CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 May 1998
Selection of estimates
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
CHAIR / PRÉSIDENT
MR GERARD KENNEDY (YORK SOUTH / -SUD L)
VICE-CHAIR / VICE-PRÉSIDENT
MR RICK BARTOLUCCI (SUDBURY L)
MR RICK BARTOLUCCI (SUDBURY L)
MR GILLES BISSON (COCHRANE SOUTH / -SUD ND)
MR JOHN C. CLEARY (CORNWALL L)
MR ED DOYLE (WENTWORTH EAST / -EST PC)
MR GERARD KENNEDY (YORK SOUTH / -SUD L)
MR JOHN L. PARKER (YORK EAST / -EST PC)
MR TREVOR PETTIT (HAMILTON MOUNTAIN PC)
MR WAYNE WETTLAUFER (KITCHENER PC)
MR TERENCE H. YOUNG (HALTON CENTRE / -CENTRE PC)
CLERK / GREFFIER
MR VIKTOR KACZKOWSKI
STAFF / PERSONNEL
MS ANNE MARZALIK, RESEARCH OFFICER, LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE
The committee met at 1533 in committee room 2.
SELECTION OF ESTIMATES
The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): Good afternoon.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Good afternoon. This is the second meeting in a row you've been here.
The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, it's nice to see you too and I'd like that on the record.
We are here today to commence the estimates process for this session. I think everybody here has been through this before, but just as a reminder, what that requires is a selection by each of the parties, in two rounds, of their choices for what they would like to have considered. We will commence with the official opposition, the Liberal Party.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): We think health care for nine hours and municipal affairs for six; those are our choices.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Bisson for the NDP.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We would go to education for 7.5 and then the Premier's office for 7.5.
The Chair: Mr Young.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs for 15 hours.
Mr Bisson: How did I figure it out? I knew it.
Mr Young: Why didn't you say that before?
The Chair: Thank you for that abiding interest in intergovernmental affairs. We'll go to the second round with Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: Agriculture, food and rural affairs.
The Chair: For how many hours, Mr Cleary?
Mr Cleary: Seven and a half, I guess. Also Management Board of Cabinet.
The Chair: For the balance, 7.5?
Mr Cleary: Yes.
Mr Bisson: There go a couple of my picks, so we're going to go to cabinet office, 7.5 -- one moment, some of my picks have disappeared quickly here. We've already done health?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Bisson: Health has been picked. Can you review the list?
The Chair: So far we have chosen health for nine hours, municipal affairs for six, education for 7.5, the Premier's office for 7.5, intergovernmental affairs for 15, agriculture, food and rural affairs for 7.5, Management Board for 7.5, and your first selection in this round is cabinet office for 7.5.
Mr Bisson: Our next pick then would be -- what a toss-up this is --community and social services for 7.5.
The Chair: Mr Young?
Mr Young: Transportation for 15.
The Chair: Transportation for 15. I believe that is the full slate.
Mr Young: That's it. You've got a full slate.
The Chair: Thank you. That's the entire business for this meeting unless there are other matters members would like to raise. I will be asking for a subcommittee meeting to look at the workload. It would be my suggestion we give the ministries until Tuesday, two weeks from yesterday, to prepare. We understand the detailed estimates will be ready by then and so we'll call the first estimates two weeks from yesterday.
Mr Young: Our duty in this meeting is to decide when the committee will commence its reviews, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Young. I'm just looking at the traditional time we have. I'm sure everyone on this committee wants to make the best use of estimates committee time. Traditionally, there's approximately a two-week period to allow ministries to prepare. We could start sooner if you like. We have only until June 25 to review ministries.
Mr Young: We have to look at people's workloads etc. I want to recommend we begin September 8 and 9. I guess it would be health and municipal affairs.
Mr Bisson: Are you suggesting that estimates start in September?
Mr Young: It's a suggestion. I have a workload at finance etc.
The Chair: Mr Young, as you make that suggestion, I would just refer you to the standing orders and the recent records of the estimates committee. There really is no precedent for not dealing with estimates at the earliest opportunity in terms of the sittings that we've had, at least that I have in front of me for the last five years. In fact, what estimates traditionally does or has done in some years when the actual sitting time is less is to add days during the recess and that is something I would like at least considered by the subcommittee, but there really isn't a precedent for us not to do our duty and for us to put this off for a long period of time.
