Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 63 - Evidence - April 17, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 17, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, met this day at 9:31 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online.
At this stage, I would like all senators to introduce themselves, please.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
The Chair: For the first part, honourable senators, this morning we begin with our consideration of Bill C-24, which was referred to us by the Senate on Wednesday, March 21, 2018.
Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on September 27, 2016, by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Honourable Bardish Chagger.
Madam minister, thank you for accepting our invitation and to share your opinions and comments. I will formally introduce you in a few minutes and welcome you this morning.
Accompanying the minister, we have two officials from the Privy Council Office: Mr. Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government; and Ms. Martha Boyle, Privy Council Officer, Machinery of Government.
Minister, again, thank you for accepting our invitation. I have been informed by the clerk that you will make a presentation, to be followed by questions from the senators.
[Translation]
Madam Minister, we thank you for joining us today at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Please make your presentation, which will be followed by a period for questions. Madam Minister, the floor is yours.
Hon. Bardish Chagger, P.C., M.P., Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism: Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to be here today to speak to you about Bill C-24. Before I describe in what ways this bill would amend the Salaries Act, I would like to provide a bit of context.
[English]
It’s a pleasure to be here. Every occasion I get to come and meet the Senate, I appreciate it, and I do thank you all for the work you do.
As we do have senators here representing the entire country, I want to take a moment, especially to mention what took place in Saskatchewan and for you and everyone to know that our thoughts have been with that team and the families there. You have had an impact on many of our lives, so please know that our thoughts and prayers are with those families impacted, and not just the 16 who have left too soon, but the ones who are recovering. We will continue battling together to make a better tomorrow.
This bill is actually similar to that. It’s really about modifying and bringing the House of Commons into the 21st century. Assembling a cabinet is one of the first responsibilities of an incoming Prime Minister. In Westminster countries like Canada the appointment of ministers is a Crown prerogative. The Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint any number of ministers with any title to any office, including offices that are not referred to in legislation.
However, while the Governor General may appoint an unlimited number of ministers, those ministers cannot be paid except under the authority of the law. That, too, is a common feature in Westminster countries. The salaries of ministers must be authorized by law.
And that brings me to the Salaries Act. The Salaries Act authorizes payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of a ministerial salary to individuals who have been appointed to a ministerial position listed in the act.
The list of ministerial positions is amended by Parliament from time to time to reflect the priorities of the day. The Salaries Act was most recently amended in 2013. There are currently 35 specific ministerial positions listed in the Salaries Act, including the position of Prime Minister.
When the current Prime Minister was designing his cabinet, five ministerial positions that he wanted at the cabinet table were not positions listed in the Salaries Act.
Those five positions are the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie; the Minister of Science; the Minister of Small Business and Tourism; the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities; and the Minister of Status of Women.
The Prime Minister wanted those ministers to lead on those important policy and program priorities of the government and Canadians that their titles signal.
Because the Salaries Act could not accommodate those priorities of the government at the time it took office, the five ministers were appointed pursuant to the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. That act offered a way for the ministers to begin their work right away and to be paid under Appropriation Acts as equal to the Salaries Act, colleagues, until the Salaries Act was amended.
These ministers are not “junior” ministers, as ministers of state have been conventionally referred to in the past. Like all of their cabinet colleagues, these ministers lead on the priorities tasked to them by the Prime Minister in their public mandate letters. They exercise and perform statutory powers and functions vested directly in them by orders-in-council. They have legislative and program delivery responsibilities, they are directly accountable to the Prime Minister and to Parliament for results and they are equals in cabinet.
These ministers were provided with what was possible within the legal framework that existed in November 2015. But Ministers of State does not reflect their intended status and the Prime Minister made a commitment to introduce legislation that would address that issue.
Bill C-24 fulfills that commitment.
I will turn now to the specific ways in which Bill C-24 would amend the Salaries Act. Bill C-24 would adjust the list of ministerial positions that can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in three ways.
First, it would add eight ministerial positions to the Salaries Act list. I mentioned five of those positions earlier in my remarks. They are already occupied by ministers and will replace current Ministers of State appointments. The additional three positions are not filled in the current ministry and are untitled. These positions could be used and titled by this Prime Minister or future prime ministers to respond to future priorities.
The second adjustment that Bill C-24 would make to the Salaries Act list of ministers is the removal of the six regional development agencies positions. On this point, it’s not the removal of the RDAs, just of the ministers of state positions.
