STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS
Consideration of the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on proposals for a new committee system, 1980.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: I do not see a quorum, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
8:08 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion about who was to start this discussion this evening. As the members know, we are to discuss the standing procedural affairs committee proposal for a new committee system that was issued by the previous committee. I would like to start out by referring to some of the proposals contained in the report.
The aim of the committee report is set out in the first page, under the heading "Preface." It says that "this report is premised on a belief not found in the Morrow reports: the realization that we are rapidly reaching the limits to which committee work can expand. In short, our aim is improving the quality of committee work, not increasing its quantity."
On page 4 of the report, the question is asked, "What are the purposes of committees?" It goes through certain questions in respect to West- minister-style parliamentary democracies, saying that Legislatures essentially serve five broad purposes:
"1. To represent the people. Collectively members serve the public interest, while individually they represent their constituents in the Legislature.
"2. To recognize the government's rightful duty to govern by sustaining it in office and by authorizing its program.
"3. To provide the opposition with the opportunity of presenting itself as an alternative government.
"4. To subject government to public scrutiny with respect to its policies and conduct of administration.
"5. To serve as a forum for public debate, both among the parties, and between the parties and the wider public."
In the context of this particular chapter, headed "What are the purposes of committees?" it says the Legislature performs specific tasks: "passing legislation; scrutinizing the activities of the executive; maintaining accountability for public funds" -- something I have underlined -- "and redressing grievances."
This report contains about 14 recommendations, and on page 7 it refers to a new proposed committee system. I have reviewed it. It refers to the size of a committee; it deals with substitution; it deals with estimates, policy review and things of that nature. It is a complete report, and I commend the committee of the day for the work and the recommendations that are contained in the report.
I have no real disagreement with most of the recommendations. I will quickly run through some of those with which I possibly would have some disagreement.
I am looking at recommendation 11, for example, on page 21, that "each private member should be provided with a personal research assistant." At first blush, I cannot agree with this recommendation. I realize that the details of the debate which may have taken place in arriving at this recommendation are not contained in this report, and there is no question that from to time there are requests from the various caucuses to increase the number of research assistants. The question is whether a one-to-one basis is reasonable in view of the responsibilities and duties of each individual member.
I would think opposition members would use a research assistant more than a back-bencher on the government side. The question is whether one research assistant for four members or three members might be more appropriate than this recommendation.
I agree with the principle that there should be adequate research assistant staff; that a private member should have at his or her behest, without a great deal of hassle, someone who can within a reasonable time provide him with the necessary information about the activities and operations of this government, particularly if that person is involved in a debate, in the drafting of resolutions or legislation or in certain types of committee work. But, to be very frank, I have to be convinced more than I am with the information I have on hand at present that each private member should have his or her own research assistant.
I seem to be going backwards here. Regarding recommendation 2, there was a great deal of discussion of this recommendation in our present committee a week or so ago, when we had the honour of having the three House leaders present to discuss this report. Recommendation 2 says that "no substitution should be permitted for committees conducting special studies or for committees considering legislation."
This recommendation seems a little stringent, a little restrictive. There are circumstances where substitution would be important, but certainly members of that committee should not just be changing places with other members who happen to want to be on that committee or who want to get off another committee. It may be just a minor inconvenience, and I think the same members should stay on a committee conducting special studies or considering legislation, particularly if that committee sits from session to session.
I do not believe in rotation or substitution for substitution's sake. Members should remember that old phrase from a few years ago, "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
In short, if a member is not happy on a particular committee, if he does not offer anything to its deliberations or if his attendance is poor, it would be wise after a certain period of time to substitute someone else. That indicates there is a good reason for it. I know some members are not always happy on a particular committee; they become bored and their work is affected. But I do not like the idea of committee members being substituted on a 24-hour notice or something of that kind.
I appreciate the recommendation that there has to be some continuity if the committee work is to be effective. It may be difficult to make a recommendation like that really work. The report refers to special studies or to committees considering legislation.
We have a system, and I am sure other caucuses have the same type of system, where we are asked our preferences at the beginning of a session and we list them in order of priority. The whip attempts to satisfy us as much as possible.
I object to that possibly from the point of view that a committee such as ours is a continuing committee and we always have work that overlaps, particularly if we travel. When we return, we want to consider what we have learned in some foreign jurisdiction. In those situations, it is rather disconcerting at the start of a new session to have three or four new members. I am not saying that those members are not very capable and able to carry out their duties, but at least until the work and the deliberations of that committee on a particular subject are finished, there should be as much consistency as possible.
Recommendation 4 refers to our old private bills committee. Having served on the private bills committee many times in the past, I agree with that recommendation. It worked very effectively. It was always a popular committee, because the work was challenging. We had an opportunity to hear submissions from citizens from all over the province dealing with legislation and certain types of requests. At the time it was in existence, it was always a popular committee and a very effective one.
I am not necessarily happy with the suggested size. There is always trouble in getting a quorum when there are not enough members, but that is not something that is written in stone as far as the recommendations are concerned.
There is nothing more effective than having a committee that deals with a specific chore such as private bills rather than having policy committees share those bills if they happen to relate to their particular policy field. Recommendation 4 is a good one and I would support it.
My real interest in this report is recommendation 5 on page 15 of the report. The present standing committee on procedural affairs has been reconsidering the question and the intent of that recommendation.
8:20 p.m.
There have been a number of comments, both in the House and in committee, about estimates and what we can do to improve the procedure. Critics have said that it takes up too much time; that it is really dealing with policy rather than dollars and cents and that we rarely discuss the figures that are set out in the particular minister's estimates book; that there is little or no attention from the media; that the long opening statements by the minister and the two opposition critics sometimes take two or three days, mostly in repetition of something that may have been said some months previously.
Mr. Nixon: A couple of ministers make 70-page speeches.
Mr. Kerr: The opposition does all right too. They try to get even with them sometimes.
Mr. Nixon: That is another matter. It is because we have too many researchers writing all those speeches.
Mr. Kerr: That is the point I was trying to make.
The examination of the estimates for the most part takes place after the fact. The budget may be brought down in April or May and estimates of the ministries are discussed, after the fact, in November and early December, when most of the money we are supposed to be questioning has already been spent.
I have heard it said, and I certainly find it so when I attend an estimates committee, that most members of the government party are bored; they do not ask too many questions; they are there perhaps to vote on a particular item. The opposition, quite understandably, monopolizes the time in estimates committees. Usually they are talking about a sewage disposal plant in Essex county, a bridge over the Elora Gorge or a new nursing home in eastern Ontario. These, of course, are legitimate questions, but I do not think they are appropriate when we are dealing with a minister's estimates. There has to be some change.
As to the report itself, on page 13 there is a reference to a recent Australian committee report, which concluded as follows: "There are two lessons to be learned from British and Canadian experience. The function of financial scrutiny should be entrusted to specialist committees, not added to the function of other committees. Financial committees, if they are to effectively scrutinize public expenditure, should be required to avoid consideration of policy."
During consideration of our own recommendation 5, which proposes a similar arrangement, members of the committee indicated that there has to be some tradeoff. They have to have an opportunity to question ministers on policy and about certain matters within their own constituency or area of interest. We agree with that. We suggest, as does the second part of this recommendation, that committees be set up to deal with the annual reports of the various ministries of particular policy fields, to ask questions about what they are doing and why, and to offer constructive criticism.
The opposition, and the House generally, should always have that opportunity. This report deals with both aspects and accepts the fact that although the members may wish somehow to change the present setup to streamline the inadequacies that exist under our present estimates scrutiny, they certainly want the opportunity to question the ministers on policy.
We talked about possible names. During our own deliberations, which were an extension of the recommendation in the report, we talked about a standing committee on economic policy, or on expenditure evaluation, or on finance or financial affairs, or on public expenditure. The name is not important. The important thing is that it deal with the estimates, with the budget and mainly with money.
The terms of reference are similar as to the indication in the report that the committee would automatically receive all estimates. The committee could select estimates for detailed scrutiny and review three or four particular ministries in a year. It could emphasize and concentrate on those ministries from a time point of view and possibly be rather short and not take up much time with certain other ministries.
In addition, we are suggesting the committee would have the power to review the budget and other budgetary papers, as well as documents with financial or expenditure implications. We suggest that we review documents or such bodies as the Ontario Economic Council. The committee should have the power to send for persons, papers and things; it could hear witnesses and could conduct public hearings. It would have power to hire whatever staff might be necessary.
