CONTENTS
Tuesday 4 December 1990
Organization
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)
Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)
Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1545 in committee room 2.
ORGANIZATION
Clerk of the Committee: Good afternoon. My name is Franco Carrozza. I am the clerk of the committee and I am here to conduct the election of a Chairman. The procedure of the committee is that I will open the floor for nominations. If there is only one nomination I shall declare the Chair elected. If there are two members nominated we will proceed to an election. Should the first member receive a majority then we will ask that member to become the Chair. I will open the floor for nominations.
Mrs McLeod: I nominate Mr Jackson, the member for Burlington South.
Clerk of the Committee: Are there any other nominations? There being no other nominations, I shall ask Mr Jackson to take the chair as the Chairman.
The Chair: I want to thank the member for Fort William for the nomination and say thanks for the confidence that the members of the committee have expressed in electing me as Chair.
By way of short explanation, I would suggest for members who are unaccustomed to committee work that it is most helpful -- you will see here the recording services of Hansard -- and the microphones work best if we remain seated and speak directly to the microphones. That is of great assistance. I was at a committee hearing yesterday when new members were standing up. I felt it would be best I remind all members that it is very helpful to Hansard.
We also have with us someone from the Clerk's office. You have met Franco, who has been assigned to our committee as our clerk, and his assistant, who is from Hansard. I understand that, but perhaps we could have her introduced.
Miss Brooks: My name is Peggy Brooks. I am from Hansard.
The Chair: Yes. We appreciate it. I just wanted to explain your function to the committee.
I guess the next order of business is the election of the Vice-Chair. The procedure has been explained and therefore the Chair is open to nominations.
Mr Daigeler: I would like to nominate Margaret Marland, the member for Mississauga South.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations?
Mr G. Wilson: I would --
The Chair: The member for Kingston and The Islands may wish to close the nominations.
Mr G. Wilson: So closed.
The Chair: All those in favour? I am pleased to declare the member for Mississauga South the Vice-Chair for this committee.
The Chair: The third traditional motion that is required in our business --
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, if I may, I accept that nomination and that vote and I express my appreciation to the members of the committee for my nomination as Vice-Chairman. I look forward to meeting with all the members of this committee and to some very productive days and months ahead. We will have some very important matters to deal with that will come before this committee.
As we all find that it is in the committee stages that we are able to really do the work of the Legislature, it is very realistic to realize that what goes on actually in the House itself when we are either in question period or in debate becomes traditionally very partisan. I have only five years' experience -- six years, I guess, now -- at Queen's Park and my experience is that the all-party legislative committees that are the most successful and the most productive in terms of the best interests of the people of this province are those committees that look at the matters before them very fairly and very equitably and deal with them, as far as possible, in a non-partisan forum. It is that non-partisan forum that I think most of us have enjoyed for our experience on the legislative committees. So I hope that will be the kind of productive work that this committee will be able to achieve in that kind of atmosphere.
Thank you for the nomination and the election as Vice-Chairman.
The Chair: At this point, the next order of business would be for us to accept nominees for the business subcommittee of this committee. By way of explanation, I should advise all members that the purpose of this subcommittee is to assist in ordering up business, to meet informally, in camera, but certainly not to take up committee time by working out certain of the details to assist this committee. It recommends to this committee; it does not make decisions on our behalf.
The subcommittee is required in our rules and orders and therefore we would like a representative of each of the political parties on the committee, plus the Chair of the committee, to compose the members of the subcommittee. I believe there may be a motion to present the names of the members of the subcommittee.
Mr G. Wilson: I move that Mrs Marland, Mrs McLeod, Ms Haslam and Mr Jackson do compose the business subcommittee, that the said business subcommittee meet from time to time at the call of the Chair to consider and report to the committee on the business of the committee, that substitution be permitted on the business subcommittee, and that the presence of all members of the business subcommittee is necessary to constitute a meeting.
