CONTENTS
Thursday 11 December 1997
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Chair / Président
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington PC)
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights L)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ray McLellan, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Garry Guzzo): The only item on the agenda this morning is the report of the subcommittee. Do you all have a copy? Any discussion?
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Yes. Mr Crozier, is your colleague coming or are you representing him this morning?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm representing my colleague Mr Phillips.
Mr Baird: I didn't want to start in case he was coming.
This was an issue that we spoke about at the subcommittee. In the time since the subcommittee I've thought about it and I concur with my initial impression. We want to make one small change to number 1 of the report of the subcommittee. I seek guidance. Do I move a motion to amend?
The Chair: I think you'd move a motion to deal with the subcommittee report first and then we can deal with amendments.
Mr Baird: I move adoption of the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated December 3, 1 through 7.
The Chair: Agreed? Contrary, if any? Carried.
Mr Baird: Do we do an amendment before that carries?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Rosemarie Singh): Yes, you have to.
The Chair: No, the motion is to deal with it.
Mr Baird: Oh, the motion is to deal with it, okay.
The Chair: It's now moved and carried.
Mr Crozier: Just one small point, Chair. You moved items 1 through 7?
Mr Baird: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Does that mean you're not moving anything with regard to the committee meeting, that being if the committee travels or if the committee does not travel? That's part of the report, I take it.
Mr Baird: My intention was to move 1 through 7 and all that part of the committee report. You're right, you're very correct. If the committee does not travel, the committee will proceed as follows, 1 and 2.
The Chair: You want to deal with it all at once?
Mr Baird: No. Do I move a motion to adopt the committee report and then before we vote on that, move an amendment?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mr Baird: I guess we would --
Mr Crozier: I think you have to move it all.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: Or you need permission to divide it. You're not seeking permission to divide it.
Mr Baird: Okay.
Mr Crozier: I think if you move it all, then we can massage it after that.
Mr Baird: I would move adoption of the subcommittee report on committee business dated December 4, 1997.
The Chair: It's on the table. Proceed.
Mr Baird: I would further move to amend the report on page 1, number 1, by striking out "That the minister be allotted two hours" and substituting "one hour" and "That the ministry staff be present for the minister's presentation, and for an additional two hours to answer questions from the committee," and further, to strike, "If the committee travels," 1 to 5. Can I speak to that?
The Chair: Let me see if I have it clear. You want to make the amendments to limit the minister's allocation to one hour, and two hours for the staff?
Mr Baird: Yes.
The Chair: And then you want to move to delete the portion, "If the committee travels"?
Mr Baird: Yes.
The Chair: Proceed.
Mr Baird: I just want to make some brief comments. I think on just about 95% of the issues raised by all three parties there was a substantial amount of agreement of the subcommittee, so these are two exceptions to all the issues we discussed.
With respect to having the minister, these are pre-budget consultations where we want to hear from the public and consult with them. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we can of course question the minister on a daily basis as to the financial policies; this is our one occasion to ask the public their views, assuming the precedent has been in the last two years that the minister appear for one hour and that senior officials from the ministry appear for two hours.
There are a number of officials. I know my colleagues and I would like to discuss -- whether it's the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister and chief economist, the assistant deputy minister of the office of budget and taxation, the chief executive officer of the Ontario Financing Authority and several other directors for the various branches of the ministry, whether they deal with fiscal policy, tax policy, economic analysis or economic issues. We would like to follow the procedure used in the last two years so we have sufficient time to deal with those concerns.
With respect to travel, it hasn't been the practice of the committee to travel and for the two weeks we would just as well follow the precedent from the previous years and meet here at Queen's Park.
The Chair: Thank you. Any comment?
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Oh, yes, Chair. Pre-budget consultation is an annual event. It's something that all parties certainly look forward to. There are no more important documents than those of public finance.
To come up with an allotted time, to reduce it by half, from two hours to one hour, strikes me as being asinine. I mean, the minister is a public servant. It is the people's hard-earned cash that he is accountable for. He is not made of porcelain. He needs not your protection or that of the committee. This is not His Excellency that we are dealing with. It is a public servant, not the other way around. To allow His Grace to pay us the pleasure of an audience for an hour, we shall be so thankful.
Thankful, my foot. With respect, if I may be so bold -- heck, Mr Chair, we demand, we insist that two small hours of his very precious time be given to the public so that he be made accountable for the money that he usurps from our pockets and purses. Dr Eves should be here. "Yes, Doctor, feel my purse." That's what the public will be telling him, but he won't be there because the gang will have sheltered him. This is a closed shop. This is a closed audience.