We are suggesting, and I think it is implicit in this report, that this committee is to make recommendations with respect to estimates. These are only recommendations. We realize the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the government have the final say, that their policies and strategies as far as a budget is concerned are theirs; they have the power to present that to the Legislature. We are hoping that in our suggested role we will help the Treasurer and the government.
We hear about the Treasurer discussing a new budget with the business community, with the farm community, with labour and with organizations such as those. I think the members of this Legislature, either by way of a committee or otherwise, should also have that opportunity to have the ear of the Treasurer before the budget is introduced in the House.
The size of the committee could easily be discussed when we agree with the principle. As the previous report said, it is important there be substitution only where absolutely necessary. In other words, it would be limited substitution rather than the present practice.
To those people who might object to this proposal, who may feel that what we are suggesting will not necessarily streamline the procedure, we hope through this proposal that, by having the estimates appear before the committee as soon as the session starts in the spring, even before the budget -- it turns out now to be a couple of months before the budget -- those estimates could be discussed by that committee, and the main estimates could be completed by the end of June.
In the fall, the policy committee could be set up dealing with, among other things, the annual reports of the various ministries. If we did not finish all the estimates by the time we recessed in June, those ministries we felt were a little less important for that particular year could be dealt with in the fall. The main improvement we are trying to make is not to have a half a dozen or 10 ministries left for estimates on into November and December.
8:30 p.m.
We could have an opposition day or a series of opposition days that could deal with policy, if that is the type of thing that would be considered a reasonable tradeoff for changing the committee. We are talking about allowing some 15 days when the opposition could raise subjects for debate. That could be decided eventually by the House leaders. The policy field committee would, as I mentioned, review the annual reports and could initiate special studies with respect to policy administration.
I would like to refer, in closing, to some of the remarks that were made in our recent committee hearing. The previous chairman, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who has dealt with this matter now for a long time, is hoping we are going to make some decision this spring, or certainly this year one way or another. He says, on page 18 of the report of the committee of Thursday, April 15: "My second request would be to see if we could gather some consensus on things we might try without changing everything, without changing all the rules and passing new standing orders. There are lots of things proposed in there," that is, in the report, "which could happen tomorrow if we decided we wanted to do that."
For the most part, I think that reflects the feeling of the majority of the members of the committee. That is my proposition. I would like to see House leaders in this committee for the remainder of the session to do some little trials, to designate the ones members would like to try on for size without changing all the standing orders, without changing all the estimates procedures, without doing all those radical things. Let us just try it on for size and see if we can get some experience in it.
My concern is that we have dealt with this matter for five years now, and before that the Camp commission and the Morrow select committee dealt with it, but not a whole lot has changed. So I would like members to try to deal with these proposals. Let some debate be scheduled, let some pilot projects be designated, and try them out in the fall. By the end of the fall session, either we should say we are going to change the estimates procedure and the way the committees are set up, or we should forget about it and go back to the way we have always done things, because that is the way we have always done things.
In conclusion, dealing with recommendation 5, I suggest we follow these remarks, and put our heads together with the House committee or set up a committee to implement the recommendations, and I feel that there is bound to be an improvement.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments concerning the report of the standing procedural affairs committee on proposals for a new committee system. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that this report is nearly two years old, which will show that the members want to move very cautiously before they make any major changes to the committee system.
I should mention at this time that I see, under the press gallery, some very important people who have worked with us over the past two or three years: our researcher, John Eichmanis, and the former clerk of our committee, Graham White. They were both quite helpful over the last few years in assisting the members of the procedural affairs committee. Now, of course, as members know, our clerk is Smirle Forsyth.
The committee has changed somewhat since we wrote this report. When we were working on this report we had a minority government and we had a chairman --
Mr. Nixon: Those were the days.
Mr. Mancini: Those were the days, Mr. Speaker. We had a chairman from --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is a point of view.
Mr. Mancini: We certainly got better government. We did not buy any new jets and we did not buy any oil companies.
An hon. member: That's right.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That's a point of view not substantiated by the facts.
Mr. Speaker: Let us get back to the committee report.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I was rudely interrupted, as you know and will agree.
At that time an opposition member was the chairman, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who served the committee quite well, and now a government member is the chairman, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr). Anyway, the committee has carried on its work of trying to reform this Legislature, specifically its committees. I will say one thing about the procedural affairs committee: It probably is the most nonpartisan committee of the House. I say that in all sincerity, although on occasion, I have to confess, there are members of the other two parties who become highly partisan.
Why do members of the Legislature want to change the committee structure from the way it is now? I believe there is a deep feeling among all back-bench members -- and that includes everybody who is not in the cabinet -- that we, as individual members of this Legislature, can and should do more. That goes for the opposition and for the government members. We feel there is a great deal of work that can be done by members who are not in the cabinet, that we represent a significant group of constituents and that we want to speak more forcefully on their behalf. Basically that is what is behind this move by the members of the Legislature, specifically the procedural affairs committee, to make fundamental structural changes in the committee system.
This feeling did not start recently. As far back as 1976, the Morrow committee began its recommendations for changing the committee system with the observation that "expansion of the role and importance of committees is logical and necessary." That also means, Mr. Speaker, that expansion of the roles that individual members play in the governing of this province is logical and necessary. In the introduction to our report, we stated, "In Ontario and elsewhere legislators are increasingly looking to committee reform as a means of fostering more effective legislatures," meaning that we, as individual members, want to become more effective and have more to say in the governing of our province.
I would like to quote directly one other section from the introduction to our 1980 report, on page 2, "...and many committees are chaired by members of opposition parties." It will be truly sad, and the committees of this Legislature will never function to their ultimate capacity, if we do not go back to what we had in the minority government: that is, some committees chaired by opposition members. I think it was absolutely astounding and really very petty that, once minority government ended, all the committee chairmanships were returned to government members.
Mr. Shymko: What would you have done? Don't be so sanctimonious.
Mr. Mancini: The member for High Park- Swansea asks what we would have done. Members of the standing committee on procedural affairs travelled to the House of Commons in Ottawa and met with our counterpart committee there. The chairman of that committee is an opposition Tory member.
I have the greatest respect and regard for the present chairman of the procedural affairs committee, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), but I believe that committee should be chaired by an opposition member; as should the select committee on the Ombudsman, who is a civil servant, appointed to protect rights and liberties and to attend to the grievances of the citizens and groups in the province. The rest are negotiable.
Mr. MacDonald: What about public accounts? It has an opposition chairman.
Mr. Mancini: Public accounts is already chaired by an opposition member. Why bring that up?
Mr. Nixon: Everybody knows that.
Mr. Ruston: That's right. You have been around here a long time, Donald.
Mr. Mancini: It was an interesting comment; irrelevant but interesting.
Mr. Shymko: Keep going, Remo, you're doing fine.
Mr. Gillies: Silence is best.
Mr. Chariton: He's trying to grow his moustache.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, I am going to grow my moustache again. After I shaved it off I walked over to Sutton Place to go up to my apartment, and the doorman wouldn't let me in because he didn't recognize me. I cannot have that happening.
Recommendation 2 of the committee's report, which appears on page 9, is, "No substitution should be permitted for committees conducting special studies or for committees considering legislation." I concur entirely with that recommendation as I have had the opportunity to serve on such committees. It serves no logical purpose to have as a substitute someone without knowledge of what has transpired and with no opportunity to read the Hansard of past sittings.
With regard to committees considering legislation, along with other members, I went through the experience of substituting on the Landlord and Tenant Act. We found ourselves at a disadvantage because parts of the bill had already been amended before we were brought in and we had no knowledge of the reasons for the amendments which were made.
Recommendation 3, "A separate committee should be struck for each public bill," is, I think, a fairly solid recommendation. Members can judge for themselves why this is necessary. It would certainly be a vehicle for involving more members of the House in discussions of public bills, on diverse subjects.
Recommendation 4 concerns the size of the committee. The committee recommended a five or six-member committee. In my view, that is not quite large enough. Certainly, the committee system today, which I believe allows 16 members -- far too large a number -- is much too unwieldy. It would appear that a smaller committee, not quite as small as the procedural affairs committee recommended but a smaller committee than the present one, would more than suffice.
I have a great deal of difficulty with recommendation 5. I feel that I cannot support this recommendation at all. For the information of the members, this recommendation states that a finance and economic affairs committee should be established to which all estimates would be referred. The committee would consider only the financial aspects of the estimates, not their policy component.
In addition, the committee would have broad terms of reference to review Ontario's fiscal and economic policies and to study budget papers, financial documents, tax legislation and any related matters.