The Chair: The motion is in order, but I would respectfully request an amendment. This is my fault. Could we insert Mr Daigeler, the member for Nepean, instead of the member for Fort William? I apologize for that. That is so recorded? Thank you very much.
All those in favour of the motion, as amended? Opposed, if any? Carried.
The fourth item according to our agenda that has been presented by our clerk is an examination of the budget. We may choose to consider that now. I am going to ask our clerk to give a description of where we are at in the estimates process and what period this budget is to cover. Then we have other business which we will consider, but the budget is a matter which routinely is discussed and dealt with at our earliest opportune moment.
Clerk of the Committee: The budget before you is a copy of last year's budget. It is very straightforward. It is quite common practice for this committee, since last year, to meet when the House is in session. Therefore it does not have some per diems or travelling expenses for the members. However, should the committee meet in the session between the next session, which would be January, February or March, we would have to write a new budget specifically having our expenditures in this budget.
I simply wanted to show you what the budget looks like. However, with your permission I could prepare a budget with expenditures for our next meeting. Then you will have an opportunity to look at it, amend it, increase it, use it any way you wish, and accept it of course if you wish. Basically that is what the budget is about. If you have any questions, I will answer them for you.
Mrs McLeod: Could I just ask for clarification, then. If the estimates committee does sit between sessions of the House, are expenditures for travel from the constituency to Toronto for meetings of the committee covered by the committee's budget?
Clerk of the Committee: That is correct.
The Chair: Clearly this budget does not cover that, although the budget is 1990-91, which is what we have in front of us. The 1991-92 budget is a different budget altogether. Certain expenditures have already been undertaken with respect to this budget, the 1990-91 one.
Clerk of the Committee: This particular one.
The Chair: Yes. This is still a budget. Our actual expenditures could be well known at this point, but we are not sure --
Clerk of the Committee: If I could clarify that, once the election was called, our budgets were terminated. Therefore there are no funds for us to meet. The expenditure of this meeting would be on credit for the next budget.
Ms Haslam: Would I receive a copy of this?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mrs Marland: I know the material is all contained in the file folder about how many hours we would be sitting and so forth, but perhaps it would be easier if the clerk explains that we cannot, in the time left in this session, because of our late start, sit the allotted amount of time without sitting when the House is in recess in January, February and March; therefore, it is going to be necessary to have the clerk prepare another budget which allows for the commuting of members plus the per diem for sitting on committees when the House is not sitting.
Because the estimates hearings usually involve ministers and ministry staff, I would assume that all the sittings of this committee would be in Toronto, so we would not need travel expenses other than the commuting of members from their constituencies to Toronto the way they would be if the House were sitting, except they then get the per diem plus their travel allowance. So that probably could be estimated by the clerk in terms of the number of hours we would sit and the number of members who are commuting and so forth. I think when we have that budget prepared, we would certainly be happy to support it.
Ms Haslam: As a point of clarification on that, did you say that the ministers and their staff who will be in here -- does that budget also include that the minister must come in?
The Chair: No, their budgets cover that.
Clerk of the Committee: You are quite correct. The standing orders stipulate that all the estimates are to be reported to the Legislature by the third Thursday in November. That is past. It is my understanding that some arrangements are being considered by the three House leaders that may allow us to meet when the House is not in session. If that is the case, then we will require, first, approval by the House leaders to give a specific date, which the committee can make a recommendation on and, second, a budget for the members to appear here tomorrow. That may answer the question from Ms Haslam. The budget is for the committee only, not any ministry of the government.
The Chair: So really we are getting ahead of ourselves with the budget. I think we should put it in perspective. We should be discussing what activities this committee will address itself to now and up to the fiscal year-end of 31 March 1991. Once we come together as a committee to recommend to our House leaders what it is we would like to do, then we will be in a position to determine how much, if any, of a budget we will require.
I think one comes with the other and we can either simply pass a budget which we feel will cover us in the event that we do get permission or we can discuss ordering up our business in the next few minutes or we could agree to meet tomorrow as well to finalize any of these arrangements, which would give me an opportunity to talk to the House leaders.