Let me be clear that Bill C-24 does not affect the status of the regional development agencies themselves. It doesn’t consolidate them into one organization. They will continue to exist as separate entities, located in the regions they serve.
And it doesn’t remove the requirement for ministerial oversight. Under this government, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is the minister responsible for all of the regional development agencies.
The final adjustment that Bill C-24 would make to the list of ministerial positions in the Salaries Act is to change the title of “Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs” to “Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.” The new title accurately reflects the responsibilities of the position and the fact that the Prime Minister has assumed responsibilities for intergovernmental affairs. The ministerial title would also be adjusted in Financial Administration Act as a consequential amendment.
Let me recap the three changes that Bill C-24 would make to the list of Salaries Act ministers. It would add eight new ministerial positions, five of which are currently occupied and three of which would be untitled.
It would remove the six regional development positions without affecting the status of the regional development agencies. And it would remove “Intergovernmental Affairs” from the title of the “Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.”
I would now like to turn to the framework that Bill C-24 would add to the Salaries Act to support any of the eight positions, because Bill C-24 neither creates new departments nor requires that new departments be created.
The bill gives the Governor-in-Council the flexibility to designate any department to provide support to the new ministerial positions in carrying out some or all of their responsibilities. This means that these ministers can have access to the expertise and experience of the department or departments best placed to provide them with full and appropriate support. Bill C-24 also authorizes the ministers to receive the financial and procurement authorities they need to fulfill their responsibilities and be accountable for results.
Sharing departmental resources among ministers is not new. The three ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and International Development and La Francophonie all use the facilities and resources of a single department — Global Affairs Canada. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour both rely on the resources and facilities of the Department of Employment and Social Development in carrying out their responsibilities. This is a proven, efficient and collaborative way to work.
Finally, I would like to address the question of costs associated with Bill C-24. The amendments to the Salaries Act would not increase the cost of the current ministry. The ministers currently appointed as ministers of state receive the same salary as their cabinet colleagues and have office budgets that match their responsibilities. This will not change with Bill C-24.
Ministers currently receive additional remuneration of $82,600 a year for their ministerial duties. Bill C-24 does not change that remuneration.
However, the legislation does increase, by two, the number of ministerial positions that could be paid under the Salaries Act from 35 to 37, including the position of Prime Minister. If these two additional ministerial positions were filled at a future date, the total incremental cost, at today’s salary, would be $165,200 a per year.
The current ministry comprises the Prime Minister and 29 ministers. It has not grown in numbers since its swearing in on November 4, 2015. Bill C-24 also has the consequential effect of increasing, by two, the number of parliamentary secretaries that may be appointed, from 35 to 37.
There are currently 35 parliamentary secretaries. Parliamentary secretaries receive $17,000 for their duties in that role. If the two additional positions were filled at a future date, the total incremental cost, at today’s remuneration, would be $34,000 per year.
I will wrap up my remarks with this summary. By adding five named and three untitled positions to the Salaries Act, Bill C-24 fulfills the Prime Minister’s commitment to introduce legislation that reflects the composition of his one-tier ministry, and it provides a degree of flexibility for this Prime Minister and future prime ministers to adapt their ministries to respond to the priorities of the day. Removing the regional development positions offsets the increase in ministerial positions that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund while having no impact on the regional development agencies themselves.
Creating a departmental support framework for the new positions means that no new departments have to be created. There are no incremental costs for the current ministry associated with this bill.
Honourable senators, that concludes my opening remarks on Bill C-24. I thank you for the time. I understand we have provided a PowerPoint presentation, and if we would like to go through it, the officials can take us through it. That’s at your discretion.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Who, from the officials, will start?
Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office: I can start. This is really intended to walk you through the different elements. Many of the issues raised in the PowerPoint, the minister has just set out. The first is, as she stated in her remarks, the Salaries Act authorizes payment out of the CRF of a ministerial salary. So it’s very simple, clean, very narrow legislation. As the minister mentioned, the PM and 34 specific ministerial positions are named, so 35 in total. The proposed legislation would move it to 37.
As the minister finished her remarks, Bill C-24 amends the list in three ways and introduces a framework to allow departments to provide support to ministers.
Turning to slide 3, currently the Salaries Act isn’t divided into two parts, but the proposal is to divide it into those two parts. The first part deals with the salary provisions. The second part deals with the support of the salary provisions.