It appears that the procedural affairs committee wishes the House to adopt this particular recommendation in lieu of the estimates debates. It would more or less eliminate the estimates debates. I would in no way support, at the present time, the elimination of the estimates debates.
Sure, there are many complaints about the estimates. Yes, it is said, and it is true, that we really do not discuss the expenditures of the government. I say to members that we are not a congress, we participate in a parliamentary form of democracy. We do not have the right to vote or not to vote expenditures which the government wishes to undertake. I refuse to have my right, which is the ability to speak on behalf of my constituents, taken away.
Mr. Speaker, having sat in that chair, you know how limited we are in being able to speak for our constituents because of time constraints, because of rotation, because of the size of this assembly and because of the amount of business we have to conduct. As a private member, I cannot stand in this House and say, yes, I am going to give up my rights to some six or eight elite members of this House, so they can take it upon themselves to form this finance and economic affairs committee, have hearings, bring in the Treasurer on a regular basis and request such documents as may seem fair at the time. If I am asked to give up all of my rights so that six or eight other members can become as elite as the cabinet has become in our system, I say no to that, absolutely no.
I want the right to discuss the estimates of any particular ministry. I want to be able to look into the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment and question the minister and his senior, highly paid staff as to why certain projects are not proceeding in my riding and as to why certain other things are not being done. And similarly for all the ministries across the board.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the procedural affairs committee, if we had a finance committee that would take the whole House into account, where we would go into committee of the whole and would actually vote to spend or not to spend money, that would be something different. But for us to set up another so-called elite committee and by so doing, have more of my rights eroded, I say no to that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McLean: None of your rights are eroded now.
Mr. Mancini: The member for Simcoe East says that we have no rights already. If we in the opposition have no rights, that is a black mark on the government.
The Deputy Speaker: Actually, to correct the record, I think he said no "rights are eroded."
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Rotenberg: You have more rights than the Liberals in the Saskatchewan Legislature.
Mr. Mancini: I have no comeback for that. He is right.
On recommendation 7, the standing committee on procedural affairs recommends, "A government agency committee should be established to review government agencies..." I thought that was what the procedural affairs committee did itself. We now have the authority without any intervention from outside sources, meaning the cabinet and the government whip who carries the big stick over there, to call before us any agency or commission we see fit. As far as I am concerned, that part of the procedural affairs committee's work is proceeding along a level which I consider to be very satisfactory.
We have reviewed many agencies. We have made many recommendations. Many of the government ministers have been helpful in accepting some of the recommendations and have been courteous enough to explain to us why they could not accept others. There are certain ministers over there who do not see fit to do either one of those two things, but we cannot expect 100 per cent co-operation.
I would like to move on to page 21, recommendation 11 from the committee, "Each private member should be provided with a personal research assistant."
I am not against increasing the research staff that works under the auspices of the Legislative Library at the present time. As far as I am concerned, the budget which it proposed to the Board of Internal Economy should have been approved and the extra moneys they requested should have been approved so they could have hired more staff to serve the members of this assembly.
I prefer to have a pool of nonpartisan talent I can rely on, people who are expert in the legal field, in political science, the environment and many of the other important areas. I prefer to have a pool of nonpartisan talent available to me so that, when I have a problem I need researched or when I need an in-depth study on certain government policies, I can go to the chief of staff in the library and she can hand the work out to the proper person. Then I know an expert in that field will be looking at it.
For members of this assembly to suggest that, if we all were given one researcher, that researcher could do the same amount of work in different areas as a pool of talented people could do makes no sense.
Surveys have been taken in the United States and it has been proven that having individual researchers attached to individual legislators does not work. First, there is great difficulty deciding upon the salary of the individual person. One must decide whether a legal person is required. One must decide whether one would be willing within one's own group to share one's individual researcher and that in itself would cause problems because some members are busier than others.
If the government wishes to be of assistance to the individual members of this House and wishes to provide them the opportunity to serve their constituents properly, then it should increase the pool at the library and forget about recommendation 11, which says each private member should have a researcher.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we have a long way to go in this Legislature as far as improving the role of the individual member is concerned. As I said at the beginning of my comments, I believe that is the driving force behind this report of the procedural affairs committee. Individual members want to be more constructive, they want to do more and to better represent their constituents.
As time goes by, I think the procedural affairs committee will be able to look at other specific subject areas and make recommendations to this House that I hope will be accepted and that will ultimately achieve the goal that most members want, both those in the opposition and on the government side, especially the government members who are not in the cabinet: that is, to make our role more relevant to today's society and to our constituents.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the last 10 or 15 years, reform of parliament has become a preoccupation, even an obsession, with a small number of people. That small number includes a minority of those who happen to sit in parliament. The attendance here tonight is a manifestation of the percentage that is passionately attached to this issue. However, encouragingly, it includes a growing number, though small, of people who work and live on the periphery of parliaments, Legislatures and various agencies of government.
I do not think there is any mystery as to why this is taking place. One of the problems in the free world in the last generation, indeed throughout the whole of the post-war period, has been a recognition that the burden and complexity of government have outstripped the capacity to cope with current problems. Therefore, there is frustration and exasperation. There seems to be an extreme length of time in terms of coming to grips with problems and finding solutions. Indeed, sometimes we live on and on without a solution. That has resulted in a growing disillusionment and concern on the part of the electorate as a whole who ask: "What real relevance is there in parliament? Is it really working for me? Is it achieving anything for me?" I do not think there is any mystery as to why we have this concern.
It has rather intrigued me in looking at the plethora of studies that have come out in learned journals and in publications put out by the chamber of commerce and a great range of organizations throughout society and the economy that the focus, in terms of getting at a real reform of parliament, has been on the committee system. There is a feeling that if we can reform and make committees more effective, we will perhaps facilitate the decision-making process and, most important of all, we will make the role of the back-bencher much more meaningful.
I notice that the government whip is almost in a state of apoplexy. He walks in here, takes a look at the Acting Speaker, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), and wonders whether the reality of March 19 has been totally lost. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will not be shaken by the fact that he has paled. You will notice he has greatly paled at this change. Perhaps this is the reform of parliament.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I just realized you were speaking. I walked in at the wrong time.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought the member came in because I was speaking. I was flattered for a moment.
9 p.m.
Let me try to put this in historical perspective if I might. One of the advantages of being around here for a few years is that one tends to see things a bit more in perspective. There are a lot of complaints, legitimately so, about the way this Legislature operates today. Every time I listen to the complaints, I tend to pause and have a second thought about them, because when I reflect back on the situation 15, 20 or 25 years ago, I can assure members it was infinitely worse.
Indeed, in the latter part of the 1950s, this Legislature was operating on essentially the same basis as it operated at the time of Confederation. I have said elsewhere, and I repeat it here, that the man who brought the Ontario Legislature into the 20th century was John Robarts. That was not until the seventh decade of the 20th century: so we have made real progress. I do not think we should get it out of perspective.
Even in committees throughout the 1950s and 1960s, I recall rather distinctly that we used to have the practice of having committees that tended to be related to single departments, as they were then called or ministries as they are now called, sometimes bringing two or three of them together in a certain collectivity. Each year there would always be somebody with a brainwave that appeared to be persuasive enough, and they would add a new committee. We had 15, 18, 20 and 21 committees.
There is a story told which may be apocryphal that at one point, as they were trying to fit all these committees into the limited time frame for committees to meet, they fed it all into a computer and asked how it could be done. The computer in effect said, "It isn't possible."
It was at that point, with the examination of the Camp commission and the Morrow committee, that we tended to go to the basic approach, apart from a few specialized committees, of four omnibus committees which were related to the policy fields.
I want to say to those members of the House who have deigned to be with us this evening for this important debate, that this is such an improvement over what there used to be in days gone by that I will have to be persuaded we are moving to something better before I am going to let slip out of my grasp the achievement it represents. I will balance that statement in a moment.
Let me focus on one thing. There is a great concern about the ineffectiveness of our estimates procedure. There are some people who say we spend 20, 25 or 15 hours or whatever it is with respect to a given ministry and, in the consideration of it, one goes around the mulberry bush two or three times. It is rather repetitive. It is rather circulatory. There is a mixture of consideration of finances and consideration of policy.
I will concede all of that is somewhat untidy, but I for one am going to have to be persuaded that what we are considering is going to be better before I will be willing to relinquish that. Quite frankly, the main problem with making that effective is not in the way it is handled so much as in other restraints that have been placed upon it. Let me name two. One is that under the regime of our current Premier, this Legislature has gone back in the sense of being willing to devote enough time to the business of the people of this province with the sitting of the Legislature.
