CONTENTS
Tuesday 4 June 1991
Report of subcommittee
Committee budget
Other business
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)
Ferguson, Will (Kitchener NDP)
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings NDP)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)
Substitution: McClelland, Carman (Brampton North L) for Mrs McLeod
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1533 in committee room 2.
REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
The Chair: I recognize a quorum. I call the standing committee on estimates to order. Everyone has in front of him a copy of the agenda which Franco has prepared and a copy of our proposed budget. The first item is the subcommittee report. Are there any questions, comments or discussion?
Mr Daigeler: The Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Transportation, the Office for the Greater Toronto Area and the Ministry of Energy are the ones from the third party?
The Chair: That is correct.
Mrs Marland: The time assigned to the ministries, seven and a half hours each; is that laid out in our standing orders?
The Chair: No. A maximum 15 hours is laid out in the standing orders. At the subcommittee meeting it was suggested that the seven and a half hours per ministry be considered.
Mr Daigeler: At the discretion of each caucus. I mean, if the third party would want to vary the hours allocated within the 15 hours, more to one ministry and less to the other, that would be up to it.
The Chair: If you wish to entertain an amendment --
Mr Daigeler: Since there was no one there from the Conservatives at the subcommittee meeting --
The Chair: Well, there was. There was not a position taken by the Conservatives, but a Conservative attended the subcommittee, to be absolutely accurate, Mr Daigeler. Proceed. I did not mean to cut you off. I just wanted to clarify.
Mr Daigeler: No, you are quite correct. There was somebody there, but he was not able to speak on behalf of the party.
Mrs Haslam: As a matter of interest --
The Chair: Mrs Haslam.
Mrs Haslam: -- we did leave it open. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I like to recognize you from time to time.
Mrs Haslam: Thank you. I like you to recognize me from time to time.
The Chair: Then please permit me. I did recognize you.
Mrs Haslam: Oh, thank you. With due respect, we left the gentleman from the third party who was there an opportunity to come back with the ministries and the timing. I was left open for him to bring that back. What you see in front of you is that decision, I thought.
The Chair: Returning to Mrs Marland's question, did you wish to make any modifications to the portion from the third party?
Mrs Marland: Could that be identified for me, please?
The Chair: Housing and Transportation in the first round and the Greater Toronto Area and Energy in the second round.
Mrs Marland: I do not think I need to make any amendments to those. Can I ask why we are doing the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines again? We did do Mines.
The Chair: We did Energy as well, so maybe you could answer why, from our caucus, why we are doing energy a second time and then we will give the members of the governing party an opportunity to explain why they would like to do Mines a second time. Mrs Haslam.
Mrs Haslam: Oh, I thought you were going to allow her to answer first. I would like to listen.
Mrs Marland: I have no explanation for why we are doing Energy a second time because I have not been a part of recommending that we do Energy.
The Chair: Mrs Haslam.
Mrs Haslam: Thank you. In the first round, we did only Mines. In this one I would like to do Northern Development now.
The Chair: Very good.
Mr Daigeler: That point was actually raised. As Mrs Haslam just said, they really want to look at Northern Development. However, I think the clerk advised us that the official name of that ministry is Northern Development and Mines, but really for the record, I think the governing party requested Northern Development.
The Chair: Yes. Just for further clarification, the reason that the votes are identified is because it is that portion of estimates associated with northern development. But we have to give the full title of the ministry, Northern Development and Mines. By designating votes 3001 and 3002, it would be a direction to the House that we are intent on doing the Northern Development portion only.
Mrs Haslam: I would like to know why we are redoing the Ministry of Energy now.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, if I may comment and if you will permit me as Chair to comment on why interest was expressed on behalf of the third party, it was because there is a substantive change in the directorship and in fact the head of Ontario Hydro, which falls well within the mandate of the Minister of Energy, and other matters relative to concern for supply and demand.
Mrs Haslam: I will reserve my answer.
1540
Mr Daigeler: First of all, of course there is no redoing of the ministries, because these are new estimates, so technically one could begin with any kind of ministry. Second, certainly you are welcome to speak and give an explanation on behalf of the Conservative Party, but the committee has no choice. Whatever the parties decide, that is their preference.
Mrs Marland: I would not want the Minister of Energy to think we were out to get her by having her come back a second time, so I am interested to see it is there and I accept the explanation.
The Chair: To be absolutely clear, the Minister of Energy was before this committee to discuss the 1990-91 estimates, and as you know, we have before us our selections for the 1991-92 estimates year. In fact, what we are doing with the Ministry of Energy is examining its estimates for a two-year period, as opposed to simply doing it once in the two-year period.
Mrs Marland: That makes a great deal of sense.