The new part is Part 2. Just to reiterate, it allows departments to flexibly provide support to ministers that are named.
Turning to slide 4, as Minister Chagger mentioned, the PM has assumed responsibilities for intergovernmental affairs. So you’ve seen a proposed tweaking of the legal title of Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs to “Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.”
As the minister mentioned, one of the proposals is to eliminate the positions tied to the regional development agencies, but as the minister also noted, there are no changes to the regional development agencies embedded in this legislation. It is just the titling of the ministerial titles.
Turning to slide 5, proposed subsection 2(3) adds eight ministerial positions. The five that were listed, as the minister mentioned in her remarks, 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 are all added. The other three are untitled positions, and this is to provide flexibility going forward. The net result of this, taking the addition of eight and the minus of six positions adds two in total, so it’s the movement of the potential size of the ministry from 35 positions to 37 positions. As Minister Chagger noted, the current ministry is the Prime Minister plus 29 positions, so you’re not at the limit yet.
Turning to slide 6, there’s support for eight new salaries under the Salaries Act. Bullet 1 refers to the Governor-in-Council being authorized to designate one or more departments to provide support for the ministers in carrying out the responsibilities. This is the flexibility. You have a minister whose responsibilities are in a certain area, you find the department that’s best suited to define support and you have the flexibility under this proposal to have the minister be the lead for that department and to tie the two of them together.
This gives them authorization to use the services, facilities and officials of the designated departments. A minister whose department has been designated to support another minister would be authorized to delegate financial and procurement authorities to that minister. There are also some technical issues around “appropriate minister” and “department.”
Then there are a series of technical amendments listed there.
The Chair: Before the chair recognizes the following senators for questions, I would like to ask for the record that the three senators who have joined us introduce themselves, starting with Senator Moncion, Senator Mitchell and Senator Omidvar.
Senator Moncion: I’ve done it before, but I’ll do it again. Lucie Moncion.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Mitchell, Alberta.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Toronto.
The Chair: We’ll go to questions now.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, for being here today. Welcome to your officials also.
You referenced in your opening remarks the creation of new departments and referenced the three untitled minister positions. The department of Indigenous Services Canada was created after the bill was tabled. Could you tell us how that salary for the minister of that department will be authorized?
Ms. Chagger: Minister Bennett was appointed to the position as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 4, 2015. The recent change in her working title to Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has no impact on her underlying appointment. Her salary is therefore paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, pursuant to the Salaries Act. Minister Philpott, whose working title is Minister of Indigenous Services, has been temporarily appointed as the Minister of State and assigned by order-in-council to assist Minister Bennett, who presides over the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Payments to Minister Philpott’s salary is therefore authorized under INAC, the former department’s name, appropriations act.
The decision to dissolve INAC and create two separate but complementary departments are still to be made. The provisions in Bill C-24 would give the government the flexibility to use one of the three untitled positions for the new Indigenous Services minister.
We’re talking about those three untitled positions so that if there are needs of the day, depending on the issues, the government has the flexibility to do it. This is an example of that.
Senator Marshall: So the salary for Indigenous Services Canada will be provided under the authority of a supply act until it’s slipped into one of the untitled positions.
What would be the logistics for activating an additional minister? The reference in the legislation says “three additional ministers appointed by commission under the Great Seal.” What would be the logistics if the government decides to bring that minister’s salary under Salaries Act?
Ms. Chagger: It’s a bit of a technical answer, so I will refer to my officials, but I would say the Prime Minister of the day is able to choose his or her cabinet. This is one of those examples where the Prime Minister has a vision for the country. We have a responsibility to fulfill commitments we have made, and this is his way of moving that forward.
Mr. Sutherland: It would be an order-in-council through which the Prime Minister would initiate it, would it not?
Martha Boyle, Privy Council Officer, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office: With respect to any of the three untitled positions, the Prime Minister has the prerogative to give advice to the Governor General. That is done under an instrument of advice, so a letter to the Governor General. The Prime Minister can title the minister anything that the Prime Minister chooses, and the Governor General accepts. Then the untitled position becomes available for the payment of the salary to that minister.
Let’s say the Prime Minister decides he wants a minister of automobiles. That is the position to which a person will be appointed. The office will be created by virtue of that appointment, and then the salary can be paid via one of the untitled positions in the Salaries Act.
Senator Marshall: Is there any plan or intention to further amend the act to provide for the additional salary of that minister of that new department?
