CONTENTS
Tuesday 14 November 1995
Election of Chair
Election of Vice-Chair
Appointment of subcommittee
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
*Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC)
*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
*Ross, Lillian (Mrs) (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
*Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem/ Greffière par intérim: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel:
McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Poelking, Steve, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1537 in committee room 2.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Franco Carrozza): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Franco Carrozza. I am the clerk pro tem. The regular clerk, Tannis Manikel, is not available so I will conduct the election of the Chair of the committee. I will open the floor for nominations for the position of the Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I'll nominate Alvin Curling.
Clerk Pro Tem: Mr Curling is nominated. Any other nominations? There being no other nominations, I will call Mr Curling to take the chair as elected Chair of the standing committee on estimates.
The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Thank you very much for that unanimous support given by all my colleagues here from all three parties.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair: I think the first duty as a Chair without a Vice-Chair is to move that it's my duty to call upon the election of the Vice-Chair. I will now receive nominations for the Vice-Chair of the committee.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Chair, congratulations on your election. I would like to place in nomination the name of Joe Cordiano.
The Chair: Mr Joe Cordiano has been nominated for Vice-Chair. Are there any further nominations? There seem to be no further nominations. Then I declare that Mr Joe Cordiano be elected as Vice-Chair.
APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
The Chair: Now I think that we should move down to the election of the subcommittee for the standing committee on estimates.
Clerk Pro Tem: A copy of that is behind the agenda.
The Chair: Do I read it?
Clerk Pro Tem: Let's get the nominations first. The chair is Mr Curling.
The Chair: The nominations for the subcommittee are now open. I think the process is to have one member from each caucus on that subcommittee. Any nominations? Will I start from the official opposition maybe?
Mr Michael Brown: Mr Chair, can we just use this motion that we have?
Clerk Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr Michael Brown: Do we know who the government --
Interjection: I'd like to nominate Tony Clement.
The Chair: Tony Clement has been nominated from the government as a representative on the subcommittee.
Mr Michael Brown: Do you want me to read this?
Clerk Pro Tem: Let's choose the nominations so that you can read it all together.
Mr Michael Brown: I think we know it's Mr Martin, Mr Cleary and Mr Clement, and Mr Curling as the chair.
Clerk Pro Tem: Mr Martin, are you the one who's nominated for --
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I've got to do the thing, the dirty job, yes. It's a dirty job, but it's got to be done.
Clerk Pro Tem: Okay. Read it into the record then.
Mr Michael Brown: Mr Chair, I move that a subcommittee on committee business be appointed to meet from time to time at the call of the chair or at the request of any member thereof to consider and report to the committee on the business of the committee; that substitution be permitted on the subcommittee; that the presence of all members of the subcommittee is necessary to constitute a quorum; and that the subcommittee be composed of the following members: Mr Curling, chair, Mr Martin, Mr Cleary and Mr Clement; and that any subcommittee member may designate a substitute member on the subcommittee who is of the same recognized party and a member of the committee.
The Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: Maybe I should ask the clerk to bring you up to date on where we are now in regard to estimates.
Clerk Pro Tem: Today the matter stands that the estimates were introduced in the Legislature two weeks ago, I believe it was on October 25. The committees were established on November 2. This was the earliest we could meet, which we have. I have provided every one of you a copy of the relevant standing orders to this committee.
If you were to look at 62(a), if I could read that, the relevant lines are the last two lines, that "the estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61" be reported "not later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year," which means that this Thursday, which is November 16, the estimates presented to this committee would be deemed to be reported back to the Legislature. In reality, that means that you really don't have an opportunity to review them.
There are really two options to this. One option would be that the committee recommends that each representative from each party requests, through their House leader, that the committee proceed to meet notwithstanding 62(b). That's the first option.