The Chair: More than requiring confirmation of the sense of it, I really would appreciate someone to move it.
Mrs Marland: I will move it, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland; seconded by Mrs Haslam. With no further discussion, all those in favour? Carried.
The next item before us would be to determine just how soon we can undertake to commence in the order you see before us; so the question to the point is, how soon do we wish to begin Ministry of Labour estimates? The clerk advises me that tomorrow we can present out report to the House, and we are required to give the minister and his ministry two weeks' notice, so the earliest possible date we could start would be probably Wednesday 26 June. We might be allowed, for want of a day, to commence Tuesday 25 June. Any discussion on a commencement date?
Mr Ferguson: Can I ask, what has been the practice in the past? Does this committee meet during the summer?
Interjection: Yes.
The Chair: No.
Interjection: I am sorry; it does not meet --
The Chair: For clarification, the standing orders require that we meet when the House is in session. We were granted, through the House leaders and through the government, an opportunity to conduct our first round of estimates for the 1990-91 year, because no estimates had been done for that period, and that was done outside of House time, when the House was not in session; that required special permission from the House leaders in order for us to do it.
It is safe to say that our House leaders are currently looking at, and our legislative calendar confirms that we would prorogue on or about June 27, which would give us the last week of June to perhaps do the major portion of the Ministry of Labour. Failing that, we are slated to come back the very last week of September and, as such, we could start any time around October 1. Is that helpful?
Mr Ferguson: Yes. The second question I have, recognizing that I am a relatively new player at this game, relative to some of the veterans, is, why do we do this?
The Chair: Why do we do estimates?
Mr Ferguson: Yes.
Mrs Marland: That is a very excellent question, and I identify with your question, because when I came to Queen's Park a mere six year ago from 12 years in municipal politics, where we reviewed budgets before the money was spent -- and I am sorry, I do not know your background; it may be the same --
Mr Ferguson: It is identical, yes.
Mrs Marland: Yes. When I came down here and found that what we were reviewing was money that, for the most part, was at least half spent, I thought it was a ridiculous system. If we can get it advanced to the point where the timing of reviewing estimates is truly estimates, or a pre-expenditure of a projected budget, then that would make sense. I certainly understand why you are questioning it, because I have felt the same way myself. We could change it.
Mr Daigeler: It probably would be useful for Mr Ferguson to take a look at what the Provincial Auditor has been saying with regard to the estimates committee process. In fact, I think a paper was prepared for the committee which explains the background of the estimates committee and makes reference to some of the work and some of the recommendations made by the Provincial Auditor.
Generally, this is an excellent opportunity to get some more detailed answers from the ministers. As you know, we have a very hard time during question period to find out what is actually going on, and the estimates process provides a very good opportunity to hear what is happening in the different ministries.
Mr Ferguson: Generally what I am hearing is that it is a good exercise to gather more information about what is taking place in the various ministries.
The Chair: Well, no. Our standing orders clearly set out the requirement for estimates. It is an accountability process. We are dealing with tax dollars, and it is the only specific accountability process of examination, separate and distinct from the auditor. The auditor's function is always post-expenditure. In most jurisdictions in Canada the estimates are done prior to expenditure. Our habits and procedures and regulations have evolved, and the most recent set of changes, which occurred in 1986 under minority government, came up with this format. Subsequently the auditor has passed comment that our estimates process was left wanting because of the few numbers of ministries that were actually being examined and for the amount of time and detail that was given. The third point the auditor addressed was that, for the most part, most of the expenditures had already been completed, so how meaningfully were you approaching how the ministry was spending the money?
That is the short version of it. If we want to change the process, we have options to examine, other jurisdictions, and a report -- that was the report Mr. Daigeler referred to, and that can be recirculated to all committee members, if you so wish -- to give us an opportunity to examine that question. We could make recommendations to go to the House and/or our respective House leaders with respect to requesting changes in the estimates procedure.
1550
Mrs Marland: My position is that it is a meaningful opportunity to extract more information from the minister about items, and it ends at estimated expenditures. I support very strongly the position of the auditor -- I was going to say especially for the opposition members, but really for all of us. The exercise does not empower us to recommend any changes as a result of the information we glean from our examination of those estimates with the ministers and their staff. So how realistic an expenditure of time and staff resources is it in the overall interests of the public? I think the answer is that we can, as Mr Daigeler says, get answers that we are not permitted the time to obtain in the House.
Although in this case we are now down to seven and a half hours for some pretty major ministries, when I look at the fact that we have got the most major ministry listed here, which spends a third of our provincial budget -- and I am referring to the Ministry of Health -- and I look at seven and a half hours, I know we are all probably going to be very frustrated in trying to get all our questions tabled in the seven and a half hours.