My God, we too had the opportunity to serve. We always made ourselves available to the public. We welcomed criticism. We learned by it. Oh, we got bruised from time to time, but we recuperated. These are supposed to be good times, except for the fallacy of having a $6-billion debt in an economic recovery of some proportion.
1010
There are some people, and I belong, as I conclude, to that school, who would prefer that you pay your debt, you pay the mortgage, but you're still borrowing. I mean, you've got a $6-billion debt, so I can understand when all is said and done -- I'll be a good Samaritan -- why he would be shy, why he would not necessarily wish to appear. For him and for them it's not an immaculate record. The record is blotted to the point where it takes on extraordinary proportions, so I can understand. But I feel insulted, personally, as a member of the New Democratic Party that the minister would not give us two hours of his time.
Maybe he has other endeavours. It takes three times that, the way he golfs, to play 18 holes. You know of which I'm talking, the game of golf. You're familiar with that. Six hours on the golf course but not two hours in front of the committee once a year. I rest my case. Unbelievable.
Mr Crozier: I'd like to support Mr Pouliot in his argument, with the emphasis on accountability. The minister is the elected and appointed official when it comes to the finances of this province. He is accountable to the electors. I think to suggest to us that we want to listen to ministry staff, to bureaucrats more than we want to listen to the minister is not correct. In fact the minister should not only deem it his responsibility to appear before the committee for a reasonable length of time, but I would think the minister would want to. He's the top finance official in this province, and certainly a person of Mr Eves's ability should have such a handle on his ministry that he needn't have officials around at all for that matter. But certainly they can be at his side if he needs any assistance on some smaller matters.
I'm surprised that you could suggest this change and not have a smile on your face, because it appears as though the minister, as Mr Pouliot has said, just simply dismisses this committee and once a year at least doesn't want to spend a couple of hours before it. I would think even the government members might appreciate having access to the minister for a couple of hours, rather than the bureaucrats.
I think the subcommittee in its first thoughts should remain the same, that the minister appear for two hours. Mr Baird said he gave it some thought. It would appear in the meantime, I suggest, that the minister has given it some thought and just simply doesn't want to appear for that length of time. I think it's his obligation to do so.
On the question of travel, being a small, urban-rural member of the Legislature, I would like to see the committee consider visiting some other areas of the province. Notwithstanding that it may have been past policy, this government hasn't hesitated to change things that were past policy and now is another opportunity for that.
You know, the world does not revolve around Toronto. There are citizens and there are groups and representatives of citizens outside this great city that may not have the opportunity to attend because of restriction on travel. We want to take the government to the people, and I don't think there's any better way to do it or any ministry that, again, has more of an obligation to go to the people of this province than in the financial area. It is the ministry that essentially controls everything else and I would hope that this committee would give some consideration to breaking with tradition and taking the government to the people. I can think of no better way to do that than to simply take four days to travel to various geographical sections of the province.
Mr Baird: I'd just take a few moments to respond to some of the thoughts of my colleagues. The Minister of Finance is accountable for the finances of the province. I think what we're talking here is not a reduction but just following the past practice of what was employed in the previous years.
This process is about consulting the public; it's not about an inside baseball game. We want to consult the public before the budget decisions are made and long before it's presented. We want to hear from the public and get a sufficient amount of time from the officials as well, who have to go out and borrow the money on the international market to finance our debt, or whether it's the effect of various tax issues or economic backgrounds. Certainly the minister, under the discussions we've had, would appear for more than twice as long as each of his officials. If we have at least five senior officials, there would be a two-to-one ratio per official to the minister.
The minister is accountable in the Legislature every day, and in no government more than this one in recent memory has the Legislative Assembly sat and had a question period every day, certainly 500%, 600%, 700%, 800% more than the previous year of the former government. He's accountable there.
This committee's mandate on this issue is on pre-budget consultations. There is a standing committee on public accounts and a standing committee on estimates, which are the two chief opportunities on a specific basis to hold the government accountable for the finances, which is important. I believe both of those are chaired by opposition members to reflect the independence of the role of those committees, so that's the chief place where they take accountability in terms of the minister and finances. As well, the minister is accountable in statements he makes in the House and the rebuttals and of course in debate.
