed increase in the number of Salaries Act positions would be offset by the removal of the regional development positions. The maximum number of ministers that could be appointed under the Salaries Act, including the Prime Minister, would increase by two positions, from 35 to 37.

In closing, I believe that our government has been clear in explaining that the legislative framework in place on November 4, 2015, prevented the appointment of full ministers to lead on five important priorities. Use of the Ministries and Ministers of State Act allowed ministers to be appointed to these positions and to get to work on the priorities of this government and the priorities of Canadians on day one.

The Prime Minister committed to introducing legislation that would formally equalize the status of all members of his ministry. This bill would fulfill that commitment. When it comes into force, the orders in council that appointed these ministers as ministers of state to assist other ministers would be repealed. They would be in law, as they are in practice, full ministers.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a worthy defence of what we in the official opposition consider this legislation to be: damage control of the Prime Minister's original flawed decision.

Because this amends the Salaries Act, I wonder if he could address the fact that the mistake was made more than two years ago now, and these newly minted ministers will have been paid, in effect, with post-dated cheques until this legislation is actually passed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my speech discussed, from day one the Prime Minister wanted an equal, one-tier ministry. These are priorities that are important to Canadians, priorities we ran on. For example, science is a significant part of what we ran on and what Canadians expected from their government. After a decade of a government that did not always listen to scientists and may have put their work under the table and closed it off to the public, this became a priority.

Using the tools available, the Prime Minister used those tools. That being said, these are priorities that were important to the Prime Minister. Mandate letters are public, which the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands highlighted as an important tool for transparency. This has been the goal of the Prime Minister from day one. It recognizes the importance of the work cabinet does and the equal level cabinet members maintain.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rather agree with my Conservative colleague that we are once again spending time passing legislation in support of a decision that has already been made. These ministers of state already receive the salary usually paid to ministers. We are now covering up the tracks and amending the law to address a broken promise made during the election campaign and to let the Liberals cloak themselves in righteousness, which is something they do very well.

This state of affairs is summed up by the term “entitlement”. It has resulted in the Liberals coming to power and using this chamber's time to cover up their mistakes.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that the Liberals would not make Canadian consumers pay more taxes even though companies like Netflix and Amazon do not charge the GST. This mistake will hurt our own businesses. It is hurting people like Peter Simons, who invest millions of dollars, hire hundreds of employees, and than are at a complete disadvantage because of it.

Are you going to amend an act to justify the unjustifiable here, too?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind members to direct their questions through the Speaker and not directly to members.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, but it went a little off topic of this particular bill.

The hon. member mentioned a promise that the Prime Minister made during the campaign. The promise was to have an equal cabinet, a one-tier cabinet, and those coming forward to the table would speak with equal voice and should be recognized as such. The roles they have, the files they represent, and the policies they are bringing forward are significant priorities for this government.

Previous governments considered these positions, such as status of women, science, and persons with disabilities, to be junior roles, and in any government that is shocking. These roles are important, significant priorities for this government and should be accorded full ministerial status in one equal-tiered ministry.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. Catharines for his excellent speech. Perhaps the most disappointing part of it was when he said “in conclusion” towards the end, because I could have listened to that all day.

The member touched on the efficiencies of this government and this cabinet. I find that particular discussion very interesting, because the Conservative Party, which touts itself as being the efficient and cost-cutting government, had 40 members of cabinet, which is 10 more than what the current cabinet has.

I wonder if the member for St. Catharines could comment on the fact that this government is taking a more efficient and strategic approach to cabinet and to government.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his kind and very sincere words.

It is surprising. I have been here a number of times during this debate at various stages, and we have heard from opposition members, especially those on the Conservative side, about their concerns with the bill, but one thing that they have remained silent on is the fact that the previous ministry was the largest in Canadian history with 40 members of cabinet.

This bill would clarify things and make a more efficient ministry. As the hon. member just stated, and stated earlier, we have a Prime Minister who has decided to make a more transparent cabinet and is showing the public the mandate letters, which is something that no other government has done before. It would allow Canadians and the opposition to hold the government to account on its priorities, promises, and mandate. This is just another step in that road of being transparent.

