CONTENTS
Wednesday 14 May 1997
Appointment of subcommittee
Estimates review process
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président: Kennedy, Gerard (York South / -Sud L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)
Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr BillGrimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay
/ Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr MorleyKells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms FrancesLankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Mr WayneWettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel: Mr Steve Poelking, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1532 in committee room 1.
APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): We'll commence the meeting. If there is anyone nearby wishing to attend, we're now going to commence.
Thank you for your attendance at this organization meeting. We have two items on the agenda, and just ahead of that I want to introduce to you Rosemarie Singh, who is our clerk for the committee. I wonder if Rosemarie would like to introduce the other staff that we have for the committee today.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Rosemarie Singh): From legislative research, it's Steve Poelking, and from Hansard, Maureen Murphy.
The Chair: I will ask Ms Lankin regarding the next item of business.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I move that a subcommittee on committee business be appointed to meet from time to time at the call of the Chair or at the request of any member thereof to consider and report to the committee on the business of the committee;
That the presence of all members of the subcommittee is necessary to constitute a meeting; and
That the subcommittee be composed of the following members: Mr Kennedy as Chair, Mr Cleary, Mr Grimmitt and Mr Bisson.
The Chair: Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Bartolucci.
All those in favour? Any opposed? The motion is carried.
ESTIMATES REVIEW PROCESS
The Chair: The second item of business: The clerk has provided for all members excerpts of standing order 59. It sets out the process for the selection of estimates by the committee. Essentially each one of the three parties on the committee can select one or two ministries to be considered in two rounds. We begin with the official opposition, then to the third party, then to the government party.
In the first round, the official opposition could select one or two ministries for review for a total of 15 hours. If one is selected, that single ministry could be reviewed to a maximum of 15 hours. If two are selected, both of them could be reviewed for the combined maximum of 15 hours, and how the division of that 15 hours works is up to designating party.
It works the same way for each of the two rounds so that, at the end of the time, the committee has selected anywhere between six and 12 ministries for review.
Those ministries not selected today are deemed to have been adopted by the committee, and I will then make a report to the House reporting those estimates. They are deemed to be adopted and concurred in by the House, and then the committee, by the third week of November this year, must make a report to the House on the estimates it selected and considered.
For today, we simply need each of the parties to make their designations and for the committee to consider by what date we wish to commence the consideration of those estimates, taking into account the preparation time for ministries and for the critics to prepare for the beginning of those considerations.
Is there any further explication required? If those provisions are reasonably clear, then perhaps I could call upon Mr Cleary from the opposition to begin.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): We've decided to pick Health for 12 1/2 hours and the Office of the Premier for two and a half hours on the first round.
Ms Lankin: For the first round, Natural Resources -- I didn't do the time on this, just give me a second -- for seven and a half hours and Attorney General for seven and a half hours.
The Chair: For the government party.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): We would choose Intergovernmental Affairs for the full 15 hours.
The Chair: Now we begin the second round, and I'll ask Mr Cleary again for your selections.
Mr Cleary: On the second round we would pick Education for seven and a half and Transportation for seven and a half.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cleary. Ms Lankin.
Ms Lankin: Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for seven and a half and Environment and Energy for seven and a half.
Mr Grimmett: The government would pick Agriculture for the full 15 hours.
The Chair: We have now the selections for the work of the committee and it only remains to suggest the date by which it could begin. Because the House does not sit next week, we're off for constituency week, I propose we begin the week following with the first selection. Is there general concurrence of the committee?
Mr Grimmett: The government would prefer to commence on the 10th. This would give the ministries some further time to prepare. Also, the ministers concerned may need time to rearrange their schedules, so we're suggesting June 10.
The Chair: That's a decision for the committee to make. The suggestion from the government party is that they would like to wait four weeks for the commencement of examination of estimates. Is that correct?
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Sure.
The Chair: Until June 10.
Mr Grimmett: That's correct. June 10 would be our suggested starting date.
The Chair: That has been proposed. Discussion?
Ms Lankin: I would certainly oppose that on behalf of our caucus. Just from my own experience, having been in government and a minister, if you have gone through the whole process of budget setting, you're ready for estimates. All of the material is there. Certainly the ministers have two weeks to rearrange their schedules. Virtually the whole time I was Minister of Health I knew that I would probably be the first one up. I think Mr Wilson knows the same thing. I don't think it's necessary.