The second option is that I've provided you with a motion -- that's on the last two pages -- of a similar situation to ours that occurred in 1990, where the previous government was defeated at an election and the estimates were not dealt with by the committee, but the government that was elected moved in the Legislature -- if you can read the last page from the votes, you will see that they made arrangements for us, set a precedent, if I may use that, where they chose for the committee specific estimates for us to review. In a way, that kept the estimates process alive but shorter.
So those are the two options that the committee should consider and it's my duty to bring to your attention.
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): What was the significance of March 18?
Clerk Pro Tem: March 18?
Mr Kells: In the motion there, the sample motion that you read. Is it just a date they picked?
The Chair: I think yes.
Clerk Pro Tem: Usually what happens is that, for instance, our winter session ends the second or third week in December, and there was an opportunity to meet --
Mr Kells: I understand that.
Clerk Pro Tem: -- during the in between process.
Mr Kells: So you have to find the specific date though. If you're going to use this alternative, you have to have a specific date.
Clerk Pro Tem: That's right. For instance, in your consideration, you should consider also -- for instance, the option would be similar to this. If you were to meet in between the session, request two weeks, let us say, you could request the exact dates that the House leader could consider to give you.
Mr Kells: I have my answer.
The Chair: I think the advice that the clerk has given us is sound. I think the decision would then have to be, if I suggest, taken back to the House leaders, because they themselves would have some of the dates on which it was appropriate to meet between now and then, whether it's March, whatever the date is, or beyond that. So I think that the clerk is saying that that's a direction you could do each, if you go back to your House leaders and ask for that extension of time. Or else the alternative is that, on Thursday, estimates cease to be reviewed, because that is required by the process here. Am I hearing that? Do we need, Mr Clerk, a motion in that sense? Someone should move a motion?
Clerk Pro Tem: You can move a motion directing the three whips of the committee to go back to their own, or as a consensus, agree that it should be done. Either way would be fine.
The Chair: Let me go back to the consensus process then. Is it agreed that that's the process you'll use? On your side, from the government, you'll go back to your House leader, and the third party and also the opposition, getting back to the House leaders whether or not you need extended time to review the estimates.
Mr Cleary: Mr Chairman, are we going to ask for two weeks? Is that what we're going to ask for?
The Chair: I would say let the House leaders review --
Mr Cleary: But we should suggest something.
The Chair: You could suggest if you want. I have no objection to that.
Clerk Pro Tem: We do have some time to meet before Christmas. For instance, we meet regularly every Tuesday and every Wednesday. They are the 21st and 22nd of this month, including the 28th and 29th, and it would be December 5 and 6. I'm not quite sure, do you wish to meet during the week that the House proposes to recess? There are six weeks there. The maximum would be six days, but the minimum, realistically, could be only the 28th and 29th and the 5th and 6th, because you will require some time for the ministry to prepare itself to appear before this committee. So at least a week's notice should be given to the ministry, once it has been chosen. Realistically, those are the days to be suggested, the 28th and 29th and the 5th and 6th.
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Are we going back to our House leaders both on the issue of timing and on the issue of the ministries that are to be selected, or are we going to decide the ministries today with a view to figuring out the timing once we talk to the House leaders?
The Chair: You can do two things today. You can select the ministries that you'd like to come before us. That, as we said, should be done today. We have until Thursday to do all of that, which is impossible. Then the next instruction, which I'm asking consensus on, is that you go to your respective House leaders for the time.
Mr Clement: Very well.
1550
The Chair: The first aspect of it would be what ministries' estimates we'd like to come before us. Having that, the other decision would have to be made wherein you seek those decisions from your House leader, and that direction will be then presented here.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to be clear on what you're saying, Mr Chair. Are you suggesting that we defer the selection of what ministries we hear until the first decision is made? Is that what you're saying?
The Chair: No, no. I'm saying you can make a decision of what estimates could come before us today, and I'm saying that by the rules here, Thursday would be the day we would have done all that. It's impractical, so we're asking each party to go back to their House leader, and among themselves, the three House leaders, to determine what extended time would be given for estimates.