Mr Perruzza is shaking his head. That is probably because he will not have any questions. If he drops in and acts the way he did the last time we will not have to worry.
Mr Perruzza: I ask them during the entire full year. I do not leave it to just seven and a half hours. It is an ongoing process. So I vent those questions.
Mr Daigeler: Does he have the floor?
The Chair: No, but he seldom gets recognized by me, so I thought I would let him do that.
Mrs Marland, if you could come to the point, our clerk wishes to respond to one of the questions you have raised, and I have four other speakers, and what is on the table is when we meet. I just want to remind all members, because we can sit only until six o'clock tonight if we wish to have our report ready for the House tomorrow.
Mrs Marland: I know the point is, when do we meet. But I think part of that discussion is the timing of this committee's review of these estimates. Why would the committee not want to make a positive change in a positive direction and maybe follow the recommendations of the auditor and, as an estimates committee, make the recommendations of the auditor to the government House leader? It could therefore be reflected in the timing of the estimates committee's sitting, so the review would be realistic. We could perhaps save taxpayers' money in some areas where we have extracted more information. Collectively, we agree that maybe that should not be the priority, and we can make recommendations for other tax dollar savings based on the added information we are able to get from the ministries.
I would like to see us, as a committee, make some real contribution to fighting the cost of inflation in this province by saying, "Yes, we review the spending of as many ministries as we can." Where we see priorities that we can't support and where we see areas where money can be saved, we can realistically make those kinds of recommendations as a committee. When I have the floor again I will place that kind of motion, that this committee study the option that we have of giving support to the auditor's well-framed recommendations.
Now to the question about when does this committee meet. You are suggesting the last week of June and the last week of September or the first week of October? When do we come back?
Clerk of the Committee: September 23.
The Chair: Monday 23 September is the calendar date for reconvening.
Mrs Marland: Which is the last week of September. Are you suggesting then that this committee does not sit during the summer?
The Chair: I have already indicated that regulations governing the conduct of this committee prevent us from meeting during the summer unless we specifically ask the House leaders and gain their approval and it is approved by the House.
Mrs Marland: Okay.
The Chair: I would further add, and I must introduce this, that item 2 is our proposed budget. This budget has been struck in accordance with the current regulations and practices, which indicate we will meet in this building during House sitting times, and the budget has been drafted accordingly. Should we meet outside of that, I think all members are aware that it would have a radical impact on the costs of the committee and that we certainly are prepared today to present a budget that reflects that. If we wish to move away now from picking a time and fully explore the suggestion of Mrs Marland, I must advise you that we could not proceed with our budget in the knowledge that we were hoping to change our meeting schedule.
Mrs Marland: If we were to realistically explore the other options this committee has, to make this committee more effective in its responsibility and in its mandate of reviewing the expenditures of government ministries, it might be worth while investing the time and effort of the committee to visit other jurisdictions and do some homework on exactly how estimates committees work in other legislative assemblies in this country.
Mr Perruzza: Switzerland?
Mrs Marland: That is not a facetious suggestion on my part. If we have all that information available to us, we do not have to move outside of this building to discuss it. But I think it would be very responsible for us at least to review that kind of information.
Mrs Haslam: We have gone off on a different vein and I just wanted to come back to talk about programs. I find estimates also is a place to examine where the moneys are spent and the value of the programs they have in place. That has not been mentioned yet, and I certainly would like to bring that forward. That is something I look very closely at: what types of programs are offered and where the money is spent on those programs.
I see no problem with examining where we are going as a committee; I just want to give us enough time to do that. Deciding whether to go ahead with these types of estimates and taking a look at a long-term change would suit me better at this time in this session and I have no problem with that. But I feel we should go ahead with the type of agenda we have, with the budget we have and maybe during this time, or over discussions, take a look at how we can bring some of these changes to this committee and look at where we are going long term. But to try to do it simply because we are near the end of June -- let's do it now before we get into this -- I have a problem with that. I would rather discuss a little more and take a look at it as a long-term change, not this-term change.
The Chair: If you will permit me to summarize, your suggestion is that we can still review but we should not hold up the process of commencing estimates simply because we want to review. They should occur, at best, concurrently.
Mrs Haslam: Yes. That is correct.
The Chair: But let's not hold up estimates while we decide.
Mr Johnson: This is the first opportunity I have had to be at the estimates committee, so it is going to be a learning experience for me -- in a very short time, I hope -- but would it not be easier to change the name and call it the standing committee on expenditures?
The Chair: In some provinces they have done that, but we call them estimates in Ontario.
Mr Johnson: Thank you. That is all I have to say today.
