Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre / -Centre L)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Mr David Young (Willowdale PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Rampersad, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1001 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Marcel
Beaubien): Since we have a quorum and it is after 10
o'clock, I'll bring the committee meeting to order. We are here
to consider the report of the subcommittee, so the first order of
business would be for someone to move and then to read the
minutes of the subcommittee report into the record.
Mr Gerry Phillips
(Scarborough-Agincourt): I move it. I gather we read the
entire thing.
The Chair:
Yes, please.
Mr Phillips:
Your subcommittee on committee business met on Monday, November
20, 2000, and recommends the following with respect to pre-budget
consultations:
(1) That the Minister of
Finance be offered two hours in which to make a presentation and
answer questions from the three parties (30 minutes per
party).
(2) That staff in the
Ministry of Finance be offered 60 minutes in which to make a
presentation. Following this presentation, the three parties will
each be offered 20 minutes to ask questions and make
statements.
(3) That the Chair should
forward, as soon as possible, to the three House leaders the
committee's request to meet during the upcoming recess.
Specifically, the committee would like to meet from February 13
to February 16 and from February 19 to February 22, 2001.
(4) That the committee
intends to travel to Thunder Bay, Ottawa and London.
(5) That an advertisement be
placed for one day in a major paper of each of the cities to
which the committee intends to travel. Advertisements must be
placed in both English and French papers if possible. An
advertisement will also be placed on the Ontario parliamentary
channel and on the committee's Internet page.
(6) That the newspaper
advertisement will be sent out as soon as possible in
December.
(7) That interested people
who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation should
contact the committee clerk by January 5, 2001, at 5:00 pm.
(8) That the deadline for
written submissions is February 2, 2001.
(9) That each party will
provide the clerk with a prioritized list of four expert
witnesses on or before December 15, 2000. The clerk will attempt
to schedule the two highest priority witnesses from each
list.
(10) That on January 9, 2001,
the clerk will supply each of the three parties with a list of
all the potential witnesses who have requested to appear before
the committee.
(11) That each party will
supply the clerk of the committee with a prioritized list of the
names and phone numbers of the deputants they would like to hear
from in any given location. These deputants must be selected from
the original list distributed by the clerk to the subcommittee
members. The list provided by each party will be provided to the
clerk by January 16, 2001.
(12) The clerk will schedule
witnesses from the prioritized lists provided by each of the
three parties. Each party is entitled to select the same number
of witnesses.
(13) That expert witnesses
will be offered 60 minutes in which to make a presentation;
groups will be offered 30 minutes in which to make a presentation
and individuals will be offered 15 minutes in which to make a
presentation. The Chair and/or the subcommittee may modify these
times.
(14) That if all groups can
be scheduled in a given location the clerk can proceed to
schedule all interested parties, and therefore no party list is
required for that location.
(15) That the research
officer will send out a draft report to the committee members on
March 19, 2001.
(16) That the committee will
meet on Thursday, March 22, 2001, for report writing.
(17) That witnesses' expenses
will not be reimbursed.
The Chair:
Mr Phillips has moved the minutes of the subcommittee report. Any
discussion?
Mr Doug Galt
(Northumberland): Do you want a seconder before we go
ahead or do you have one?
The Chair:
No, we don't need to second it.
Mr Galt: May
I raise a couple of points?
The Chair:
You certainly may.
Mr Galt: One
has to do with the dates of sitting and the other has to do with
locations that we are going to visit. I'm looking in my
organizer, and it tells me that February 16 is a Friday. In rural
Ontario they look for the member around on Friday. I understand
it is rather important that the starting date be the 13th. I'm
not locked in, but I'm just wondering if it could be at least
considered that, rather than February 16, we maybe meet the week
of the 26th or 27th to make up for that day. If the other members feel the same way,
great. If they feel they want to do it straight through, I can
work with it. I'm just wondering if they've really looked at the
calendar and seen that-
The Chair:
If I may reply to that, Mr Galt-
Mr David Young
(Willowdale): David Christopherson was here and he
seemed to think Valentine's Day was, I shouldn't say this
publicly, February 22, so we were working around that. Anyway,
never mind.
