Legislative Assembly of Ontario

PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATION PROCESS REVIEW

AFTERNOON SITTING

CONTENTS

Thursday 21 March 1991

Pre-budget consultation process review

Afternoon sitting

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Chair: Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)

Vice-Chair: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)

Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre NDP)

Jamison, Norm (Norfolk NDP)

Kwinter, Monte (Wilson Heights L)

Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L)

Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)

Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)

Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford NDP)

Ward, Brad (Brantford NDP)

Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)

Substitution: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP) for Ms Ward

Clerk: Decker, Todd

Staff: Anderson, Anne, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1024 in committee room 1.

PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATION PROCESS REVIEW

The Chair: All right. I now see a quorum and I would like to begin this meeting. I think we should perhaps move into the general discussion that we were having about the pre-budget process, ideas about it, how we felt it worked and whether or not there were any recommendations of how this process could be changed, improved or should we leave it alone. And I throw that open to the members present.

Mr B. Ward: There is one way we perhaps should explore in improving the consultative approach. I know there are a number of major organizations that are very representative of a sector in our province, and although the presidents or the chairmen of these organizations may change, the organizations are still there. Perhaps we should develop or recommend a list of organizations that are, on a continual basis, invited to prepare briefs.

I know there was some discussion when we first formed as a committee as to what process did we want to use. We agreed we should be first of all inviting the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and that type of organization. I think we could establish a list so the clerk knows on a yearly basis and the organizations get used to being invited on a continual basis. I think that may be one avenue we could discuss. I do not know if I am off base here or not, but I think that is one area where we could improve the consultative approach.

Mr Sutherland: I would agree with Brad on that, and I think I would want to add a list. We made special note of the areas we did not hear from at this committee that we thought were still important areas; I think of transportation, environment and mining. I would suggest that maybe, looking at the list we saw from last year's report, a lot of those groups did not show up at that year either. I think that maybe there should be some focus in terms of identifying some of those organizations that are representative of those areas we have not heard from for a few years and maybe some selective recruiting of those organizations to appear before the committee, just to ensure that it gets a broader representation, and if the composition of some of the groups coming before this committee is changing from year to year, I think that is a good thing too. But particularly when you talk about issues of public transportation and environment, which have certainly grown in importance in the last couple of years, we should be hearing from them at this committee as well.

Mr Christopherson: The first thing I would like to say is that in my conversations with the Treasurer, he is still emphasizing the importance he places on this committee and on the pre-budget consultations and the fact that he sincerely would like to see us move to reform the process so that it could have more meaning and allow all members of the Legislature an opportunity for real input into the development of the budget.

I sincerely do not sense that there is any rhetoric there or that it is a throw-away line to appease someone. I think he truly would like to change the system. Recognizing there are still some things that are going to remain the personal domain of the Treasurer and certainly of cabinet, there is obviously a role for all members to play; and I think as we move into the 1990s and the next century, it is time that we started to recognize that.

Having said that, I preface my suggestions by saying we have not caucused on them and we do not have a hard and firm decision; this is a give and take, for us anyway. I would just say that my thoughts now are based on my limited experience here and perhaps in a perfect world might work but the realities of this place may not allow them. My concern with the whole process was that in many ways, I saw us doing line ministry business. For instance, we would have people from the health profession, health care, come in who would be making the case to us that their particular health concerns or areas of expertise or financial need should be placed in a position of high priority. Then under transportation, we had different submissions made by individuals who again felt that their particular issue needed to be high. I just had a bit of a problem with that because that has to be sort of all or nothing to be effective. We either sit down and listen to virtually every single interest group that is out there, so that we can adequately weigh them all equally, which I would suggest is probably impossible, or we try to limit ourselves to dealing with the macroeconomics of the province. That is what I would throw out for discussion, that it would be nice if we had many of the same groups -- the agricultural group, the labour groups, business, banks, investments, financial institutions and so on -- all the players come in but give us their perspective on the macro and where they think we ought to be targeting in terms of the monetary and fiscal policies of this government.

1030

In conjunction with that -- again I do not know how practical this is -- I thought it was helpful when the ministers came in. The ministers who did come in here at least were able to share with us the difficult choices that they saw and what were their global dollar needs.

Again, I find it hard to believe that any Treasurer is sitting down and looking at budget line item in a particular ministry in real detail. I just do not think that is practical or possible. That is what the minister is there for. What the Treasurer is looking at is, "Out of the global budget, how much can we or should we allocate for health or transportation?" I have understood from my colleague -- the minister of that particular area -- these are the priorities that they have and these are the needs they have and I would agree that this is the way we ought to prioritize our dollars.

There are 26 or 27 line ministries. We listen to an awful lot of submissions anyway; if we were to have all of those ministers come in, at the end of that we would have a pretty fair sense of the major fiscal pressures that each of the ministers was facing. My colleague across the way has been in cabinet and would know better than I, but that is probably not unlike what happens in cabinet, at P and P and during the budget process.

In order for that to be effective in practical politics -- and this is where it may not work -- you would have to have in place a process where virtually every line ministry went through a public consultation opportunity so that those people who do want to come in and make a specific proposal for their area of concern or expertise still have an opportunity to do so. What is not going to happen in this place is that we change this process by simply cutting people out from coming to the end of the table. Even if it is not having the impact that many would like to think it does, I still do not see how, in real political terms, we are ever going to be able to say to someone: "You are not coming in any more. You will no longer be able to come in and make your annual pitch, even though you realize you are not changing the world every time you come in and do that."

To summarize, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your indulgence, from where I sit, I think it would be best for us if we were dealing with the macro monetary and fiscal issues and we were receiving briefings from the ministers so that we understood the fiscal constraints they were under. From that perspective, we could then offer up to the Treasurer those key areas in the macro sense that we think he ought to be looking at, knowing that the only way that will work is if each of the ministries -- either through committees or some other process -- is allowing those same groups that are coming in to see us an opportunity to come in. Quite frankly, that ought to be happening. The Ministry of Health should be allowing those interest groups to come in, through some process, and make a case for their share of that slice of the pie.

Mr Phillips: I probably have a bit of a fundamental difference of opinion on that. I think the process that we went through actually is not all bad; it is not perfect, but democracy is not very perfect. I really think it would be a mistake for the public to think that their only input is through the ministries and for us to change our focus to be dealing with the ministries. I think it serves quite a worthwhile function that people feel they have some access to this place. That surely is the message all of us get, that this place, even symbolically, is surrounded by a moat. Interestingly enough, there is only one cross-bridge if you look at it over there; there is one traffic light where you can get across this thing, and as the traffic builds up, symbolically this place runs the risk of being even more remote from people.

One thing that is effective about city councils and school boards is that they are very close to the people, and anybody who has got a complaint, whether it be about the dandelions on their neighbour's lawn or their taxes, has access. Here, I do not want to do anything that moves in the other direction. Every ministry has a lineup of advocacy groups that the minister sees -- just look at their schedules -- but many groups feel they do not really have access; they may get their half hour, but when they leave the bureaucrats tell the minister why it cannot be done. Therefore, I think we have to keep this process open.

As for the changes I would consider making -- I think we will be a lot better at it next year anyway; I mean, we all know the process, we will know the budget and all that sort of stuff -- they would be perhaps to have a more detailed briefing from the Treasurer with an outlook for the next five years, maybe even sending that to the groups that are going to present here in advance so they at least have some understanding of the financial realities that the Treasurer sees facing him.

I would not advocate fundamental change at this stage. I think the three weeks probably were about adequate. I think people at least who want to have their say knew they could have their say. You will find it will ebb and flow; next year there will be a different group of people here. Everybody knows this takes place anyway, and if they feel strongly they will show up. But the fundamental point is that we have got to be careful not to do anything that makes this place more remote from people.

Mrs Sullivan: I apologize for having come in late, but I think I caught the gist of some of Mr Christopherson's remarks. I think one of the things he was conveying on behalf of the Treasurer in his views to us was that the Treasurer would like to see a committee that operates in a way that is more comparable to that of the British House, where each member serves as an individual rather than as a representative of a party. We have seen some move to that kind of committee operation in Ottawa with the finance committee there chaired by Don Blenkarn. That has not been the tradition here. In fact, this committee has not existed for an awfully long time.