Mr Daigeler: I agree with Mrs Haslam. I think there is no harm in reviewing the work of the committees to see whether this is productive under the circumstances. But I for one would want to give the current process another try at least for a while. We more or less just started getting into it in our first round, and I am looking forward hopefully to some of the new ideas and new projects that are coming from the new government. I for one, as well as the critics, I am sure, am very keen to hear in more detail from the ministers what they are planning and the costs associated with it. So I am certainly not ready to throw out the whole process we have had so far. I am ready to look at it as the opportunity arises, perhaps midterm or at the end of this round. Perhaps at the end of the first round of ministry estimates we could take a few hours to see what we have learned from the experience and whether we want to make recommendations. After all, whatever objectives would be given to the committee would be decided not by us but by the House.
Right now we have a mandate and we have to fulfil it. We can make recommendations, but at the same time we have to fulfil the mandate that has been given to us. I do think we should start. If the Ministry of Labour can come in the last week of June, yes, let's get going.
Mr Ferguson: I think the operative question is, why are we doing this and why are we going through the exercise? When I was first appointed to the committee and I was given an understanding of the committee, it did not make a whole lot of sense to me. However, I am certainly prepared to reserve judgement until after we have been through at least one ministry. I think after going through maybe one or two ministries I will have a much better handle on exactly what we are supposed to be accomplishing here. I want to suggest to Mr Daigeler that perhaps the information he thinks he is going to obtain could very well be obtained through other sources rather than going through a process like this.
1600
The Chair: Our clerk would like to comment briefly.
Clerk of the Committee: I would like to make two comments, one regarding the questions by Mrs Marland and one those by Mr Ferguson.
Mr Ferguson, one of the tenets of the government of this country is that it has the right to make expenditures. What you are doing here is reviewing those expenditures. That is a tenet of the government. The Legislature has set out for itself certain criteria and standing orders for you to choose the ministries that you wish to review and set a time for that review so that the ministers and their staff can come here and respond to your questions. They have an obligation and a responsibility to account for those moneys spent by their government. That basically is your right. You, as a member of the public, have that right.
To respond to Mrs Marland, under our standing orders we have a specific way that we review the estimates at this time. However, you do have a certain opportunity, at the end of the year, to review the manner in which you have reviewed these expenditures and make some suggestions. However, those suggestions would be part of a report that you send to the Legislature making recommendations for what you believe to be drawbacks in this system. Then it would be up to to all three House leaders to set some time to meet to change the standing orders. Unfortunately, we have a specific mandate to review, in this particular manner, the estimates of the government.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Carrozza essentially stole my thunder. When I looked at this estimates committee and initially reviewed both its terms of reference and its mandate, it appeared to me that this was essentially the watchdog of government expenditures, the guardian of the public purse essentially, and that it was the mandate and the role of this committee to review projected expenditures by ministries and ministers and expose costly, expensive, redundant government programs and make recommendations to the minister and to the House when these costly programs and redundant programs were exposed.
Of course, we all hold our particular views on what it is important for us to be doing and what it is not important for us to be doing. That was a time to express those views as well. I think the process we have is working quite well and I do not see a need for having to sit down and reassess the terms of reference of this committee and to develop some new role for it with, I do not know, increased or diminished powers. I think we have a good process, so we should just continue with it.
Mrs Marland: Now that the recommendation before us is for seven and a half hours per ministry, I am wondering if the committee would agree to limiting the time for the introductory remarks by the minister and the responsive comments by the two opposition critics.
The Chair: That is already in the standing order.
Mrs Marland: No, I know that, and I know what it says in the standing orders.
The Chair: I apologize for the interjection, but I did not call it out of order. Please continue.
Mr Perruzza: Is there a split in the Conservative caucus?
Mrs Marland: Well, you are not very smart. There is only one member of the Conservative caucus here. Mr Daigeler is the Liberal.
Mr Perruzza: Oh, I see; so Mr Jackson does not belong to any party?
The Chair: Not when I am in this chair, Mr Perruzza. Please proceed, Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: I have attended estimates committees when minister's opening comments have been as long as one hour. What I am suggesting is, if we are going to agree to seven and a half hours per ministry, that we should also agree to limiting now what the amount of time would be that a minister would be able to speak in this format of seven and a half hours per ministry. In the past, we have also had major and minor ministries. We have had ministries where we have spent eight hours, and we have had ministries where we have spent five hours, in my experience. I would like you to respond.
The Chair: The standing orders, to my knowledge -- I was just briefly going through them -- give us a maximum 15 hours for caucus selection, so it has been the custom to choose two; the hours, as has been stated earlier, are purely at the discretion of the caucuses to recommend to this committee.
