CONTENTS
Wednesday 22 April 1992
Election of Chair
Election of Vice-Chair
Business subcommittee
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1544 in committee room 2.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): My name is Franco Carrozza; I am the clerk of the committee. It is my duty to call upon you to elect a Chair from among your members. I will open the floor for nominations.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I move that Cam Jackson be the Chair.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): He hasn't talked to any of us about wanting the Chair.
Clerk of the Committee: There being no other nomination, I shall ask Mr Jackson to take the chair as the Chair.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): Members of the committee, thank you for your vote of confidence. As we are being recorded by Hansard, I'll limit my remarks to calling for the election of the Vice-Chair. Could we entertain some nominations?
Mr Carr: I move that Margaret Marland be Vice-Chair. She wanted to point out to the committee that she got tied up at a luncheon but that she would be prepared to --
Mr Perruzza: I would like to second and support that.
The Chair: Having called for and seeing no other nominations, shall we have a vote to make that unanimous? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I think that was an even closer vote than the one for your election.
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): How come two Tories?
The Chair: I think the House leaders felt that was a wise and judicious decision, Mr Sorbara. Welcome to the committee. It's nice to have you at our committee. You're a new member.
Mr Sorbara: I would like to say it's nice to be here, but I won't.
Clerk of the Committee: To answer your question, it's because the Chair was chosen to be a Progressive Conservative. Therefore, they still have the two members assigned to them. That makes three.
Mr Sorbara: I think I understand that, Franco. Who's supposed to be on the subcommittee?
BUSINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
The Chair: Which brings us to our next item. We would like to entertain nominees to the subcommittee. Have the caucuses discussed this?
Mr Perruzza: Not in any detail.
The Chair: Would you like to take a moment and provide a name? It would be very helpful.
Mr Perruzza: It would be good if we could caucus for a minute, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I don't wish to seize the hearings, but if you take a moment, I think Mr Carr may be ready with a nomination.
Mr Carr: Yes, I move Margaret Marland.
The Chair: You submit the name of Mrs Marland to represent the third party.
Mr Sorbara: I would like to nominate the new member for Brant-Haldimand.
The Chair: Mr Lessard, can you provide me with a name?
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I would like to nominate Mr Perruzza.
The Chair: It may be asking too much for him to sit on a small committee with Mrs Marland after that vote of support.
Mr Lessard: I thought he was a perfect candidate.
The Chair: I have received the nomination. Did you wish to withdraw it, Mr Perruzza?
Mr Perruzza: I think you should give us a minute so we can discuss this -- three minutes. We will be forwarding a name as soon as we do that. Can we have a couple of minutes?
The Chair: I would like to return to this item and, if we can, move to item 4 on the agenda. Is that acceptable? I have two out of the three names.
Mr Perruzza: So before we adjourn, we'll come to it. You'll give us a couple of minutes.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr Sorbara: We don't need a government member on the subcommittee. Let's just forget it.
The Chair: Mr Lessard, you will withdraw the nomination just so this is proper and legal.
Mr Lessard: Yes.
The Chair: Then the Chair rules that we will return to this item, not having received a nominee from the governing party.
We should welcome back our clerk, Mr Carrozza, as the Legislature has seen fit to maintain his responsibilities with this committee, and that continuity is appreciated. He has prepared several documents which he will address at the moment. Hopefully, members have had an opportunity to have a look at those documents, but it will form the basis for what I hope will be a brief discussion, as this is basically a business organizational meeting.
Clerk of the Committee: Because there are a number of new members on the committee, I have prepared a package that contains the standing orders relating to the working of the committee. Those are standing order 104, which gives the mandate to the committee, and the more important ones, standing orders 54 to 63, which deal with the choosing of the estimates and the manner in which the process takes place. I have also given you a background paper prepared by the former researcher to the committee which outlines the estimates process across Canada, which includes of course Ontario and the federal.
The Chair: That's an updated report. It was commissioned several years ago and it's been updated. Several members wanted to know what our procedures would be, and some wanted to know what other jurisdictions are doing. It's there for your information and it's very current.
Clerk of the Committee: The three remaining reports are with a view to what happened last year. What I have done is given you an actual time line of how the committee met and what it discussed concerning the choosing of the reports and the way the estimates process was dealt with. This is the report which contains three pages. It has the process we went through in choosing the estimates, supplementary estimates and so forth. On the second page, it has a recommendation concerning -- basically, we had difficulty completing the estimates, and this is contained in the second set of reports, "Estimates Reviewed by the Committee," which outlined the actual estimates we have reviewed.