The question that I suppose we will all have to ask is where we see the positioning of this committee. Do we see ourselves as being an advocate of a position that may or may not be accepted by government, having reached a conclusion as a committee? I think of Don Blenkarn and his committee and some of the stands they took in Ottawa relating to the GST, to insurance and to the banking industry. They did have a strong and important communications effect and probably had an influence on some of the decisions that were made by that government.

I am not certain at this point if our own caucuses have looked at those questions to see the kind of committee structure and the independence of the committee that is comparable to that in Ottawa. Certainly that was the hope of the previous Treasurer when he asked the House and the House leaders to put forward and introduce this committee. His hope was that, in fact, the committee would take on issues that were of importance in the economy, but it was very clear that this was not a ministerial vetting committee. The decisions would have been made by the committee, having dealt with people and organizations who represented a point of view, who had problems and wanted to bring them forward to some place that was open and seen to be willing to listen. The committee also, certainly at the federal level, and it was the intention that this committee too, would be able to engage outside consultants, were that to be necessary.

1040

At some point we may want to have that kind of discussion. I am not sure that of the issues we are likely to deal with over the next period of time, the issue is a pervasive one- Are we going to be an independent committee, or how are we going to operate?

I think it would be dead wrong to move away from involving people from the community in appearances before the committee. One of the things that all the standing committees of the House have been able to do over a period of time is to bring people in from outside this place and from outside areas that each of us represent. We all tend to be more familiar with those issues and concerns in our own constituencies. The broader-based view that can be brought to the committee through an umbrella group or through individuals who are facing issues in their daily life is a matter of extreme importance, and I would not want to go into the ministry consultative process in terms of any budget determination program.

I was kind of taken aback by some of Mr Christopherson's remarks. I think it might be useful, just as an exercise, perhaps after the budget is finished or in an informal session, to have perhaps the Secretary of the Management Board and the Deputy Treasurer come and explain, to the new members particularly, what is in the budget process internally. The pressures are identified by the cabinet and are put forward through the estimates process and through other processes. I think it might have been useful even to have that kind of understanding before we went through this process, but I thought the sessions this year worked pretty well.

I was impressed with the breadth and the differing sophistications and the different financings behind the groups and organizations and individuals who came before us. There was a good cross-section, it seems to me, of interests. There were a couple of areas that we probably could have added a little bit more to by extending invitations, and maybe that is an area where we should put some attention on. I thought the three weeks was a reasonable period of time, and we could have extended that into night sittings if we had had more demand. But it was a pretty good cross-section. I thought it worked quite well this year: lots of opportunity for discussion with the groups and to ask questions, too. I would just leave it like that. I think this is the wrong place for the cabinet ministers to be in, basically, making their public fight before individual members for a particular or different share of the budget.

Mr B. Ward: I agree with Mr Christopherson in the sense that, from a macro standpoint, and as Mr Sutherland mentioned, there were some sectors that were not represented at this committee. I think Mrs Sullivan and Mr Phillips agree that we should not be constraining groups; we should be encouraging all sectors that are represented by umbrella groups to present their views on a provincial standpoint.

I personally felt the time allocated was a little bit constraining, and we could look at expanding that to possibly four weeks. I just felt personally it was a little bit constraining in our attempts to get the report completed. That is where it seemed to be really constraining: to get the report completed on time.

The Chair: So you want more time for the actual discussion of the resolutions and the writing of the report?

Mr B. Ward: Yes. I think there was a little bit of constraint there as far as completion of the report went.

The other concern I have, and I do not think it has been discussed yet, is that since we held the meetings here, the groups that were present were primarily from the greater Toronto area. Perhaps we should be looking at some avenues to allow the groups that cannot be here; perhaps we should be going to them to allow a representation, particularly in the north. I know there are some umbrella organizations from the north that for whatever reason felt they could not be present, but we should be looking at perhaps having some meetings outside of Toronto in the future.

Mr Sutherland: Has this committee ever gone on tour of the province for the pre-budget consultation process?

The Chair: No. I am approaching this -- from where I sit here -- as a sort of post-pre-budget consultation review so we can look at how to make the process better and recommend any changes to the whips.

Mr Stockwell: I do not think we should get bent out of shape too much with the thoughts of our own self-importance. We are pretty insignificant in the whole scheme of things. I accept that, being from probably the most insignificant party at Queen's Park because we are in third place. Maybe it is easier for me to say it rather than others because we lost. In my opinion, the fact is that our input is negligible, and I think we should remember that. Touring would give the impression that we feel our input into the budget process is a lot more significant than it truly is. I do not necessarily think the system that was in place was all that bad, frankly. I think it was pretty good.

I am in agreement too with respect to access and people coming forward. It seems politics at Queen's Park, which is different from politics in City Hall, is way more geared to special interest groups. It seems your life is spent hearing from special interest groups. I suppose that is the way politics is everywhere at the provincial and federal levels; they get their 10 or 15 minutes, make their pitch and go on their way. I do not think they take this pitch very significantly either because -- let's be frank -- you are not talking to the minister. You are talking to a parliamentary assistant, maybe, who sits on the committee, and a group of members from the government side, who I am sure talk to the minister but not on a regular basis about the issues and policies of the day, and from the other parties in the House, who probably never talk to the minister on policy issues, etc.

We should dismiss this touring idea right away. It will be a colossal waste of money, in my opinion, and it will just raise people's hopes in other sections of the province, who will think, "Gee, a committee is coming up there; let's make a pitch and we'll get our way," or something along those lines. Why not let the Treasurer tour? It would be far more appropriate if the Treasurer toured Ontario and got input from people around the province. I think it would be extremely helpful if he did that.

The only thing I would ask is that there be some method to see if there are more private citizens out there who want to make a pitch. It is difficult, I know, and I suppose we could be here for the rest of our lives hearing from them, but I would like to hear from a few more than we did. I agree special interest groups are good to hear from as well, but they always have an axe to grind. There is a reason for their being here and you pretty much know what they are going to say before they even make their pitch. It is like the parties: You pretty much knew what your report was going to say before it came out, and our report, and so on and so on.

With respect to ministers, I do not see that as a very worthwhile exercise for them to be appearing before us. We are committed to hearing from the public, and any way we can make it easier for the public to come before us and give their pitch I think is appropriate. As Mr Phillips said a few minutes ago, next year we will probably be better at it and will offer different viewpoints; potentially we will have a better committee next year, a little smoother running, and maybe reach out and get some different groups in here. It seems to me from what I have read on previous groups that it tends to be the same ones year after year. Maybe that is the way it is always going to be, but it would be nice if we could get some fresh ideas, maybe a few radical ideas. What the heck; you are in government only once, maybe twice.

1050

Mr Christopherson: That is what you guys thought; you thought it was just for ever.

I want to deal with Mr Stockwell's comments first. I apologize for having to had slip out for a moment; I cut the conversation short to take the call because I did want to hear what he had to say. When I came back, I started out agreeing with him 100% and slowly he started losing me as the rest of his argument unfolded.

Mr Stockwell: You will find that happens a lot.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, that is what your former colleagues tell me; it was their experience with you.

I knew that by even broaching the issues I did that I would be open to, let's just say being run at and leave it at that -- interpretations that others would like to place on it. Mr Stockwell in his opening comments succinctly established that just because people are coming in and we are allowing them to have a say and raising their hopes that things are going to happen, there is a real concern about whether, because we are allowing that to happen, there is any real input and real effective change.

I would not find too much disagreement with what Mr Stockwell said, that basically you could have each of us write down, in a sealed envelope ahead of time, where we thought generally each of the reports was going to go, and you probably would not have been too far off the mark. Granted, on specifics -- because we learned about the issues -- some priorities were changed as a result of what came in, what people told us. But by and large I think that if you looked at the previous reports you could pretty well guess where the thrust of the three parties was going to go in this report. That is what concerns me.

