Hon Elizabeth Witmer, Minister
of Health and Long-Term Care
Ms Michelle DiEmanuele, assistant deputy minister, corporate
services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ESTIMATES
Chair /
Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Clerk pro tem/ Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1602 in committee room
228.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE
The Chair (Mr Gerard
Kennedy): I call the meeting to order. I want to welcome
the minister. I just remind members we're now at the point of
rotation going 30 minutes to each of the parties, starting first
with the official opposition.
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I would prefer to waive my
half-hour-
Mr Kennedy:
I think that's something you need to address to the minister.
Mrs McLeod:
Minister, with your permission, I would prefer to waive my
half-hour of speaking and just go right to questions.
The Chair:
Please proceed.
Mrs McLeod:
I'd like to begin with the overall summary page on page 8 of the
estimates. I want to draw your attention to a figure that we
found rather striking, which was the 1999-2000 difference between
the estimated spending and the interim actual spending. It
appears to be an underspending of $3 billion at this point in
time, and I realize the public accounts are probably in their
final form but they haven't been made public yet.
That's not, however, the
issue I want you to address. The issue I want you to address is a
reconciliation of the numbers that we see on page 8 in the
overall summary and supposedly the exact same comparative numbers
as we look at each of the votes, and if necessary, I can direct
your attention to the page numbers. If we look at the vote for
ministry administration as it appears on the summary page, it's
$114 million and if we look at it within the body of the
estimates book, it's $211 million; if we look at institutional
health, it's $7.4 billion and if we look in the body of the book,
it's $8.4 billion. I won't go on unless you require it. But
virtually every number is different from the inside of the book
to the overall summary page.
The consequence of that is
when we add up the interim actuals that are in the body of the
detailed health estimates book, we get a total of $20.825 billion
as the interim actual total spending, which we can't reconcile
with the $18.333 billion that's shown in your overall summary
document. So I think, as a starting point, we need to know
whether at the point of time at which the estimates were
published you were underspending $3 billion and whether the
balance of the book is in fact in error or if the overall summary
page is in error. We can't reconcile the interim actual figures
that appear in the summary page with the interim actual figures
that appear in the body of the estimates.
Ms Michelle
DiEmanuele: Michelle DiEmanuele, the chief admin officer
for the ministry.
As you're aware, the public
accounts will not be tabled in the Legislature until probably
some time in October. At that point in time, the ministry's final
expenditures for the fiscal year will therefore be tabled in the
House and any reconciliations will be addressed at that point in
time.
Mrs McLeod:
It's not the reconciliation with public accounts that I'm looking
for-I'd love to see it, but I wasn't expecting to have it-but
it's the reconciliation with your own estimates that I'm looking
for.
Ms
DiEmanuele: With respect to the interim actuals, then,
it's very difficult for me to address how the interim actuals fit
with some of the other numbers that you're addressing until we've
actually tabled those public accounts. If you would like to
address some of the issues that you're raising with respect to
2000-01-
Mrs McLeod:
If I may, I'm actually dealing only with the interim actual
figures as presented in the estimates book. I'm not looking at
anything else. I look at an interim actual figure for ministry
administration of $113.5 million on summary page 8. When I turn
to page 16, I see an interim actual figure of $211 million. If I
look at institutional health, I see an interim actual figure on
page 8 of $7.4 billion and I look at the body of the book, page
53, and I see $8.45 billion, which has made it virtually
impossible for us to reconcile the figures just in this book,
without even getting to public accounts.
Ms
DiEmanuele: If you would like us to give you a detailed
reconciliation of that, we'd be happy to table that tomorrow.
There are obviously-
Mrs McLeod:
But the question is, why are they different? They should be the
same figures and I don't understand why they're different. I'm
dealing with exactly the same column of figures on your summary
page and I'm dealing with those exact same figures in the body of
the book. One would expect that I could turn to any page with the
vote and see the total figure for that vote-I'm not looking for
individual programs-and turn back and see exactly the same figure on page 8, which is
the summary page, and they're all different.
Ms
DiEmanuele: I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to have an
opportunity to go back and check that and verify each and every
one of those numbers and make sure we give you a correct answer
in that regard.
Mrs McLeod:
If I may, I'm a little bit befuddled. It's been very difficult to
work with these estimates books because I have not seen a set of
estimates in which the summary page numbers are, for every single
number on the interim actual side, different from the numbers in
the body of the book and where the totals are actually about $2.5
billion different in the indication of spending.
On the summary page, it looks
as though you're $3.1 billion underspent from your estimates. In
the body of your estimates, the same estimates-I'm not talking
about public accounts now at all, but just the figures that have
been tabled with this committee in estimates-it looks as though
you spent $20.8 billion, which is much closer to your estimated
figure.
Ms
DiEmanuele: I just want to make sure that we're dealing
with the issues separately. With respect to the underspending on
the $18 billion, I think you can appreciate that the public
accounts will, in fact, deal with that.