Mr. Sutherland: As Ms. Boyle outlined, in the event the Prime Minister wished to make a change, he would provide advice to the Governor General through an instrument of advice. That would be all he would need to do. He wouldn’t need to amend the legislation. That’s part of why the flexibility of the three positions —
Senator Marshall: But the salary would be authorized by a supply bill as opposed to — it just seems that all the ministers’ salaries are now authorized by the Salaries Act. It seems now we have just one individual minister that’s not in there under the Salaries Act.
Mr. Sutherland: As Senator Harder whispered to me, he’s quite correct: In the event of that change — it hasn’t happened, but in the event of that change — the new minister would be paid under the Salaries Act.
Senator Marshall: Maybe Senator Harder will put forward an amendment. Thank you very much.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, thank you for your presence. You should know you’re always welcome at the Senate. We always appreciate receiving you.
I read your comments, and you kindly provided us with your remarks earlier. On page 8, you say in terms of the framework, “Bill C-24 would add the Salaries Act to support any of the eight positions, because Bill C-24 neither creates new departments nor requires that new departments be created.”
I have a bit of a challenge with that. If I understand this correctly, the bill does not create new departments, and you’ve already said that. This means, for example, that the Minister of Status of Women would be served for now with the Department of Heritage, but it also means if the Minister of Status of Women wanted to deliver a memorandum to cabinet, she could only do if the Minister of Heritage co-signed the memorandum.
Can you confirm if that’s the case?
Ms. Chagger: I would love to. I thank you for the warm welcome and kind words.
Actually, the department of Status of Women exists. So that minister has a department, even as a minister of state had a department. I know you were just giving an example. If you look at the Global Affairs Canada or Employment and Social Development, you’ll see there are departments being shared by ministers, based on the responsibilities.
There are many ways to see this. For me, the benefit of not creating new departments but having multiple ministers working within departments is about taking a whole-of-government approach, not only by words but by action, where ministers have to work together, which is always a grey area. When you’re working against each other, you’re not working in the best interests of the country. But when ministers work together, whether it’s one department or multiple departments, I believe you’re able to better serve Canadians.
When it comes to the responsibilities of a minister and the whole concept of co-signing or feeling you need permission, I can speak as the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. I work closely with Minister Bains as well as Minister Duncan. I do not feel ever that I require permission. I have my public mandate letter. I have a responsibility. I submit a request to the Minister of Finance to be part of that budget and be considered no differently than every other minister.
Perhaps there is a perception out there. I can tell you what I feel and what I go through. My decisions are my decisions. The Prime Minister has confidence in me. Minister Bains has full confidence in me, just like I have confidence in them. I debate equally at the cabinet table, as do all ministers. That’s why we’re creating this one-tier ministry.
I feel no new departments need to be created. There are ample resources. We need to make sure we’re utilizing those resources in a more productive way.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, thank you for that explanation. That really helps me. Perhaps I did not word this very carefully. I’m not so much concerned about not having the new departments, so I erred in that, but what I mean is this: For example, if the Minister of Heritage were sending a memorandum to cabinet, she would not need the Minister of Status of Women’s co-signing, but if the Minister of Status of Women were sending a memorandum to cabinet, she needs a co-signing. Am I wrong on that?
Ms. Chagger: I would say it’s not required. It’s not how it works in practice.
Senator Eaton: Minister, I’d like to continue on with the three unnamed ministries. I notice the Prime Minister was very careful when he named the Minister de la Francophonie and Minister of Science about bringing them to full ministries. He removed the ministers of regional development very easily. They’re gone, and these new ones took their place, which is perfectly reasonable. New priorities arise.
Why wouldn’t future prime ministers, instead of creating these three unnamed ministries — or I guess because we divided INAC, we need two unnamed ministries — why future prime ministers wouldn’t simply reorder the priorities just the way Prime Minister Trudeau did.
I’m thinking of government sprawl. If every Prime Minister came along and said, “You know what? I need two more ministers, three more ministers,” before you know it, we’d get up to 40, 45. I’m just thinking: Wouldn’t it be simpler to just create the new ministry for Minister Philpott. I understand that; I see that perfectly. But to sort of “blue sky” and say, “We’re going to add two new unnamed ministers just in case something comes up,” well, if something comes up, surely other things wouldn’t require the same kinds of priorities and could probably be dropped from cabinet, as you dropped the regional development ministries, which were considered, in their day, very important.