Second, the sequencing of speaking order is set out in the standing orders, but certainly not the time, to my knowledge.
Clerk of the Committee: I should clarify for you, Mrs Marland. The procedures really are in the standing orders, beginning at standing order 54 and continuing to 63. The particular one about the time is standing order 57(d), which tells you that you cannot use more than 15 hours for both. If you choose one ministry, you can use the 15 hours. However, if you choose two, it cannot be more than 15. So if you wish to have 10 and five, 12 and three, one and 14, it is totally up to the party choosing. Also, it can be an office or a ministry. And it is stipulated that there will be two rounds, and the order will be the official opposition, third party, government for the first round, and the same for the second round. In the subcommittee, the same system was followed. The opposition shows first, the individual from the PC can have --
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Perruzza. You were out of the room when Mrs Marland tabled these questions to us. She wanted to know if the standing orders specifically set out --
Mr Perruzza: It is Mr Carrozza.
The Chair: Forgive me. Will the record please be corrected that I was referring to the clerk, Mr Carrozza. The question is, does the standing order set out the length of time that the ministers can give their opening statements?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, it does.
The Chair: We just wanted the clarification, not the entire standing order procedure.
Clerk of the Committee: It is in the standing order that the minister will begin with half an hour, followed by the official opposition for half an hour and the third party for half an hour, then the minister has half an hour to respond. If you give me a moment, I will return your standing order binder.
The Chair: That is fine. So the first two hours of estimates can be the exchanges between the critics; the presumption is the critics and the minister, and final responses. From seven and a half hours, my math tells me we would be left with five and a half hours.
1610
Mrs Haslam: Is that new math?
The Chair: That is new math. We cannot change those rules at this point, because they have to be approved by the House. If we wish to change those standing orders, we would have to recommend that and until such time as the House passes any changes, we are obligated to follow or be guided by those rules.
Mrs Marland: You and the clerk have a copy of the standing orders in front of you, which I do not have. Is the wording "may" or "shall"?
The Chair: "Shall," "up to."
Mrs Marland: "Shall use up to," that amount of time.
Mr Daigeler: I think Mrs Marland is referring to what used to be the practice, but there was a change last year and there was that time limit set. I am aware of the concern you expressed. I think some of our ministers and I am sure some of your ministers did use considerable time in presenting their cases, therefore taking up the time of the estimates. Therefore a change was made to limit the presentation by the ministers and also by the critics to half an hour each. I must say, at least in my limited experience in the realm we had in the winter break, that it worked well. I thought it worked well. Of course, there is also the opportunity that is used extensively by many members to pose written questions, which are then answered later on at the discretion of the minister. In fact, I got a very thick package of answers from the Ministry of the Environment just last week to questions that were asked last February.
Mrs Haslam: That is correct, yes. They just came to us recently. They were tabled, I believe, by Mr Conway.
The Chair: If I might just clarify, Mrs Marland, the actual wording says "a representative of each recognized party may speak for not more than 30 minutes." It goes on, "Thereafter, the Chair of the standing committee shall ensure that the members adhere strictly to the vote and item under consideration."
Perhaps I can please ask that we come back to the agenda fairly soon. I think I have indicated now for the third time that we cannot change the rules as set out in our standing orders at this time, and if we are to commence estimates, it will be under the current standing orders. Perhaps we could soon move back to the issue of our commencement. Our two windows are Tuesday 25 June or Monday --
Mrs Haslam: Tuesday and Wednesday, as I recall.
The Chair: I am saying commencement. I am not going to list all the days in case we are given special consideration either to sit late or on the Thursday.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, if I still have the floor --
The Chair: You have it back now.
Mrs Marland: I am dealing with the subcommittee report, the first item on the agenda. In that subcommittee report it deals with the seven and a half hour time allotment.
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We have already passed that. That has already been voted on, so really we are not dealing with the subcommittee report because we have moved and accepted and voted on that and that is now set.
The Chair: It was not a necessary point of order. It was helpful, though, for you to bring up that point.
Mrs Haslam: Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to say that we have approved the seven and a half hours per ministry and the ministry selection. What we have not approved: We cannot report to the House until we give them the time. The report is silent on when we start. That is what I feel we must have, failing which I cannot proceed to the budget. I gave that direction some time ago and I would like for us, if we may, to focus on when we start.
I am going to rule now that we stay focused on the question of when we commence our estimates. Then we will proceed to our budget and then, under new business, we can revisit the issue of the need for us to engage some review of our processes. We really must report to the House tomorrow if we wish to have any examination of estimates done by the end of this calendar year. Now, Mrs Marland, would you like the floor back?