Mr Bisson: That's right, but not the selection of what ministries, because that's clearly the choice of this committee, not of the House leaders. I thought that's what you were suggesting.
Clerk Pro Tem: You're spending 15 hours on a very specific -- you can choose that now.
Mr Michael Brown: So I understand, the suggestion we're making here this afternoon is that we proceed with a motion similar to the one Ms Martel made to the Legislature? Is that what is being suggested, that each party goes back and talks to the House leader about?
The Chair: My understanding is that if we do the one that Ms Martel had done, it would be a little difficult for the time. You can do that by putting a time on it, but I thought the House leaders would be in a better position to talk about the time, whether it goes --
Mr Michael Brown: The one that Ms Martel had placed and is the precedent here was just the reporting of the estimates to the Legislature. That's all her motion essentially does.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Michael Brown: We can determine what other time; that can all be arranged by the House leaders independent of that. I think Mr Kells made the point that this just gives a specific date in her resolution that probably isn't appropriate under our circumstance, and that the House leaders would have to decide that date.
Clerk Pro Tem: The problem here really is that as of Thursday afternoon, the estimates are going to be deemed to be reported.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, exactly.
Clerk Pro Tem: However, there is an option you have here to recommend a similar motion to Ms Martel's. You are quite right; the dates do not match our dates.
Mr Michael Brown: So the suggestion, then, just so that we're all clear, is we go back and ask our House leaders to proceed with a similar motion to Ms Martel's motion of back in 1991 or 1990 and that they arrive at the appropriate dates and that we then ask the House leaders if they will go forward with a similar motion with the appropriate dates.
The Chair: I think there are two things before us: whether or not the extended time will be given, and, if the extended time is given, what day that would be.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, exactly. But I just read Ms Martel's motion, which seems to indicate that. It's an awful thing around here if we all go back and ask our House leader to do a slightly different thing and we end up with mass confusion. So if what we're intending to do is use the motion that is printed here, only with different dates, then ask our House leaders to go forward with that, I'm sure those very capable people can come up with the appropriate dates.
Clerk Pro Tem: But you can also assist them if you choose your ministries.
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, well, we can do more than that. But it's just to get by this particular stage; then we can talk about the ministries.
The Chair: I think what I hear Mr Brown saying, first, as I said, is we can select the ministries that will come before us for the committee, and then in order to assist the House leaders, if you care, that we put a date in here so that they are very precise that the committee has already agreed that, "Yes, we'd like to see estimates done on certain ministries, and these are the ministries," and furthermore that the suggested date would be whatever -- March 8, 9, 10, what have you -- so they are very clear in where this committee is going, that we know the ministries and we have a specific time. They do have the power to say, "Well, it will not be March 9, as suggested by you, but it will be March 20," whatever it would be.
So could we proceed in this respect: One, we select the ministries that we'd like to come before us in estimates; and having done that, we will then present this motion, which we ask you to take back to your House leaders to agree upon maybe in a House leaders' meeting.
Mr Martin: Franco had also mentioned some dates, some specific dates that --
Clerk Pro Tem: Yes. Well, these are just for your consideration, but it was assumed that --
Mr Martin: What were those dates?
Clerk Pro Tem: The dates that we still could meet, the earliest would be November 28, which is Tuesday, and Wednesday the 29th, and December 5, which is Tuesday, and Wednesday the 6th. That's four dates, approximately 10 hours, because we usually meet from 3:30 to 6 o'clock, so it's five hours a week.
Mr Martin: Okay, and we can't go any further into December than that?
Clerk Pro Tem: The House is supposed to prorogue, or adjourn, on the -- 14th, is it?
Mr Martin: The 15th.
Clerk Pro Tem: The 15th, which is a Friday. Usually it would be the 14th.
Mr Martin: Thursday.
Mr Bisson: But that would allow us basically one ministry. We have time to do basically one ministry before the sessional break.