The Chair:
But the reason why we're meeting on-you make a very valid point
with regard to Friday, but we didn't want to spread the meetings
over a period of three weeks. We were trying to compress it so
that we could get the job done, as opposed to dragging it on.
Basically, that was the intent of the subcommittee, why we
decided we would meet on the Friday. It's a very valid point that
you're making.
Mr Galt: I
wanted to raise it. There were concerns made and I certainly
recognize the democratic process, if others are comfortable with
it. I don't have anything on that day right now, so we'll just
block it out. I just thought I'd raise it.
The other one: last time, we
went to some of the smaller communities, like Kenora and
Brockville, and I notice we're going this time to Thunder Bay,
Ottawa, London. It's sort of the standard circle. It's very
blasé in those communities when you go in. If we go to
Kenora, Brockville-I'm trying to remember some of the other ones
we went to-
The Chair:
Chatham.
Mr Galt:
Yes, Chatham-they get quite excited that there's a legislative
committee in town. It's a big news day. You know, the opposition
gets a chance to roll out their goods. I'm trying to help them
out.
Seriously, Chair, I think
that looking at some of the medium-sized communities has some
advantage. We go to Thunder Bay, Ottawa, London. I know they are
rather strategic, but maybe we should think of, I don't know,
Dryden, Kingston, Niagara Falls, Brantford or something.
The Chair:
Again, that's a point, Mr Galt, that we did discuss in the
subcommittee, but we felt that we would alternate between the
smaller centres one year and then go to the larger regional
centres the following year so that we had a balance as to what is
going on. You know, the Ottawa region because you've got the
high-tech; you've got a lot of economic activity. The
subcommittee felt that since we went to the smaller centres last
year, we should look at the larger regions this year, and then
probably go to the smaller centres next year. That was the
thinking and the rationale behind it.
Mr Galt: Do
we have that etched in stone for next year?
The Chair: I
don't know who's going to be Chair or who's going to be on the
subcommittee, but I'm sure that we can probably pass the feeling
of this committee to the following committee.
Mr Galt:
Gerry will be here. Gerry will be on the committee.
Mr Phillips:
I'm afraid I might.
Mr Young: Mr
Chair, if Dr Galt is done with his comment, I'd like to move a
number of amendments, if I may. I certainly would welcome your
guidance and the guidance of staff as to the best way in which to
table them. What I was going to propose is that I simply proceed
down the-
The Chair:
Do them one at a time.
Mr Young:
One at a time? OK. That may be the easiest. The first relates to
the time that the Minister of Finance will be available on
Tuesday, February 13, 2001, and I would like to amend the
subcommittee conclusions to read as follows:
"The Minister of Finance will
be available on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, for one hour to
present and answer questions from the three parties."
I'm certainly prepared to go
over the history of appearances by finance ministers over the
years, and it's my view that the proposal that I have now put
forward accords with the history over the last number of years.
There have been some years when the Minister of Finance has been
present for a greater period of time and there have been some
years when the Minister of Finance has not been present at all.
So it's my view that this would be a reasonable period of time
and I move that as an amendment.
The Chair:
So on February 13, the minister would be present for one hour to
make his presentation and answer questions.
Mr Young:
Yes.
The Chair: I
wonder if I should get out of the normal procedure because Mr
Christopherson is not here. He's at a meeting in the House
leaders' office. If we went through all the amendments, maybe we
could recess for a couple of minutes while I go up and explain it
to him, as opposed to coming back and-would that be OK?
Mr Young:
Whatever you prefer.
Mr Phillips:
He's indicated to me orally, and I know that he has to you, that
he's in agreement with it as it is. If there are any substantive
changes-I've mentioned that there'll be the normal amendment to
one hour, but if there are any other substantive changes, we
probably should discuss them with him. If not, I think he's kind
of given us his proxy vote.