Mr Phillips mentioned that people should feel like they have access. That is my concern, that there is an impression that people are having a real access to the decision-making by virtue of coming in to the end of the table. I will try to be non-partisan in this approach, but I really feel that if there is going to be change in public input, it is not that you are just saying to people, "Yes, come in and have your say," because you can easily build a system where everybody has their say but that say does not have a lot of impact on the ultimate decision That is what concerns me that I would like to see a greater impact.

I am concerned, as a member of this Legislature, about the influence this report will have. It will have as great an impact on this Treasurer as it has had on the prior Treasurer -- I would hope more, but you would expect me to say that -- but I do not know that this report, because of the system we have, is having the kind of effect that we want. I think we would really like to see people have access to the process, and that is why I emphasize that nobody should be denied his say, but maybe the say should be better placed. Or maybe we ought to change what happens to that say in terms of how we deal with it.

My concern is that we may be making people feel good or feel like they have access, to quote Mr Phillips, but we are not effectively empowering anybody, which is really one of the key aspects of government in the 1990s: to empower groups, to empower people. I am not impugning the motives of the arguments that Mr Phillips gave back across the way, nor those of Mrs Sullivan; I am just suggesting that maybe we need the kind of radical changes Mr Stockwell has talked about.

I am not married to the idea of ministers coming in here or any particular aspect of what I suggested, but I was trying to generate the idea -- at the risk of leaving myself open to the kind of runs I had and that you could make on those concerns -- that we maybe need to be looking at making this whole thing more effective and not just tinkering with a process that we have been handed down from a previous Legislature. I will not point any fingers because I do not think that is appropriate, and that is not what I think was said.

I liked what Mrs Sullivan said about the idea of looking at what they are doing federally, where that seems to be having some impact. I am not as familiar with the British system for their committees as Mrs Sullivan seems to be, but I like that kind of thinking. I like the idea of saying, "Okay, let's set aside what we do here, just for the sake of argument, and have a clean slate in front of us and say: `What kind of things could we do?'" rather than saying, "This is the best system and all we need to do is tinker with it to make it work." That is what worries me. I really would feel bad if at the end of four or five years we were still turning out reports and had a process that still did not have any greater impact on the Treasurer and on the cabinet than it now has. I would not feel good about that.

Mr Sutherland: I want to come back to the issue of whether this committee tours. Mr Stockwell made about the point that he would like to have more individual input, but he does not think touring is a very valuable process. As someone who had the opportunity to sit on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation -- and Mr Stockwell sat in on that committee for a couple of days as well -- I know that from the day I sat in, that is when you get the individual representations. I think if you look overall at the select committees or at those committees that do go out and tour around the province, you find more input from individual citizens there than in the committees that just hold hearings here. I think that, if you really want input from the average citizens or individual citizens out there, touring is one of the better options of doing that.

We heard from a couple of school boards from this area, ones that had appeared before this committee before, and they certainly had valuable input, but not all their concerns are similar to those of other individual school boards and community health groups in those areas. It is obviously far more expensive; there is no doubt about it. I do not think we should cast aside the idea of touring, particularly since we now know that this committee has not toured at all for that pre-budget process.

Mr Hansen: A lot of my questions have been answered already, but one thing is that the ad we had put in the newspaper stated that we would travel if it was necessary, it just happened that most of the groups' headquarters are based here in Toronto; so that is why I figured we did not get any requests to travel outside of Toronto to hold hearings.

The other thing is that in one of our subcommittees here we discussed which groups we would be asking to come; so we decided on the groups we would be requesting to make a presentation to the committee. I had a strong feeling about a group known as Shop Ontario, which in my particular area has got quite a concern. Not knowing the process of Shop Ontario, and knowing the chamber of commerce was making a presentation, I approached Tony Commisso and said it would be a great opportunity for their group to approach the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

Sometimes we have to do a little bit of teaching -- it may be in our particular ridings or whatever the case may be -- to inform people that this committee is here and to make presentations so we wind up getting them in here. This is something that is coming up in the future that we will be discussing on cross-border shopping; so it actually gives us an insight into our upcoming discussions in this particular area.

As Mr Christopherson asked some of the questions and made some of the statements, that is what I have to say on the matter.

1100

Mr Phillips: My blood is boiling a bit over Mr Christopherson's comments. When I ask people to come here, I listen to them and I care about what they say. It is not that I feel and then ignore them. I will tell you, there is intellectual arrogance beginning to creep in and you guys had better watch it. I am as sincere as I can be on this, because if you think the people of this province do not want to come here and be heard, you are dead wrong. I will continue to fight and make certain that anyone who wants to let his views be known has that opportunity.

I guess I wanted to make absolutely sure that when I say people feel, they feel and in reality have it. I listened to every one of those presentations. They all sink in, they all have an impact on the background, and I do not think we can be selective. I still recall one of the members across there saying, "I don't know why that group or that individual had a chance to speak, because they are represented by another group." I am prepared to listen to individuals who may disagree with the organizations they may belong to. I do not think we can be selective in who we want to hear from in this province.

Mr Christopherson: We seem to be going down exactly the road that I expected. It does not surprise me that you might feel a little defensive, if indeed it was the last government that implemented this process. I am not suggesting that any of us did not listen. What I am suggesting is that the ultimate product may not have the kind of impact on the decision-making that people like to think it has or that we hope it has. I have said very clearly that I think this report will have the same impact and effect on the current Treasurer as it had on the previous Treasurer. I am not faulting either one of them. I am suggesting that there must be a better way of having what we hear reach the actual decision-making point, other than just this report.

I am now running the risk of running afoul of my own government but, as a member who has come from a grassroots level of government, as you have, to Mr Phillips, I have a concern that this is not having the kind of effect that it should have. I say that as a member from Hamilton Centre. I think there ought to be greater impact on the decision-making based on what people are telling us at the end of the table.

What I did not say in my previous remarks was that, based on the process we just went through, you could probably rename this committee the funding advocacy committee more than the finance and economic affairs committee because we spent as much time dealing with individual advocacy groups as we did on the macro question. I am not saying that is wrong from a Legislator's point of view. What I am questioning is where those discussions are taking place. Might it not be more effective, I am suggesting, for us to have a better process for people who want to talk about specific advocacies rather than having their concerns lumped in -- because I cannot think of a better phrase -- with those of the people who are coming forward and talking to us about the macro question, which is what we did. My concern is that we are dealing with apples and oranges.

In terms of personal commitment, I would love to be on all the committees that heard from everybody, as I am sure Mr Phillips would, because he cares and I have seen that and I believe it sincerely. I do not think either one of us wants to impugn the other's motives in this discussion, but what I am suggesting is that I think there could be a better process. Maybe a committee like this would do better by getting into a lot of the projections about the unemployment figures that are expected -- I am not phrasing it right -- a lot of the projections we heard from people who spent a good 45 minutes with charts doing very in-depth, comprehensive reviews about where this province is going vis-à-vis other provinces, the Americans, the global market.

What are the key areas we ought to be focusing on? Through the whole thing there is a great emphasis on the manufacturing sector. I just see so much business coming through here, so many key things that are important, from the dandelion funding programs right through to Michael McCracken talking to us about his view of where we are going in an economic forecast for the next year, that I think we could probably better serve those people who are coming forward, and allow more people to come forward, if we changed the process. I was throwing it out, off the top of my head, not having given it a great deal of thought or research, saying, "Here's a suggestion for the sake of discussion about how we might do it."

I am prepared to listen to the ideas that Mrs Sullivan put forward. If Mr Stockwell has any of his radical ideas in his vest pocket, I am prepared to listen to those too. But what I do not want to do, and this is my position, is to see us just tinker with this, because I do not think it is good enough. I do not think we are giving the people what they think we are giving them through this process, and that is the bottom line of my concern.

Mr Phillips: I do not think you read either our minority report or the Conservative minority report, in that they both dealt with macro issues. It was the majority report that itemized 60 recommendations. The process has the full scope to allow us to make macro recommendations. You chose to go with -- I do not know -- 52 recommendations, but an important part of the backdrop of all of that is, what are people thinking out there? I am rejecting strongly limiting people's access to this committee to give us the necessary background to form our opinions. I will fight for a long while to avoid the élitism of saying: "We know best, and we will deal with the numbers here."