Ms. Chagger: First of all, thank you, senator. Regional development agencies are essential to the work that they do. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said —
Senator Eaton: Yes, but they are no longer ministries. You have dropped them, I understand.
Ms. Chagger: If I can just answer your question and your comments as well, the regional development agencies will continue to exist. Having a person responsible for each of the regional development agencies continues to be a function of the president of the RDAs. These are people within the regions who know the economic conditions of those regions really well. By bringing the RDAs together under the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, it has allowed these RDAs to also work better together. So we are not dropping anything from the RDA.
Senator Eaton: What I’m saying is that you’ve managed to bring them together under the Minister of Innovation, which is perfectly reasonable. Life changes. I’m just saying that, in the future, if you wanted another kind of ministry, couldn’t you do the same thing by looking at your priorities and saying, “That is no longer really essential. We’ll put it under that ministry, and we’ll create this new ministry.”
Ms. Chagger: Every Prime Minister has the prerogative to do that, and every Prime Minister is able to do that. When it comes to this Prime Minister choosing a one-tier ministry, it is not taking away from future Prime Ministers appointing ministers of state.
Senator Eaton: No, I’m worried about government sprawl.
Ms. Chagger: I recognize that. This ministry actually, relatively speaking, is a smaller cabinet than we have seen in the past. That’s something I was also worried about; so I had digging done by my team, looking at the numbers of ministers and ministers of state that former Prime Ministers have appointed, former governments have had. This ministry actually is, relatively, quite small. Hence why I also stated it has not changed in number since we came into office, which is also unusual because ministries tend to grow. That’s where this is not only planning for today but planning for a little bit of flexibility, and I would say that it is, I feel, quite reasonable.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Senator Pratte: Minister, when the government arrived and put forward some of these changes and the ministers were paid through the Appropriations Act, it worked. So why did you feel the need to bring this bill forward? Why not simply keep the system, which maybe was not absolutely clear but seemed to work all right? Was it a legal requirement, or was it simply to make things clearer and transparent?
Ms. Chagger: Thank you, senator. Yes, it is to put into law what is currently happening in practice. It was a commitment the Prime Minister made. When we came into office, we had said that we would have the one-tier ministry. With the rules of the day, we followed them to the best of our ability, but it is important we reflect in action what we are doing in practice.
Senator Pratte: With the three additional unnamed ministers, isn’t there a risk that we have two categories of ministers? For instance the minister of automobiles, which Ms. Boyle mentioned will appear, could appear and disappear when the Prime Minister of the day decides. But the Minister of Finance, for instance, if he or she were to disappear, will necessitate an amendment to the Salaries Act. Am I correct?
Ms. Chagger: You will have the flexibility to act with the challenges of the day or opportunities of the day. I would say, if you look at the ministry and the history of it, which I have done digging on, you’ll see that changes have been taking place. The Minister of Health was added only in 1996, which is not actually that long ago, but, when you are talking about issues of the day, it is important you have that flexibility and do look at the fact that the country is advancing and changing. This legislation not only reflects the current government’s priorities, but it provides flexibility. I would also respond to say the whole concept of two-tier ministries or two different categories in a sense already exists. The Prime Minister is saying we would like a one-tier ministry, and that’s why all ministers have been appointed as ministers, paid the same way since day one, and now we are just formally recognizing that in law with Bill C-24. But, for future Prime Ministers, it will be their prerogative to establish their cabinet as they choose.
Senator Pratte: My point is that with the three unnamed ministers, some titles will appear and disappear simply because the Prime Minister decides. Some other titles are in the act. If the government decides to get rid of some titles or replace some titles, that will necessitate changes in the act.
Ms. Boyle: Just to be clear, the Salaries Act doesn’t itself create offices of positions of ministers. The Prime Minister appoints. You mentioned the Minister of Finance. His office is created under the Financial Administration Act. In order for there to be a person who can exercise all of the functions under the Financial Administration Act that are assigned to the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister must appoint a Minister of Finance or amend the Financial Administration Act. There are positions in the Salaries Act that don’t have statutory positions created separately. They are discretionary. A Prime Minister can appoint or not, and it doesn’t affect anything in a statute. You are quite right, senator, that if the Prime Minister chose not to appoint a Minister of Finance, he would have to amend the Financial Administration Act to make another minister responsible for those financial powers, duties and functions. Does that make sense?