Mrs Marland: I cannot be bothered. This debate is so ridiculous. I want to make some constructive suggestions, a point of order is raised and -- that is fine, just go ahead. Do what you want to do. I wanted to try to facilitate the work of the committee and if I am on my own, so be it. I do not make the suggestions.
Mr Johnson: Do not give up so easily.
The Chair: Perhaps if I put you in the Chair I could maybe contribute a little more helpfully than when I am in the Chair, but I am trying to stay to the agenda.
Mrs Marland: I was just going to say that you have identified that the standing orders say the first three participants may use up to 30 minutes. It might be interesting in the course of the work of the committee to suggest to those first three participants that instead of up to 30 minutes they may use up to 20, which would mean that we still are an hour and twenty minutes out of the seven and a half hours right from the beginning. That was the only suggestion I was going to make.
The Chair: My point to you was that the time to raise that appropriate point would be under "Other Business." We can meet again to discuss other business as a committee but we have until the end of this week to report to the House, or else we have already made the decision that we will not be doing estimates until October, which means half of this year's estimates will have been spent before this committee ever gets into a room with a minister to discuss them. That was why I was stressing the importance of deciding when we start and leaving your positive suggestion for "Other Business." Ms Haslam, you wanted to comment?
Mrs Haslam: Your discourse has left me totally blank and speechless. Yes, I was just going to make a point of clarification.
The Chair: It does not work at home, I can tell you that.
Mrs Haslam: I want to make the point that in some cases the minister did not use up that time. There have been times, Margaret, when ministers came in and did not use up the time for a long discourse, so what you are suggesting did happen on occasions.
The Chair: Could I please ask members if we could decide when we are going to commence our estimates. I sense there are a lot of positive suggestions about how we might improve the system, but we have all summer to meet informally or formally to discuss how we will improve our estimates late this fall. I would like to know if this committee would like to meet in June. The clerk has already made a preliminary call to see if the minister is amenable but I would like the debate to be on whether we commence on Tuesday, 25 June or --
Mr Ferguson: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ferguson.
Mrs Haslam: I was trying to move it and you would not accept my -- excuse me, you did not recognize him, Mr Chair.
Mr Daigeler: This is worse than in the House.
The Chair: We can have a motion, which I just heard from Mr Ferguson, that we report to the House tomorrow that we would like to begin with the estimates of the Ministry of Labour on the afternoon of Tuesday 25 June. Do I have a seconder for that motion? Mr Daigeler.
Mr Perruzza: I was keen on that September suggestion because I thought that would be far more appropriate in terms of our being able to look at actual expenditures. As you know, the budget has, on the insistence of your party, rightfully or wrongfully, been referred to one of the standing committees of the Legislature and will be marched across the province for public review. I always thought that was part of the estimates process, but I guess Mr Harris in his wisdom has seen it differently. He would like to get input and essentially review the estimates within the budget in a public forum and so on. I think that process is going to sort of come together in late August and mid-September, and it would be far more appropriate for us to actually then sit down and look at the ministries and so on. I think we are putting the cart before the horse in this case.
1620
The Chair: I would like to recognize Hans, no pun intended.
Mr Daigeler: On a point of clarification, what is the motion that is on the floor?
The Chair: That we begin on Tuesday 25 June.
Mr Daigeler: I move that we vote.
The Chair: Calling the question is what you are really asking for. If that is the case, it is not debatable. All those in favour of calling the question, raise their hands? Those opposed? Does it have to be unanimous?
Clerk of the Committee: No.
The Chair: A majority?
Clerk of the Committee: Once the question is posed, you put the vote on the motion itself, which is, when do we begin?
The Chair: It is a simple majority, so the motion to call the question has passed. Therefore I am instructed to call the question.
All those in favour of the motion, please raise their hands.
Opposed, if any? Mr Daigeler. One.
Clerk of the Committee: Seven to one.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Now we have our commencement date. The clerk will prepare the appropriate report and motion for the House and it will be reported to the House tomorrow. In the interim, we will attempt to get hold of the House leader and/or the minister's office so that they are advised today that this is the committee's wish.
COMMITTEE BUDGET
The Chair: The next item is the budget.
Mr Daigeler: It is actually related to the budget, because if Mr Perruzza wants to meet during the break, he would have to make a motion to request that of the House leaders. As was indicated to you before, we do not have authority to sit during the break, but of course it can be requested. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely the House leaders would accede to that request, given the great number of committees that are already scheduled to sit over the summer. At least from my House leader, I know it is highly unlikely that he would agree to that kind of request.
Mr Perruzza: I would never put that kind of request forward, Mr Daigeler. I think you missed my point entirely.