1600
Mr Daigeler: It seems to me pretty obvious that before Christmas we cannot do too many in-depth estimate discussions any more. In view of the House having resumed so late, I see no other way but to meet after Christmas if we want to do the job that has been given to this committee, which, by the way, is of course a new committee and there is not that much of a tradition yet for the committee itself. If, as Mrs Marland has mentioned, we want to do a good job reviewing the ministries, I think it is very clear that we have to meet in between this session and the next session.
Mrs Marland: I concur with the comments of Mr Daigeler. I know that when you are discussing which ministries, all three parties will have input into that. I have to leave this meeting now to be the next speaker in the House on the opposition day motion, so I have left the representation on behalf of the PC caucus as to what ministries we would like to hear with Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South. If you will excuse me, I will leave and return.
The Chair: I am at your disposal as Chair. I will take my guidance from you as a committee.
Ms M. Ward: Just one question. I got an impression from a very quick skim over this material, which I just got hold of at one o'clock, and I want to find out if my impression is wrong or not. There is a list of ministries there that the committee had determined would be reviewed last year, and one of them had been. Is it set out for us that those are the ones and that we are required to review those, or is this a process that starts over again?
The Chair: It is a process that starts over again. As far as this year, the 1990-91 estimates year, is concerned, we have done only the Ministry of Natural Resources, which was done in the spring. But we could, with the House leaders' permission, agree to a certain time allocation and a certain specific number of ministries in the rotation as set out in the standing orders. That is basically what we would be discussing now or tomorrow if you so choose. The rotation is set and the selection is quite independent.
Mr Carr: I was wondering if I could move a motion to the subcommittee to bring forward.
The Chair: I am advised that this subcommittee should really meet to discuss that and that we could, if it is the wish of the committee, meet again tomorrow. Franco, in his wisdom, did advise House leaders that we would potentially require tomorrow and therefore it is on our notices. Therefore, we would have to entertain a motion, if not, that the subcommittee meet any time between now and immediately following House proceedings tomorrow, at which point the subcommittee will have met and considered the ministries for consideration by the committee.
Ms Haslam: I would move that we have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow.
Clerk of the Committee: At what time?
Ms Haslam: We already have one set up, do we not?
Mr Daigeler: That is right, I think the subcommittee could meet immediately after this.
Ms Haslam: I would rather we met beforehand rather than right now, before Wednesday.
The Chair: Tomorrow.
Ms Haslam: Wednesday morning or another time.
The Chair: If that is more convenient, that is not a problem. We might just meet briefly anyway immediately following, but that will be to decide when we meet tomorrow so that we are not taking up the committee's time while the three of us look at our agendas. Is that fair?
Are there any other questions with respect to how we are going to order up our time? Tomorrow we will meet and before then, the subcommittee will have met to discuss the aspects of which ministries we would like to present for the House leaders' consideration for approval.
Mrs McLeod: May I just ask what business needs to be dealt with by the committee tomorrow?
The Chair: I would suspect that we should have a budget approved, which we could subsequently amend, but I think it would be wise if we had a budget and specifically had a motion prepared which sets out our willingness to meet early in the new year to look at supplementary estimates of a series of ministries.
Mrs McLeod: May I just ask then, is the subcommittee charged with determining whether or not we will meet in the new year?
The Chair: No.
Mrs McLeod: Second, what ministries will be preparing estimates?
The Chair: The committee has the final say, as I indicated earlier. The subcommittee gets involved with the draw, which is a recommendation to this committee.
Mr Daigeler: The subcommittee is actually the one that determines the --
The Chair: I think that is what I said. But it cannot go from the subcommittee to the House leaders; so it therefore has to come to this committee. I think that is what I said. Is that clear for everybody else?
Mrs McLeod: Are there periods of time that are stipulated, in terms of notification to the ministries that will be asked to prepare estimates?