Back in the 1950s, Leslie Frost, God rest his soul, I am convinced used to take a look at the calendar. He would count back from Easter about eight or 10 weeks and he would start the House. Everybody knew that when Easter came, it was going to end. Anything projected beyond it was the Procrustean bed approach; it just got chopped off. If the members want to view some spectacles, they should have been around back in those days when we were cramming business in and sitting until 3:30 or four o'clock, when private members' bills which had been sitting on the agenda for three or four months -- not for three or four months, because we were not sitting for three or four months -- but for at least 10 weeks, would be called at the whim of the Premier.
I remember that memorable occasion when Art Rheaume went out for a dentist's appointment and came back. While he was away the Premier had called his bill and he came here and he hit that roof. We had half an hour of rather colourful and spectacular protest.
That was the way business was handled. In the days of John Robarts there was a recognition that we had moved into a new era with complex government, with the recognition that the opposition had a legitimate role to play and that the opposition should be given resources. The government had all of the panorama of resources in the civil service and in the ministries; the opposition had none, and we gradually built up a minimum of resources for the opposition to do their job.
John Robarts had gotten out of the mental fix of the previous days in which, when the government was elected, its primary function was to put the boots to those SOBs who had been putting the boots to it when they were in power: the attitude of Hepburn vis-à-vis the Tories and the Tories vis-à-vis Hepburn. That ended with Leslie Frost. With John Robarts, it was business: it was the people's business, it was big business. One had to operate on a sensible, rational basis. He was chairman of the board; the opposition had a role to play, and they should have some resources.
One of the characteristics of that change was that the Legislature would sit for enough time. Indeed, there was one year we sat, with a break in the summer, really around the clock, around the calendar before we finished. We sat for 13 or 14 months to do one year's work. Eight or nine months became more or less the pattern of it. We have reverted from that.
One of the things that has always puzzled me when I read the Camp commission report is a quote in it attributed to our Premier today, saying that he would be willing to consider a rational annual calendar for the orderly handling of the business. But he has never done it. The session begins sometimes in March, sometimes not until April; it knocks off for the summer. That is fine; I think we should be with our families, and we should have holidays the way other people have during the holiday period. Of course, it is not a free period; we all know that we have constituency work to do. But we do not come back after Labour Day; we come back during the latter half of October. The result is that we have that incredible mad scramble in the latter part of June before the summer recess and an even madder scramble on the eve of Christmas so that we can get home for Christmas.
Camp spelled it out. For the life of me I cannot understand why we cannot react to it and implement it. The annual calendar for the Legislature should be to meet in the latter part of January at the latest; it should recess for maybe 10 days or two weeks for an Easter recess; it should recess on the last Friday of June for the summer; it should come back shortly after Labour Day, and it should sit as long throughout the fall as is necessary to complete the business. That might mean we would be adjourning on November 1 if there were very little business; it might mean we could complete the business in a sensible way rather than in a congested way at least by the first week in December.
If we had that then all of this committee work could be fitted in. We would not have the problem we now have, for example, of not being able to complete work in the House and of having to shove it out into committees to try to get it completed in one way or another in the recesses of the Legislature. That is a distortion, a perversion, a misuse of the Legislature.
I hope those members on the other side of the House who may have an opportunity to talk to those who could be persuaded to make decisions on this fundamental point will raise their voices. I know some of them share my objection to the kind of insanity we indulge in during the latter part of June and the week before Christmas every year.
A second way in which I think our existing procedures might be made more acceptable is if we did a little bit of sensible training of committee chairmen. I am not going to name any names; I want to deal with the principle of the matter. I think of some of the estimates that have been considered with chairmen who sat there and gave no direction, who were not in authority at all, sometimes with ministers who wanted to manipulate the committee or who were not very competent, if I can put it bluntly.
I have gone through the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the last few years. Need I say more? The result is utter chaos. Last year, with a new chairman who exercised some direction and with at least a start towards implementing the procedure that I thought was the accepted one, we began to make some order out of the chaos.
What I am saying is that if we had a long enough annual sitting of this Legislature and we had an orderly and competent handling of the committees, we could do the job, and do it, I think, with a measure of competence and a measure of effectiveness.
9:10 p.m.
I was rather interested, quite frankly, when I read the transcript of the meeting that the current committee had with the three House leaders on April 15, and saw a comment of the government House leader (Mr. Wells). He said: "Things are perhaps not as bad as sometimes we all think they are. In other words, we do get the estimates done under the present rules and we do have free-ranging discussions on government policies."
As I will say a little bit later, I think it may be possible to come to the policy aspects and the financial aspects of estimates in a separate fashion. I am not as closed-minded with regard to that approach as the Liberal spokesman was, and I will say a bit more about that in a moment. But at least we have got that opportunity for a full consideration. If we were sitting the full length of the year, there would be no problem in getting it done. If it were handled efficiently and in an orderly fashion, I think we could achieve what we are attempting to achieve around here.
Let me say a brief word about the work of this procedural affairs committee. Quite frankly, I think they are to be congratulated. When I read all of the diversity and conflicts in the proposals for parliamentary reform that have emerged -- a Niagara of them has poured out in the last 10 years -- I think this committee, an all-party committee, sat down and came forward with a consensus.
I think we should pause for a moment and reflect on what consensus means in the context of that committee's operation. It means there were things in there with which the parties, and maybe the individuals in each party, were not necessarily in agreement; but they were willing that they should be included in the package because by including them in it they were able to get something else that they thought was a top priority in terms of reform. They achieved a consensus by way of the kind of consultation that emerges, for example, among our House leaders, where they do not always agree but they come up with a consensus which makes a more orderly operation of this House possible.
That was two years ago, and that was achieved perhaps under the unique or more beneficial circumstances for consultative arrangements of a minority government. My information is that the current committee, which is the product of a majority government, has reviewed that report and in essence is in support of it. It is because of that it is now before the House. So we have a consensus, representative of all of the parties. It seeks to achieve a balance between the government and the opposition. I think if it were implemented fully along with all those reforms of the past 10 or 15 years, it would achieve something of a better balance between the Legislature and the executive branch of government. All of these are basic elements in the whole thrust of parliamentary reform today.
I congratulate the committee but, as I turn briefly to deal with a few specific essentials in it, I want to stress that if we are going to move towards this reform, we have to recognize that it is a balanced package and that it is not going to be an acceptable procedure for the government, which will be in the saddle -- this is a majority government; I accept the reality of March 19 -- to pick and choose the things the government likes and to throw out those things that the opposition felt were necessary. I dare to suggest John Robarts would have agreed they were necessary to give a greater balance from the opposition side of the House.
Mr. Nixon: Tom Wells will not let them do that.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me turn to one or two of the specifics. In fact, the whole thing is set up rather neatly on page 10 of the report.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Gregory will look after our needs.
Mr. MacDonald: They were speaking about the policy fields, the four omnibus committees.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I'll look after you, Bob. I'll make sure you get a fair deal.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will let the government whip participate in this debate later in a coherent fashion rather than by these interjections.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would rather just comment on yours.
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps if you reminded him of that, he might be persuaded to quiet down.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Was it something I said?
Mr. Breaugh: No. Just the fact that you are here.
Mr. MacDonald: I am quoting from page 10 of the report, in reference to the four policy field committees:
"In sum, the committee sees little reason to perpetuate the policy field committees in their present form. Since each task currently performed by these committees -- estimates, legislation and special studies -- calls for a different approach, the committee proposes a different structure for each."
May I interject that this seems plain common sense, this sorting out of the mix of objectives and dealing with them in a more coherent way within a committee that is set up to do that special job. I continue the quotation:
"In essence we suggest the policy field committees be retained, but only for the review of policy, that legislation be considered in legislation committees, and that estimates and financial matters be dealt with by an altogether new committee. The following sections set out our specific proposals."
I am picking and choosing among some of the things in the report, and I am not going to go on at great length because I trust there are many people who want to participate in this debate and therefore no one of us should hog unduly the limited amount of time we have.
For example, on the question of substitution, I do not object to the committee's proposition that if we are dealing with something that has an essential continuity to it and is relatively short term in its preoccupation, namely, a piece of legislation, we should have the same members there all the time and no substitutions. Obviously it is just plain common sense.
Equally, if we get into a committee that is considering estimates, and even in the new format we may be switching to considering only four or five a year rather than six, eight or 10, as has been the case for each one of the committees in our current procedures, then obviously we have to have substitutes, because the people who are the critics in that field or who have a greater interest in that field come in and play a role in the committee.