The Chair: Would you like to be in Hansard, Mr Perruzza? Let's go through the Chair. Mr Daigeler has suggested that before we proceed with the budget, we should resolve whether we want to meet at all during this summer for any reason, and that is an obvious statement. Any discussion?
I would like someone to propose the budget, and then we can entertain why we should change it or modify it.
Mrs Haslam and Mr Ferguson move and second the budget.
Mr Ferguson: I just have one question. "Catering and hospitality," what would that relate to?
Clerk of the Committee: Your coffee and ginger ale and juices.
Mr Ferguson: Okay. Can we build air conditioning in here somewhere, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: The clerk has offered to walk us through this briefly, if you are willing. Let's do that quickly.
Clerk of the Committee: "Printing of documents" is the Xeroxing of any material the clerk provides for the committee, nothing more. "Publications" is if the committee requires some estimates books or public accounts books from other jurisdictions. "Catering," as I said, is the coffee, juices, Pepsi and tea. "Postage" is any letters to be addressed by the committee to any individual or group. "Long distance charges," is sometimes we have individuals calling our office and all of those calls are collect. That is all that is for.
"Transportation of goods" is courier services. If we have a special letter to be delivered, we use Purolator or a taxi or the messengers with their bikes. "Miscellaneous" is that sometimes we have some witnesses the committee wishes to have present and that could accommodate the mileage; in this case it would be kilometres. That is all.
Mr Ferguson: If the committee is to meet for approximately 100 hours at a total cost of $6,200, that is about $62 an hour. That is value for money in my book.
The Chair: Well stated. Any other questions regarding the budget? Comments?
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, $2,000 for "Catering and hospitality." How much coffee and pop does that buy?
Mr Johnson: Not much.
Mrs Haslam: Not much.
Clerk of the Committee: You will receive 30 cups of coffee per meeting and 5 to 10 tea bags. I usually bring about eight or nine juice bottles. That is twice a week and it does add up, strangely enough, especially with coffee when you consider you pay 50 to 60 cents. It is for the whole year.
Mr Perruzza: We pay 50 cents a coffee?
Mr Johnson: Pretty cheap.
The Chair: I just want to put back in perspective that our primary task is to examine the expenditures of a $57-billion government expenditure. If we are going to devote very much committee time to 50-cent cups of coffee, I would certainly like to invite the Vice-Chair to sit in. Next question or comment? Failing which, I have a motion to approve the budget. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried unanimously.
Motion agreed to.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr Daigeler: Should we leave the clerk and you the flexibility, if the Minister of Labour is truly unable to come in in the last week, that we could start with the Minister of Industry and Trade?
Clerk of the Committee: Unfortunately, the standing orders do not permit you that movement. We must begin the way we have chosen the ministries. We have made a preliminary phone call to the minister and hopefully we will have an answer for you by tomorrow morning. I will pass that information to everyone by memo as soon as I can so that we know when we can meet.
Mrs Haslam: If I understand, there was some concern about having available simultaneous French translations of the some of the things, if there was allowed a flexibility in that. I would like to make that note. Apparently, there was some concern about the availability of that avenue.
The Chair: That matter was raised during the estimates of the Mines portion of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in our last go-around. A meeting of all committee Chairs and clerks was undertaken and we would be pleased to have our clerk report in written form what the current understanding is. If you want it verbally at the moment, he is prepared to share that with you.
Mrs Haslam: Sure.
Clerk of the Committee: What we usually do is to ask the minister if he has any statements in French. If he is going to have a statement, we will request through the government House leaders, all three leaders, if we could use room 151. If that is in use, we have a portable booth that we can use in any other committee. But we must know beforehand so that we can make arrangements for that facility to be utilized.
Mrs Haslam: I am not clear on this; it was just mentioned to me. I did not think it was about the translation. I thought it was about the translation of documents. I may be incorrect on that. I thought it was regarding the translation of documents and their availability in French.
The Chair: We are not empowered to refuse a document because it is in English only.
Mrs Haslam: Let me go back and doublecheck on that. I just wanted to leave some flexibility if that was the situation; that's all.
Clerk of the Committee: All the ministry briefing books are issued in French or English, and they are provided to me. If the members wish to have a copy in French, I can make that available to them. Are you actually saying if the minister's statements are to be in French and they require a translator?
Mrs Haslam: No, let me check into that.
1630
The Chair: That is what was raised at that meeting. It was raised subsequently at a meeting of all clerks and committee Chairs and we were given clarification. We will endeavour to notify all ministers that if they choose or wish to present any of their comments in French, they should give us notice. Failing which, if they could provide translation for the printed word, that would be helpful. We cannot reject any presentation because it is in only one or the other of the two official government languages.
Mrs Haslam: I was not talking about rejection, but thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Is there any other business for the good of the committee?