The Chair:
We'll put this one in abeyance and go to your second one.
1010
Mr Young:
Just to be clear before we move on, I'm proposing that instead of
30 minutes per party, be offered, 10 to 15 minutes per party be
offered during that period of time, so you have that in brackets,
the 30-minute-
The Chair:
That would be changed to 15 minutes?
Mr Young:
Yes.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Young:
The next one I don't think is very controversial, but if we skip
down to point 3-I'm sorry. I'm content with point 3. Should we
have a further discussion about the timetable, though? It appears
in a number of different
points. I have some concerns that it now being almost the
beginning of December, we are setting a relatively short period
of time for individuals and groups to get back to us. If we go
through the list here-let me go through them one at a time.
Decision 7, I guess, is an
example of that. We see that interested parties are to contact
the committee clerk by January 5. I'm wondering whether we should
extend that to January 12 or January 17. I don't know if there's
any great concern about that, but it is of some concern to me as
I look at it again.
The Chair:
That's on number-
Mr Young: I
think that first appears at number 7.
The Chair:
You're suggesting January 12?
Mr Young:
January 12 or 17.
Mr Galt:
Excuse me, Chair. Is there any reason it has to be early, as long
as we know a couple of weeks ahead?
The Chair:
That's about the same timeline we had last year.
Mr Galt: I
can certainly empathize with the comments being made, giving them
a little more time.
Mr Phillips:
Generally speaking, I'm for more time. I can't remember what it
was. I thought it might have been a staff thing, for scheduling
reasons.
The Chair:
What are you suggesting, January 12 or 17?
Mr Young:
Why don't we take January 17?
Mr Phillips:
I'm fine with that.
Mr Galt:
That still gives you almost a month to select and line them
up.
Mr Young: I
think we have agreement on that.
If we move on to decision 9,
this is a matter of logistics for those who might wish to become
involved in this process. I'm proposing that we consider a time
extension. We're now talking about hearing back from parties by
December 15, which is essentially two weeks from now. I'd suggest
maybe we push that off to December 22, again to give them a
little more time.
The Chair:
December 22, OK. That's on number 9.
Mr Young: If
we are going to modify 7 and 9, I guess we also have to give some
consideration to decision 10, since in decision 10 we're asking
the clerk to supply each of the three parties with a list of
potential witnesses. If we've extended the date, as we have done,
to January 17, it may be difficult for the clerk to get back to
us on January 9.
Mr Galt:
They can do impossible things.
Mr Young:
They're a very capable crew, but that might be too much to ask
for. Can we then say that maybe the clerk get back to us by-
Mr Galt:
January 20?
Mr Young:
Sure. I was going to say the 19th. I think the 20th may be a
weekend, but I'm in their hands as to what would work for them.
Is the 20th a Saturday?
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Susan Sourial): It's a Saturday. January
19 is a Friday.
The Chair:
What about the Monday or Tuesday?
Mr Galt:
Make it January 22.
The Chair:
Is that OK? January 19 seems to be satisfactory.
Mr Young: Mr
Phillips, are you content?
Mr Phillips:
Yes, I'm very comfortable with that.
Mr Young:
Just a couple more on scheduling. Decision 11, as I go through
this, should be modified because we were talking in terms of
January 16 in the original motion.
The Chair:
So it should be the 19th again?
Mr Young:
I'm in your hands and the hands of the clerk, whatever they feel
is most appropriate.
Clerk of the
Committee: January 19 is for me to provide the list to
the members. It states in point 11 that the parties that come
back-
Mr Young:
Fair enough. Then the question is to us. What date do you want to
choose? Do you want to choose-it would be too late, I guess, if
we went to the 27th. Do you want to say something like the 24th
or the 25th?
Mr Phillips:
Either day is fine.
Mr Young:
Why don't we go with the 25th?
Mr Phillips:
I don't have any difficulty with any of those, apart from number
1, obviously.