May I comment briefly on the assertion of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) that he did not want to give up his right as a member to come into an estimates committee to intervene and to raise questions? I am told by those who are full-time members on the committee that members will not be denied that right. I understand that on any committee, as is the case now although it was not so in the past, members can attend and raise their voices. If there happens to be a vote, they are not going to have an opportunity to vote if they are not members of the committee. But I understand there is not a total chopping off of members' rights to go to any committee and to raise any point they have with particular reference to it.
Mr. Mancini: The finance committee would take all those rights away from us.
Mr. MacDonald: As I understand it, every committee, including this new finance committee, is a committee that any member of the House who may be interested can go into and raise questions. So it is not going to be a committee of six or eight who will be the elite and the rest of the hoi polloi are going to be denied an opportunity to participate if there is something they are really interested in.
Since the main burden of my remarks earlier was a defence of our present approach to estimates and an unwillingness to move away from it because, at least if we had enough time in the year, it gave us an opportunity for a full exploration of policy in relation to the expenditure, let me say I am open-minded. I recognize, as an intellectual exercise at least, that if one has an estimates or finance committee, or whatever one wants to call it, a committee that is going to look at the financial aspects and deal with those and those alone, and one has policy field committees that deal with policy, that would be a tidier way to go about it.
9:20 p.m.
There might be some loss in that process, because policy in relation to the expenditure in any given year has a certain relevance, a certain meaning. However, I think if we could deal with most of the estimates in the pattern as conceived in this proposal, at least those that are going to be considered in depth in any given year, in the period up to the end of June, that would remove the absurdity which exists at present of considering estimates through to the eve of Christmas, when three quarters of the money has been spent and there is almost a blanket denial of the opportunity or right to suggest there should be any change in the pattern of those expenditures. So a new approach there would be a good thing.
If one can consider policy, without getting it cluttered up with finances, and pick what are deemed by collective agreement among the parties to be the chief policy areas of interest in any given year and really get into those policies in some depth, it is possible that would be a better approach. I would be willing to experiment with it.
Let me select just one more specific in this operation: the question of whether each member of the House should have his own personal research staff. As everybody knows, after thorough examination of the situation here, the Camp commission recommended that. Everybody knows that the Morrow committee, which was an all-party committee, reaffirmed that recommendation. Yet there has been stalling and procrastination. Indeed, tonight the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) reiterated his reservations with regard to that procedure.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: What has that got to do with committees?
Mr. MacDonald: It has this to do with committees: the work of committees will be improved if a member can come in with facts. It is true that one can go to that nonpartisan pool in our legislative research branch, to which the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) referred, and one can go to the research component that is in each caucus. But I think I am stating the situation accurately when I say that inevitably caucus research is going to be tied to the overall thrust of the caucus and to the leader's needs as the spokesman for the party. Every member, including government back-bench members, has a half dozen issues at any given time in which it would be useful for his work, for his people back home and for his contribution in the Legislature and in the committees, to have a personal researcher.
One of the arguments advanced in opposition to this idea is cost. I become weary and exasperated when the media seizes on what is usually some picayune amount and gives it front-page coverage as an example of excessive expenditure in the public arena. I want members to listen to this, because I do not believe it is recognized that all the expenditures of this Legislature -- our salaries and those of our staff, the research operation, our pensions, the cost of security staff, Hansard, everything -- are about $30 million out of a total budget of $20 billion. My mathematics is pretty poor, but I calculate that is a small fraction of one per cent. I challenge anyone to find a business of comparable size in which the head office establishment spends only one hundredth of one per cent.
This establishment here is the head office and the hoard of directors for the people's business, which is the biggest business in this province. Each member should have a researcher as a supplement to the collective research done for the caucus and the independent nonpartisan research that is done in the legislative library research branch, and to assist him in his constituency work, his work in the Legislature and his work in the committees that he happens to be on. To suggest that this is outrageous, unthinkable, undesirable just leaves me totally baffled.
Mr. Nixon: What was that word?
Mr. MacDonald: Baffled. And I get baffled when I listen to the Liberals sometimes.
If you go to Ottawa you will find that each member has -- what? Three people?
Mr. Eakins: Three people.
Mr. MacDonald: In Washington the number of people whom each member of the Congress has is just mind-boggling. I am not suggesting that we should go whole hog; it might be that our budget would go to $100 million and be one per cent of the overall budget of the province if we did that. In that context what validity is there to the proposition that we should not have a researcher for each member? Surely we can be sensible and not panic because of the rather mindless editorial outpourings we will get from people, including the coalition down in London -- what is his name?
Mr. Nixon: Colin Brown.
Mr. MacDonald: Colin Brown's outfit. Right.
Mr. Kerr: Ouch!
Mr. MacDonald: Ouch! Right.
Let me draw my remarks to a close, because I am not going to go into all of the details in the report; I will leave it for others to make their contribution on that score.
We have studied this matter for 10 years here, and we have a wealth of studies from outside. In this committee we have had an all-party consensus as of two years ago. It is an all-party consensus that has been reaffirmed by a committee with this government, a majority government. I think it is time that we did something about it; we have talked long enough. I only say that when we move to do something about it we should recognize that this is a balanced package produced by people from all parties. The government members cannot pick and choose just those things they might like or we on this side of the House might like, because I think a balance will achieve a more effective working towards the overall objectives of this Legislature.
In the process, incidentally -- and here is a shattering thought to some people -- it may well be that we have to take a look at the possibility that we do not have enough members in this House, particularly on the government side outside the cabinet, to be able to do all of the committee work. When I first read the Camp commission report and noted that he had said this House should be expanded to 180 members, I caught my breath and said, "This surely is a bit exaggerated." But then I analysed the rationale for it. I do not know where we would put all 180 members. Maybe we would begin to operate like the British House of Commons, where their 635 members --
Mr. Nixon: Benches, not desks. We can do it easily.
Mr. MacDonald: You mean who would be on your lap. I will give you a choice.
Since everything is achieved by evolution, maybe we can move between now and the next election to a redistribution according to the last census and add more seats. We cannot move to 180, but we can move in that direction. As part of the experiment, I suggest that we should now get active and not delay very much longer. We will find out how many members would be necessary to make the committee system work well.
We have a good basis for attacking the problem here, and I just hope that the government whip, as he nervously taps his desk, will be one of those who will strongly urge that we come to grips with implementing this in a balanced way.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I always find the member for York South stimulating, and this is no exception. I did not think I would live to hear a Socialist talk about justifying research on the basis of running a government like the board of directors of a corporation. I notice that he did not include the costs of the actual members of the corporation who have the responsibility for operating it on a day-to-day basis in his all-in figure.
I do want to say something about the report and some of the things I think might improve it. I agree with those, such as the member for York South, the government House leader (Mr. Wells) and the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who have indicated that our rules do permit an extensive utilization of our time for opposition members, government members and government back-bench members to discuss policy and direct criticism at various ministers and so on.
In some respects, we are our own worst enemies here, particularly when it comes to debates in the House. I personally believe we should have a time limit on most of our debates. Many of us sat through a fairly large percentage of the throne speech debate and, while I thought all the speeches had merit, some of them were obviously too long. I am not talking about my own contribution, because we did not have time to hear from the member for Brant-Oxford Norfolk. There were long speeches from each party.
Mr. MacDonald: It was a Liberal member who went on for four days.
Mr. Nixon: If the honourable member is talking about the sainted Joe Gould, God rest his soul, who spoke without stopping for three days, he should look up Hansard and find some of the pearls that he cast in those days. They are still valid.
I still believe that in formal debates in particular we ought to set limits. With that would go the understanding that we as members, paid to be in this House and to express the views of ourselves on behalf of our constituents, have an equal responsibility to listen to the views of others.
I find it increasingly difficult to accept that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the government of Ontario do not feel it is their responsibility to be present in the House for anything but a few great occasions or when they themselves are called on to perform. We have discussed this previously, but it is becoming an epidemic.
The member for York South harked back to the great days of John Robarts, but one of the things I recall is that he would be in his seat more often that not. If the Premier was there, the cabinet had darned well better be there, and it was. If the cabinet is here, the back-benchers are here. To be fair, they do not do badly on the Tory side, and it is the same for the opposition.
My memory may be a little clouded, and I do not go back as far as the member for York South, but in those days the attendance in the Legislature was better and there was more of a feeling that one could exchange views with some relevance and validity. Now, unfortunately, many of us are rapidly losing the grasp that anything that happens here has any significance and that everything of significance happens elsewhere.
