CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 June 1993
Committee budget
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
*Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND)
*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Mahoney
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr Bisson
Clerk / Greffiére: Grannum, Tonia
Staff / Personnel: Nishman, Robert, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1540 in committee room 2.
COMMITTEE BUDGET
The Chair (Mr Cam Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. The agenda has been circulated or is in front of members. At the outset, I should indicate that yesterday's subcommittee meeting was cancelled, and therefore some of the activities which we were going to put our minds around yesterday are on today's agenda.
If I might, although the Chair sees a quorum, I would perhaps like to start with item 2 if that is okay with members. The clerk will circulate copies of the budget.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have no problem going with item 2.
The Chair: You can see the budget is being recommended in the amount of $20,864. Perhaps the extraordinary highlight would be in the area of allowances. I believe our clerk has built into the budget an accommodation of perhaps two weeks of potential summer sittings. As you know, with the lateness of the budgets over the last few years, it has compressed the amount of time which the standing orders speak to that we are able to deal with estimates. For that reason, there has been periodic approval by the House leaders to allow us to sit during the recess when, as you know, the standing orders suggest that we should be sitting when the House is sitting.
That is probably the reason why the budget might appear a little higher than a few others. Our actuals last year were high because we did have to have meetings when the House was not sitting.
Mr Wiseman: Are we doing 3 or 2?
The Chair: This budget is for two weeks.
Mr Wiseman: No, no. You said you wanted to go to item 2, or did you want to go to item 3 on the agenda? Item 2 is, will the committee need extra sitting time during the summer recess?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): You've got something from the subcommittee.
Mr Wiseman: Okay. Let me see this now. Let me see the updated one. Now I'm on track. Wrong agenda.
The Chair: No problem. Are there any questions with respect to the budget?
Mr Wiseman: Yes, I have one. In the interest of remaining consistent with the other committee that I'm on, I would like to take a look at the catering and hospitality budget and suggest that the amount of coffee that is supplied to the committee be cut in half, given that it's my understanding that not all the coffee is --
The Chair: -- consumed.
Mr Wiseman: -- consumed, and that we eliminate the chocolate milk, the pop, juice and the bottled water and just have coffee and tea.
The Chair: You're not eliminating regular water and breadcrumbs from this, are you?
Mr Wiseman: I would eliminate the breadcrumbs.
The Chair: Is there any support for this Dickensesque approach to our budget?
Mr Wiseman: You want more?
Interjection: Ice cubes.
The Chair: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion?
Mr Wiseman: Yes, I would move that.
The Chair: I would need a replacement figure.
Mr Wiseman: I don't know what the replacement figure would be.
The Chair: Well, water's free in this building, so we could potentially go to zero. Oh, you want half the coffee?
Mr Wiseman: Half the coffee.
The Chair: So give me a figure.
Mr Wiseman: If I knew what the cost was of what's on the table now, I'd be able to give you a number, roughly speaking, but I would say --
The Chair: Actually, in fairness, since this is a budget, you'd have to adjust your final figure. But really the best way to deal with your suggestion is to make it a policy of this committee and the policy then would be, from here on in, these are what -- because if you gave the committee $1,000 to spend as the figure, we still might have enough money just to spend $1,000 and we could lie in the lap of luxury with Pepsi and fruit juice.
Interjection.
The Chair: No, I'm trying to make a point here. It's really a policy issue if you want to reduce the amount of hospitality. If you adjust it in the budget, budgets adjust internally, so that really doesn't achieve it unless it becomes the policy that that's what's available. That's really all I'm saying. That's how budgets work.
Mr Wiseman: Well, I would like to see it become the policy. It has been adopted as the policy of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that this be the case, and I would think then, to be consistent, we should adopt it here. We could leave the catering and hospitality number the way it is, but the policy would be that those items wouldn't be here and therefore whatever surplus would be left over would be turned back.
The Chair: Can I ask a real dumb question? Do they fill the tureen half full or do they get a smaller tureen?
Clerk of the Committee: They get a smaller one.
The Chair: They get a smaller one? Is that it?
Clerk of the Committee: There are smaller ones available.
The Chair: There are smaller ones available. Okay. Good enough. That is roughly worded as a policy. Any discussion on the policy of half coffee, no juice or pop? No, it's half coffee, tea only. Any discussion? Mr Abel.
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I think we should have something other than just tea or coffee because there are some people who just prefer to drink something else. Juice, I think, should be available to those who do not care to drink coffee.
The Chair: John, please don't leave. Oh, you're going to grab the last juice before it goes, is that it? I don't blame you.
Mr Abel: I should have kept quiet. Now there's no juice left for me.
The Chair: I really think that with the numbers of years of experience around the table, a lengthy discussion here is not necessarily warranted. All those in favour of the motion, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Any further discussion on the budget or any policies that may flow from it?
