CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 May 1992
Subcommittee report
Other 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)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Nishman, Robert, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1555 in committee room 2.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): We're ready to begin the meeting of the standing committee on estimates. The clerk has prepared a report which reflects the resolutions arrived at by the subcommittee, which met yesterday. You will note that it comes in the form of a recommendation as to which ministries are to be chosen, in what order and under what time allocation. That requires committee approval and subsequent reporting to the House before we can begin. At this point we'll answer any questions with respect to the selection.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a suggestion for an amendment to the second round for the Liberal Party, to change "Ministry of the Attorney General" to "Ministry of the Environment." I will move that if a motion is required. Realizing that we did have an agreement yesterday, I don't know whether you will consider that.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Not that I am posing any objection, but just so I understand the rules, when doing this particular process -- I think it was in the standing orders I read this -- once you put a name forward, are you allowed to pull it back and change? I'm not objecting -- just to know the rules.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): At this stage, yes. However, once we make the report, no.
Mr Bisson: I'm in a very generous mood today.
Clerk of the Committee: The same time, Mr Eddy: seven and a half hours?
Mr Eddy: Yes.
Mr Bisson: So you want to change to the Ministry of the Environment?
Mr Eddy: The request is to change Attorney General to Environment.
The Chair: You're going to leave the seven and a half and seven and a half hours respectively?
Mr Eddy: Yes.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of that change?
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just as a quick question, I note here that there's an awful lot of hours. There isn't a calendar that accompanies this.
The Chair: No, there is not. In our previous committee hearings we discussed and did table a calendar to indicate at what point we thought we would be along in the deliberations, given that we are bound by our standing orders. That report was tabled at the last full committee meeting, but if memory serves me correctly, we might be able to complete the first round, perhaps even the first five ministries, before we prorogue at the end of June. When the House reconvenes in October we will then be able to recommence. It is very tight with these time lines and we may not complete all second-round choices in order to comply with the rules, which call upon us to report by the third Thursday of November.
The subcommittee dealt with your question as to whether we should now be requesting additional meeting time. It was agreed by the subcommittee that it might be premature and that a more appropriate time to make that request, from both the committee's and the House leaders' point of view, would be middle to late June, when the House leaders will be discussing the summer committee meeting schedule. Does that help you?
1600
Mr Perruzza: My concern was basically that if we meet during the summer, then all kinds of additional moneys are incurred, and anything we can save our taxpayers would be greatly appreciated. If we're doing it during the sittings, you know and I know it doesn't cost any additional moneys in terms of per diems, allowances etc. If we give the taxpayer a break, I think that's a welcome thing and I would support that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perruzza. As you know, estimates is entirely the process of ensuring that there is accountability and that taxpayers are getting value, which is why we do come together and why there is such pressure on us to complete all our estimates.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have one question; perhaps the clerk can help me out. In the first-round Progressive Conservative requests, Education and Housing, what kind of time line is there? Education, I assume, would be a fairly large set of estimates to be prepared. Would it be possible for us to get them here in that time? If it was the other way around -- I don't know. It just seems to me that Education would have a lot more estimates to pull together than Housing would.
The Chair: That is true, and in accordance with the standing orders, the government House leader plans to deliver to the House, to the Clerk, for distribution, all the detailed briefing books on or about --
Clerk of the Committee: The week after the Legislature is not sitting, which is the 18th.
The Chair: The week of the 18th. We are perhaps jumping a bit in our agenda, but the clerk advises that it would be his responsibility to get those estimates books in the hands of the critics as quickly as possible to assist them in their preparations for the day we choose to be the starting day for our first estimates hearing.
Mr O'Connor: Could it be in either Education or Housing, or would it come in the order as we have them before us?
The Chair: Yes. The standing rules indicate that when we report to the House, they will be called by the Clerk in the order in which they are reported in the House, and the time allocation will be maintained unless, by agreement of the committee, it is adjusted during the course. But we cannot change the order, I'm led to believe. It's very much the ministries that have to plan in order to be here. There are large numbers of staff involved in each ministry and they very much need a clear calendar and sequence from us.
There being no further questions, we'll vote on the amendment to replace, in the second round, the selection of the Ministry of the Attorney General and have that replaced with the Ministry of the Environment. All those in favour?
Opposed, if any?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Any further questions with respect to the list as submitted by the subcommittee and amended by the committee?
Mr Bisson: I make a motion that they be adopted.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? Opposed, if any?
Motion agreed to.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Chair: The next item which I believe would be helpful is if we could have discussion on when we believe we could commence our hearings. For purposes of discussion, the clerk advises that it is possible for us to start Tuesday, May 26, and given that Agriculture and Food is five hours, we might be able to complete in that week with our Tuesday and Wednesday sittings. I would entertain a motion and then discussion.