1550
In 1990 there were six of them; we completed those. In 1991, beginning June 4, the committee chose 12 estimates and we were able to review only six. There were a number of reasons for that: The budget came down later than usual, the summer recess was in between, and we just ran out of time, really. That is why the report I've given you has a recommendation for you to review.
What it says is that perhaps you should consider meeting very soon to choose the estimates you wish to review, prior to the budget coming down on April 30. That will allow you extra time. First, you will have identified the estimates you will choose. Then we can notify the ministries and they can prepare the briefing books for the committee. That usually runs for about two weeks; they will prepare those briefing books in about two weeks.
We know the budget will come down on April 30. The standing order provides that after five days the estimates of the government will be tabled with the Legislature, and then two weeks after that we will have the briefing books. If you were to meet next week -- this is just hypothetical -- and choose the ministries you wish to see, then the process will begin. I will notify the ministries that they have been chosen but that a date has not been set yet. However, because the budget comes down on the 30th, then the process will go on by itself.
The Chair: Perhaps we could stop there, because I think it is important that we build on an understanding and make sure everyone is aware; we have several new members of the committee. To recap, we did not complete our mandated number of estimates in our last sitting. The committee identified this and was unanimous that this was a concern. This report basically analyses what happened last year and brings us to some conclusions about how we might mitigate a repeat performance.
I would like to review the four points on page 2 of the report that I asked Franco to prepare, because they are the ones that should be discussed.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Chair, can I have a copy, please?
The Chair: There's an extra copy there. Let me just read on page 2:
"In analysing the estimates process, I have noted that there are four areas in the process that have consumed a considerable amount of time, which led to the committee's inability to complete its chosen estimates."
"1. The budget date is chosen by the Treasurer." It's outside the committee's control.
"2. Meeting dates: These are chosen by the three House leaders." Again, they're outside the control of the committee.
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, can I interrupt you there? Does this committee not have specific dates it is to meet on?
Clerk of the Committee: Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr Sorbara: Then why are you saying that meeting dates are chosen by the three House leaders?
The Chair: Because we are also bound by the time that we can sit during the course of the year, and we can only sit when the House is in session. Therefore, having been told we can meet only two afternoons a week, there aren't sufficient afternoons during the House sittings to complete. For us to sit outside House time, which is what we've been doing for the last two years, we can only do that with the permission of the House leaders, and therefore completion of estimates as set out in our standing orders very much sits in the offing of a negotiated conclusion between the House leaders and part of the traditional bartering that goes on between House leaders that estimates may be more or less important than some other bill coming through. I'm not saying anything out of order when I reference that that kind of dialogue occurs between the House leaders, and that's where estimates end up, in that mix of horse-trading, as it were. So that's the clarification.
Mr Sorbara: Okay.
The Chair: I'll just complete this report verbatim.
"3. The choosing of ministries or offices review," and that is within the committee's control; then,
"4. The printing of the ministries' briefing books," which is not in the committee's control but, as you know, the House rules say they should be within 10 days. Franco's report, if you read it carefully, indicates that it was three-plus weeks before the first briefing notes started to trickle in.
That is the problem that confronts the committee. We're basically now wanting to have a brief discussion up front and not in June when we realize we're in this difficulty.
We can anticipate being in this similar kind of difficulty when we examine the second document which Franco has tabled. That is the fact that the Treasurer has chosen April 30 and that, according to the House rules, Management Board estimates have to be tabled five sessional days later; that will be the following Thursday. Briefing books occur another week after that, but it's not been set yet as to when those briefing books will be available. That's what we want to discuss. Franco finishes his comments by suggesting that we may wish to begin the process of selecting those ministries in the rotation now so that we can advise the ministries, instead of waiting for their briefing books to make the decision as to which are the nominated ministries.
Mr Sorbara: I understand from what you have just explained to us that it's more or less three weeks to a month before we begin to actually examine estimates.
The Chair: Yes, but we've taken three to four weeks from the moment we get the briefing books in order to do the selecting. We've traditionally done the selecting after the briefing books arrive, built on the theory that one chooses a ministry after one's examined the books and figures there are some problems with those books.
Mr Sorbara: But there are three or four intervening weeks. Can we not begin at the next meeting to examine estimates that we have not yet examined?
The Chair: No.
Mr Sorbara: Why?