Mr Sutherland: No one is trying to limit the public's access. The suggestion put forward by Mr Christopherson is, you still have public input; it is a question of where is the most effective place of putting it. Is it the committee having everyone come in, as they have here? The alternative would certainly require a change in the way ministries deal with it, because they would have to go through a far more formalized process than they have now. I do not think any of the ministries has a system in place to do the type of things that Mr Christopherson has suggested, that those groups go specifically there and then the individual ministries come here. That may be a better way; it may not be. There are also other options. No one here is trying to deny the public's access to making input and giving suggestions and recommendations. It is a question of whether this committee is the best process. There is a question whether some of Mr Christopherson's suggestions are the best process, or maybe there is another method out there that is even better than that. I think we all want to try to improve the process, and I do not think we should get caught up in the discussion of whether one way is trying to hinder the public's access. We know we all want public input. I think that is a given for any elected official, or it should be a given, anyway. I think we should try to refocus the discussion away from limiting public access to whether the current method is more effective or Mr Christopherson's suggestions would be more effective or other alternatives would be more effective.

The Chair: There have been a number of comments made, one by Mr Ward about the time of the process: how much time was available for hearing submissions and then being able to think about those submissions and make recommendations. If I read him correctly, there is some question about the amount of time available for actually digesting the material and then making recommendations. Does the committee have a recommendation about the specific comment that Mr Ward has made? Is there a recommendation or some kind of change we can make in the process that would address that specific question, or are we happy with exactly what we had?

1110

Mr Sutherland: My only suggestion would be that if you had your two weeks or three weeks of hearings, then the committee could have a week off, which would allow time for the research staff to write the background for the report, and based on the comment, that would also give us time to digest it, then come back and write the report that way.

The Chair: Okay, that is one recommendation: a week between hearings and writing.

Mr Phillips: I think it may be more worthwhile to have this discussion in two or three months. We have just been through the one process, but I think time will unfold a little bit, and I would rather make a decision on how we want to do the pre-budget consultations a little bit later than right now. I just think the economy is going to change, and all sorts of things; so we may have quite a different view of how we want to run this thing. I am not sure today you are going to be able to nail down three versus four weeks, this or that. You may want to let a little bit of time go by, to see how things unfold, and then we need to do it six months before the budget or give ourselves enough time. But as I say, I for one am not sure that today we are going to be able to put in place a process that would be useful here.

The Chair: I guess my concern as Chairman is to try to put something on paper in case there are changes in the makeup of the committee so we could then have some continuity if there are changes. I do not know that there are going to be, but I am thinking down the road; a year is an awfully long time in this game.

Mrs Sullivan: As we discuss the kind of process that the committee wants to go through for the next pre-budget sitting, we have to recall that any recommendations that will be made would be going ultimately to the Board of Internal Economy in terms of determining the agenda and the funding for the committee. Those are the parameters around which we will be making any kinds of recommendations. These are not decisions that are going to be made.

The other point I wanted to make is that only to a certain extent does this committee set its own agenda, in that there will be items referred to the committee, perhaps, depending on what legislation comes forward directly from the Legislature. Depending on what legislation, if any, comes forward of a nature that this committee can deal with, the items that the committee would be looking at, studying and perhaps involving other people from the public would be set out for us. They could be set out while the House is in session, because this is a committee that does meet while the House is in session, or they could be set out for the intersession period, including the summer.

Some things, such as the lengthening of the time for pre-budget hearings, may be out of the hands of this committee. The scheduling of time and dates may be out of the hands of this committee. Once again, I think the majority party has to take into account, as our party did when it was in government, the enormous pressures on the smaller membership of the opposition parties and the conflicts in committee scheduling that may occur from time to time. This committee cannot operate in isolation, and those kinds of things have to be taken into account.

I was going to make another point, not related to process. I think I suggested before that it might be useful at some point, perhaps even in an informal session, to have the Secretary of Management Board and the Deputy Treasurer in to discuss the process. I really feel there is a lack of understanding and appreciation of the kinds of processes that do take place in budget preparation, and I think that would be useful for everyone. I happen to be very familiar with it because I worked intimately in that in another life, but most members do not know what happens and do not understand, for instance, some of the comments about the advocacy groups proceeding to the ministry. If you do not think they are doing and have done that, no matter what government is in power, you are crazy. If you ask your ministers, they will tell you that day after day after day their time is spent dealing with and talking to the advocacy groups and learning about their financial needs particularly. In doing that, they are also developing their own argumentation and their own views over what will go forward following and included in the estimates process and in the identification of particular pressures that are coming before the government for funding.

So much of the budget is a given in terms of transfers and things like credit costs and so on, that there is a limited amount of freedom in terms of changing the priority of government in budget setting. The ministers are all involved very much in their own lobbying effort to get what they feel is their fair share of the budget; and to find out about that, they are indeed meeting with people. For us to understand the kind of pressures that are going on, it seems to me, going back to who comes and how and the nature of these committee hearings, we should have as open and as broad a group of individuals and organizations coming before us, because only through that process will we as legislators ever be able to see more than a limited scope of lobbying effort.

Those are just observations in response to what I have heard from other statements today.

Mr Stockwell: Not to prolong this debate, I agree with Mr Phillips from the Liberals. I think if you went away for a couple months and thought about it, maybe you could clarify exactly what it is you see as a process that you would be more happy with. I think we should be prepared to do that.

I am not opposed to re-looking at this. I do not think anyone is opposed. I just think there are probably some fundamental flaws in some of the arguments put forward. When you build an argument like the one that has been made by the government side, you add building blocks to an argument, and the flaw I see is the foundation to this argument about access and process and so on. The building block has cracked. It reminds me of worrying about mice in the basement when you have got an elephant on your roof. The problem you have here is you are trying to empower people. That is a nice word, and it is a good little phrase, but to empower people you must have power. You guys do not have power. We do not have power. Ministers have power. Premiers have power. That means, then, if someone is going to have some power to influence, he must be speaking to the decision-maker.

Maybe as a parliamentary assistant you have a lot of input into the decision-making process, but none in the cabinet, and that is where the decisions get made. So in a lot of respects we can pretend and, I guess, pretend to give power. I do not have any power in this government; I know that. What I think we should remember is that we are here to hear from the people. We produce these reports and ask the ministers to read them. If they choose to read them, they do; if they choose not to, they do not. That is all we can do. I guess you paint with as broad a brush as you can and try to invite as many people in, and you have your opinion; I have mine. Usually there are two of us, so we have ours and the Liberals have theirs, and we go on our merry way. And for ever and a day, that is government in this country. To change it, I think you are looking at a major revamping of the process. A major revamping means that you people get a lot more free votes than you do right now, and I do not think you are going to get a free vote in the budget. I understand what you are trying to say, and I think it is an noble effort, but I just do not think there is much opportunity to do that.

The only other thing I would point out, Mr Chairman, is that I am not opposed to any concepts or changes that you want to bring forward. I just want to be clear. I do not really think we are that powerful a committee, so I do not want to spend any more money. If we are going to talk about travelling, that is the biggest expense you could have, and I am not prepared to blow thousands and thousands of dollars on this committee, with negligible, if any, power, to go around receiving input from people that will not be listened to -- I should not say "listened to;" that is not the right word -- that will not be put to the decision makers. The point again is about the power. To empower people you have to have it and, frankly, folks, we do not have any.

1120

The Chair: I am in the chair, Mr Christopherson.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you. I would suggest the only greater concern than elephants on the roof is maybe bats in the belfry, but we will just leave that sit.

This may scare Mr Stockwell a little -- it certainly does me -- but I do not think he and I are that far apart in terms of the foundations of the argument. I am not sure where that leaves the Liberals, and probably at that level it is maybe personal and should be dealt with one on one. But anyway, I do not think I disagree that much with a lot of what Mr Stockwell says in terms of the realities. What I would probably disagree with is whether it is at least worth the effort to make the change. I would not disagree that it is a mammoth undertaking, but it truly is a priority for us. We honestly believe that. Now whether we are actually going to be able to change this huge ship of state and make it work differently remains to be seen, but we really want to make that change with a great deal of enthusiasm and I think that sincerely is the message from the Treasurer.