Senator Pratte: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: Just picking up on that point, part of my difficulty is that it’s the ministerial accountability. We had junior ministers, and we knew that junior ministers had to go through senior ministers to the Prime Minister. You’re saying they are all equal now. Do they, therefore, report to the Prime Minister? Because that would be equality to me. If you’re still going through another minister, I’m not quite sure that’s the equality that I understand.
Ms. Chagger: I would say yes in the sense that every minister has received a public mandate letter. Every minister has a responsibility to fulfill that mandate that the Prime Minister has given them directly. My mandate letter, as Minister of Small Business and Tourism, was not given to me through another minister. It was given to me. It is my responsibility to fulfill that mandate. If you look at — as an example I’ll give a quick plug — Budget 2018, we made substantial a commitment to the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy. I will be leading that strategy as Minister of Small Business and Tourism, and I report directly to the Prime Minister.
Senator Andreychuk: As I understand now, all ministers will be equal, will receive their instructions and their directions from the Prime Minister?
Ms. Chagger: Yes. Each of us receives a public mandate letter. That is the current practice. We have been doing that since day one. That’s why each of us has our own mandate letter. Each of us is committed to fulfilling that mandate, and there are times where you work with other ministers within your department or with ministers in other departments. That’s something that I think is important that we do.
Senator Andreychuk: If I understand, now you will have complete ministries under your control?
Ms. Chagger: Yes.
Mr. Sutherland: That’s currently the case. Minister Chagger has organizations underneath her currently in her role of Minister of Small Business and Tourism. She has Destination Canada, for instance, and she has support from Innovation, Science and Economic Development as well. She doesn’t report through Minister Bains in any respect.
What the Salaries Act does is it puts it in statute. It is the next step but it’s been since day one that each of the ministers paid under the Appropriations Act have been full ministers. They are equal around the table and part of cabinet discussions. They have clear mandate letters and responsibilities and they deliver important initiatives. What this does is put it in a statute. That’s the key change.
Senator Andreychuk: Maybe we could talk about the ministry that I know best, Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Minister of International Development now will not go through the Minister of Foreign Affairs in any way. Is that correct?
Ms. Chagger: That’s correct. Minister Bibeau works with other ministers in her department as well as others, but when it comes to the Feminist International Assistance Policy, that was her leadership. She worked with other ministers, members and all parliamentarians to advance that but it was her leadership and yes, she reported directly to the Prime Minister.
Senator Andreychuk: It’s combining under Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which is no longer in existence because the ministers are actually now reporting directly to the Prime Minister?
Ms. Chagger: Her mandate letter was a public mandate letter given directly to that minister as the example. Global Affairs Canada, as a department, encompasses three ministers. There are three ministries within the department, if that clarifies it.
Senator Andreychuk: None has priority over the other two ministers?
Ms. Chagger: I would say, senator, it’s based on what a person’s interests are. It’s like —
Senator Andreychuk: I’m talking about legal responsibilities, not who has more influence with the Prime Minister.
Mr. Sutherland: In terms of legal responsibilities, each is a minister in their area of legal responsibility, so, no, they don’t report through. It’s unique and separate.
Senator Andreychuk: If I find some inconsistency between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Development, I go to the Prime Minister now, as a parliamentarian who wants accountability? Is that what I’m hearing?
Ms. Chagger: I would hope they are working closer together so there are no inconsistencies.
Senator Andreychuk: But if there are?
Ms. Chagger: I would hope that there is not, and I think that is why we are taking this whole-of-government approach.
Everyone will have their thoughts, but what has been happening since day one is that there is — you have to work better together. For myself and anything that touches my portfolio, my colleagues make a better point of coming to me prior to that conversation coming to the cabinet table. You are seeing many ministers working together to advance legislation for that very reason: to ensure we are working in those grey spaces better.
A government cannot function, as sometimes we have seen, where one minister is saying one thing and another is saying another. If you bring them together and make them work better together, it’s actually in the best interests of the country and that is where this is coming from. To have a junior voice, as some would say, for Small Business and Tourism was unfortunate because they were not part of the decision-making. What we are doing is we are making them part of the decision-making. They are at the cabinet table. We are part of the debate so that we can ensure —
Senator Andreychuk: I appreciate what you’re trying to do. I’m a parliamentarian. I want accountability because people come to me and point out problems. I could be optimistic with you and say it’s never going to happen but I do know there will be differences, so I want to know where I go to sort out the differences.
