CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 June 1992
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Dadamo
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1546 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): The committee is meeting to consider the report of the subcommittee. The subcommittee met on Monday, June 8, 1992, and agreed as follows:
"That changes to the draft report be effected by legislative research service and sent to the Ministry of Transportation for distribution to the interministerial committee requesting response in reasonable time;
"That the draft committee budget in the amount of $320,164 be recommended to the committee."
Mr Waters, I trust you move acceptance of this report?
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): So moved.
The Chair: I understand there's an amendment to the report to change the figure of $320,164 to $320,218, amendment moved by Ms Murdock?
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Certainly.
The Chair: Any discussion regarding the amendment? All in favour of the amendment, please indicate. Opposed? The amendment's passed.
Any discussion on the report of the subcommittee, either part 1 or part 2? I should indicate that part 1 was by agreement of the committee, which unanimously agreed that it would defer the matter of basically fine-tuning or correcting language. Then we're left with the issue of the budget.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like just to ask a question on the matter of the budget. From my previous discussion, I understand that this is the proposed budget of this committee for this upcoming fiscal year.
The Chair: That's correct, I'm told by Mr Brown, the clerk.
Mr Offer: I also understand that in the event there is any need for a committee to amend the budget through interim measures, that's also possible.
The Chair: Mr Brown, could you help us with that, please?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Harold Brown): If it doesn't have sufficient funds, the committee can always prepare a supplementary budget.
Mr Offer: And the meeting time of nine weeks, which is indicated in the budget, is one which does not necessarily limit the committee, first, to nine weeks, and second, to one session or the other or any combination thereof.
The Chair: That's correct. I should tell you that I wrote to Ms Coppen, who is the whip for the government, some two weeks ago, asking her please to give us some sense of when committees would be meeting during the summer, obviously referring to this committee, so people could make plans around that committee time. Ms Coppen acknowledged receiving my letter but made no response to me verbally and hasn't replied in writing. So this budget is prepared without any direction from anybody. The clerk, and I thank him very much for his initiative, has tried to anticipate, unfortunately without a great deal of help from anybody else, what could be the case for this summer and the balance of the year.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I understand that this budget is based on an estimate of past time for committees as best the clerk can anticipate, but though it provides a certain direction, it does not necessarily bind the hands of the committee in terms of asking for more dollars in the budget or in fact not needing the dollars, asking for more time or in fact not needing the time. In other words, this budget does not cement this committee into nine weeks.
Clerk of the Committee: I don't believe it does. Without further direction, this is an estimate based on past experience of such a committee as this.
The Chair: If I may, please, Mr Offer, I want people to be clear on that because I would have concerns and I think every member of the committee would have concerns. It's clear that you can spend less than what the budget provides for, but we'd have concerns if somehow the budget constituted a restraint down the road on the number of weeks that could be spent in meetings. I suspect that's what your concern is.
We should make that clear as a committee, and I think perhaps the committee should articulate that this budget is being presented by way of something of a dance in the fog. There's no direction. We are presenting it, reserving -- if this is what the committee wishes -- the right, because there is no direction, to go back for more money in the event that the committee decides it should meet in addition to the period.
Ms Murdock: My understanding is that the House leaders and the whips haven't determined the length of time for the committees for the summer yet, and I don't know when we're going to find that out.
The Chair: Did you want to say something to that?
Mr Offer: No.
The Chair: Anybody else? Mr Waters, then Mr Dadamo.
Mr Waters: I have the same understanding, that the whips and House leaders have not yet determined what committees are sitting on what bills and indeed how long. If last year was any sort of sign of what happens, at the end of the month we will be told almost as we leave, because I believe negotiations last year didn't come to a conclusion until after the House had risen for the summer.
So I would hope that this is sort of an estimated budget based on the past, and that indeed there are no restrictions either way and that indeed we could sit for a shorter period of time or longer. If longer were indeed agreed upon by all parties, we would have no problems in revamping our budget to allow for those extra expenses.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): My sentiments exactly. Last year at this time we found ourselves in the same sort of quandary, where we had this budget presented before us but no direction to go in. We didn't know where we were going or what bill we were going to travel on. I guess if we could put some pressure on the whip's office to give us some direction right away so we can at least know what time during the summer we want to take off -- I mean, at least we want to plan some vacation time.
Mr Waters: If I might, Mr Chair, I think the way things work is that first off the three House leaders have to sit down and come to some agreement, do they not, on what bills indeed will be dealt with?
The Chair: In theory the committee determines its own function, but that's but a theory.
Ms Murdock: I notice in the explanatory notes that the clerk has explained fairly clearly that certain labour law reform legislation will be referred to this committee. I know that everybody realizes it's the labour relations reform eventually, but pay equity is also expected in here. So we're going to be having two pieces of legislation that will require a fair amount of time.
The Chair: Mr Offer, do you want to make an amendment to the report of the subcommittee?
Mr Offer: I can't see where an amendment is necessary, Mr Chair, unless you have a suggestion. I don't see why.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Just so long as it is articulated in the minutes that we don't want to restrict travel as a result of this budget but it is a proposal.
The Chair: I should let people know that Mr Brown, the clerk, who does work hard at these things and has been around here for a while, is advised and advises us that the Board of Internal Economy will not be meeting until July 7 for the purpose of considering this particular budget proposal, among other things. That's an interesting footnote to our conversation and to the issues raised by Mr Offer.
Mr Waters: With their not meeting until July, I would say that in the interim maybe we could pass this. Indeed it would give us an opportunity, hopefully, to have some idea of what we would be doing this summer and the length of time and the cost thereof, and if we needed to revamp our budget, we could do it in advance of that July 7 meeting.
The Chair: Except we may not be here after June 25 to meet --
Mr Dadamo: We might.
The Chair: Anything might happen. We may not be here after June 25.
Ms Murdock: I haven't looked at this in great detail, but I would think nine weeks at $17,496 -- a weekly sum could be devised, and if the clerk were, in the interim, to find out how long this committee was scheduled to meet over the summer, you could just correct it as needed on the basis of the calculations you made to do this one -- could you not do that? -- without our approval.
The Chair: It's essential that the committee approve the budget before it goes to the Board of Internal Economy, as I understand the process.
Mr Waters: The clerk, from his past experience, might be able to give us some wording that will guarantee some flexibility, should we need it. I can't see us using up nine weeks' budget this summer.
Ms Murdock: No, it's summer and winter.
Mr Waters: That also gives us the fall, then, to reintroduce a revised budget for the winter schedule. I would assume that the budget, as it stands, even if we didn't have any flexibility in it, would cover more time than we would ever dream of sitting this summer.
The Chair: There seem to be two options available to the committee. It can pass this report and this budget, having expressed its clear understanding that if it approves this budget for proposal to the Board of Internal Economy, that doesn't restrict the committee's ability to request more money in view of the fact that this budget proposal was made in the dark, or it can defer approval of a budget until later this month when maybe, just maybe, there'll be a better understanding of what's going to happen during the course of the summer and the balance of the year.
Mr Turnbull: In light of the fact that the Board of Internal Economy is not meeting until next month, I would suggest that we pass this with the rider that we expect to able to revisit it if we overshoot.
The Chair: Is there any comment on that? Are you ready to put the motion to the vote?
Will all those in favour of the motion approving the report and adopting the report of the subcommittee indicate? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The committee adjourned at 1558.