Clerk Pro Tem: That's 10 hours. You could conceivably do one and a half, if you choose six hours for one and --
Mr Bisson: Or 10. But the rule -- just to proclaim, just so I can rule out -- is 10 --
Clerk Pro Tem: The rule is, if you choose one ministry, it's not more than 15. If you choose a ministry and an office or two ministries, divide the time as you wish, but not more than 15.
The Chair: So can we proceed now to choose two or whatever ministries that would come before the committee? Any suggestions?
Mr Bisson: Let's start the rotation.
The Chair: Let me ask the official opposition then, what ministries are we considering?
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): We haven't discussed this at great length, have we?
Interjections.
The Chair: Do you want me to ask for a --
Mr Cordiano: Yes.
The Chair: Can I ask for five minutes?
Clerk Pro Tem: Do you wish to recess?
The Chair: Are you all ready?
Interjections.
Mr Cleary: Education and Training.
The Chair: The Ministry of Education and Training.
Clerk Pro Tem: How much time for that?
Mr Cleary: Are we going to get -- they're going to go around? Are they coming back to us then?
Clerk Pro Tem: Only one? So it's 15 hours?
Mr Cleary: We could give you two, but we thought you were going to go around again.
Clerk Pro Tem: No, no, you can choose two, but --
Mr Cleary: Transportation. Education and Training and Transportation.
Clerk Pro Tem: And what time for each one?
Mr Cordiano: What time for each one?
Clerk Pro Tem: Yes, how much time do you want for each ministry?
Mr Cordiano: As much time as we can get.
Clerk Pro Tem: No, no, not more than 15.
Mr Cordiano: Don't ask questions like that.
Mr Clement: Are you going to split them 50-50, or do you want to weight one more than the other?
Clerk Pro Tem: Seven and a half hours each?
Mr Kells: Franco, it says two rounds.
The Chair: It's 15 hours-
Clerk Pro Tem: They can choose two ministries, but they cannot use more than 15 hours.
Interjection: So they get the second round?
Mr Cordiano: Let's be clear: 15 hours is our allocated pick.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Mr Chair, a point of order. Clarification or order, I don't know which.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead.
Mr Sheehan: Is that the process of selecting which ministry you were to select? It went one, one, one to each ministry, not one party pick two at the same time and the next party pick two and the last party pick two. The impression I had was that one party would pick one, they'd go to the next party and pick one, go to the third party to pick one, and then back through the process.
Clerk Pro Tem: To answer your question, sir: If you were to look at standing order 59(b)(ii) --
Mr Sheehan: What page is that?
Clerk Pro Tem: On the first page of the standing orders that I've provided for you.
Mr Sheehan: Part (ii)?
Clerk Pro Tem: Order 59(b)(ii), "In each round, the members of each party may choose the estimates of one or two ministries or offices to be considered."
Mr Sheehan: So it is the choice of the committee whether they pick one or two?
Clerk Pro Tem: It's their choice.
Mr Sheehan: No, it's the committee, I would think, not one party.
Mr Cleary: You'll get your share.
Mr Sheehan: No, it's just --
Clerk Pro Tem: It cannot be more than 15 --
Mr Sheehan: -- I've got a problem with the term that it says may pick "one or two ministries."
Clerk Pro Tem: For each round.
Mr Sheehan: All right. We're only doing two ministries, though.
Clerk Pro Tem: For each round you can choose two.
Mr Martin: As a point of order, then, now that the opposition have chosen two, they don't get a second round, is that correct?
Clerk Pro Tem: This is the second round.
Mr Martin: I'm sorry?
Interjections.
The Chair: Could we have some order, please, for an explanation.
Clerk Pro Tem: This is considered a round.
1600
Mr Clement: Mr Chair, that makes no sense. If they get a second round, that means they get to choose four ministries rather than two ministries.
Interjections.
Mr Kells: We understand that. The point was that if you're only going to choose six and we're going to have two rounds, it should be one and then one. That was all.
Clerk Pro Tem: That's the rule.
Mr Kells: Oh, I fully understand the rules.