One thing I'd say on travel -- and I do appreciate the member for Essex South's comments on travel. I, like him, don't come from the greater Toronto area and travel a great deal of time to get here. I look around the table and I think the vast majority of the members of the committee are from outside Metropolitan Toronto. I would think it might be a good opportunity for us to avail ourselves of new communications technologies, potentially with videoconferencing, as has been done in a few other committees. They are equipped here at the Legislative Assembly to accommodate those types of conferences. The experiences to date, having spoken to previous Chairs, have been quite good and it affords people to come who perhaps wouldn't.
I don't think there's been a committee that has travelled to Manitouwadge, but there would be the potential for people in smaller communities like that where we perhaps wouldn't go. We travel to Ottawa and the folks from Kingston or Belleville would have to drive two hours to Ottawa, and it's two hours to Toronto. For large parts of the province, Queen's Park is accountable, but for those that it's not, the option of videoconferencing is one that I'm happy to work with my colleagues on all sides of the House to explore.
Mr Pouliot: On the subject matter of travelling, the case is well made. Again, we're looking at a matter of extreme importance, above, exceeding, surpassing $50 billion on an annual basis. These are the affairs of the state, all of it. Four million people, approximately, in the GTA, out of 11 million people. Suffice it that we will spend four days in Toronto for the mecca where people congregate. Parliament is here, but nevertheless for seven million people.
The only reason I would be cautious about travelling is on account of security. Given what I have read in the media and what I've listened to and what I have seen with my eyes, you're right; I wouldn't wish to go around and wear a badge that I am a card-carrying member of the government, of the Conservative Party.
1020
Let's be blunt. If you don't wish to travel because you are concerned about your personal safety, I can understand that and I perhaps would acquiesce. But let's be honest about it. In my case, there is no -- I won't always be with you but I promise I will show at meetings. We won't court before or after, for security reasons of course.
But if you're not concerned about security, you owe it to the people to travel. Your Honour, with respect, it makes immense sense that the people outside of Toronto be given a chance to appear in front of the committee. There is a Thunder Bay, there is an Ottawa, southeastern, southwestern, central Ontario. I don't think it's too demanding. I think it is commonsensical. Seven million people reside outside of Toronto. When it's time to pay the freight, we go and we're very good at it. Mr Brown and Mr Baird are videoconferencing. Really, it's nice to see people in the flesh, to interface and to listen and watch what they do. Videoconferencing? Will you please give it a break? Why don't we videoconference for the people of Toronto? Of course not, because people in Toronto need to appear in front of the committee.
Again, I will be insistent. Why don't we go? Give me a reason why the committee on pre-budget consultation would not go outside of Toronto, where seven million other Ontarians reside, the majority almost two to one? If someone can explain that to me and make the case, I'm listening very carefully. I'd like to agree with you. I'm in favour of travelling.
Mr Crozier: I don't quite share the argument of my colleague from the New Democratic Party about security. That hadn't occurred to me and I don't think in the province of Ontario we have to be that concerned. Maybe the government is, I'm not sure.
Once again, I say, Mr Baird, that unless there's a compelling reason why we can't travel, I still think it's good to take the government to the people. There's no ministry that -- well, no, there are other ministries that maybe garner a little more attention in the areas of health and education and I can understand why the government wouldn't want to travel around the province and face the people on those two issues, but certainly in the financial area they should be given the opportunity. The fact that the committee hasn't travelled before, I'm not even sure of that, whether it's never travelled before or not.
On the question of technology, I suspect we're going to lose this argument on this side of the table. Are you then raising the issue today that you will work to set up some teleconferencing for those sessions outside of Toronto? Are you laying that on the table as an offer, as opposed to travel?
Mr Baird: I'm certainly happy to work with the subcommittee to see if there's an opportunity to use some videoconferencing during the hearings.
Mr Crozier: I think it's a poor substitute. In any event, I think we've put our argument forward and we'll let it go at that.
The Chair: Any other comments? Are you ready for the question? Mr Baird has moved the subcommittee report, with the following amendments: Under number 1, that the minister be allotted one hour and that an additional two hours be allotted for the ministry staff; also amending it by excluding that portion at the bottom of page 1 and at the top of page 2, under the heading "If the committee travels."
Are you ready for the question?
Mr Crozier: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Baird, Jim Brown, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Crozier, Pouliot.
The Chair: The amendment carries. Shall the report, as amended, carry?
Interjection.
The Chair: Recorded vote. All those in favour?
Ayes
Baird, Jim Brown, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Crozier, Pouliot.
The Chair: That being the only item on the agenda this morning, I have a motion to adjourn moved by Mr Baird. Carried? Thank you, gentlemen.
The committee adjourned at 1025.