That leads me in some form into a discussion of researchers, because one of the things I found less agreeable in the most recent throne speech debate was that for the first time a number of members on the government side, and some on the opposition side too, undertook to read lengthy, boring screeds undoubtedly prepared for them by the capable research staff they have at their disposal.
The member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) was a classic example. He is a person for whom I have the highest regard. I do not want to impute motives, but he spoke at great length from a speech I simply cannot believe he wrote for himself. There is nobody who, in his off-the-cuff wisdom, is more interesting to listen to than the member for York North, but there was nobody more boring reading a speech 55 minutes long -- I timed him myself -- of great stuff prepared by the brains upstairs or down the hall.
Those researchers are good but, by the time one transplants their thoughts into the mouth of that member, it is not worth while. That is not a criticism of the member. I have heard him make sense when he is talking on his own. This is the one thing that turns me off about a suggestion of spending many more thousands of dollars for additional research.
Occasionally, when I take my job as House leader seriously, I go around to the various estimates debates to see that our party is represented, that the debate is going on and to find out what is going on. There are occasions I will go into one when a minister is making a leadoff estimates speech. It is almost getting to be a contest, because on many occasions the minister will have 65 or 70 pages of speech to unload in a dreary monotone. It is just an insult that they do that.
What is just as unacceptable is when one hears the critic for the official opposition -- it could be myself, one of my colleagues or a critic from the NDP, and believe me this happens -- reading a criticism prepared by a researcher, with the detailed assistance of the member, which of course goes without saying, that is essentially the concept of a researcher rather than the person who is doing the work. I do not believe in that. We might as well stay home, work the ground for the spring seeding and let the researchers talk to each other and shuffle papers back and forth for all the value that accomplishes.
On the other hand, I have heard excellent debates in estimates. I do not want to mention names, but I suggest that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates are just about as good as any we have. The member for Huron- Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) is one of the best speakers in the House. He prepares his own stuff and prepares it carefully. He spoke quite effectively this afternoon. Although I should cut my throat for saying this, the member for York South is just about as effective as anybody else on agricultural policy and other things. When he gets up to talk about the ministry and spends 40 minutes in an overview of what is going on, we all know it is worth listening to.
I am not prepared to talk about the most recent estimates, because my ability for unqualified admiration runs aground at that point, but certainly in days gone by, and perhaps in the future, the minister can come back in style. Even the addition of the new deputy, Duncan Allan, added a certain je ne sais quoi to the eloquence of the response. That is what we say in South Dumfries. I am not sure whether I can help you or not, George. It added an interest to the estimates which I certainly thought could not have been handled any better.
If we were restricted to talking only about dollars and cents in the Agriculture and Food estimates or anywhere else, it might be all right. But if someone asks the minister, "What is this $17 million? Why is it not $14 million or $23 million?" unless he is trying to convince us that he has not made off with the boodle to Buffalo, surely all he can say is: "It is our position that we have to spend this money for this particular service. We feel it is good because there are so many people needing it." So we immediately get into the kind of discussions we have now.
The proposal that we restrict the so-called estimates committee to dealing with dollars alone would be restrictive indeed. I believe that sort of review might be possible, perhaps with the help of the Provincial Auditor, although he deals with expenditures after they are made.
One of the interesting suggestions that was made in the standing committee on procedural affairs was that perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) could take part and that some of the discussions might be made before his budget. I believe that recent experiences in other jurisdictions have made it perfectly clear that Treasurers will soon have to give up this thunderbolt-from-the-blue budget approach.
Our own Treasurer is babbling on about consulting everybody in the community about what we should do in this province, but I do not believe he consults us. There are things put forward in question period, but his real consultation is in Queen's Park as he jogs around at 7:15 in the morning. I actually saw him doing it one morning last week. He does not carry a pad and pencil, but no doubt he is writing paragraphs of the budget speech we will be hearing in a couple of weeks. I actually doubt that.
My point is that this financial committee might move into spheres that we do not currently envisage, particularly if the committee, with the presence and participation of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics, can become some sort of valid forum where perhaps we can hear delegations but essentially where we discuss as elected members of the Legislature, each with equal responsibilities, the fiscal and financial future and planning of the province. It is a bit unlikely but possible.
The concept of cutting off the private member's opportunity to discuss a wide variety of subjects presents a valid concern. The member for Essex South has already raised it. He used rather colourful and strong language to indicate that he would not give up that right, and I do not believe anybody would, certainly not in the opposition and sensible members of the Progressive Conservative Party. I see a few of them there who are good, solid foot soldiers in the army of democracy. I am sure they know, as everybody does, that elected members have to have access to the ministers, to criticize their policies and to offer alternatives and that there is no thought of ever doing away with that.
9:40 p.m.
I feel that the main pressure from the government side in reviewing this is the feeling they have: "My God, we are spending too much time in estimates. It is boring, boring, boring and we just cannot stand it any longer."
It is true, as the previous speaker has said, that estimates used to take much longer. I suppose we are far enough away from it now to say that he is responsible for that, even more than John Robarts. He is responsible for what has really been quite a definite reform of our review of the fiscal and spending policies of the government.
I still do not believe it is extremely effective, but it may be about as good as one can get, because there is time allocated that cannot be removed under our rules except by agreement, and the individual members wait their turn if necessary and finally get the minister and his deputy and all the rest of the people there and put forward their alternatives for highway sites or whatever it happens to be that is being discussed.
I do not believe that has to be removed. It might be improved somewhat. As members know, the rules call for at least 100 hours more than we have ever used. My own feeling, which I have expressed, and it probably is not practicable either, is that we might make better use of the concurrences in the Legislature. A good friend of mine and a person whose opinion I respect, feels we should abolish the concurrences entirely.
I do feel if we could persuade some people to come into the House and take part in a general debate on estimates, that could be useful. Once they have been reviewed in detail and come in here, we could have a couple of hours of discussion of general policy, with the minister taking part. It could be made useful if we could persuade people to come into the House and take part in debates from time to time, as I believe we all should.
One of the recommendations that I particularly liked was the idea of striking what almost amounts to a select committee for each bill that is sent out of the House for review. The idea was that, rather than sending it to one of the omnibus committees, a group, as small as possible and representative of the parties in the House, should take the bill and have hearings or discussions, whatever they feel is necessary before the bill is reported back. Once the bill is reported back, that committee would dissolve. It would require some fancy juggling on the part of the whips, the House leaders and whoever else has any input to at least making the opportunity for discussion available. Personally, I like that recommendation very much.
I want to touch briefly on another reference that was made both by the chairman, who spoke first, and the two other members who have already spoken. That is the possibility of having some committees with the specific subject orientation. The recommendation calls for the re-establishment of a private bills committee, which I personally would favour. If there is ever a committee that tends to attract the elite, that is probably it; our experience here in the past has been that political considerations tend to be somewhat downgraded and that the proposals for private bills, particularly for municipalities, are carefully reviewed, usually in the absence of political pressures. The committee sits almost like a court -- I hesitate to use the adjective "kangaroo" -- with the power to approve the proposals from the municipalities, to reject them or to amend them.
In the past, the committee has had a good deal of prestige and, in my experience, was certainly one of the most interesting and useful ones we had. It tended by itself to upgrade the respect that the committees in this area had.
I want to close by saying something about the argument regarding one researcher per member. My own feeling is that the requirements for individual members vary dramatically. As far as my advice to my colleagues is concerned, I would much prefer to have money made available for research as it is now, to be allocated by the caucus, meeting with its leader and working it out as they see fit.
We have already expressed our objections to the way the formula is used under the direction of the present administration. They are prepared to look at the 21 members of the New Democratic Party and pay them as if there were 30. The objections that they have for inadequate research may be because their leader, or their acting pro tem leader, is sequestering all the research for himself. It does not appear that way, but it could very well be. But that is a problem that they have. As a matter of fact, it is a problem any caucus has. It is something they have to work out. In fact, the total amount of money available for members' services and for research is more than would pay for a researcher per member now if that total allocation were to be made.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, some caucuses, ours included, are quite anxious to send groups out as caucus task forces, or special caucus committees, to go about the province and get the views of experts away from Toronto. I do not see anything the matter with that. I also do not see anything the matter with using caucus allocations to pay at least part of those expenses. Goodness knows, ministers and their army of parliamentary and other assistants have no compunction or restriction when travelling in using government aircraft, government cars and government staff for all these purposes. I think that it is something opposition parties have to do as well.
I do feel more money can be allocated to research, but it should be on the basis of a certain number of dollars per member. I think it should be a number of dollars per member elected, not members deemed to be elected, in some nefarious, mystic scheme the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory) might dream up to improve his political fortunes in the future.