The Chair: The short answer is yes, but we have pierced all of the time frames, as Franco indicated earlier. We are prevailing upon the House leaders that, given the attention that the Provincial Auditor referenced, in terms of the estimates process, only one ministry was down. I think we have been signalled that there is a willingness to cooperate, even though we would not be conducting estimates during the time frame that, according to the House rules, we would be conducting them.
I think it is fair that the government representative of the subcommittee would like some additional time to talk to her House leader with respect to those ministries, if there are any, that could not make themselves available during a specific period. But I would imagine that ministries would be notified as a result of our motion, which would not only go to House leaders but then would be presented as a motion on the floor of the Legislature to approve our sitting in 1991 to do supplementary estimates of certain ministries. They would get their notice and it would then be up to the House leaders to order up which specific weeks would be assigned to us as our committee hearing time for estimates, whether it be in January, February or March. But the specific opportunity for notice will be, first, informally through the government representative; second, through the motion on the floor, and then, third, when it appears in the Legislature. Is that clear?
Mr Daigeler: I just would like to refresh your memory that the report of the subcommittee on committee business, when presented to the committees, is deemed to be adopted; there is no motion for the adoption of the report. So when we report tomorrow, I guess we will have to have some agreement.
The Chair: We will have a motion.
Mr Daigeler: It can be changed, but only with the unanimous consent of the committee.
The Chair: Okay. Are there any further questions with respect to what we are going to be doing tomorrow? We are going to be considering a budget. We are going to be considering the report of the subcommittee. Is there any other business that members would like to raise, either today or at tomorrow's meeting?
Mr Perruzza: Along with that, is there some kind of schedule prepared on sittings, the durations for the meetings and so on? A calendar, I guess, is what I am looking for. I do not know about the other members, but I am new at this and I am not quite sure, having glanced at this information, of the terms of reference of this particular committee. I mean, what is and what is not within our purview? We are going to need some time to consider that, in my view, before we develop, I guess, a batting order of business and the ministries that we are going to be looking at, or is that just simply going to be dictated to us by the respective House leaders, the government House leader? I do not know.
1610
The Chair: Mr Perruzza has asked a question about process and perhaps Franco would like to respond first.
Clerk of the Committee: Basically, all of the regulations are in the standing orders. Standing orders 54 to 64 specifically give us our reference mandate. Basically, that deals with how to choose the ministry or offices, the order in which to proceed, the number of hours. If you choose one ministry, it is 15 hours; if you choose an office, two offices or one ministry, the time is divided.
The matter of meeting is the committee's recommendation to the House leaders. If you wish to meet a specific time in February, the committee could move a motion and specifically say the second week of February to the fourth and that motion will go the House leaders for their approval. The committee has specific duties that it can perform, specific ideas it could put forth.
Mr Daigeler: In terms of what questions you can ask, you can ask any questions, unless perhaps your minister is going to have some questions about it.
Mr Hansen: Am I correct that the subcommittee will be picking the times of sitting etc, which are then agreed upon by the global committee? So all the recommendations will be coming back to the subcommittee?
The Chair: That is correct.
Mr Hansen: So we will not be sitting down as a total group and deciding when we are sitting?
The Chair: We will not decide when we are sitting. First of all, we are requesting to sit outside our normal time as set out in our standing orders, so we are sort of breaking new territory here. We will prevail upon the House leaders to give us that direction quickly so that the ministries can be notified and so that we can prepare.
For opposition members, their critics may be brought in to the committee environment. There may be some briefing support for you and that is a matter you will take up with your House leader or your whip, to have one of the veteran members attend a brief meeting with you to demystify the process a little for you. If your own House leader is not able to do that, I would be willing, as Chairman, to sit down with you and go over the procedures. Franco will advise you of the specific days in Hansard if you wish to do a little Hansard reading. For any of our prior estimates, reading Hansard, just briefly, will give you a flavour for how Hansard operates. So there are a couple of options for your consideration, both yours and Mr Perruzza's question.