Mr Stockwell: That may be worth your while.

Mr Christopherson: I hear Mr Stockwell saying that it may be worth our while. I hope so, because we are going to make that undertaking. At the risk of people suggesting that we are trying to do other things, I think it is worth the effort and the political risk to try to make that change, and in the final analysis, if we were to be somewhat successful, I suspect there would be a fair bit of support for that change, if and when it was finally concluded.

Two more thoughts. One of Mrs Sullivan's concerns was about making sure that even more people are heard. Again, I do not have a fundamental difference with that. I think it is important that we have maximized people's input. That is what I am talking about. To me, it would make more sense perhaps if we had a subcommittee of this group that said, for instance, "We're here to deal with Health, and we want to cast the net farther than the committees have done in the past," and we had another group that was looking into Transportation. Whether those were made up of other members or part of this group, I do not know, but that kind of work and time and undertaking is worth it because we ought to be listening to as many people as possible. I am just suggesting this current structure may not lend itself to that. I reject -- and it is the last time I will comment on it -- I reject out of hand any suggestion that there is an attempt to limit people's access. That is a misinterpretation of my comments. My intent is to try to find a system that allows more input, more access and makes that input even more effective.

The last point, on Mr Ward's suggestion, is that I would suggest there is merit in at least making some interim recommendations while the matter is fresh in our mind. I think it is valid to say that, as we get closer to the process, we may feel that we need to make some changes, based on experience, but I think there is also validity in saying: "Hey, we just came through the process; it's very fresh. Let's at least make some recommendations now based on that experience while it's still a live thought."

The Chair: My reading of this debate as the Chair is that we are dancing around the question of how much independent thought or recommendations this committee can have, which to an extent depends on how far the committee members are prepared to go in making recommendations independent of the party, all parties.

I have heard from Mrs Sullivan that the British system has a great deal more independence. I have also heard that the federal finance and economics committee has a great deal more independence. I throw out, as a process of action, the suggestion that we ask the researchers to come back with some information that would contain the rules that have been set out for those committees by their various legislatures or parliaments so that we can have something to compare. There is a free British Airways flight on 23 April and we could all get over there for nothing. Then we would have something to compare it to.

What I think I am hearing -- if I am wrong, I am open for debate -- is that it really hinges on how much independence this committee is going to have. It is unfortunate Mr Stockwell left, because I think it is also part of the discussion about power; if this committee is allowed a great deal of latitude and independence to be moving down the road that some other pre-budgetary committees have, the mere fact that we make recommendations in the same kind of way that they make recommendations is an achievement of power. There are lots of different ways of achieving power.

Just to sum up, perhaps it would be fruitful at this point to terminate the conversation with a request for the researchers to bring back information about how the other committees have achieved their independence so that we can look at it. Is that acceptable to the committee?

Mr Sutherland: Sure. I just might add, Mr Chairman, that we have had some suggestions put forward; they should be noted and they should be on file somewhere so that when the committee comes back to the discussions they can be referred to and dealt with.

The Chair: Yes, I think those have been noted. I have made note of them, and I know the researchers have too.

The second point of business is, before I ask if we should adjourn or not, is there any reason to have a meeting this afternoon?

Mr Christopherson: Do we not have the issue of deciding what we are going to deal with in front of us? I understood we had tentatively to discuss whether we want to undertake a review of the cross-border shopping issue.

The Chair: We could do that right now. If we do that right now, then I can instruct the clerk -- we as a committee can instruct the clerk; there goes that "I" again -- to set up hearings for next Thursday morning with various groups that are interested in the cross-border shopping issue, and he can do that this afternoon as opposed to our meeting and talking about it.

Mr B. Ward: I suggest we meet this afternoon.

Mr Christopherson: I am wondering if we should not have a little better game plan than just to say immediately, "Fine, let's just have some people in." We should have a sense of what we are going to do and what the process is going to be, again so we do not have people coming in with expectations that never get met. I do not want to meet needlessly any more than anyone else, but I think we ought to have a sense of where we are going to go. There are other suggestions my colleagues are mentioning to me that maybe should be thrown out on the floor that we can consider at the same time and not just take one thing and run with it.

Mrs Sullivan: I think that rather than just going around in circles again on process, it might be useful to have something to talk about that is specific. Perhaps the clerk might prepare a recommendation relating to process and the conduct of hearings that would give us at least something to accept, reject or add to.

Mr Jamison: There are a number of things that are critical out there that I think this committee should consider having a look at. Just off the top of my head, for example, there are the potential effects of a trilateral trade agreement on this province and the potential impact on Ontario of the constitutional crisis. I know the Conservatives in their dissenting report made reference to the lack of discussion about that potential and the economics that are automatically related to that in terms of deficit. I think it is important that we discuss the potential of a trilateral deal on which the federal government is going to proceed on a fast-track kind of basis. We as a province have to really prepare ourselves to deal with that happening and to be aware of the impacts that are going to evolve from those things. There is very important work out there to be done by this committee if we choose to do so.

1130

The Chair: My understanding is that with the budget not coming until mid-April, it is not really likely that we are going to get a lot to do from the Legislature between now and then; so we have a fair amount of time between now and then that I think we can fairly confidently take as a committee as time that we can structure. We are committed to the cross-border shopping first, but I am at the will of the committee to do trilateral trade and Confederation as well. We discussed that a little bit prior to sitting.

Mr Phillips: Just in terms of process, I seem to recall -- Hansard might correct me on this -- that we did say to the cross-border group that we as a committee were going to deal with it; so I kind of thought in our informal discussion that we tacitly agreed that would be our first item. I have no difficulty with the subcommittee meeting and saying: "Here's the game plan. Here are the terms of reference. Here's blah, blah, blah," because I think it is tough for us to do it. I do not mind that group of yourself and the three whips being together.

I think we have to lay out our agenda for the year. We talked informally, and personally I am quite interested in the economic impact of the constitutional debate, but I think we need to make certain that we have some direction from the House on that. It will be helpful to the debate rather than harmful and therefore I would like to kind of await the legislative debate around the committee's report, which comes forward today, I think. If they direct us, I think this committee could be quite useful in it, but I think it has to be very carefully crafted or we could be harmful. I would be quite interested in the debate on trilateral agreement too, although I think there too we need some direction on whether that is something that will be helpful to the debate.

There is no shortage. I am just saying I think the first item on our agenda can be the cross-border shopping. It impacts a whole bunch of other stuff that will be informative. Then I think the subcommittee can look at what are the second, third and fourth issues that we could deal with, and we have got a little bit of time on that, including the constitutional debate, which I could see as being the second item we might deal with.

Mr Sutherland: I know we said we were going to do cross-border shopping as the next item, and I would certainly like us to focus in on that and have various concerns about that. I guess my only question is, if we are going to be able to do that effectively, are we going to be able to do that solely from Queen's Park? And then what are the difficulties in terms of taking a standing committee, while the House is sitting, to communities like Niagara Falls, Windsor, Sault Ste Marie and Cornwall? I really think if we are going to have any credibility in terms of doing it, we are going to have to go and visit those communities. I was wondering if either the clerk or maybe some of the more experienced members here could assist me on whether that could be done. If not, maybe we should delay that and go into something we could do more of, possibly the trilateral trade agreement. We could do more of that based out of Queen's Park on our regular days than we could the other one.

The Chair: I have been given two notes now on this one. The general government committee has been requested to do a 12-hour hearing on cross-border shopping. I have one note asking if Mrs O'Neill could come here and discuss that with us. The other note is that, given that committee may or may not be able to get to it, given that Bill 4 is still in that committee --

Mr Sutherland: I would like to have more than 12 hours. I know that is being put forward, and I am glad to see other members of other committees are interested in it, but I am not quite sure whether the use of the 12 hours will give it the degree of attention that it really needs.

The Chair: Okay. Where do I go with this? Come on, folks.