The Chair: Because the standing orders clearly indicate that at the moment I report on your behalf to the House -- I report in November on all the estimates of all the ministries. Once that's reported, we are deemed to have done our job. That's the law. We cannot convene hearings on estimates for which we do not have the briefing books and the supporting documents, as again the standing orders require that we have them in order to conduct them. We're really only trying to mitigate time lost between now and the first opportune moment to bring a ministry to this table. That's really what we're trying to do.
What we would need is this committee's support for the subcommittee to begin the process of talking to your individual caucuses and asking them which ministries you wish to select in your rotation. That's really what we would like to achieve, if that's the wish of the committee.
Mr Bisson: What you're asking seems reasonable. We can do exactly what you're saying. At our next meeting, we can come back from the subcommittee and decide which ones we're going to take in rotation. I think taking six makes sense. We may as well work at what we can get at rather than setting a task that's too big and that we can't get to. On that note, we'd be agreeable to move ahead with that.
Mr O'Connor: Before we actually have a subcommittee, our caucus needs to nominate somebody. I nominate Gilles Bisson to be our whip and member of the subcommittee.
Mr Bisson: Thank you.
Mr O'Connor: Having somebody nominated, perhaps we would have a subcommittee that could meet and discuss the different ministries, some that had already brought their estimates to the committee and some that we didn't have the possibility of examining last year but that we may perhaps want to continue with this year's estimates. I would leave that to the subcommittee to talk about and decide.
The Chair: All right. It's somewhat unorthodox, but as I didn't have a motion on the table, I will entertain that as a motion. We don't need a seconder. I have Mr Bisson nominated. I have his concurrence that he will stand. Are there any further nominations for the NDP subcommittee representative?
There being no further nominations, I would declare Mr Bisson nominee. That completes that portion of business now.
1600
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: I've heard two comments. Are there any other comments before we entertain a motion about how to proceed?
Mr Sorbara: I'm trying to understand the procedure. Is it necessary to choose all of the ministries by a certain date? Is there a way we can use our time optimally and at the same time maintain a degree of flexibility? In other words, how can we arrange our affairs so that we can begin to examine these guys and their spending habits as soon as possible, but leave the opportunity as we proceed into, I take it, November and December?
The Chair: No. Mr Sorbara has raised several questions that I would like to clarify. First of all, it is possible to pick a number less than 12 and revisit it and top them up.
Second, in the clerk's presentation before you, he sort of sets out the scheduled meeting dates. As you look at that document, you will see that we have to report by the 19th, and that a very positive picture shows that we at best will do eight ministries of the 12. The reason is that we are impelled by the standing orders to report to the House by the third Thursday in November. Only the House leaders by unanimous approval can lift that and allow us to sit beyond that date. Is that clearer now?
Mr Sorbara: Yes. There is nothing in here, however, about meeting when the House is not sitting. Is it customary that this committee does not meet when the House is not sitting, that is, during the summer recess?
The Chair: Our standing orders suggest we can only sit while the House is sitting. Should we require to do so, it would need a motion of this committee, which would be presented to the House leaders for presentation and approval in the House.
Mr Sorbara: Let's get down to the practical realities of it. Does that ever happen, or does the government --
The Chair: Yes. As a matter of fact, the last provincial election occurred at a time when it interrupted the estimates process. If you return to "Estimates Reviewed by the Committee," for the 1989-90 estimates year, which is at the top of the page, we returned to the House some time in October and our committee had not undertaken a single estimate, so at that time the House leaders agreed to allow this committee to meet after Christmas and to change the reporting date from November. As you can see, we reported as late as March 18, 1991, for the 1989-90 estimates, and we completed those six. So it has been done. We received some short time this last session in order to do it. However, I must tell you we have been turned down as frequently as we've been approved for meeting outside of House sitting.
Mr Sorbara: If I might just put another question to you, you tell me that as a matter of practical reality we can choose eight ministries, we can choose up to 12 --
Clerk of the Committee: It is a minimum of six, a maximum of 12.
Mr Sorbara: But we are liable to deal with eight, given the time available. Does the committee have the flexibility, having requested 12, to set its own calendar and decide that it looks now like a good idea to move to Consumer and Commercial Relations, as they're going to become the big gamblers in the province and are going to set up these casinos?
The Chair: Okay. There are two areas of flexibility for the committee and I'll address both separately.
Mr Bisson: I see this is a very non-partisan committee.
Mr Sorbara: It has nothing to do with partisanship. These are important issues. You have to look at this stuff.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, which question did you want to answer first?
Mr Sorbara: I'm just responding to an interjection.