Mr Young: I wasn't suggesting we wouldn't do our duty. Maybe we can hear from the other parties what their thoughts are rather than --
The Chair: I just want you to be aware of the precedent. I'll ask now for Mr Bartolucci and then Mr Bisson.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Might I suggest that two weeks from yesterday is ample opportunity for the ministries to prepare. The books will be ready. It'll be fresh in their minds at that particular time, for the minister, his PA and the staff. I suggest that in fairness to the people of Ontario, to delay it for discussion purposes until September is a bit lengthy. As quickly as possible I think is the way to go. I suggest that two weeks from yesterday is probably the best starting date.
Mr Bisson: Here's the problem with the suggestion. If you're asking if I think it's a good idea, the answer definitely is no. The reason is that the estimates, as explained earlier, are supposed to commence, according to the standing orders, fairly quickly once the estimates are printed, but the other thing is that the work of this committee ends -- what is it? -- the second Thursday in November.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Bisson: Which means this committee would have almost no time to consider the estimates of the various ministries. I know the government is very open and accountable and wants to give the opportunity, not only to the opposition parties but to government members, to ask questions about these estimates.
1540
Second, I've been a member of the estimates committee dating back to 1990 and this committee, quite frankly, has tried on every occasion, both under the NDP government and under your government, to work to try to get as much of the work of the committee as possible done as far as getting the number of ministries before estimates is concerned. As the Chair indicated, your party, while in opposition, was a very big advocate of the estimates committee meeting in the summer, which we accommodated at least on one occasion, and I think maybe even two.
I would rather stick with the suggestion that we start from two Tuesdays as of last Tuesday, the second Tuesday as of last Tuesday. That gives you two weeks for estimates prior to the House breaking, if what I think is the calendar is right. Then as a subcommittee we can try to deal with whether we want to arrange for extra committee time during the summer to deal with some of the other estimates, and then be back here in the fall.
The last part is that it's quite possible this committee will not be meeting in February. We may be on the campaign trail. I think for the government to suggest we go to September 9 tells me that's probably more of a reality than I thought before I walked in here.
Mr Young: I was suggesting September 9 based in part on my own schedule. The precedent, if you're looking at precedents, last year was three weeks from when the selections were made. That would give the first sitting day as June 16, which is certainly agreeable if that is what the other parties want.
The Chair: Mr Young, what we have is the availability this year of the detailed estimates on June 8. Is there a particular reason why we would wait another week beyond that? Following the principle that we'd like to have as many sitting days as possible, and that is the precedent this committee has followed for the very large number of years it has pursued this --
Mr Young: I don't know what your schedule's like, but I can tell you mine is already virtually full for that week. If you get the estimates, you want to have time to study them and understand and prepare your inquiries. June 16 gives us that, consistent with last year's precedent, so that's the date we're willing to accept.
Mr Wettlaufer: One of my biggest complaints on this committee over the last couple of years has been that we haven't had ample time to review the estimates after they initially came out. I find that I would really like a weekend to prepare for the first meeting. That would seem to me to indicate that June 16 would be the best time to start. That would give us of course four days before the House rises, and that's in June, and then resumption in September would be certainly desirable. As to the concerns of Gilles Bisson, I don't think we're going to be on the campaign trail in the winter.
The Chair: Mr Young, to strive for a consensus here, your earlier suggestion was for September 8. Does that indicate a willingness to come back and sit additional days, if necessary, in other words, that are not part of what we know to be the calendar?
Mr Young: I don't want to prejudge that now because we don't even know if government committees are going to be sitting in August.
The Chair: Just for our awareness, we would need to make a request of House leaders to sit in the interim period. That is the traditional way the estimates committee has allocated its days. I just wanted to find out if that was part of your intention so I could move that forward.
Mr Young: I'm not prepared to discuss that right now, but I am prepared to make a motion that the committee come back to hear estimates starting June 16.
The Chair: I'll accept the motion. Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Wettlaufer: Seconded.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Bisson: Listen, at the end of the day the government will do what it does. It has a majority. It's a parliamentary dictatorship. We all understand that. We live it and have experienced it from both sides of the House, some of us here.
But I just want come back and say I've been sitting on this committee since 1990. The Conservative caucus has always been a very active member at estimates. I remember full well the machinations of now Minister Jackson and others who sat on this committee who were extremely preoccupied with having this committee meet as much as possible. I take it there has been a change in position since you've come to government. You think that, for whatever reason, government shouldn't be as accountable. That is what I have to read from what you're saying.