Mr Christopherson: I think Mr Phillips's points are well taken with regard to the priorities, and I know that, in talking to our own members in caucus, the cross-border shopping is, as I am sure in other caucuses, a big issue. I do not particularly care which committee deals with it. I do not feel ownership of the issue. What is important is that it be dealt with effectively. 1, as one member of the committee, am prepared to accept the fact that this is our top priority and then ask you, through your office as Chair, to determine whether or not that is an overlap of responsibilities. Is the other committee prepared to have us look at it? In other words, do that groundwork for us and, if it is with them, God bless them, we will move on to another issue. If they want us to tackle it, then we will ask our subcommittee to put together a game plan to bring to us for approval.

Mr Jamison: I am just a little confused, and I might ask Gerry if he would help me here a little bit. Personally, I believe we are really on a fast track to that trilateral deal. It is going to have economic ramifications here in this province. It is my belief that will happen. I think it is crucial that we really try to assess where the federal government, on negotiating that deal, is going to take us and the effects to this province, especially the manufacturing base of this province, and the economy as a whole, what effects we can measure. I know we may not be able to measure them all, but at least we will be able to confirm or otherwise prove ourselves incorrect in assessing what a lot of us have in terms of preconceived notions. Possibly you can help me out on your statement about receiving a directive of sorts on that.

1140

Mr Phillips: There is no shortage of really interesting topics for us to deal with and things that I would find intellectually stimulating. As I said before, I think the whole issue of what is the economic impact of the constitutional debate has not been properly debated. The trilateral agreement with Mexico is another one, and our job thing is another one. Those are three overwhelming issues. Each of them, though, I think, is going to unfold a little bit over the next little while, and in the meantime we have the cross-border shopping, which seems to me a bite-sized issue that I felt we made a commitment to a group of people who came in here that we were going to deal with. Do you remember that group? I thought, here is at least one issue we can get rolling on. I happen to think a constitutional debate is going to be obviously huge, but it has to be handled extremely sensitively.

I am saying I personally would like to deal with the cross-border shopping and buy ourselves a little time in case the Legislature would like this committee to deal with the economic impact of a constitutional debate. If that is the case, then that, to me, would be our next priority. We will know that, I think, maybe in the next little while. The Premier and those who are dealing with it may say, "Yes, it is important for Ontario to begin looking at economic impact," and the committee would be appropriate. If it proves that is not in the cards for this committee to deal with, then we move to our third and fourth priorities, which in my opinion could be a trilateral debate around Mexico or it could be around jobs.

I am repeating myself. We have an issue that could occupy our time for the next three to four weeks -- an important issue -- giving ourselves the time to look at what might become the number one issue. If that is not the case, then that is what I meant. I think the Treasurer and the Premier may want us to look at it.

Mrs Sullivan: I also want to express caution about moving into the economic impact analysis of changes in the structure of the country. There have been no decisions yet made. An indication by a committee of this Legislature that it was conducting studies based on one, two, three or four scenarios and was hearing briefs from the public on any of those scenarios, whether they include re-Confederation, a restructuring of Confederation, or independence for Quebec, it seems to me, is in terms of the national dialogue a very dicey proposition at this point. I think it is something that clearly has to be done. Looking at those questions must be done.

I think now is the wrong time for this committee to be undertaking that. We will be having the initial debate on the first interim report of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, which has been out through the province, starting this afternoon in the House, and presumably there will be a second phase of that Constitution committee's activity, which will be very important.

The Premier has yet to speak in a formal way on the matter of the Constitution, and any dialogue that will take place will have to follow clearly whatever stand the Premier ultimately takes. Signals of a downturn in Ontario's economy or an upturn in Ontario's economy, or whatever, could seriously distort the nature of the debate, which has heretofore been fairly non-partisan in terms of constitutional issues, and could have very serious repercussions relating to the future of the country itself.

I think now is the wrong time for that debate. On the trilateral negotiations, we have a lot to learn certainly, and that may be something that would be useful to look at. On the Constitution thing -- although I personally think it is premature for this committee to be looking at -- if the Legislature wanted us to proceed in that direction perhaps over the summer, with extremely substantial contracts given to people who have expertise in the economic area to do the analysis that would be needed, then I think that would be perhaps a more reasonable time as things unfold after some of the debate.

On cross-border shopping, we did certainly give a commitment, to the people who were here, and it is certainly an issue that affects the north, southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario. It is a province-wide issue in many ways, and it is something that is concise enough, I think, that the committee can deal with and make some reasonable recommendations about. I think that is the way to proceed.

Mr Hansen: I have to agree with Mrs Sullivan there. In our first subcommittee meeting, or the second one, when we had discussed groups that we were going to invite, we -- Mr Sterling, Mr Kwinter and I -- all agreed that the next item that would be on the agenda -- and I do not think it has changed any; it is more of a serious problem now since the introduction of the GST -- is that people are making a tax revolt by shopping in the United States. We have to take a look at this very closely, especially when we have 90% of the population within two hours of the border, the other 10% in the north. I know Mr Sterling, in the discussions we had with the group that came in, did not feel it was all that important. I argued with him on the point that tourists cannot make it into Ontario to spend US dollars if they cannot get across the border and will never make it to Ottawa or Carleton.

It is a very important issue, and I do not think we should backtrack and get sidetracked to get into another issue, because we have businesses now in the Niagara area that are going out of business. We have farmers in Grey and Bruce who are finding the effect of people in the border towns and bordering towns of actually buying their milk in the US. Even though you do not live within two hours of the border, the people who are over the two hours and live in the north are being affected by what is being purchased by the 90% who live around the borders.

I recommend that we get on with the cross-border shopping and not necessarily, as Mr Phillips said, I believe, that we have to go to all these centres. Money was given out by the Ontario government to do studies in these particular areas, and I think the one thing we should have before this committee is the report by the chamber of commerce in Sault Ste Marie, which is a very detailed study that I think was partially paid for by the Ontario government. There is one in the Niagara area; I know $12,000 was given in that area for Shop Ontario, and I believe Sarnia and Windsor and Kingston and The Islands.

Before we make any decision about travelling to hear people, I can tell you that I hear people every day about the tax revolt, saying: "I am shopping in the United States. I am not paying the GST." When the GST came in on 1 January, it actually doubled the traffic to the United States, I would say. On this side, I feel this is one of the most important things we can take on as the next exercise for this committee.

Mr Christopherson: On behalf of my colleagues in the government caucus, I would say the commitment should be honoured to do the cross-border shopping. I think that goes without saying. The trilateral trade agreement should be our second priority and leave ourselves flexible. I think the points were well taken from the members of the Liberal caucus regarding the constitutional discussions, the sensitivities, and I think what we are saying is we should remain flexible as a committee to receive any direction from the Legislature at the appropriate time, should they feel that work would be beneficial. We would see the cross-border shopping, and then the trilateral trade agreement as being the two priorities, in that order, for this committee.

The Chair: Is that a consensus?

Mr Phillips: My only comment would be that I do not mind the trilateral one, if in fact the Legislature wanted us to deal with economic impact, which I have a feeling they will not, that would certainly be the number one priority for me, if they wanted us to. I doubt if they will.

Mr Christopherson: I do not think we have any choice, do we? The Legislature can literally dictate what our agenda is, if they so choose. So I think --

The Chair: That also comes back to this whole notion about independence and what kind of changes in the committee structure there are. If we can go down an independent road, how far do we go down that road and in what areas? Anyway, that is for another debate.

Mr Sutherland: If there seems to be a consensus on that, then you as Chair can approach the House leaders, I guess it would be, or whomever, to see whether we could deal with that issue. Mr Hansen is far more knowledgeable in this area than I am. I just think in terms of perception that we are not going to have a lot of credibility if we only deal with the issue of cross-border shopping, from sitting here in Queen's Park.

I do not know if it is going to be possible, but I would really hope in these hearings that we could get some of the regular people who are doing cross-border shopping to really find out what some of their thinking is in doing it. I mean, we can speculate on some of the reasons, and we know cost is part of it, but I think part of the issue is going to be educational issues, and I just do not think we are going to be able to handle it credibly solely from Queen's Park.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Chair, to summarize, does this mean then that the subcommittee will meet to put together a game plan based on the information you find out and that they will report to us with their recommendations at the earliest possible date?