The Chair: Go through the Chair, please.
You've raised two important points. We have flexibility in terms of time, but once we set the sequence of ministries, we must follow that sequence. So once the eight are chosen we are locked in to do those eight.
Mr Sorbara: Is that under a standing order?
The Chair: Yes. Once we've chosen them, we've chosen them. We notify the ministries. The ministries then proceed to undertake preparations, adjusting the minister's schedule. As I recall, when you were a minister and I was your critic for two or three estimates procedures, it disrupted your schedule, and that is a courtesy we extend to all ministers in order to ensure they can attend and that they can attend fully briefed with their staff. So we don't change the sequence once we've established the sequence.
What we can change or what we can determine is that each rotation -- in other words, your caucus will lead off and pick the first two ministries, up to a total of 15 hours. You may choose to do 10 hours of Health and one hour of Consumer and Commercial Relations and yield the remaining four hours. You have the right to submit it in that form. It has not been done, but you have the right to do it. In other words, you can reduce the total number. Does that answer your question?
Mr Sorbara: I don't quite understand the final point. We, as the official opposition, get a call on the first two estimates.
The Chair: Then it goes to the third party and then the government, so that will be what's deemed the first round, and that is up to six ministries, up to 45 hours. Then the second round would again commence with your next two nominees, the Tories' and then the government's; that would bring us to 12 ministries and up to 90 hours.
Mr Bisson: Can I make a motion that maybe would solve this fairly amicably for everybody? The motion would be that today we direct our subcommittee members to go back to their caucuses and choose their first draft, the first two ministries each. We would then come back and report as a committee next week and we would give those six names to the clerk of the committee in order to notify those ministries to start getting ready. We can save the second round until later on, in case, as the member for York Centre has raised, there's another ministry out there you want to look at, because you've had the opportunity after May some time to look at the briefing books, and you can bring them up at that time and that would cover it all.
The Chair: Mr Bisson asked permission if he could do a motion. He can, but he didn't specifically say that was his motion. Let me ask Franco to respond, because I'm now led to believe that we must report to the House those ministries we're going to choose in total.
Clerk of the Committee: Let us assume you choose 12. The next step is that the committee prepares a report for the Legislature. In that report it will state the 12 ministries you have chosen.
The Chair: In the order.
Clerk of the Committee: And automatically the rest of the ministries are deemed to be reported. Therefore, if you choose six "we beg to report," you lose the other six.
Mr Bisson: Just a point of clarification, through the Chair. My understanding is that you don't have to do both rounds at the beginning because we don't have the documentation from the ministries at this point based on the budget not being delivered. My understanding is that you can do one round now and you can do the second round later after May some time.
The Chair: We can't do one round now. We cannot begin this process until the following things occur: First, the budget has to be tabled. Our standing orders then say a certain period of time must expire at which point estimates books have to be tabled in the House from every ministry. We cannot begin the process until a brief time after the tabling of those reports. The only thing this committee really can do to facilitate a speedier start is to do the selection process now or before the briefing books -- I keep calling them briefing books, excuse me -- the estimates books are tabled in order that we don't lose another two, three or four weeks as we did last year. We are coping with the extended time for the Treasurer picking his budget. It used to be in early April and now we're seeing it in late April. Sometimes it was before the new year started; I mean, we used to have budgets in February. Ron, you remember those days.
1610
Mr Sorbara: So you're telling us that advice would be informally given to a ministry, and the report from the committee after budget day will formalize that process --
The Chair: Yes, and where that will benefit the committee is simply in this fashion: If three or four estimates books are holding up all of their tabling in the House, the House leaders can agree that as you've only chosen these 12 ministries, then we'll make sure that those estimates books are ready on time. In Franco's report he tells you that even though the standing orders required estimates books to be tabled they weren't tabled within that time frame. That's item 2 of the things outside our control. If one ministry's late and the government says, "Well, sorry, it's going to take a month before we table estimates books," meanwhile the committee can't start because we're waiting for a ministry that we're not even going to examine. Do you see what I'm suggesting?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, and just for greater certainty, other than making these choices this committee hasn't got anything to do between now and May 26.
The Chair: Right. You now have it all, Mr Sorbara.
Can we recap what is required from each caucus? It is customary, but it's within each caucus's purview, to go back and discuss this matter, and an election is generally made by the caucus, so the subcommittee nominee is charged with the responsibility of speaking on behalf of his or her caucus.