Mr Young:
I need some clarification on decision 13. I know we talk in terms
of the Chair being able to modify times. Can you help me, Mr
Chair, with whether that modification can be made once the
hearings begin?
The Chair:
No. I think basically what we did last year was agree we would
stick to the scheduled presenters with the same time references
they had. As Chair, I would personally not prefer having the
authority to change the times or the speakers. I think that once
the schedule is set, it should be cast in stone. That way I can
remain impartial and it makes my decision-making process a heck
of a lot easier.
Mr Young:
OK. Go ahead, Doug.
Mr Galt: I
was just going to query about the expert witnesses. I gather the
deputy minister would be one of the expert witnesses?
The Chair:
Economists from the banks, and I don't know who else.
Mr
Phillips: Normally, Doug-Dr Galt-it's not the
bureaucracy. Each of us submits a list of, normally, bank
economists-Sherry Cooper, someone like that-who we think are
knowledgeable outside experts. I think expert witnesses are
outside the employment of the civil service.
Mr Galt:
But we will have the ministry, the deputy minister on the
following Tuesday-
Mr
Phillips: Yes, they're there on the following Tuesday.
The Tuesday is when the minister and the-
Mr Young:
Deputy.
Mr
Phillips: In the morning, I think, and then the ministry
staff. Then we move into the outside witnesses.
Mr Galt:
So how many of these experts? Is this something each party will
select, or is it historical?
Mr
Phillips: Historically we've had six of them over part
of a three-day period.
Mr Galt:
You'd think I could remember back to last year, wouldn't you?
Mr Phillips: I think they tend to
always be bank economists or economists of financial institutions
of some sort.
The Chair:
And the independent business people, I think.
Mr Young:
Those are the amendments I wish to put forward.
The Chair:
OK. Thank you.
Mr Galt:
We would be looking at one day per community that we're
visiting?
The Chair:
That's right.
Mrs Tina R.
Molinari (Thornhill): Just to clarify, those who will be
speaking under point 13 are all outside people; they're not from
the government?
The Chair:
That's correct.
Mrs
Molinari: Is this consistent with what we did last
year-the 60 minutes for-
The Chair:
Yes.
Mrs
Molinari: Is there a limit on how many expert witnesses
will be having that 60-minute slot?
The Chair:
Two per party. There will be six.
Mrs
Molinari: So there will be a maximum of six?
The Chair:
Six.
Mrs
Molinari: OK.
The Chair:
Any other questions?
Mr
Phillips: I have no difficulty with all the amendments,
other than number 1. I just make the point that at some stage we
should try to make these committees work. I'm not blaming any
particular party, but it really is unusual that the finance and
economic affairs committee-I think the finance minister is here
only one hour a year. I don't think he has come for any of his
bills. I don't think he has ever appeared, that I can recall, in
the last two or three years, other than for one hour at
pre-budget, which gives each party maybe 15 minutes and maybe two
questions to him.
I would have thought the
finance minister would actually welcome an opportunity to have a
good discussion with a legislative committee on economic and
financial issues. Maybe it's a bit cruel to say it, but I think
he spent six hours with Tiger Woods, and that's more time in
total than he spent with our committee since he became finance
minister.
I know that we in the
opposition have no power to overturn this thing, but at some
stage I think we should say that surely, as an all-party
legislative committee trying to deal with the economy and
finance, we are owed more than a total of one hour by the finance
minister. I'm sure he will make a 15-minute presentation and, as
I said, each party may get two questions to him and then like a
phantom he's gone for another year, never to be seen again. I
think it's unfortunate and kind of makes a bit of a sham of what
should be a good debate with the finance minister on economic and
fiscal policy.
1020
Mrs
Molinari: Talk to the PA about it.
Mr Young:
That's apparently the safe-
The Chair:
Mr Young.
Mr Young:
By the way, thanks for mentioning that the other day. Not that I
intend to convince the previous speaker of the fact that he's
wrong but, for the record, let me briefly say that we've had this
discussion before. We've talked about what was done by other
finance ministers and members of other parties when this
committee was conducting very similar business. It's my view that
the proposal I have put forward is consistent with the activities
of earlier years and other ministers.