I have heard from NDP and Conservative MPs who think that this bill is a waste of time to debate, even though they keep standing up and giving speeches on the subject. However, as I mentioned in my speech, the ministry is an important role. It should be debated by Parliament. Its composition should be discussed, and it is important to discuss. Despite the fact that the opposition may not think so, we are here on the umpteenth day to continue to discuss it. Therefore, I think those members do believe that it is important to discuss, and I would like to thank them for their attention on this matter.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a couple of the member's thoughts as they related to the whole issue of consultation and listening to Canadians.

When this committee was formed it did not listen to one person testify on the wisdom, or not, of removing ministers from the regional economic development agencies. The Liberal government continually champions its record on consultation, but it would not even listen to one witness on whether or not ministerial oversight of the economic development agencies should be discontinued. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.

I would also point out something that was said in the Liberal caucus subcommittee on innovation on May 15 of this year, “There is a perception among some that standard processing times at ACOA have increased approximately threefold over the past year and a half, and that requiring ministerial approval unnecessarily delays the process.” For example, a 30-day processing time now takes 90 days.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the lack of efficiency and the lack of consultation as this process moves forward.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of my hon. friend's question as to what consultations took place in regards to the appointment of a minister is a bit curious. I would be surprised if that hon. member rose during the previous Parliament suggesting that Prime Minister Harper should consult with the general public at large. I do not expect that has happened in any other government but I will leave that aside.

In terms of the work by the innovation minister, the results speak for themselves, along with the work of the Minister of Finance, and along with this government's plan and priorities. Canada's economy is the envy of the G7.

Looking at the election results last night, Canadians have spoken as to how they view this government. I hear some laughter on the other side, but I would have expected to see tears. It was an excellent turnout last night. Canadians spoke in terms of the direction they see this country going in.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following the swearing-in of the Liberal cabinet after the 2015 election, the Prime Minister responded to a question regarding equal gender representation in cabinet with “because it's 2015”. It is now 2017 and the government's cabinet is no more gender equal today than it was then.

Professor Margot Young, a University of British Columbia law professor specializing in gender equality issues appeared before the government operations committee on Bill C-24, and said:

I have to say, to respond to a que1stion about women in the cabinet by saying simply “because it's 2015” loses a key leadership moment to articulate and shape opinion about what it means to actually have women in positions of equality, in positions of leadership and power.

I have said it before, and it is worth repeating now. This Liberal government is all style and no substance. The Liberals spend more time focusing on their appearance than they do on substantive matters that are important to Canadians, and this case is no exception. The Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe that his appointed Liberal cabinet is gender-balanced, but this is far from the truth. What the Prime Minister kept secret from Canadians is that several of the female ministers were not full ministers, but rather ministers of state.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Of course, once the opposition and others pointed out this reality to the Liberal government, the Prime Minister quickly tried to cover his tracks. He introduced Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act. The bill would make several changes to aspects of ministerial roles and designations. These include the creation of new positions, the removal of several important positions, the creation of legal backup for departmental support for these new ministry positions, and the transfer of authoritative powers.

In the bill, the Liberals are attempting to justify changing the title “ministers of state” to full ministers. They say that changing the names of the positions and increasing the income of each minister of state, with no added responsibilities for these ministers of state, somehow makes them equivalent to full ministers. This amounts to nothing more than a shell game, and in the process the Prime Minister is getting rid of regional economic development ministers and creating positions that will be determined later. What happened to openness and transparency?

I do not want to spend any more time discussing the Liberal's PR game of claiming to have a gender-balanced cabinet but in reality not having any such thing. I will leave it up to my hon. colleagues on the opposite side to try to square that circle.

Over the past two years, the government has shown it is unable to manage a national economy. Its top-down style of governance is no better exemplified than in the elimination of regional development ministers, leaving all regional development decisions in the hands of the innovation minister from Mississauga. I have served with the hon. member for Mississauga—Malton on a committee in previous Parliaments, and I know he is a very hard-working member and represents his constituents. However, he does not live, experience, and know the very real and unique needs that exist in our different regions, from Atlantic Canada to Quebec, to the Prairies, to British Columbia, and especially our northern areas, both in the territories and in our provinces.

To make things worse, when studying this piece of legislation in committee the Liberals refused to hear from a single witness about the plan to scrap regional economic development ministers. This, from a government that claims to make “evidence-based” decisions, a government that prides itself on consultation, a government that repeatedly says it wants to hear from Canadians. This is all style and no substance.