The second thing is, to say that I can't clear my schedule until three weeks from now as a backbencher in the government is really a stretch.
Mr Young: No one said that.
Mr Bisson: As a minister, as a parliamentary assistant, it doesn't matter, we all have our duties here. We know when committees sit. You've been given notices as to when the estimates committee schedule is on the two particular days of the week. To say "I'm not available" is hardly an excuse.
I think we should, as much as possible, try to accommodate as many ministries as possible at this particular committee so that we can properly go through the estimates and make them accountable to the people of Ontario. That's what this is all about. If the government is not willing to do that and wants to slow the process, I can only read it as another attempt by a majority government to dictate what it wants to do in this committee and, quite frankly, limit the participation of the opposition when it comes to being able to hold your ministers accountable.
Is that helpful?
The Chair: We'll try and make it into something helpful when we draw up a conclusion.
Mr Cleary: I know that I've been around here for a number of years and this committee always sat when the House was sitting, most of the time. In that way we accomplished a lot. We were all together. You could talk to other members. I can't see that we're losing the week or two that we're going to lose. I think we should get on with the business and do what we're sent here for. I know that members of Parliament are busy. They knew that when they came and they knew that when they got on the committee and I think we should get on with it.
Mr Bartolucci: I've already given my preference for a start up date, but if in fact, and it looks like it if you take a quick count, the government is going to win this vote, I hope all members of the subcommittee would be very open to meeting in the intersession, in the off-time, so that the people of Ontario can clearly hear what the estimates are all about. I think that's only fair to the people who elect us all to come down here.
The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, and I'd like to try and suggest a conclusion.
Mr Wettlaufer: I just want to address a point that was raised by M. Bisson, and that is the accountability of government. It's very important to point out that this government has been as accountable or more accountable than previous governments. We have sat longer in the Legislature than previous governments and we have passed more legislation than previous governments. I think that indicates our accountability.
The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, as Chair, I'm certainly prepared to accept at face value that the interest and accountability is genuine and we may find expression for that in perhaps having additional days on which this committee could sit and discharge its work. I think we all recognize the estimates committee has a unique role in the Legislature. It's chaired by a member of the opposition and is intended to provide independent scrutiny of the biggest trust we have, which is the expenditure of public dollars.
I take the flavour of the comment today from the government side, as well as from the other parties, as saying there is interest in us discharging our duties. We've seen June 16 put forward as a date, but I take from the comments it's not intended to delay or interfere or get in the way of us doing our duties. So we look forward to perhaps making up for the time, that we take some time, because what is going to be --
Mr Young: Are you joining the debate, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I'm making a comment as Chairman. I'm invoking the precedent of the committee and I'm setting up what I hope will be a reasonable discussion. I would not want us to be in full partisan discussion.
Mr Bisson: I think you're being challenged.
The Chair: I'm accepting, Mr Young, your comments at face value and I'm hoping we can find consensus beyond the motion that's before us today.
Mr Wettlaufer: But as Chair you're supposed to refrain from any editorial comment.
The Chair: I'm not addressing the motion in front of us today. I'm simply saying from your comments -- rather than have us only be at loggerheads as a result of this, I'd like us to look forward to that further discussion. With that, I'll be happy to entertain --
Mr Wettlaufer: I hope that you will sit more as Chair in the upcoming term than you did last time, because obviously you didn't learn from last time what the responsibilities of Chair are.
The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, your company, as always, is one of the exceptional advantages to being here more often and I look forward to discharging --
Mr Wettlaufer: I hope you'll be here.
The Chair: -- my duties here, elsewhere, as I mentioned before, in your riding, and other places where I'm required.
Any other comments?
Mr Young: Yes, I would like to clarify. I've made a motion to meet on June 16, three weeks from the meeting where the choices were made. The precedent was made last year. There's no effort to obfuscate. Mr Wettlaufer said, and I've also said, that we'd like to have the estimates for a week so we can study them, as I'm sure the members here do, to be prepared to have a meaningful committee meeting. Having said that, can we please vote?
The Chair: I'm prepared to call the question. All those in favour of the motion to commence estimates on Tuesday, June 16? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr Bisson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, the vote has already been called. There being no further business, I call the meeting to conclusion.
The committee adjourned at 1551.