In fact, there are some
years where ministers have chosen not to show at all. We could
argue as to whether or not two hours is the appropriate number
and whether that would allow for a fulsome debate or whether or
not one hour is the appropriate number. But clearly we have a
disagreement. I think that everyone around this table understands
that the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Premier, has numerous
responsibilities. They are many in number and also of great
importance, and the fact that he isn't in one place for a
particular period of time requested by an opposition party whose
job it is to oppose-it should be considered in that context. I'm
quite comfortable that we will have the debate that should be had
if my amendment is passed.
The Chair:
Mr Phillips, I'm going to have to consult-do you want to
respond?
Mr
Phillips: I know he's a very busy guy and that he could
barely spare six or seven hours for Tiger Woods. That doesn't
wash, that "he's a very busy guy." I'm in opposition but I'm a
duly elected member of the Legislature. This is an all-party
committee set up to try and deal with financial and economic
issues. My job is more than to oppose. My job is to try-and our
job here in the Legislature, this legislative committee. Our job
is not to oppose; it's to attempt to provide the Legislature with
some advice. Let's just cut to the chase. He won't show up for
more than an hour and so it's the end of the debate. I don't
think there's any logical reason why he won't come for more than
an hour. It's unfortunate, because I think the public expects
that there's a reasoned discussion around fiscal and economic
policy. It doesn't occur in question period, by the way. That's
just a question-and-answer period. There's no discussion and
debate and opportunity to exchange ideas. So there it is.
Mr Young:
I feel compelled to say one last thing and I promise, regardless
of any response that may come from Mr Phillips, that I won't
reply any further.
Mr
Phillips: That gives me a good opening.
Mr Young:
If you don't take this one, I'll be disappointed, Gerry.
In fact we do take this
committee very seriously, and I think that is why there are four
members of the government here today, all individuals who are
duly elected and who are very capable people. You know, there's
only one member of the opposition party present. We certainly are
pleased that Mr Phillips is here. But as we look for standards to
assess whether or not we take this process seriously, I would ask
anyone who cares to consider today's proceeding and the
proceeding of this committee generally to consider the attendance
at this proceeding.
The Chair: Since we have a
somewhat proxy vote here from Mr Christopherson, I'm going to ask
for your input. Do you think-I did talk to Mr Christopherson
yesterday and I don't think there's any problem with (7), (9) and
(11). I think he would be receptive to that. What about to
(1)?
Mr
Phillips: I think he would feel as we feel, that the
amendment is inappropriate, so I don't know how you record it. In
fairness to Mr Christopherson, the reason he isn't here is that
he has many hats and I think it's unfair to criticize him for not
being here. He told all of us he couldn't be here, because of the
House leaders. He said if there were any reason we needed him on
an urgent basis, we could go and get him out.
The Chair:
I have to concur with that, because we had the same
conversation.
Mr
Phillips: I just think it's an unfortunate situation,
him not being here, but I think in fairness to him, he made his
position clear and said if we needed him, he'd come right
away.
The Chair:
I guess we'll proceed with voting on the amendments and we'll go
back to number 1.
Mr Young has moved that the
Minister of Finance, on February 13, be offered one hour to
present and answer questions, and in the brackets, as opposed to
being 30 minutes, that would be changed to 15 minutes per party.
Am I correct? Is there any further discussion on that? If not,
all those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
We'll go to amendment
number 7. Mr Young has moved that the date of January 5 be
changed to January 17, 2001. Is that correct, Mr Young?
Mr Young:
I actually gave my notes to the clerk, but I believe that is
correct.
The Chair:
Is there any further discussion on that motion? If not, all those
in favour? That carries unanimously.
We'll go to number 9. Mr
Young has moved that the date be changed from December 15 to
December 22. Somebody is having a birthday on that day. Is there
any further discussion on that? If not, all those in favour?
Opposed? The motion carries unanimously.