Mr Hansen: As I come here, I only have two sheets of paper, which do not tell me very much. So I have been understanding, here and there, that it will be coming.
Mrs McLeod: It may be worth just clarifying the fiscal year with which we deal in the estimates of the ministries.
The Chair: We are dealing with 1990-91. We will probably be looking at supplementary estimates for several ministries since they cease to be spending money on 31 March 1991. Then we will reconvene when the House reconvenes, whether that is in March or April, and begin consideration of the 1991-92 estimates and the rotations and the selections as set out in our standing orders.
Mrs McLeod: Is it reasonable to assume then that, should ministries that were previously identified as presenting estimates be again asked to present estimates in an intersessional period, those estimates would have been prepared and therefore we might be able to have access to the estimates books? I do not know whether or not there are strict rules of procedure that would prohibit it, but I would find it very helpful to members of the committee to be able to have the estimates books over the Christmas holiday, if that is possible and agreeable to members of the committee.
The Chair: Franco, would you like to clarify this?
Clerk of the Committee: Mrs McLeod, the Legislature received the supplementary estimates 8 November. I have copies of those supplementary estimates. As soon as the members decide on dates, I will send them to your offices for you to peruse.
Mrs McLeod: Could we see the original estimates books as well as the supplementary estimates?
The Chair: They can be made available. As regards the first part of your question, about ones previously selected, we are not bound by previous selections. We can do the same one that was done previously, quite frankly. There might be some complaints about it.
Mrs McLeod: And still have the books submitted to us at a later date?
The Chair: Yes, because there are supplementary estimates for a ministry that had its estimates reviewed but not its supplementary estimates. Supplementary estimates are simply a late-in-the-year adjustment of the budget figures and a third-quarter-indicator analysis in published form.
Ms Haslam: If I am not mistaken, you are saying that since these ministries were already informed and would have already had some of their estimates put in order, it would be interesting or wise to go along with this particular list until March because these are the ones that are available.
Mrs McLeod: Actually, I think all the ministries would have had to prepare estimates.
The Chair: I was just going to clarify that.
Ms Haslam: I am sorry.
The Chair: The fact is that all ministries are required under the standing orders to prepare their estimates, so they are all submitted to every caucus so that they can be distributed to their critics and to the members. They are currently available in the caucus offices.
Mrs McLeod: I was forgetting the --
The Chair: Yes. You will have to bear with the former minister, who has never participated in estimates, other than from this position. It is a uniquely different position.
Mrs McLeod: It certainly is.
The Chair: So all ministries have estimates books, all ministries have supplementary estimates, and therefore we can look at any of them.
Ms Haslam: Okay. That is what I wanted to know.
The Chair: Consider any of them, sorry. You look at all of them.
Ms Haslam: We are not bound by this particular list.
The Chair: No, not at all.
Mr Daigeler: Just one final question. You kept repeating that it would be unusual for us to sit outside the timing of the House. I was looking at the standing orders for the committee and I cannot find that anywhere. I do not think we are restricted to sitting --
Clerk of the Committee: We are restricted in the manner that the House passed a motion two weeks ago permitting us to meet on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon when the House is in session. When we are not in session, we can make representation to all three House leaders requesting specific time.
Mr Daigeler: So this just refers to that particular motion that was passed two weeks ago.
Clerk of the Committee: That is correct. That is why we meet on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon.
The Chair: Precedent has been that we have sat only when the House was sitting, for purposes of estimates.
Clerk of the Committee: That is correct.
The Chair: That is what Mr Daigeler was asking be clarified, that unlike other committees that sit when the House is not sitting, that is a custom and it is approved by the House leaders and by the Legislature.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: But the custom is that, in estimates, we sit while the House is sitting.
Clerk of the Committee: That is right.
The Chair: We are moving outside of that precedent in order to meet in January, February and March, should the government not wish to reconvene the House, which is fair to say as well.
Final call. Is there any other business or questions before tomorrow? Are there any items people would like added to tomorrow's agenda? If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
The committee adjourned at 1619.