The second issue, though, in
terms of your question with respect to each of the interim
actuals against the specific sections in the binder, I'm not
disagreeing that you've pointed out that there is-take ministry
administration, for instance-a discrepancy there. I would be
happy to get back to you with respect to why that has
occurred.
Mrs McLeod:
Here's my difficulty: I start with my first question and it would
be a question of where are you $3 billion underspent. But because
I found that a horrendous notion, I went back and added up the
figures in the body of the book to find that you're not
underspent at all; in fact, it's $660 million. What I would like
to be able to do with the balance of my time is explore the $660
million. But if you can't tell me which set of numbers is right,
and obviously, one of them has to be a significant $2.5-billion
error, I don't know where to begin. So it's a problem.
The Chair:
It is a problem. I'm just in consultation with Legislative
research. We are here to look at the estimates. The detailed
estimates are the requirement of the ministry to provide by a
certain date. We would hope for accuracy within those. The
particular column you're addressing, which is interim actuals, is
not the vote. The vote is on this year's estimates. So I think it
really becomes a matter for the discretion of the ministry as to
whether they wish to provide what our research says is a
discrepancy of $2.5 billion, if they wish to reconcile that so we
can have a full estimates discussion.
It won't, however, interfere
with our ability to vote on a number, which is in another column.
I am advised that it's not a technical matter for this committee
because we are voting on the estimates for this year, which-at
least according to research-we don't have a discrepancy for. But
I certainly agree it's material to our discussion and I would
hope that maybe there would be something forthcoming from the
ministry that would aid us in that.
Ms Frances Lankin
(Beaches-East York): Could I ask a question? I realize
that it's Mrs McLeod's time, so I'll be very brief. I believe
that the reconciliation of those numbers is actually quite
germane to the vote we will be having on this year's estimates
because our debate and discussion will be talking about what is
estimated to be sent and the changes from the previous baselines.
It's important to know what those are.
I'm just wondering if there
is any way, with all-party agreement, we could adjourn and have
those numbers worked on over the next day and have them provided
to the committee, with sufficient time for the committee to
review them and then reconvene, perhaps next week, with health
estimates. It would make a lot more sense rather than having to
ask each time which one of these is the right number with every
one of our questions that we are going through.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): Mr Chair, I wonder if I could just
shed a little light on this. I've been on this estimates
committee now for five years and this discussion is as old as the
committee itself, I believe. We have this problem every year and
it's not a significant problem when you consider that we're
voting on the final number.
Mrs McLeod:
Mr Chair, if I may, since it is my time-
The Chair: I
appreciate your comment, Mr Wettlaufer. I'm going to actually
allow a few minutes so we can resolve this matter. The
information is certainly germane to the discussion. I don't think
anyone is arguing that. I have not seen this particular dilemma
before, where some of the information we have contradicts other
of the information that we have.
What I'm saying, though, is
that the estimates process itself isn't deleteriously affected if
and as long as the numbers we vote on are the numbers that are
correct. However, the spirit of estimates is compromised if we
don't have information with which to form our discussion.
I guess I would look to hear,
perhaps, from the ministry what might be possible in order for us
to know how it would affect these proceedings by way of
explaining that discrepancy so the various parties here would all
have accurate information that wouldn't be subject to taking more
of our time.
Mr Alvin Curling
(Scarborough-Rouge River): May I just make a brief
comment?
The Chair: A
comment to see if the ministry has a response, or did you want to
go ahead and make a point?
Mr Curling:
I just want to afford the minister a response. I think a matter
of procedure is happening here: as you suggested earlier on, an
adjournment to work it out with research and with the minister's
staff. This is eating up our time here. Then we could get back
somehow, because it seems to me that while they debate whether or
not they can do this, it's eating up our time here. Could we do
that?
The Chair: I appreciate the
suggestion, but what I would like to do is hear from the ministry
and then we'll proceed at that juncture.
Hon Elizabeth Witmer
(Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think our
preference would be to adjourn and get the appropriate numbers so
that we're all dealing with the same set of numbers. I think it
is important that we get that information. That would be our
preference and we would continue-next week I guess is when we
would resume, next Tuesday.
The Chair:
Are we not meeting tomorrow?
Mrs McLeod:
Yes.
The Chair: I
guess that's what we have to find out: is it possible that this
reconciliation could be achieved by our meeting time
tomorrow?
Ms
DiEmanuele: What I'd like to do is speak with the clerk
for approximately half an hour and tell you whether or not that
is doable. That would certainly be our goal.
The Chair: I
will adjourn the committee proceedings for half an hour so we
will know what our direction will be at that time.
The committee recessed
from 1614 to 1637.
The Chair:
I'd like to resume a few minutes early. I understand the ministry
has made the inquiries it needs to make in order to ascertain
when the information will be available, so I'll call the meeting
back to order and address the question to you, Minister. Please
let us know what the status is from the ministry standpoint.