So I would like to entertain three motions, if possible: (1) that the subcommittee meet very soon, and someone can be specific with that; (2) that the subcommittee reps approach their caucuses to submit their nominated ministries by a certain date; (3) that a committee meeting be held, and try and be date-specific. Then we can begin the process of informally notifying the ministries, to assist them, those that will not be chosen this year and those that are going to be chosen, so they know that we need their briefing books -- there I go again -- their estimates books in sufficient time.
Mr Bisson: Just a question. By when does the clerk of the committee want to notify the ministries? You were saying something about being able to get that done in time. There's about a four-week lag after we've notified.
Clerk of the Committee: The dates that we're working with are April --
Mr Bisson: You want to meet by the 26th.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mr Bisson: So in the motion the Chair is calling for, you would want to have us meet as a subcommittee, come back as a committee and give direction to the clerk by May 1.
Clerk of the Committee: We cannot meet as a full committee to review the estimates unless we have the briefing book. You mean to review --
Mr Bisson: No. What I'm saying is that the Chair has called for a motion saying to charge the subcommittee to choose the nominees from each caucus. The second part of the motion is to meet as a committee to make the decision and give you direction to notify which ministries. But my question to the clerk is when you want that process done by, because you're saying here you want to meet on the 26th with the first estimates, which means we need at least three and a half to four weeks' lead time to get that ministry ready to do estimates.
Clerk of the Committee: If it's possible for the subcommittee to meet, let's say, next Tuesday.
Mr Bisson: Okay. That's all I need.
Clerk of the Committee: Then the week after that the full committee can meet to discuss the choices and set out extra dates for the process to proceed.
Mr Bisson: Does somebody have a calendar? Thank you; that makes our life easier. Mr Chair, I would be prepared to make a motion to that effect.
The motion would read that the subcommittee to meet on Tuesday, April 28, after question period. The subcommittee is to do the business of the subcommittee -- I won't get into detail -- and to meet as a whole committee by the 29th. Would that be too soon?
Mr O'Connor: The next day.
Clerk of the Committee: The next day? That's fine with me.
Mr Bisson: Okay, at which point the committee as a whole will give direction to the clerk to notify which ministries will be in the order of selection.
The Chair: Tuesday is caucus day for all three caucuses.
Mr Bisson: No, in the afternoon.
The Chair: I just want to make sure that Tuesday morning is caucus day for all three caucuses, because this motion wouldn't be helpful to a caucus that doesn't meet on Tuesday.
Mr Bisson: But the subcommittee will meet after question period.
The Chair: That's fine. I just want to make sure that all three caucuses are still meeting Tuesday mornings.
Mr Bisson: Yes.
The Chair: Very good. Do I have a seconder for the motion? Mr O'Connor. Any further discussion?
Mr Sorbara: I'm looking over these standing orders -- do you want to have a vote on that first?
The Chair: No, I'm entertaining discussion. If it's to the motion, I'll entertain discussion.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, it can be to the motion. I'm just looking over the standing orders and looking for the place where it says that the decisions of the committee shall be reported to the House. In other words, the report of the meeting that we are --
The Chair: The report of the selection of ministries.
Mr Sorbara: Yes. Franco, I wonder if you could help me with that.
The Chair: He's examining that. Would that interfere with you taking a vote at this time? Your motion doesn't suggest that all 12 ministries be chosen at that time.
Mr Bisson: According to what the clerk was saying at first, we have to.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, we do.
The Chair: No, it says up to 12.
Mr Bisson: But we would make our full selection of either six -- up to a maximum of 12 by that time.
The Chair: Right. I just asked if your motion included a number.
Mr Bisson: No, not at this point.
The Chair: It does not. Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: The real substance of the question was whether or not we would be in a position a week from now to make our choices. I'm not sure that the answer to that is yes; it may be that we want to see what the budget says first. We've heard about significant new taxes in the budget. The Treasurer's already told us about that. We expect that casino gambling is going to be given an imprimatur in the new budget or shortly before that by the Premier; we've heard that there are going to be significant cuts to a number of ministries; the Treasurer has already said that he expects significant cutbacks in the services that are being provided. All of this is going to be in the budget: new taxes, casinos, cuts to programs -- who knows what else? User fees for health care. The government party used to be against that, but you never know.
The Chair: Former cabinet ministers' pensions. It could be a number of things. Mr Sorbara, I think you've made your point. May I suggest something to facilitate --
Mr Sorbara: I don't think I've finished making my point. So it may well be that we need the opportunity to hear and look at the budget before we report. That only puts it off -- I'm sorry, we meet Tuesday and Wednesday. Is that correct?