What I’m hearing you now say is if there are differences between two ministers, I suppose I could take the approach that I’m going to be the cooperative person and say, “Hey, you two are not talking the same language, so clarify,” but if I don’t get the result I want, it’s the Prime Minister I go to now. Is that what you’re saying? Is that the procedural point?
Ms. Chagger: I would say you can always go to the Prime Minister. You can work with the ministers and I think the Prime Minister should be available and this Prime Minister is available.
Senator Andreychuk: What I want to know is this: Legally, where do I go?
The Chair: Minister, do you feel that you have answered the question?
Ms. Chagger: To the best of my ability. I can’t speak hypothetically. If there is a very good example, senator, I would take the opportunity to discuss it further.
There usually is, depending on what is taking place, a person who will take the lead. Let’s look at the cannabis legislation. You see there is a Minister of Health working with the Minister of Justice and working with the Minister of Public Safety. There is a lead minister on that file, so usually there is clearly one person to whom you would go over the other, because someone does need to take leadership. In that case, depending on it, I could tell you who the lead minister is.
I know, as the house leader, one of my other hats is how we do that, so we make sure there is a point person so that you have a person to go to.
Senator Cools: I would like to thank the witness for coming before us and for her enthusiasm, but enthusiasm and vitality are not always knowledge and experience. You raise some alarms in me about what you say.
I have always understood that the Prime Minister is not a monarch and he is not the sovereign. I have always understood that he is primus inter pares, the first among equals, and you keep saying the Prime Minister appoints. I was always under the impression that Her Majesty’s Governor General did the appointment, and that the Prime Minister did not appoint. He selected and brought recommendations forward.
Perhaps we are of different generations and many of these issues I feel pretty strongly about because I sincerely believe that if Canada has succeeded as well as it has for the last many years it is precisely because the Fathers of Confederation created a pretty sturdy Constitution, called the British North America Act, and the longevity and its continuity speaks to its success and to Canada’s success.
I view the Salaries Act as a very serious document, something like the Judges Act, but the British North America Act does not have a clause in it that says the ministers of the Crown’s salaries should be fixed and provided as they do for the sections for the judges. That’s why we have a Judges Act.
Somebody has gotten smart over time and has created a Salaries Act for the ministers. You raise many alarms in my head because you are referring to a lot of casualness and a lot of things you say are common knowledge, but you know who the right ministers are to go to speak to, but none of us know. That’s a secret so you have to share secrets.
The Chair: Is there a question?
Senator Cools: Yes. Who is deciding and who is discovering the principles that should be operating when these decisions are being made?
Ms. Chagger: Senator, I will start by apologizing for any alarms I have raised. When it comes to your level of experience, especially being the longest-serving sitting senator, that is impressive, so I do take what you say to me seriously. My intention was not to take this legislation lightly. It is serious legislation. I entirely agree and that’s why I also want to make sure I was available in person. That’s also why I brought officials with me to ensure that any technicalities could be addressed in the appropriate manner.
You are absolutely correct the Prime Minister does not appoint but he does select and I should be more mindful of my language and the words I’m using. That is a point that I hear loud and clear.
To the best of my ability, how I would address your question would be that the Prime Minister receives a mandate and therefore has certain priorities he wants to advance, or she wants to advance, one day, perhaps, and that’s what we are trying to reflect in the Salaries Act: that he believes in a one-tier ministry and wanted to ensure that all ministers were equal. We are just trying to formalize what we have been doing since day one.
Once again, that would be that he would make the selections and send the letter to Her Excellency or to her representative and that would be the appropriate way.
Senator Cools: He has no representatives, by the way.
Ms. Chagger: Sorry, the Governor General.
The Chair: Minister, thank you very much for being here and sharing your comments and your vision on Bill C-24. Madam Minister, do you have any closing remarks?
Ms. Chagger: I just want to say thank you very much. If there are any questions or anything we can provide to be of service, please let us know. My team and officials are at your disposal. If there are any clarifications or any information needed, please always know I don’t need to be physically at the table to be available to you; I’m fully available to you as you require me to be.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Is clause 2 agreed to, on division?
Senator Neufeld: On division, yes.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title, honourable senators, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as agreed upon and accepted, on division, be carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Therefore, as chair, is it agreed that I report this bill, carried on division, to the Senate this afternoon?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)