Regional economic development ministers played a very important role in our previous Conservative government's ability to weather the global economic crisis and come away with the strongest economy in the G7, all while balancing the budget and leaving a surplus. That is why, unlike the Liberals, Conservatives will fight for appropriate regional representation and accountability. The Liberals are ignoring the diversity of Canada's regions. So much for championing diversity. So much for championing consultation.

We need to include people from the regions in the decision-making process because it ultimately affects their full participation in our national economy. Indeed, the harmful effects of this decision are already noticeable. Take these examples, for instance. Last fall, $150,000 in northern Ontario economic development funds were given to a company based in the innovation minister's Mississauga riding. Apparently, this is the preferred kind of politics the Prime Minister had in mind. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but as a member whose riding is a short drive down the 401 from Mississauga, I would not consider our region of Ontario as being part of the north, by any measure.

Furthermore, just this spring, the Atlantic Liberal caucus subcommittee reported that it had heard of a threefold increase in processing times at ACOA since the appointment of the Toronto minister. The Liberal subcommittee noted, “centralized decision-making is viewed unfavourably as impeding the agility of programs. The Subcommittee was asked to advocate for regional decision-making in order to better address regional needs.” I sure hope that the Prime Minister and the innovation minister are taking the time to listen to their colleagues in their own Liberal caucus on this issue.

As previously mentioned, Bill C-24 seeks to ask parliamentarians to approve the appointment of three future mystery ministers. This is neither transparent nor accountable. We know that after two years of mismanagement of appointments left, right, and centre, the Liberal government cannot be trusted to handle any appointments, let alone secret appointments, to cabinet. I would ask my hon. colleagues opposite what exactly they are trying to hide.

Allow me to summarize. The Prime Minister set this legislation into motion after he was trying to look good for the cameras but had a reporter ask him about the so-called gender parity in his cabinet. He doubled down when he included in this legislation the removal of regional economic ministers, and then tripled down when he expected opposition parties to blindly support his creation of new cabinet positions that are to be determined in the future.

Conservatives do believe in equal pay for equal work. This bill does not deliver that. Ministers with more junior portfolios will not have their own deputy ministers, will not have the same departmental budgets, will not have the same responsibility or authority as ministers with more senior portfolios, and yet their salaries will increase. In fact, the salaries will increase by roughly $20,000 each for these ministers, with no added responsibilities or authority.

If the Prime Minister wants to put his words into action, I hear that the finance minister has been in a bit of trouble recently with the Ethics Commissioner. This could be an opportunity for him to promote one of his female members of the House to the position of finance minister. At the very least, the Prime Minister needs to listen to the advice of his Liberal backbenchers and immediately reinstate regional economic ministers. Enough of this top-down approach where Ottawa knows best. It is not working and it has created headaches across the country, especially in Atlantic Canada. In fact, all areas of Canada have been affected and have spoken out against this ill-conceived move to eliminate regional ministers from the economic development agencies.

There is a quote from La Presse in Quebec from November 2015, which states:

“It was always an important minister, like Denis Lebel, who was in charge,” said Mr. Forget [the current president] of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce. “It meant that business leaders had an attentive ear to discuss Quebec's economic issues. We'll have to see how things go in the coming days and weeks.”

We do not hear anything from the Liberal Quebec members speaking out against this change.

The Cape Breton Post has stated that “The change in tactics to support business growth was flagged as a potential concern for job-starved regions such as Cape Breton.”

From the CBC, Donald Savoie, a Canada research chair in public administration, has said that the lack of an ACOA minister from the region is a return to when former Liberal industry minister John Manley was responsible for the economic development agencies during the Jean Chrétien government. He say, “I would remind Atlantic Canadians that ACOA used to report to John Manley at the Department of Industry. Would I call [the current appointment] ACOA's heyday? No.”