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Sorbara: So it may be far better to make that decision one week later, because I would hate to be in a position to have made those choices and then find out later that we gambled and lost because of the kind of dire consequences that are in the budget. Just putting it off one week gives us a much better opportunity to make informed decisions. I would hope that -- we control the subcommittee, in any event, so that's not a problem, but I hope the government wouldn't try and ram this through.
The Chair: It was a friendly motion, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Bisson: My God, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I'm a little worried about that. I really am.
The Chair: Don't be too worried, because the clerk's going to clarify something for you. We still have a motion on the floor when Mr Sorbara is addressing it.
Clerk of the Committee: The standing order you're looking at is 58(a). It doesn't have a date when you have to report back to the Legislature. The budget must be presented first. The motion we will present will itemize each expenditure of each ministry and each program, so you could finalize if you so wish.
Mr Sorbara: We could finalize our list when? After the budget is presented?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. This is the whole exercise, trying to save time. If you do not wish so, you just speak to it.
1620
Mr Sorbara: Once we have finalized our list and reported to the House, we are locked into that schedule, I am told.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Sorbara: I would like to know what locks us into that schedule.
The Chair: The fact that it's reported to the House.
Mr Sorbara: But I'd like to see the language of the standing order.
The Chair: Clause 58(a): "All other estimates not selected for consideration by the standing committee on estimates shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be reported back to the House."
Mr Sorbara: That's the other estimates, but that's not the section that says we are locked into consideration in the order that we choose initially. Do you see what I mean?
The Chair: In clause 57(c): "The estimates of the ministries and offices shall be considered in the order in which they were selected as provided in clause (b)," which is new.
Mr Sorbara: I make my point once again. This is probably going to be the most draconian budget this government will present. To choose estimates and make those decisions before we see the budget is a little foolish, wouldn't you say, Gary?
Mr Perruzza: Why can't you be a little bit more optimistic than that?
The Chair: Mr O'Connor requested a comment and then Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: The problem is that if we don't get them in, we're going to miss the total numbers of ministries being looked at. I think you can probably make a pretty good guess on what's going to happen in the budget, the ministries that will be affected. They may change a little, but the ministries that have been historically the ones affected will be this time as well.
I think what we're saying, just to help Greg a little bit, is that if we don't do it now and get the estimates books, we won't get as many done. So for the sake of hearing the budget, we may lose some ministries off the other end so that we don't look at as many.
The last time, the problem we ran into is that during a period when we say we have a lot of problems and we want to take a look at where we're spending our money, we probably looked at fewer ministries that any other estimates committee has looked at. This committee didn't get a chance to look at as many estimates, so I think what we should do is -- essentially, what it boils down to is get the thing in the works so we can get as many ministries done and get them looked at. Otherwise, if we don't get it, we potentially could end up with what happened this year.
Mr O'Connor: I was going to take a stab at clarifying, but you did: the fact that once you choose your ministries, then the rest are deemed to be accepted and reported to the House so we can't go back and take a look at it a second time. So we have to make our decision beforehand.
Mr Carr is quite right. We did run out of time last fall in taking a look at estimates, and the ministries do go through an awful of work in preparation for coming to this committee. It seems a shame that we don't have an opportunity to take a look at all the fine work done by our civil service, the work that has gone into it.
So basically where we're at is a decision maybe that has to be looked at and discussed by the subcommittee. We could probably agree, as a committee, as to whether or not we want to -- because of the number of hours we get and allot to each ministry, we're probably only going to be losing one ministry by waiting that extra week. That's one other way of looking at it as well.
Mr Sorbara: I have indeed presented estimates as a minister and --
Mr Bisson: Was that during the draconian Liberal government?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, it was when the province was experiencing economic growth, when employment was at record high levels; not like now when 100,000 jobs were lost in the province.
Mr Bisson: All you have to do with Mr Sorbara is touch the button and he just goes --
Mr Sorbara: Why don't you just let me finish, okay? Ministries can prepare estimates books if they are given the marching orders to do that. Thursday, May 7. The standing orders say we can't change the order, so we say, "Okay, we can't change the order." The standing order says you've got five days to table your estimates, that they should be in the Legislature five days after the budget.
The Chair: That's correct, and they haven't been.
Mr Sorbara: They ought to be.
The Chair: We'll discuss that in a moment.
Clerk of the Committee: There are two different ones.