I really must congratulate the members of the standing committee on procedural affairs two years ago for coming up with a report that I think is imaginative and useful. I think that we have a system that is working reasonably well and that we, as private members and individuals in the House, could make it work far better if we tried.
With that in mind, frankly, I do hope we can move on the trading-off procedure the chief government whip has mentioned from time to time for getting certain improvements that will assist the opposition members somewhat, and the members of the government as well. We are not prepared to say that we are only going to take what we need, just as I am sure the government is not prepared to say it is going to take what it needs. We will see how it develops and we will hope for the best in that regard.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Oxford.
Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I take certain responsibility for matters getting out of order.
Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Oxford missed the rotation.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: No, that is not true.
Mr. Stokes: Just a moment. Hear me out. It is normal that you go around in rotation. The member for Oxford missed the rotation. Then the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) followed the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald). If you are going to continue with the rotation, it should be a member of the New Democratic Party. But I have no objection to you recognizing the member for Oxford as long as we get back into the proper rotation again. That is the point I am trying to make.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Oxford.
Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, do you wish me to speak to the absence of rotation or to carry on?
Mr. Nixon: Carry on.
Mr. Treleaven: Thank you.
Mr. Stokes: The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) just doesn't understand the process.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I understand the process. You try to take advantage of it.
Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I promise the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) I will be very quick. If the senior members of the House are going to quibble, they are going to hold us all up. May I have my few moments?
Unlike the member for York South, I am going to pick and choose from the committee report. I also feel quite intimidated in following the previous two speakers. I would rather have gone ahead of them so that there would be no comparison.
I want to refer to four different items in the report. First, the report suggests we have smaller committees; it throws out the figures of five or six, and says no larger than 10. I suggest that the present number of 12 is the exact number that is proportional to the House. It is the lowest number that is proportional to the membership of the House. I further submit that it should remain so, and always be in proportion to the House. If we go down to eight, and the lowest it can go is eight, there would only be one member in the third party. They would be left with a single member. Therefore, I submit that in each new Parliament the numbering of the committees should be changed to stay in the same proportion as the members in the House. The voters elected us in that proportion. They expect it and they would feel cheated if in some way their votes were subverted into a lesser proportion in committee than in the House.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: Then why do you say there are 30 NDP members?
Mr. Treleaven: Certainly, being from Oxford, I do not count very well. I leave it up to the Liberals to do the counting on those numbers.
Mr. Nixon: You just pay them.
Mr. Treleaven: The second point I would like to make is that on page 7 the report states that smaller committees mean fewer substitutions. I totally reject that hypothesis. Of course, one is going to have more effect by number, but certainly not by proportion. If one misses four out of 12, and it is very unusual to have four substitutions on a particular day, that is equal to two out of six. There will be fewer substitutions by proportion the larger the committee. Therefore, I again have to disagree.
The second topic is substitution. I would like to suggest that my friend, the member for Burlington South, was somewhat idealistic when he stated that sometimes there is a substitution as recent or as short as 24 hours. In my experience, it is sometimes as short as 24 minutes or less. I suspect he is being idealistic in suggesting he agrees with the committee report that there should be no substitutions.
I believe the principal reason for substitution is that the members are serving their constituents. If one took a look at some of the summer committee rooms and the telephones outside, the telephones were almost smoking from use. The little girl runner was wearing her feet off working the telephone and handling the shuffle in and out. The members were looking after their constituents.
Mr. Nixon: They were calling their brokers.
Mr. Treleaven: I am looking at no members on either side of the House when I say that.
If there is a contest between serving one's constituents and serving the committee, the committee must take second place. The realities of being re-elected and of the fact that one-third of the members here are new, elected last year, means that perhaps they have not become so secure in their positions they can take their constituents for granted. They therefore feel their constituents must come first and the committee must come second.
The MPP for a particular riding is the only one, of course, who can represent his constituents but there are many other members of this House who can represent him as well in committee, and perhaps even better. His first duty is to his constituents and not his committee. Therefore, substitution must remain. I cannot agree with those who have not taken that view.
Page 8 of the report states that select committees are good examples of committees working without substitution. The reason for that is most select committees are nonpartisan. They are not like legislation or estimates committees. That is not a valid comparison or example to use.
The third point I would like to touch on is specialized committees. The report refers to the estimates committees, the policy review committees, special studies committees, legislation committees and a new committee for each bill or series of bills. I disagree totally with that. That would end up placing the members of the committee by occupation. It would mean the accounts and estimates committees would take the accountants and the bookkeepers. The teachers would go to the education committee, the solicitors would go to the justice field, which is partially happening now, the farmers would go to agriculture --
Mr. Nixon: Are you not chairman of the committee?
Mr. Treleaven: Yes, I am a member of that committee, part time.
Mr. Nixon: Should you not be disqualified because you are a solicitor?
Mr. Treleaven: Not necessarily; part time, in one's specialty or occupation, is fine, but to do that all the time certainly stops one's learning process. Some of the older duffers who entered politics did not do so in their twenties and thirties as a major career or their first career, they did so as older duffers in their forties as a change of career.
In the mighty constituency of Oxford, I might note the last three members, federally and provincially, were all people who entered politics in their middle forties from other careers. They had served their 20 years in other occupations -- dentistry, medicine, law -- and then they entered another phase, another career. Therefore, they do not wish to spend their entire second career looking at the same occupation and performing the same duties all the time in this House as they did for the first 20 years. Part of the time it is satisfactory, but if we are to grow -- as the member for Brant-Oxford Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) likes to see us grow -- and if new members are to take part, their horizons must be expanded. Expanding their horizons is achieved by putting them on other committees.
I will make one more point. When I first arrived here I had breakfast one morning with the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), and he mentioned that in the old days the members generally knew what was going on because most committees were in this House. Nowadays there is not a hope of anybody knowing everything that is going on; one can only know a smattering.
This limitation is increased if all the lawyers are put into the justice field and not moved into anything else; if the teachers are put into the education field, and so on. In an effort to have members gain a broad knowledge, as the member for Wellington South suggested they used to have, and try to incorporate that, I suggest that these committees be enlarged and that people not be put on committees having to do with their own specialties.
My fourth point is under the heading of saving time in committees. There may not be a recommendation under exactly that heading in the committee report, but certainly there is a reference to time being taken and time used. First, time could be saved if the ministers looked at their legislation more carefully when they brought in their bills. At the point at which the public is no longer making its representations and before clause-by-clause debate, if the ministers were to set out for the committee, both opposition and government members, what the untouchable policies and principles of the government are, then all members on the committee would have their guidelines. They could then decide which points they would want to take issue with and fight hard on and which ones they would consider to be minor points and could roll over and play dead on. By that means they would isolate the issues.
My friend, the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), as a solicitor, will remember from law school that we were taught to isolate the issues. That is first, and I am suggesting that the ministers do the same thing as they present their legislation: spell out the untouchables so that the issues over which to fight can be isolated and the legislation will go through much faster. In the past, we have seen ourselves spending hours, days and even, if I may suggest it, almost weeks trying to winnow out what is untouchable, what is a principle and what is not a principle, and what is negotiable. I suggest that a lot of time could be saved before clause-by-clause debate in that manner.
My last point concerns estimates. I am critical, and in my ignorance I do not know of whom. But the committees have been underworked. We are going to be back in this House for six to eight weeks with the committees totally underworked, and come June -- I believe it was the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) who referred to this -- we will have our time jammed with extra sittings on Monday nights, etc. to get the estimates carried through.
I suggest that the senior members who appeared before the procedural affairs committee, the three House leaders, reconvene to try to find some manner by which some of the minor estimates, the noncontentious estimates that will not give away any secrets leading to the budget, can be placed before the committees to get them rolling soon after we come together and therefore avoid a jam-up in June.
10 p.m.
I leave those comments to be considered under the heading of saving time. My thanks for permitting me to speak out of order, particularly to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Lake Nipigon: We have started a new order just for tonight.
Mr. Wildman: I didn't think you were out of order.
Mr. Nixon: I thought we came after the Tories.
The Acting Speaker: You are in order.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for understanding the point I was trying to make. It is unfortunate that his whipship over there wanted to be his usual obstreperous self and refuse to understand what we do around here.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: How is that spelled at the end?
Mr. Stokes: With a "p". I do not think there has been an issue that has more significance for members and staff of this House as it affects the democratic process in the assembly. I do not think there has been a topic, such as the ordering of the affairs of this or any other house in any other jurisdiction in the free world, that has had more study and restudy, or more surveying and resurveying, as the most effective way of using our committee structure.