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of this plan.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed what the member for Kitchener—Conestoga had to say because it really reflects the strong difference between our respective governments. I would like to alight on the idea of the Minister of Science and her ministry not being viewed as a strong one, or that the work of the Minister of Science has not changed. We just appointed a new chief science advisor. This person will be working with the Minister of Science. Could the member expand on how he sees the lack of value they place on science compared to how the Liberal government sees the promotion and valuing of science as a bigger source of strength?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I devalued science or the science minister. In fact, I applauded the current innovation minister for his hard work for all Canadians. However, what I did say is that regardless of how great these people are, regardless of how great ministers or members they are, they cannot have an intimate knowledge of the regions across our country, whether Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the Prairies, northern Ontario, or our territories. That is where the big problem comes in. It is not diminishing the value of a person or his or her portfolio. It is saying that we need the regional representation of ministers who have their ear to the ground in their own areas and can address those issues in cabinet.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals are unable to agree on whether this bill pertains to pay equity or parity in cabinet, could my Conservative colleague tell us whether the responsibilities of ministers of state are equivalent to those of full ministers, given that ministers of state do not have to manage a department?

Does he think that simply giving ministers of state the same salary as ministers is sufficient to say that we have now achieved equal pay for equal work and parity in cabinet?

Is it not a bit simplistic to talk about gender equality only in terms of salary?

Does he think that this bill is necessary since these salaries have already been adjusted without any need for such a bill?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really gets to the heart of the issue. For the government to address this simply in terms of salary, by increasing a minister of state's salary to a full minister's salary, is very inappropriate thing to do. It is inappropriate to increase the salary of someone who has not been given any additional responsibilities, does not have any additional authority, and does not have a department under him or her. In fact, in many cases ministers of state report to their senior minister. Therefore, to somehow suggest there is equal responsibility and authority is disingenuous at best.

The tragedy here is that to fulfill a statement that was made immediately following the swearing-in of cabinet, the Prime Minister has had to backtrack and make it look like all ministers are equal in this cabinet. Certainly, they are all of equal value in terms of their humanity, but their responsibilities are far from equal, and so in that respect it is inappropriate for them to receive the additional $20,000 a year for doing nothing extra.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this particular issue, the arguments being made by the government are the height of absurdity. The Liberals want to use the legitimate importance of the specific areas covered by the sub-ministers as the basis for suggesting that these are in fact equally important issues to those that full ministers deal with. However, if the Liberals simply took the time to observe their own orders in council when they appointed the ministers, those orders clearly say that those ministers are subject to the authority of full ministers. For example, the minister of state for the status of women is formally in place to assist the minister of heritage in carrying out the latter minister's responsibility. Therefore, these secondary ministerial positions are not secondary because of the importance of the work they are doing; they are secondary because they are formally or administratively subject to the authority of someone who is a full minister. That is why traditionally they have been paid less. Members should understand that and members who are debating this issue should know that. Does my colleague have any comment on that?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to issues of administration and the law, I will certainly defer to my colleague any day of the week. Again, he gets to the heart of the issue, in fleshing out what was said by Margot Young at committee: “Really, there's no gender substance, no equity substance on the basis of gender equality, to this legislation.” Furthermore, in response to a question about whether the Prime Minister's claim of a gender-equal cabinet was cynical, she went further and stated, “I would say it's dishonest.”

I think we have a lot of reckoning to do in helping Canadians recognize that what the government is doing is simply trying to call these ministers equal, when in fact all of us in this House know, including my colleagues on the other side of the House, that there really is no such thing.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga for his excellent speech. I recognize his qualities as a person. He is a very caring individual who has a lot of respect for people. I think it is important to point out the kindness that he shows people every day.

Since the end of the session is just a few days away, I would like to wish a happy holiday season to all the staff who work with us here in the House and in our offices, all members of the House of Commons, my family, and the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. We are going to spend some quality time with our family and friends and exchange gifts.

Speaking of gifts, since this government was elected two years ago, it has been trying to give gifts to those who donate to, support, and serve its party. Now, the Liberals have introduced Bill C-24. I am wondering whether this bill is just another way to do favours for certain people. I have some serious doubts about this bill, and the Liberals are the ones who have planted those seeds of doubt in my mind over the past two years.

Nowhere in the many pages of the mandate letter written by the Prime Minister's team and addressed to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is there any mention of introducing this kind of bill. Here again, the Liberal government seems to be winging it. I do not know what the objective is. Usually, when I go through a bill, I find objectives. The official document I have here talks about Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, but does not identify any objectives. What is the purpose of this bill? I certainly do not see a real answer to that question, and it is not even written in the bill.