The Chair: The primary estimates books, but that's still the estimates that are required of this committee, supplementary estimates. But we can proceed on the basis of the primary estimates, Mr Sorbara, you're correct.
Mr Sorbara: No ministry likes to come before an estimates committee. It takes the time and energy of a lot of civil servants who've got, in their view, better things to do. It takes up the time of the minister, it takes up the time of the deputy -- those ministries that still have deputies. I just point out for the record that there is no Deputy Attorney General, there is no deputy for Transportation, there is no deputy in Management Board right now. The government is basically falling apart.
Nevertheless, the standing orders say to get the material before the Legislature five days thereafter. By my count, that's something like May 6 or May 7, and Franco has it down here. That leaves almost three weeks before the first day you've suggested we could begin sitting. There's no reason in the world the first ministry could not be in a position to come before this committee, if it is going to abide by the standing orders, and present its estimates. Yes, it takes a lot of work, but that's what goes on here. Am I missing something? Is there a tradition of deferring to a ministry when it says it wants another week, two weeks, a month or two months to prepare its estimates book?
The Chair: The committee was late in coming together, and it was late partly because we hadn't received the estimates books. Is it the responsibility of this committee to go to the House or go to the Speaker and say: "Speaker, our rights have been violated. The standing orders say we cannot undertake an examination of the expenditures of this government because they're late with their books"? We did not do that. This committee may choose by separate motion to address that issue should it occur.
We should work with the assumption that this is no longer a new government and that this government now can put together estimates books on time. I think that's a fair statement to make. It's not a new government any more. Perhaps they will be on time, and maybe they can meet the time lines. If that's the case, then we can meet earlier. But what we are achieving today is to make sure that not one day is a delay because this committee has failed to meet, because that's the domain we control.
Mr Sorbara: Maybe the solution would be something like agreeing on which ministry shall be the first ministry, just agreeing in an informal way and sending out that advice as soon as we can come to that agreement. But I think it's foolish in the extreme to say a committee that is charged with examining the expenditures of a government should decide which of those expenditures it will examine before the government announces how it's going to spend its money. What could be sillier than doing that? It's like saying we will conduct our examination in the absence of any evidence.
Let me just make one more point if I can.
The Chair: If it's brief. This is the second time you are speaking to this motion. Mr Bisson: He's trying to make sure he gets it right the second time around.
The Chair: He's actually been very helpful, Mr Bisson, because your motion does create some complications, and I wish to address those as soon as Mr Sorbara is completed, but I am listening to Mr Sorbara now.
Mr Sorbara: There have been a number of suggestions by the Premier and others that the budget may contain some very significant reorganizations of government. We hear, for example, that there's not going to be a Ministry of Tourism and Recreation down the road, that it's going to be put into the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. We've heard that parts of other ministries are going to be blended with existing ministries. There is every reason to expect that there isn't going to be a Ministry of Skills Development any more and that that announcement is going to be made in the budget.
If we're going to casinos, and apparently we are, that's going to be under the jurisdiction of some ministry or other. We don't know whether it's going to be under the Ontario Lottery Corp, which stands to gain a few more bucks and hire a few more people in Sault Ste Marie, if it's going to do that. Or is it going to come under the charitable gaming legislation? Mr Bisson is saying it's not, so I assume it is going to come under the Ontario Lottery Corp, which is in Tourism and Recreation.
1630
Mr Bisson: I'm shaking my head in disbelief that you can go on for so long.
Mr Sorbara: Frankly, everyone is waiting with great anticipation to see what further damage the government is going to do to Ontario and the Ontario economy in its budget. For us to simply say that we'll look at Skills Development or we'll look at Colleges and Universities or we'll look at, heaven help us, Tourism and Recreation before we know what is going to happen, including the possibility of very significant restructuring of government, would I think make this committee rather the laughingstock of the Legislature.
The Chair: If I may recap, because we do have a motion on the floor, and if I might offer a suggestion -- this takes me slightly out of my role as Chair, but I'm going to do it.
Mr Sorbara: But you're a facilitator as well, so we want to hear what you have to say.
The Chair: I'm trying to, at the moment. I believe Mr Bisson's motion is structured with the best of intent, but Mr Sorbara's point would --
Should I wait till you two are finished? Why don't you hear what I'm going to suggest and then you can tell him how he should vote, okay? It's not helpful. I'm discussing Mr Bisson's motion and he can tell me he needs more time, but I was speaking to a member of the committee. Thank you.
Interjection.
The Chair: I know you can't speak into the mike, but you were speaking into his ear. I am talking to the member.