I think all that does, from the government's perspective in delaying the onset, is ensure that there is a lesser amount of time overall until we arrive at November that is given to the review of the estimates. So I would oppose that.
The Chair: I'll entertain some more discussion before we seek a motion. Any other discussion?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I would agree with Ms Lankin that this is just a way to keep the committee from getting to examining the estimates. It will mean there are fewer hours for us to proceed through the examination of the estimates. In the view of many members, these are among the most important committee meetings and public meetings that we attend. I really see no reason why the government would not be able to be ready by two weeks from today.
Mr Cleary: I think two weeks' time is reasonable too. I know there are lots of questions to be answered and I think the sooner we get at it the better. Two weeks sound reasonable.
Mr Shea: I must say I concur with Mr Grimmett's motion. Four weeks does give adequate time, I think, for all ministries to prepare to give appropriate response to this committee. I think that's due diligence. Although I've not been a minister, and I confess to that, at least in one setting, I think four weeks probably is an appropriate time frame for us.
Interjection.
The Chair: Well, we're here on an organization meeting. We like to proceed with consensus if we can, but it doesn't appear we have that, so I'll entertain a motion for when the commencement of the first ministry will take place.
Mr Grimmett: If I could, Mr Chair, in the spirit of compromise, perhaps we could agree to June 3 as the time. We could meet halfway.
The Chair: In this informal discussion is there any reaction?
Mr Michael Brown: That's fair.
1540
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Michael Brown: I'm not certain. Is there any precedent for how these committees are ordered? This is an estimates committee; it's not a committee that is directed by House leaders etc. So is there any precedent in how we hear these estimates? Obviously, or maybe not so obviously, it's usually in the government's interest not to have these before us, so if you're going to permit a government majority to dictate when you hear the estimates, then of course there could be a problem. I just wonder if in the history of this committee there is a precedent for how we deal with estimates.
The Chair: We're checking on the answer. I have checked on previous committees. Previous committees have started generally within two weeks of the time at which the selection has taken place. That was what I was proposing as a standard that had been followed in the past and was hoping for the consensus around that administrative item. I'm just going to confer a little further.
I don't have direct precedent for you from the minutes that I have read of previous meetings, and I could perhaps report on this at a later date, but it is, we understand, the decision of the committee rather than the Chair as to when we would start. Again, seeking consensus, looking for that, is there any other further comment about this? I don't wish to inordinately delay an administrative matter either.
Mr Grimmett: We feel a three-week period is reasonable, and it's our understanding from our source that last year at this time we started three weeks after the first meeting. So that's our position.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): We're trying to get this committee off to a good start and see if we can arrive at some consensus. Obviously the opposition would like to start in two weeks. That's obviously not going to happen. Let's try to reach a consensus that we begin on June 3.
Ms Lankin: I'm not in agreement with that. I think two weeks is the standard. I think two weeks is reasonable. I think this is just silliness on the part of the government.
At this point in time is there a motion in front of us?
The Chair: There is not.
Ms Lankin: I would actually like to place a motion that the committee begin in two weeks' time.
The Chair: I have a motion. Do I have a seconder? Mr Bartolucci.
We have had some discussion. Is there further discussion of the question?
Mr Shea: Can we just hear that motion again, Chairman?
The Chair: The motion is that the committee commence its deliberations in two weeks from today's date.
Mr Shea: You would accept an amendment to that?
The Chair: I am obliged to accept amendments.
Mr Shea: Striking the date and inserting therein "June 3." I think that was the date we talked about. That would be the third week?
Ms Lankin: That actually runs contrary to the intent. You know the intent is to have it in two weeks, not three, so that would be out of order.
The Chair: I think because it is a simple motion dealing with a date, I cannot accept that specific amendment. We'll deal with the motion and then we will proceed to what other preferences may exist within the committee.
Mr Shea: I won't challenge the ruling. I think you're wrong, but that's okay.
The Chair: We have a motion. Any further discussion? If there is no further discussion, all those in favour? Any opposed? Okay. I'll invite another motion.
Mr Bartolucci: I move that the estimates committee begin the study of estimates on June 3.
The Chair: A motion has been put that the date of deliberation be June 3. All in favour? Those opposed? With that vote, it concludes our business.
Mr Michael Brown: I guess we don't know right now, but does this committee occasionally sit during intersession to hear estimates?
The Chair: It needs to seek permission to sit in the intersession period and there is precedent for that. It is granted from time to time.
Having no further business, I declare the meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1546.