They say this is about equality between men and women, but as usual with this government, it is all sizzle and no steak. Interestingly, the ministers with the three most important portfolios, the defence minister, the innovation minister, and the notorious finance minister, are all men. The Liberals say they want parity, but when it comes to giving mandates to female ministers, they seem to have little faith in women's abilities. That is why I have serious doubts. I do not understand what the government is trying to accomplish with its act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act.

Thanks to the government's improvisations over the past two years, it now has to look for loopholes, because it has deviated from its agenda. It decided to table a bill that would eliminate the positions of ministers responsible for regional development and entrust all decisions to a very busy minister. I will not talk about this minister's professionalism, but every human being, male or female, has their limits. He will have to take over the duties of the ministers responsible for Canada's six regional development agencies, which cover the entire country. There is one out east, one in Quebec, two in Ontario, one up north, and one out west. Now, however, the government will be making decisions about what is best for the people of the Atlantic region out of an office on Bay Street in Toronto.

From now on, people in Toronto will be deciding what is in the best interests of people living in the north.

The agencies were created because the regions face different realities. We are here to help the regions cope with their realities and find solutions that are appropriate in their circumstances. Some regions have very high unemployment. Fortunately, the Quebec City area has very low unemployment, but that is not the case across Canada.

When the minister, way up in his ivory tower, decides to apply a law or program, he obviously will not take into account the different features of each region. That shows a lack of respect towards our regions. It comes on top of the finance minister's lack of respect towards SMEs, which drive the economies of Canada's regions.

The Minister of Finance launched consultations in July. Since he does not have the same schedule as Canadian workers, he may not have realized that small businesses and company managers are worn out in July and take a few days off.

The Liberals say they want to consult, they put their reform out there, they make the announcement, and off they go. Then the opposition comes out swinging to defend the interests of Canadians and Canadian business owners. The government backtracks, but only halfway. Now it is going to let businesses pay a 9% tax, but not until 2019. That 9% was in the works before the Liberals took office, but they got rid of it because it was a Harper government initiative.

They have no real plan. They react, they change course, they make it up as they go along. Now, for the sake of gender equality, the government wants to give everyone a raise. It wants everyone to get a minister's salary, and it is taking ministers away from the regions.

Where are we going? How can anyone respect a government that does not respect the businesses in our regions?

I am not very comfortable with that. I am not an expert, but Norman Spector, a former ACOA president, has told many people in Ottawa that the Liberals never liked the regional development agencies and that eliminating them has been on the Liberal agenda for some time now.

The Liberals are removing competent people, centralizing power for themselves, and governing in the interest of their Liberal friends, not in the interest of all Canadians.

This government has been in power for two years, and I cannot name a single concrete measure it has introduced in the real interest of Canadian workers. This is just more window dressing. The Liberals are trying to impress the international community, but they are doing nothing meaningful.

Instead of working on this bill, why are we not investing our energy in putting negotiators in place to make sure the government concludes the NAFTA negotiations, solves the softwood lumber crisis, and respects our SMEs?

The new corporate tax reform comes into effect in 18 days. I do not know what the government is playing at, but if I can see that it is not respecting our SMEs, I am not sure how it can interpret its position.

Is the government respecting our SMEs? Is it respecting our regions? Is it respecting Canadians?

We are wasting our time on this bill. It is unacceptable. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that our Prime Minister is trying to shut us down, create a distraction, and pacify us.

The Prime Minister and the government need to take this a little more seriously.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist, only a good head of hair.

My colleague talked a lot about SMEs. With all the backpedalling the Liberals do, making decisions and then changing laws accordingly, would he not expect them to come here with some sort of legislation? I would like to see them put in writing that we are gearing up to shortchange our small businesses and retailers so we can blithely give major international corporations a tax break on GST and provincial sales tax.

While they are at it, they should put in writing that they prefer to help American giants.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for the question.

He is quite right. I must say I have no idea what to expect from this government. The Liberals wait until the House is wrapping up its work to table the business tax reform that comes into force on January 1, 2018. How incredibly democratic and transparent of them. This government is incapable of assuming its responsibilities. It creates distractions. It must be anxious for the session to end because once again, it is tarnishing its own image.

Oh well, 2019 is just around the corner.