Clerk Pro Tem: The key is the 15 hours. You see, if they choose two, they cannot be 15 and 15.
Mr Kells: Okay. It's not worth arguing over.
Mr Sheehan: I think the point is, though, that you get to pick two at one time if you're selecting up to 12 ministries. In this case we're only selecting six ministries; therefore there should be only one, in equity.
Clerk Pro Tem: No. But there are two rounds.
Mr Kells: Well, I just asked.
Mr Cleary: Mr Chairman, I'd be prepared to withdraw my motion and just pick one and if they want to go around in circles, it's fine with me. I have no problem with that. The other thing I think we should decide is how many hours we'll give for each one.
Clerk Pro Tem: Why would we choose one? It's 15 hours. The standing order says that.
The Chair: May we just explain this? It's very confusing. If you pick one only, it's 15 hours. The time estimated for estimates is 15 hours. If you pick two, the two ministries will be divided into seven and a half and seven and a half. So whether or not the individual picks one or two now, it doesn't matter.
Interjections.
The Chair: May I just complete? Mr Cleary has indicated is he's prepared, if you want to make it simple, that he'll pick one, we go around, and he'll pick another when he comes around. So you said the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Education and Training.
Mr Cleary: Education and Training first.
The Chair: Okay. May I just --
Mr Bisson: It's very simple: the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Chair: Okay. The Ministry of Community and Social Services.
Mr Clement: Our go? Housing.
The Chair: Ministry of Housing. Are there any other ministries that you want to --
Clerk Pro Tem: It's now the second round.
Mr Cleary: Transportation.
The Chair: Is there a second pick in the third party?
Mr Martin: Health.
The Chair: Is there a second pick, if you so wish?
Mr Clement: We're going for Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.
Mr Bisson: Right on. That was my third choice.
Mr Clement: All right. There we go. We're set.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. What we have before us now, we have six ministries to be considered.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could we get some order, please. We have six ministries at 15 hours each.
Mr Cleary: Fifteen hours each?
The Chair: Yes. The process of it all is that we will inform the members and the ministry that they will be requested to come before the estimates, which is six ministries that we have here now.
Interjection.
The Chair: No, that is established. The next thing that we'll do is whether or not we have the time. We haven't got the time to do this because it expires on Thursday and there's not adequate time. The next move is to then request the direction, or you're so directed, or to ask the House leaders to consider a motion that was almost similar to what Ms Martel had moved in 1990, extending the time to 1991. The days that were put forward by the clerk as we look when the House recesses in December were, I think --
Clerk Pro Tem: November 28 and 29 and December 5 and 6.
The Chair: November 28 and 29, and December 5 and 6 --
Clerk Pro Tem: To begin our work.
The Chair: -- and then we continue beyond that. Do we have a March date?
Clerk Pro Tem: Yes. They will decide when to give it to us.
The Chair: We'll leave the March date available for them to make that decision. This is the House leaders.
Mr Clement: Is it possible, just thinking ahead, if perchance the House sits an extra week -- I'm speaking of in December -- would that give us another opportunity?
The Chair: Sure it would, but that then would be decided if the House leaders decided the House would sit beyond that date.
Mr Cordiano: You can lobby them.
Mr Bisson: If we want, we can also ask to sit after the session.
The Chair: What we should have done before is introduce all the parties here. Ray McLellan, legislative research, has been around a long time, not too long really, but quite knowledgeable; and Steve Poelking, another research officer.
Clerk Pro Tem: They will provide research material regarding these votes, if you so require. If you have any requests, make them through the Chair, and the Chair will authorize the researcher to provide that information for you.
The Chair: Are there any other matters that you'd like to discuss, any business that you'd like to discuss while we're here, before we adjourn?
Mr Bisson: I just want to say, Mr Chair, you've done a wonderful job.
The Chair: I expect you to make it much easier for me.
We will not be meeting until you're so advised. You'll be advised, but tomorrow there won't be a meeting.
The committee adjourned at 1607.