The Chair: To take a little leeway here, I would like us to come out of this meeting right now with instructions to the clerk to start setting up hearings for next Thursday morning.

Mrs Sullivan: I so move.

Mr B. Ward: But we do not know what the game plan is.

The Chair: We do know that we are looking at Sunday shopping and --

Mr Sutherland: Cross-border shopping.

The Chair: Sorry; cross-border shopping.

Mr Phillips: I do not mind that. You may want to start us off with a brief of some sort.

The Chair: I am getting it in this ear and I am getting it in this ear. The clerk has just suggested briefings from Revenue; Tourism and Recreation, and Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr Phillips: Yes, that is all internal stuff. Then we can go to the public ones.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr Christopherson: I do not want to be overtechnical in terms of process, but I have had enough experience in government at the local level to know that it is fraught with disaster to begin down a road when you do not have a clue ultimately where you are going. Even if the subcommittee met after the House, gets into its regular business, at 3:30 for half an hour, itself, or 45 minutes, and then we met to deal with the recommendations they make, even if it is a very obvious plan, I would still like to have it on paper so we know where we are going and we can tell people whom we are contacting that this is what we are doing.

The Chair: All right. What I am hearing is the subcommittee meeting at 3:30 and full committee hearing at 4 o'clock.

Mr Christopherson: Can you do it in half an hour?

The Chair: I think we should do it in half an hour. Okay. The subcommittee meeting is at 3:30; the committee reconvenes at 4 o'clock.

The committee recessed at 1152.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1610.

The Chair: I see a quorum. The subcommittee, for the approval of the entire committee, has set out a tentative agenda that is extremely flexible. Prior to next Thursday morning, the researcher, Anne Anderson, will distribute some studies that have already been done in preparation for next Thursday morning when we will be able to ask her questions about her study and about what she has found out and so on.

In the afternoon, the subcommittee has considered that we should have the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology come and give us information that it has discovered from its own studies that it did last summer, while we were all out knocking on doors. So far so good? After that, the clerk and the researchers will get together and invite people to come in and fill out a hearings list, with the hope of having two groups in the morning and two groups in the afternoon, to try to finish Thursday afternoon earlier than 6 o'clock.

Mr Sutherland: Can I just ask on that point, are we sitting right until 6 o'clock next Thursday?

The Chair: No, that is not the intention.

Mr Sutherland: Is the House sitting right until 6 o'clock?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Christopherson: What happens after that, and ultimately what are we looking at doing?

The Chair: Ultimately we are looking at producing a report with recommendations in it for the government, if possible; if not, a report that will at least be available for all the members of the House to have to consider the various options and the various problems associated with Sunday shopping. It would be nice to have recommendations that the government or the House could act on.

Mr Christopherson: What happens after next Thursday?

The Chair: The hearings continue for the next couple of consecutive Thursdays.

Mr Christopherson: A raindrop in a storm. Thank you. You have added to it.

The Chair: There is no time limit that the subcommittee has recommended. Four Thursdays would give us 18 hours if we sat right from 3:30 to 6. There has been no timetable decided.

Mr Christopherson: What about the suggestion of Mr Sutherland of perhaps trying to get out to some of these communities? Did you find out whether that is even feasible while we are sitting as a Legislature?

Mrs Sullivan: No, it is not.

Mr Sterling: The House leaders will never allow you to.

The Chair: The best we could do is to leave here some time around 8:30 in the morning and be back by 1 o'clock.

Mr Sterling: I do not think they will allow you to do that. The problem is that it does not relate to what we are doing; it relates to what else is happening in this place. As soon as you draw the members away from this area, then the House leaders and the whips cannot get hold of you, and that is why they will never give you permission on something like this. If it were something that was really urgent, then you might be able to get it. But I have been proven wrong before. You can ask if you want.

The Chair: I think the committee would have to decide how much benefit there would be. Mr Stockwell has already indicated that he is not in favour at all of doing any travelling because he thinks the whole process is somewhat --

Mr Sutherland: He was referring to the pre-budgetary consultation process. I do not think he made any comment on the cross-border shopping issue.

The Chair: I will be generous and allow that. I had a feeling that he was not too fond of the idea of travelling at all, but that is fine. I stand to be corrected.

Mr Christopherson: To follow up on that, the last thing anybody wants to do in tight times is spend money that is not necessary, and I do not particularly want to be on the kind of schedule really that would have us yanked around for half a day and then back in here and trying to do everything else.

However, I believe that on this issue, if we really want to get to the bottom of the problem and give everybody an opportunity to speak, getting to as many of those communities as possible would be fairly important. I would request or suggest that we request you to ask whoever is appropriate, whether it is just the government House leader or all of them, or the right place, whether or not a consideration would be given. If not, fine; so be it. If it would, 1, as one member, think that would be good. I know that if you went to Sault Ste Marie, for instance, there are a lot of people would like and really appreciate the chance to come forward and give a committee like this their opinions on the matter, and I have talked to other members who have similar situations in their community.

Having said that, the only other thing I wanted to mention is, I gather that since we met this morning, you have checked and we do not have an overlap of two committees doing the same thing.

The Chair: You were checking.

Mrs Sullivan: I can speak to that. Is it the standing committee on general government?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs Sullivan: General government is in fact going to be dealing with it on an opposition day resolution. They will not be getting to it on their agenda until much later. We are ready to start our work now and it is an opposition day thing, so this committee can set its own agenda.

Mr Christopherson: Nobody then, through you, Mr Chair, is perceiving that this would be an overlap of work?

Mrs Sullivan: No.

Mr Christopherson: Good.

Mrs Sullivan: It is our party's opposition day resolution and we are quite comfortable with this committee proceeding.

The Chair: When is that opposition day? Do you know that yet?

Mrs Sullivan: No, it has not been scheduled yet.

Mr Christopherson: You will appreciate that the independent-minded NDPers did not check with anybody. We are just prepared to go ahead and do this. I say that tongue-in-cheek. Could I go back then to the other issue of the travelling to those communities?

Mr Sterling: I am not willing to travel when the House is sitting. I will travel in the summer to any of those communities that you mentioned, but I am just not willing to go during the House. I am the chairman of my caucus and I cannot be away from this building for more than a couple of hours at most and I have to be within phone, you know, within a reasonable distance. That is the problem you run into and --

Mr Christopherson: And I can respect that, truly.

The Chair: Did you want to say something, Kimble?

Mr Sutherland: I just have a problem with process. I mean we are going to put this report together and I just think the people in those communities that are most affected are going to question the credibility of the report.

Mr Sterling: Let's put it together and start now.

Mr Sutherland: Okay. As long as we have some idea of that, but I am just wondering whether that is going to be our main priority or whether one of the other topics that has been --

1620

Mr Sterling: We have nothing else on our agenda right now.

The Chair: We can request moneys to bring people in.

Mr Sutherland: Yes, I quite realize you can do that. I am still not sure whether the --

Mr Sterling: That is not as good as going.

Mr Sutherland: Yes.

Mr Sterling: In a lot of cases these will be small business people who can only be away a couple of hours from their businesses or whatever.

Mr Sutherland: That is right.

Mr Sterling: I agree with Kimble that it is important that we go.

Mr Sutherland: As long as we have the understanding then that this is not going to be a three- or four-week process to try to wrap up and make all the recommendations.

Mr Sterling: Let's start it now and see where it leads and, if we seem to be getting somewhere and we want to go to those communities at that time, you are going to have my agreement. I am not anxious to finish it in three or four weeks.

The Chair: Okay. Maybe this could be done in two phases. We could do cross-border shopping and have hearings here and get as much as we can accomplish here and then perhaps do phase two in the summertime and go to Sault Ste Marie or do the travelling at the committee stage in the summer, provided the House will agree to that. Is that reasonable? Try for an interim report?

Mr Christopherson: Can I just throw out an idea? I can appreciate not wanting to be away, especially with the responsibilities that Mr Sterling has, and all of us have in fact. We are not going that far. Some of it is down the Niagara Peninsula. The select committee on Ontario in Confederation, for instance, was doing a lot of travelling out and travelling back in the same day. Is it not possible at all that we drive down the peninsula one evening and we are back here that evening, or back in time for the House the next day? Or is that just not realistic? I ask that in all innocence.