We have staff in this House, some of them here this evening, who shall remain nameless, who have provided yeoman service towards the democratic process by taking the time to analyse the way in which we order our affairs in the House and in that extension of the House, our standing and select committees, and the part they play in making it possible for all 125 members to carry out their duties in a way that will not only improve the democratic process but assist members of the House in carrying out their responsibilities to the electorate.
Having served in a capacity other than as just the member for Lake Nipigon, I have had an opportunity to discuss in considerable detail the structuring of the work of this Legislature and more effective use of the committee system. I have also had the privilege to engage in similar discussion with regard to the House of Commons in Ottawa and in Westminster.
I have a vivid memory of the time that we had the privilege of hosting the Canadian regional parliamentary seminar, which is usually hosted by the federal branch in Ottawa, because of the impending federal election which would have made it difficult for them to host that conference. We had the pleasure of hosting it in this building with the capable assistance of members of this House, who played a very active role in it, and the excellent staff and table officers with which we are blessed.
I can remember one of the participants in that forum, who happened to be from the United Kingdom, when commenting on the committee structure in Canada generally, particularly in the House of Commons and this Legislature, said that in the U.K. Parliament, they would just love to be where we were 10 years ago. So, members can see that everything is relevant.
When I was talking to members of Parliament from Westminster I got the impression that, with a House of about 640 members and with the great traditions they have, it is next to impossible to effect any meaningful change. Within the last couple of years they have made an honest effort to do that, but I do feel that notwithstanding all of the reservations that have been expressed by all members who have participated in this debate before myself, and the need for fairly major reform with regard to our committee system, it bears comparison with any other.
That is not to say we should not continue to strive to improve upon it and to make maximum use of the collective skills of all 125 members of this assembly so that what we are doing around here, the process that we are engaged in, will be one which can be truly called democratic. It should be one which reflects the needs and the aspirations of all citizens of the province of Ontario and one that leaves us, as individual members of this assembly, regardless of which side of the House we happen to sit on, with the feeling that in the process we have been given the opportunity to use whatever individual talents we have so we make democracy truly work, not just because of our own self satisfaction, but because the electorate demand that of us. I do not think we should give them any less.
The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), in his remarks, mentioned the fact that the kind of person who is attracted to this place has changed rather dramatically from the tradition of many years ago. The point he makes is a very good and very valid one. In preparing for a speech I made out west in February about the private member, not only about his role in the House and committees but also in terms of his responsibilities outside the House, I did a good deal of research to remind myself of what was going on in other jurisdictions. I ran across two very interesting articles, both of them authored by no less a person than Robert Stanfield.
10:10 p.m.
I am not going to go into any details with regard to his impressions of the democratic process in Ottawa, but I want to relay to all members of this House the fact that of all the members who have ever served in that august body I did not run across any comments that reflected the collective frustration of members of that Legislature more accurately than did Mr. Stanfield's. He was in opposition while he was there, as Leader of the Opposition. He was very forthright, very open and very frank in his perception of the way they order their affairs and the people's business in that forum.
Even during the short interregnum between the 1979 and the 1980 electoral scene in Ottawa, the Right Honourable Joe Clark brought in a series of recommendations for the reform of the parliamentary system and its structures. A good many of the references in the report before us this evening quote from that list of reforms Mr. Clark would have liked to have made had he had a sufficient length of time to do so. The problems of making the best use of the committee structure in Ottawa are not too different from the kind of problems that have been outlined and enunciated by previous speakers in this debate.
Just to reflect the situation in Ottawa at present. I would like to quote short excerpts from some of the highly respected members of the House of Commons. Along the line the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was pursuing, I want to quote from Walter Baker, the former government House leader. He said:
"There is a new breed of member of Parliament around here. We are no longer a Parliament of leading lawyers, farmers and business people in Canada who have made their reputations in other areas and come here as community leaders in the established sense. The people coming to Parliament now are young, active and energetic. They have left promising and satisfying careers in other places and they did not come here to stagnate. They came here because they are interested in the development of public policy. Members of Parliament are full-time now, so they want some satisfaction from their work. That is the kind of man and woman now being elected as members of Parliament and Parliament has to adjust to that."
That is a statement that anyone who cares about the parliamentary process would recognize and subscribe to. Notwithstanding all the studying of this problem and all the frustrations experienced by committee members from all sides of the House and of all political persuasions, I think it is important that we here tonight at least begin the process of not just making the committee system an arm of this House. I am echoing the sentiments of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), who is now the chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs. We have a responsibility to complement in a real and significant sense what goes on in this chamber in such a way that every member of every committee has a real sense that he is doing something worth while.
If he is a government member, he should have a sense that he is doing his best to explain and support the position taken by the executive council in a sincere and genuine fashion. On the other hand, there has to be an opportunity provided to the opposition so the governed feel the governors are being held to account for their actions. The people must feel that whoever they send to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from whatever party, they are being represented in a true, effective and democratic fashion.
I want to quote a back-bench Liberal member in Ottawa, "Most of the time, the committee system now is an extension of question period which is really the ill-intentioned conversing with the ill-informed." That is according to Ron Irwin, chairman of the subcommittee on acid rain. "You can tell members to show up for a standing committee, but they are not stupid. They know the system is not working. The opposition goes there to embarrass the government, and the government members are there to protect their ministers. It is not really a search for truth."
10:20 p.m.
It is a pretty sad commentary when you get comments like that from the chairman of a subcommittee in our federal Parliament. With all the thousands and thousands of man-hours that are expended in that so-called democratic process in Ottawa. With all the millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars that are spent on that process in Ottawa, we get a gentleman like this, who happens to be a chairman of one of the committees, saying it is nothing but a farce.
It is a pretty sad commentary when someone feels so strongly about the inability of the committee system to work that he does not blame his members for staying away and opting out of or thumbing their noses at the so-called democratic process. That is a pretty strong indictment of the way in which government members who serve as chairmen of committees there view the committee process in that jurisdiction.
Let me quote another one: "The senior people around Parliament Hill treat the standing committees with the contempt that they often deserve," observed Tom McMillan, another member there. "If you attend standing committees you will find that the most active participants are often the newest members. After a while they realize they are hitting their heads against a brick wall. It is a waste of time." That is another serious indictment of the way the system works in that jurisdiction.
I wonder if members of this assembly really appreciate the importance of the recommendations that are contained in the report we are dealing with tonight. I think it is fair to say that the 14 recommendations contained in this report are the collective efforts of a good many people, members and staff of this House, with the advice of a good many members outside this jurisdiction. I think it is accurate to say that this is the culmination not of two years of hard work but of 10 years of hard work going back to the setting up of the Camp commission, which looked into the role of the private member not only here but also back in his or her constituency.
It troubles me when I see the indifference with which a good many members treat the importance of the committee structure, whether they be standing committees, special committees or select committees. It troubles me to see the lack of interest.
Having read the Hansard report of recent vintage dealing with these recommendations not too many days ago, it makes one wonder just how many members of that committee had an appreciation of what the committee was trying to convey to this Legislature and what the full import of these 14 recommendations really is.
I am sure it is only a very small and minuscule part of the deliberations that went on for many months and years. It is my understanding, even though I was not a part of the process, that these 14 recommendations are in large measure a consensus that most members of that committee could live with and could justify during a debate in this House such as we are having this evening.
I do not want to create the impression that there was complete consensus, because the member for Oxford, the member for Burlington South and the member for Essex South have some reservations about some of these recommendations; but, generally speaking, they felt comfortable to at least present these 14 recommendations to this House for debate tonight as a reasonable approach to a restructuring of the committee system that might meet with favour of the majority of the members of this House.
I pay tribute to all of the members of that committee from all sides of the House for taking the time, many months and weeks of time, to review in a very real and very substantial way how we operate here. I pay tribute to them for taking the very best of what was available in researching how other assemblies order their affairs and for coming up with these recommendations.
If ever there was a topic that deserved the complete and unanimous support of every member of this assembly who cares a darn, first of all about the democratic process, who cares about our collective responsibility in that democratic process, and who cares a darn about the best use of our financial and human resources on behalf of the people of Ontario, this would be the one to which I personally would give top priority because, in the whole context of parliamentary democracy and our responsibility to it, this is where it is at. It is a review of the way in which we order our affairs and particularly the way we structure our committees to carry out the mandate that is given to us collectively by all of the electorate across Ontario.
On motion by Mr. Stokes, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.