Mr Sorbara suggests that for want of a week, all three caucuses would have the benefit of understanding what was in the Treasurer's budget. We lose nothing by taking an additional week and amending, for your friendly suggestion, that Tuesday, April 28, become Tuesday, May 5, for the subcommittee and that the full committee meet on May 6.
It strikes me, as I listened to the contributions of the members, that the change in those dates would not in any way reduce the earliest possible starting date for our mandate yet provides what protection is actually in our standing orders to ensure that Mr Sorbara and his caucus have an opportunity to make the selections after the budget has been tabled.
I think if that could be entertained as a friendly amendment then we could come to a vote on that. Is that helpful?
Mr Bisson: First of all, the motion was put forth at the recommendation of the Chair through the clerk. The instructions we were given at the beginning of this committee meeting was to get the selection done first. The government member, the whip, meaning me, made the motion in that respect because it would seem to be the direction the clerk wanted us to go. After a very long, uneloquent speech on the part of a draconian opposition party, obviously there's some --
Mr Sorbara: There's no need for this.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, we're about three minutes away from completing our business. Please, we can all be kind and helpful here.
Mr Bisson: I knew I could find another button by the end of the day.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, please continue.
Mr Bisson: I just wanted to hit another button.
I'm quite prepared to change the dates on that motion to accommodate, if it is the wish of this committee, in order to get the selection after May 15 or June 15. That's fine. We're just trying to accommodate the members from the draconian opposition.
The Chair: Therefore, the minutes will show that you have amended your motion to read, "The subcommittee shall meet on May 5" --
Mr Bisson: It would be to have the subcommittee meeting next week. Would that be agreeable with the opposition?
Mr Sorbara: That's great. I frankly don't understand the gratuitous insults. Is that standard? I'm new on this committee. I defer to the Chair.
Mr Bisson: I'm picking up my examples from the draconian opposition.
Mr Sorbara: With respect, I have tried to make an argument to change a motion and I'm being draconian, at the same time as he accepts what I say.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, there is a certain latitude for new members of the committee but that latitude has been extended far enough. We have a motion on the floor. I would like to call the question at this time, seeing no further debate or discussion --
Mr Bisson: Could you re-read the motion just to make sure?
Clerk of the Committee: My understanding is that the motion is that the subcommittee will meet to discuss the choosing of the estimates on May 5, which is a Tuesday, and then will make the report to the committee on May 6, which is the Wednesday.
Mr Sorbara: Can I make one final comment, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Is it brief?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, it's brief. In the remarks I made I suggested that in an informal way it may be that the subcommittee could come to an agreement about the first ministry to be looked at even before the budget perhaps, so that we can get on with the process. I don't want to put that in the motion, but I just want to remind committee members that we will take that into consideration at our caucus, particularly if there's an additional time delay when we wouldn't use that time up in any event. We would want perhaps to have some consultations with the clerk about that, but we're perfectly willing to do that to get the process under way. I invite the Chair to initiate those informal discussions after examining sort of minute by minute how much time we have.
The Chair: Thank you for that helpful comment. I would remind you that it is your party's right to select the first two ministries, up to 15 hours. In my seven years here I've never seen anybody disrupt the official opposition's first nominees, so very much that is your selection, however close to your vest you wish to play it. I understand your point. You had indicated that you were a new member and I simply wanted to advise you that that selection rests solely with your caucus.
Mr Sorbara: I just want to comment on that, though, sir.
The Chair: I have a motion on the floor and you and I are both off the motion.
Mr Sorbara: No, we're still discussing the motion.
The Chair: The Chair has just ruled that we're going to call the question. All those in favour of Mr Bisson's motion? Opposed, if any? It is carried.
Motion agreed to. The Chair: Any other business?
Mr Sorbara: I have one other matter; it's on the same topic. Obviously, in the informal discussions I referred to, we're not prepared to give up our first two selections, but there may be an opportunity to find a ministry that we all agree ought to start off the process and then arrange it in such a way so that the second and third are really our first two choices. We can't give up that right, but I just encourage you to try and instigate some discussions if we're going to lose time. And that's it.
The Chair: Ultimately, the master of our time frames is going to be whether the government House leader can ensure that the ministry estimates books are tabled. That is the area which will determine our first three-week delay, if any. That is an item which the committee will discuss; we may have to have a meeting subsequent to our meeting on May 6 to discuss that specifically. There being no further business, I entertain a motion to adjourn from Mr Bisson. All those in favour?
The committee adjourned at 1639.