Mrs Marland: I will place my motion and just see if it flies.
The Chair: Mrs Marland moves that there be a recommendation from the committee Chair to the spokespersons for the ministries appearing, in the order that has been established, before the estimates committee, and to the two opposition party critics that they would consider limiting their opening statements to a maximum of 20 minutes, although we recognize that the standing orders do permit up to 30 minutes.
Can I suggest, Mrs Marland, that this is for the ministers and their critics? Any discussion? This would be the Chair writing, but it would be on behalf of the committee. It would not be on behalf --
Interjection.
The Chair: The clerk is suggesting that it may be out of order. The Chair did not rule it out of order because it did not say that is what they would be met with. It was more, I thought, in the spirit that the committee was hopeful we would try to keep within 20 minutes, even though the standing orders -- that is what I heard.
Mrs Marland: The words I used were that they would "consider limiting."
The Chair: That is why I ruled it was in order and was prepared to accept it. I have now been able to clarify to the clerk why I ruled that I felt it was in order. I wanted to make sure you were aware that it was not the Chair writing, that it was the committee that asked me to inform them that it felt it would be helpful if all three persons could limit each of their primary --
Mrs Marland: Could consider limiting their opening comments.
Mr Daigeler: I would like to speak to this motion. I appreciate the sentiment with which Mrs Marland put that forward. If we had the government in power for longer, I would probably share the sentiment, but I think especially at this point I look forward to a sort of global orientation statement by the different ministers as to where they want to go with their ministries. For most of them, this will be the first opportunity to make that kind of presentation and I do not think half an hour is an unreasonable request. The 10 minutes' difference will not really be that important. At this point I am prepared to give them 30 minutes. In fact, I hope they will take that time effectively to present what they are up to, and I am keen to hear that.
Mr Perruzza: I think Mrs Marland's suggestion is a good one. I think that the motion coming from her to you -- I guess it would have to be endorsed by the committee -- would be technically coming from the committee, signed by you. I think it is a good suggestion to both the ministers and the critics. I do not see anything wrong with it.
If we are going to be realistic, we are talking about 10 minutes, and certainly the ministers will take every opportunity in answering their questions to fill us in with all kinds of information on their ministries and their expenditures and that kind of thing. I think it is a great suggestion, and if the ministers listen to that suggestion and come in and speak for only 10 minutes or five minutes and then simply engage in questions and answers, I think that is an excellent form for the opposition parties, for the government party and for everyone here.
I would support Mrs Marland's initiative. Tying them down to half an hour: "You must come here and speak for half an hour whether you like it or not. Just get some filler into your speech," is just not appropriate.
Mr Daigeler: Nobody said that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perruzza, but the standing orders clearly state that they may speak up to a maximum of 30 minutes. They are not required to fill the 30 minutes.
Mr Perruzza: Exactly. Recognizing that, it is a suggestion Mrs Marland is making, and she is making it in good spirit and I support her in it.
Mr Johnson: I have to say I disagree. I think it is clear in the standing orders that there are 30 minutes and they can take less if they want to. I do not want to deny them what exists at present in the standing orders. If they choose to take less time, so be it, and if they choose to speak for the full 30 minutes, then likewise so be it.
Mrs Haslam: I was just going to say exactly the same thing. I think the standing orders are right there. We have seen them come in with less time, and I would hate to see us change it for a few minutes here and a few minutes there. Then we are dealing with critics coming in to the committee from other parties. I think our standing orders are there and should be adhered to at this time.
The Chair: Okay. Everyone but Mr Wilson has had an opportunity to comment.
Mr G. Wilson: My views have been represented here. Although I realize that Mrs Marland just suggested a consideration, I think it is important that, even if that went forward, there be some opposition to it so it is not unanimous. But maybe it is going to be almost unanimous the other way, so that is part of the reason why I was not going to say anything.
The Chair: I would like to call the question. All those in favour of the motion please indicate. All those opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: If the committee will permit me, I did not wish to comment on it, but the only area that I might have had difficulty with is that, in order for it to work fairly, all four commentaries should be somewhat similar. We as a committee and I as the Chair would be in a very awkward position if there were agreement, the minister begins with doing 20 and then someone takes 30, knowing full well that the standing orders permit them. I think Mrs Marland's rather appropriate suggestion might better find its way in a subsequent recommendation that we ask that the standing orders be revised.
Having said that, is there any other business for the committee?
Mr Daigeler: Adjournment.
The Chair: I think that was "adjournment" rather than "Mr Chairman," but I heard "adjournment." At least I wanted to, anyway.
Mr Daigeler: You are quite correct. That is what I said.
The committee adjourned at 1638.