Mr Young:
We'll still be sitting on the 22nd, won't we?
The Chair:
That's correct.
I think you moved on number
10. I wrote over it. I think it's that the date be changed from
January 9 to January 19.
Mr Young:
Yes.
The Chair:
Any further discussion on that? If not, all those in favour?
Opposed? The motion carries unanimously.
Number 11, that the date at
the end of the paragraph be changed from January 16 to January
25. Is that correct?
Mr Young:
Yes.
The Chair:
Any further discussion? If not, all those in favour? Opposed? The
motion carries unanimously.
We'll need a motion to
approve the-
Mr Galt:
Just one query. It probably doesn't need to be in here, but the
time of day that we'll be sitting, is there a tradition?
The Chair:
Usually around 10 o'clock, I think, until 5 or 5:30.
Mr Galt: I
think we need to establish the time, at least verbally, whether
it's in the minutes or not. I think 10 o'clock is kind of late,
isn't it? Gerry, is there a tradition?
Mr
Phillips: Well, Ernie doesn't like to get here before
10.
The Chair:
The clerk tells me that if we're in Toronto, we usually start at
9, and on the road usually around 10.
Mr Young:
Yes, but I think that first Tuesday, we're going to start at
10.
Mr
Phillips: I would think so, yes.
The Chair:
I'm sure we can provide the scheduling ahead of time.
Mr
Phillips: We wouldn't want to get him up too early.
Mr Young:
We get our briefs ready in the early morning and then get ready
to go.
The Chair:
We need to vote on the amended subcommittee report.
Mr Galt:
So the time in Toronto will be 10 until 5 o'clock?
The Chair:
Until 5 or 6 o'clock.
Mr Galt:
From 10 until 6?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr Galt:
And on the road, 9 until 5?
The Chair:
The other way around. I would say that in Toronto, it would
probably be more like 9 to 5 or 9 to 6, and on the road it would
be 10 to 5.
Mr Galt:
Oh, Toronto would be 9 to 5.
The Chair:
It depends on the flight connections sometimes. If you recall
last year-where was it?-in Kenora, we had to end the meeting at
4:30, if I recall.
Mr Galt:
So basically, the time that's important is in Toronto. When we're
on the road, it's-
The Chair:
That's right. I think we can leave that with the clerk to
coordinate the times, but in Toronto, it's usually 9 to 5.
Mr Galt:
Are we travelling the last three days or have we decided on
that?
The Chair:
On the 18th we're in Ottawa, I think, right?
Clerk of the
Committee: Friday, the 16th, we're in Thunder Bay;
Monday, the 19th, in Ottawa; and Tuesday, the 20th, in
London.
Mr Galt:
Can we fly direct from Ottawa to London?
Mr Young:
We probably cannot. We can look into that but what we thought we
might do is-and we can talk about this afterwards-after we
complete our hearings in Ottawa, we would fly to Toronto, in all
likelihood, and then simply drive or fly out to London from
there. We could go right from the airport. If there's a direct
flight, sure, that would be great, if we can arrange one.
The Chair: I think there is a
direct flight from Ottawa to London.
Mr Young:
Is there? OK. Well, maybe that's what we'll do. That would be
even better.
The Chair:
Yes, usually there is.
Mr Young:
OK, that's what we'll do.
Mr
Phillips: There are no train trips for you, Doug.
Mr Galt:
Well, it was just going through my mind. We push ourselves pretty
hard on these committees. We sit all day and then travel all
night. I just wondered if we needed to push quite that hard.
The Chair:
I don't think this will be as intense as it was last year. Last
year was pretty demanding.
Mr Young:
Getting a big salary increase.
Mr Galt: I
was looking for compensation in a different way.
The Chair:
If I can get your attention for a minute so we can bring this
meeting to an end, we need to vote on the amended subcommittee
report. All those in favour of the amended subcommittee report?
Opposed? That carries.
I don't think we have any
further business. Is there anything that members wish to raise at
this point in time? If not, this committee is now adjourned.