Mr Bisson: I make a motion that we start sitting and hearing the estimates of Agriculture and Food on May 26.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I would hope, though, that when you look at the time allocations, this committee would meet during the House sittings and not in the --
The Chair: That is in our standing orders, and the House leaders and the House have approved that we shall meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays following routine proceedings. So the clerk will be scheduling hearings between approximately 3:30, or following routine proceedings, whichever is later, until 6 o'clock.
Any further discussion?
Mr Bisson: After that it's time and a half.
The Chair: Yes. It requires a unanimous motion to sit beyond that. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.
The next matter which the subcommittee dealt with but may not necessarily be an issue at this point was a letter from the government House leader indicating that there may be some lateness with respect to the detailed estimates books. Given that the Legislature's not sitting during the week of the 18th and that we anticipate their arrival, we may as a committee feel that this is no longer a contentious issue and that we might just proceed with receiving these estimates books during the week of the 18th.
I'm obligated as the Chair to reflect what was discussed in the subcommittee meeting. When we left the subcommittee meeting there was some concern. It may not necessarily be the controversy we thought it was 24 hours ago, but I need to dispense with that matter, and Hansard is clearly recording that the matter was raised. We need a motion now that this matter be reported to the House tomorrow.
Mr Bisson: I would make a motion that these two matters raised in regard to the list of who will be presenting estimates from what ministries, as well as our commencement date, be reported to the House.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour?
Clerk of the Committee: I was going to mention that it is not required of us to tell the House when we begin, but the report, yes.
Mr Bisson: Okay. I thought we had to.
Mr Bisson: Can I withdraw that? I would withdraw the second part.
The Chair: No, that is fine. I accepted it as being in order for the simple reason that the clerk would in turn be notifying the House leaders and the ministries that that is when we would commence. Clearly, each of the subsequent ministries would be able to determine a meeting schedule between now and the end of the session based on the knowledge of that starting date. It is therefore very important information which the clerk will include. It may not necessarily form part of the report to the House.
All those in favour? Opposed, if any? I declare it carried.
One other additional item: I'd like to introduce to the committee Mr Rob Nishman. Rob is with the legislative research department; he replaces Elaine Campbell, who has served this committee for any research it may assign to legislative research from time to time. He is here to be familiarized with the committee proceedings, to meet the committee and, as always, is awaiting our direction and guidance. If we feel his presence is required once the hearings begin, we should let him know. I simply share that for information. The subcommittee may consider the points raised about whether leg research would be required to be present during the estimates hearings or that we have any work to assign to them.
1610
Mr Bisson: On a separate matter, I just want the members of the committee to be aware that according to the standing orders, the estimates must be available in both official languages. We should be cognizant of the point that the French translations of the estimates will not be ready in time. It is a decision of the committee if we are going to go a little ahead of when those are ready, but it is the right of a member, if he wants those estimates in French, that we would have to wait until they're ready, which would be after the 26th. I just want to raise that so we understand.
The Chair: My understanding, to put a finer point on your point, is that only those estimates that are chosen by this committee will be prepared in the two official languages. The clerk will be pleased to furnish you with a copy of that most recent clarification. I will seek a further clarification if the activities of this committee can be seized simply by a matter of late translation.
Mr Bisson: My understanding, and maybe the clerk can be a little more specific, is that if a member thought his or her rights were somehow not being maintained by having those estimates in French, that member could object. I just want to raise that. I don't think it will be a problem, but I would just raise it so that people are aware.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, if I may, can we put forward a motion that we proceed with the full understanding that the French-language translations for the estimates will not be ready till roughly a week after the English estimates are prepared, and put that to a vote in this committee?
Mr Bisson: I don't think that would be in order, because it's the rights of the member. I don't think there is going to be a problem, but I just want to raise it. I don't know if the motion would be in order. I don't want to be contrary.
The Chair: First of all, if I hear the committee clearly, a point has been raised and the clerk has undertaken to examine the point raised and to report back. The point is appreciated as it's being raised by the member, and we'll investigate that. That's all we can offer at this point, as we don't have a copy of the last memo, nor is the clerk prepared to give a definitive statement on the matter at this time.
Are there any other items for the good or welfare of this committee?
Mr Bisson: Just to be clear, our next meeting will be May 26, and there are no meetings of the subcommittee until then?
The Chair: Not unless I hear from a member of the subcommittee who would like to have a meeting. I am always in your hands.
The Chair: There being no further business, I'd entertain a motion for adjournment.
Mr Bisson: I make a motion that we adjourn.
The committee adjourned at 1613.