Mr Sterling: I do not think that is realistic. Once you go to one area you are meat as far as all the rest go. Then you have Sault Ste Marie calling and saying, "Why didn't you come to our place?"

Mr Christopherson: That is an hour's flight. You really could go out and come back fairly quick.

Mrs Sullivan: What about Fort Frances?

Mr Sutherland: You have to go to --

The Chair: Just a minute. I am losing control here.Mr Hansen was next.

Mr Sterling: I just think once you start you have to really do a little bit of travelling.

Mr Hansen: I think that if we went to the peninsula we would get a feeling, because the same feeling is going to be in Sault Ste Marie and in Fort Frances. It is going to be the same so we get a sample, and if it is necessary, then we can go to these other communities and do the same thing. But I think what you find in Sault Ste Marie you are going to find in the Niagara area or in Fort Frances. It is the same commodities that are being purchased in the United States. I do not think it differs with what border crossing you go across. So I think the feeling that we get from, say, the merchants and the shoppers in the Niagara area will be the same as the shoppers in the United States. I hear the same story from shoppers and merchants in Sault Ste Marie as what is in the Niagara area also.

Mr Waters: I am going to do something here that I might regret, but because I am perceived as being from the north I have to tell people that, if you go to Niagara and you do not go to Sault Ste Marie, you are going to have the north upset. They are constantly being seen as being left out of the picture and they would feel that their voice should have been heard from. My concern has been that, in the interim, when you are here, before you start moving, or if there is a problem with moving, how are you going to notify people that this committee is having hearings? I think it is important. I think, as everyone in the room agrees, the little person, the small shop owner or the granny parade that comes across the border in the spring or whatever with all their purchases, have an opportunity to come before the committee.

The Chair: That was discussed and there is some money left in our advertising budget. We could advertise in the local community papers. The other consideration was that we write to the chambers of commerce and we write to the local mayors and the councillors and have it announced through the local media. If the cable TV wants to put it up, then that would be a way of doing it as well. So there is a possibility of advertising it. We have to decide that, too.

Mr Sutherland: That would seem adequate. I guess I just want to know, from the Toronto aspect of what we would be doing here at Queen's Park, we would be trying to get a handle in terms of the different ministries, that type of stuff, possibly revenue, possibly what some of the Ontario organizations might think about that, like the Ontario chambers, those groups in here. At that stage, would we then have to probably leave it until there would be time to get into some of those communities? Is that generally what the subcommittee was thinking?

Mr Sterling: Yes. The subcommittee members were given a few of the documents that have been already produced on cross-border shopping, and it was our idea to get the experts in to talk to us a little bit about these papers that they have produced.

I think what we should do is write to the mayors, the chambers of commerce, particularly in the border areas, and say: "Look, we are planning this summer to go into some of your communities and ask for first hand experience, and we will advertise that fact when we are there. But in the meantime, we are dealing with this while the Legislature is sitting in Toronto, and if any of you want to come and talk to us now here in Toronto, please contact our clerk."

We may decide, after we hear from these various experts, that either we want to have our legislative research person or we might want to hire some consultant to do a survey or, I do not know, a study that has not been done or is in our interests to find out what other things are. That is the way I think I would proceed on this and that is the way I recommend that we proceed.

Mr Christopherson: As to the time lag, it was suggested by the Chair that we could issue an interim report based on the work we can do here and that we would then do the travelling in August. That is what? Five months? We do not want to be perceived to be dragging our heels. There are enough of those accusations going on anyway. I am just concerned about the time lag, and I do not know how that might factor in, to say to someone, "Yes, we are looking at this," and you build in something that says you are not really going to get a handle on it until at least August, and then it will probably be September before anything gets published.

Mr Sterling: What are the options? I mean, if there were a better option, I would take it, but --

The Chair: Mrs Sullivan would like to --

Mr Christopherson: I do not want to be a stickler on something, but --

Mr Sterling: Look, I mean, you are just not going to --

Mr Christopherson: I did not mean to say we were not going to go to the north. I think of it and to go from here to Niagara Falls and points in between is about an hour or so's drive from Toronto. The Sault can be flown to in the same time.

Mr Sterling: But you are not dealing with the Constitution of Canada when you are dealing with cross-border shopping.

Mr Christopherson: You might as well be for the people that are hurting, though.

Mr Sterling: It may be their issue, but it is not an issue of the same magnitude. You people may not like me saying that, or the retailers. It is an important issue, I understand that, but I just say you are not going to get, in my humble opinion, the House leaders to agree to us travelling. You say it takes an hour to go to St Catharines, but once you get there, you have to sit down and listen to people talk, and that is going to take four or five hours. Then it takes an hour to come back, and that takes a day. How do you do it?

Mrs Sullivan: I think that there has been a lot of work done on this problem in various communities already, where in fact visits, we may well find, would simply be reinventing the wheel in terms of the gathering of information. Let's go through the first phase, see what the experts, the people who have done the work on it so far, have to say about the question, see where they have identified the problems, see what additional data we think we need in terms of developing a second phase to our hearing process, and then perhaps determining that indeed travel is something that we want to request for a latter portion. We cannot practically expect permission from the House leaders to visit the communities that are affected by cross-border shopping in any equitable way while the House is in session.

Let's see what is already being done. Let's see what problems have been identified, what groups and organizations that are directly affected, apart from those who have done these studies, can be brought in to meet with us on an individual basis.

We have money in the budget. All committees have money in the budget to ensure that people from various areas of the province can be represented in front of our committee and can be subsidized to do that. I think that if we go from there, we may find that with those interventions before the committee, we do not need to travel. We may find, on the other hand, that travel is a very important part of our function.

It seems to me that the question of travel at this point is moot. Let's see what there is to find out and get on with it that way.

The Chair: I just want to interject here that we have been given an indication that within four or five weeks we will have the budget, and if there are any changes in taxes or any budgetary papers that come out of that, they are coming here, which means that we may well have to suspend whatever we are doing at that time to take that on as a committee.

Mr Hansen: This last report here by John Winter Associates is dated March 1990. It is one year old. I know some of these surveys are a year old here, but there are some of them that have been done in Sault Ste Marie which were just current, which were presented to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. So we do have a lot of updated material, and some of the other members here do not have it in front of them. Right now, there was only one copy for each one of the steering committee.

I think we could decide this a lot better with the information that we have from our researcher and we can make a decision. We could talk all day here on whether we have the proper equipment or material, but I think just by reading a lot of these -- here we go: Windsor, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay and Niagara Falls. We have covered all the areas, and rather than packing our suitcases, I think we could sit down and read some of these reports and discuss them and come up with a better idea after the researcher has done this work.

I think we are sort of jumping the gun and trying to talk back and forth whether we should travel or we should read.

Mr Christopherson: I think we have thoroughly attacked the issue and it is pretty clear that the route suggested by Mr Hansen seems to be the most practical one. I am certainly prepared to accept that and do it. Your points are well taken about the budget material that may come, so I am comfortable that this is really the only thing we can do. There are not a lot of alternatives.

The Chair: Just to sum up then: We will peruse the information that is available, we will invite in to have hearings people who can come, and then we will decide at a later date what more needs to be done on the issues and decide at that point what the tactics should be.

Mr Sterling: Can I just ask, for a matter of clarification for Mr Decker, when he writes to the mayor of Sault Ste Marie, is he going to indicate that it is our intention to have hearings or just be silent on that?

The Chair: The committee will decide, but what I am hearing is that that decision has not been made and therefore he could not indicate that we would be making the travel. The decision to travel has not been made at this point so any writings to any local mayors would not include any indication that we would come. It would just be a request for them to send information or send people, if possible. If need be, I guess the committee would have to pick up --

Mr Sterling: I made my position quite clear, that I am quite willing to do it in the summer.

The Chair: In the summer.

Mr Sterling: That is fine.

The Chair: Then if that is all we have as business, this committee is adjourned until next Thursday at 10 o'clock.

The committee adjourned at 1634.