Hon Mrs
Witmer: We certainly will. In taking a look at the
information and the questions that have been asked by Mrs McLeod,
we do believe it's probably the summary page. But we'd like to
thoroughly review all of the numbers and come back to you on
Tuesday with an explanation, but provide for you on Monday any
revised numbers that you would need to prepare for estimates on
Tuesday and the other days that we'll be here. So our preference
would be to do a thorough review and give you the information on
Monday, and come back on Tuesday and explain.
Mrs McLeod:
I guess I had almost expected that the ministry would have been
able to confirm what the minister has suggested, that the summary
page is inaccurate and that we can we work with the body of the
book. But given the lack of confirmation, it does make it more
difficult for us to proceed. If you were to find that the body of
the book is inaccurate, then we would need some detailed
explanation for discrepancies in each of the detailed items,
because obviously that's where our questions lie.
Hon Mrs
Witmer: Exactly, and that's why I say I would like to
make sure that all of the information is accurate. I know staff
have indicated that they would review this.
The Chair:
Other comments?
Ms Lankin: I
appreciate the minister's suggestion. I do genuinely acknowledge
the time that's required to go back and to check that and I
appreciate the attempt at thoroughness. There are two things I
would like to suggest, however.
First, I would like to
request that the information be made available to us by Friday
instead of Monday. If there are differences, I would like to have
some time over the weekend, not that I'm a detail hound or
anything like that, but I would like to have some time over the
weekend to look at it, and Monday makes it very difficult to do
that.
Second, I would appreciate,
if there are any updates on the interim actuals from the vote
items, the individual vote pages here, that the information
that's given to us draws our attention to that so that we don't
have to go through and find the comparisons, and some
information, either if they're amended or even if these stand as
correct, as to when these interim actuals are dated from. I know
there's a process of continuing to update, but I'm perplexed: a
very tiny item like minister's salary, which shows $39,000
compared to an estimate of $65,000. It's not like you have to
wait for the bill to come in on that one. So I'm wondering when
these interim actuals are and how helpful they are.
The last thing I would say,
and I think this is a reasonable suggestion: I do acknowledge
that this committee has other ministries to deal with in terms of
estimate items. Although I'm not a member of this committee, I'm
subbed in to help. This is my critic area and my passion and I
want to make sure I've got the numbers right. I don't want to
feel like we are disadvantaging the work that members of this
committee need to do with respect to the next ministry, which I
think might be tourism. Is there a remedy in which these two days
that are being lost might be sought from the House to be added to
the committee's agenda?
The Chair:
What I would ask of each of the caucuses is to attend a
subcommittee meeting that I will convene in the next few days. At
that time, I will learn the pleasure of the caucuses around the
impact and we will look at a possible remedy or resolution to the
estimates process. It is significant to lose two sessions in a
row like this. We are, as everyone knows, very near the end of
the estimates process, and I am very intent that we do it to the
greatest extent that we can. I think everyone on the committee
shares that goal.
So I'll ask the caucuses to
consult their whips and find out what the impact would be. I
believe the impact right now would be a loss of five hours for
the Ministry of Tourism, which is a government choice, but it
would affect the ability of the committee as a whole and each of
the caucuses. I look forward to that subcommittee meeting and
we'll try and arrive at a decision that doesn't involve the
Speaker at that time. Technically we have some of the rules of
order at least in question here, but rather than rely on them,
Minister, can I ask, is Friday a goodwill possibility on your
ministry's party.
Hon Mrs
Witmer: We will certainly endeavour to have it
completed. That's why we were offering first thing Monday. But I
can certainly try to encourage the staff to complete it end of
day Friday, and if there's a problem, we will alert you. But as I
say, we want to make sure the numbers that we do present are
accurate.
The Chair: Because I expect that
the subcommittee may meet before then, is there any possibility,
from the inquiries that you've been able to make, that you'd
require more time than this to resolve this discrepancy?
Hon Mrs
Witmer: No, I don't anticipate-we will be ready on
Tuesday.
Ms Lankin: I
appreciate the minister's undertaking. If it is ready some time
on Friday, even if it is the end of day Friday, if it's possible
then to make arrangements so that the clerk knows how to send,
courier or whatever, the packages to the individual committee
members, that would be helpful.
The Chair:
What we're dealing with here, Minister, and I think you've shown
a good consideration for that, is that the ability of estimates
to function requires good quality of information-
Hon Mrs
Witmer: For sure, yes.
The Chair:
-and some reasonable time with that information. I would say that
reasonable time would hopefully be more than one day for all
parties, all members of the committee, to be able to then
recalibrate their questions and give us the kind of effort that
we need on the people's behalf.
If there are no further
submissions, the implication of this will be discussed at
subcommittee. My intention now is to try and find a solution
rather than to resolve it on a point of order. The point of order
would be that the minister isn't in order by not providing the
information. I'm not making that ruling at this time. I will
instead rely on the subcommittee and hope we can get a goodwill
decision. Do we see reasonable prospects for that, Mr
Wettlaufer?
Mr
Wettlaufer: I'm sure there are.
The Chair:
All right. Therefore, I declare this committee adjourned until
next Tuesday at 3:30.