Mr Wiseman: In that case, I would move that the budget in the amount of $20,864 be approved and that the Chair be authorized to present the budget to the Board of Internal Economy.
The Chair: I don't need a seconder for that, do I? I didn't think so. Any last discussion? If not, all those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried. Thank you.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Just a quick question, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes?
Ms Haeck: What is the likelihood that we will exhaust that figure? Have we tended to use up every cent that has been allocated to us as a committee or have we been harbouring our money?
The Chair: The general experience in this committee has been that it has been under budget consistently. We don't engage in inviting outside deputants who some approach periodically for their expenses, which is generally an unforeseen item that emerges midterm. It is unique that our committee doesn't have that, unless we were to engage in a review of estimates processes in other provinces and chose to invite somebody. But that's not built into this budget, so ours is fairly insulated in that respect, Ms Haeck. That's the short history of it and the reason.
Ms Haeck: I understand what Mr Wiseman was attempting to do, which is why I voted with Mr Abel that there is a range of needs that are definitely represented by what's on the hospitality table, but I do feel that it's good to be reassured that we have not gone overboard in our spending.
The Chair: I am sure that the office of the Legislative Assembly will benefit from our surplus, or non-spending the portion of our budget which isn't spent this year. If that's agreeable then, I would proceed to item 1.
1550
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: The Chair would like to make a comment at the outset with respect to the fact that we are here today to begin our mandate in accordance with the standing orders. The standing orders indicate that the estimates books would be provided five sessional days from the budget.
My understanding is the estimates books are not ready. My experience as Chair in the two previous years is the estimates books have not been ready and it has been our habit to identify those ministries so that we could impel those ministries to produce them quickly, in accordance with our standing orders. Last year they indicated they'd need up to 30 days. Well, our standing orders are very clear, so we responded by making our selections, notifying the ministries and they had to have them produced.
However, if anyone wishes to raise the question -- and I think it's only fair that it be discussed briefly -- if we wait for the estimates books, which may or may not arrive in the next one or two weeks, we may not get into our selection process and notification of ministries and get on with our job, which may severely inhibit our ability to take a reasonable approach at completing our task.
I don't want to go into the long history of the trouble but, essentially, the later the budget, the later estimates, but estimates don't complete when they're completed, estimates have to be reported the third Thursday of November. As you know, we have a rather lengthy period we prorogue for the summer.
However, if members are not prepared to proceed today, the Chair would respect that request. It's just that this is a strategy that's been utilized in order to maintain some forward mobility on our task. Otherwise, we sit and wait for the ministries to finally come around. John, did you -- Mr Cleary. Sorry, I apologize.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): You raised the matter, and I think that's sufficient there to move on with it. I don't like doing it the way it's not supposed to be done, but the House came back so late this time and the budget was late and I think that we should get on with it.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Any other comments? Okay. If that's the case, I hope members are prepared to proceed with ordering up their nominees, and I believe we start with the selection of ministries. In the first round, the first two selections are from the official opposition, the second two choices are from the third party and the last two selections of the first round are for the government party.
As you know, it's up to 15 hours, so it is helpful to the committee in the first round if you indicate if you have a preference for time. Otherwise, at the end of the selection we'll now have to allot time to it. If you know the amount of time you'd like to devote to a selection, it is helpful to do that so it can clarify people's thinking, and the process works smoother when we do it that way.
If that's agreeable, let's try that, but the committee also has to inform the ministries of how much time. So we have to report the selection and the amount of time we wish to devote, and the standing orders say up to 15 hours.
Mr Wiseman: I just want a clarification on that. My understanding is if one ministry is chosen in the round, the max is 15 hours. The standing orders also say that we have to pick six. So would that be evenly divided among the six ministries, or how do -- this is new to me.
The Chair: It's divided in accordance with my previous announcement as to the number. The amount of time -- it has been our custom in the last three years for the Liberals to determine in the first round how to apply 15 hours to their two selections. So they could do 14 hours and one hour, they could do seven and a half and seven and a half, they could do 10 and 5, they could do any of those combinations. That's how I think we've been doing it. I don't interpret them, and I would love if anybody has anything to contribute to that, but I don't read in the standing orders that each ministry is up to 15 hours. I thought the rotation was 15 hours.
Mr Wiseman: That was my understanding. Say the Liberals, just hypothetically, decided to pick two ministries and said they wanted them for seven and a half each. That means the first round is over, because there's no time left in order to determine either the next party or the government party. Is that correct?
The Chair: I'm sorry. You'll have to --
Mr Wiseman: If the Liberals decided they're going to pick two and that they want seven and a half hours each, that's it, the round's over. There isn't any more time left.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: Maybe we can have a little discussion about how much time. I mean, if we can all come to an agreement, then it might be a little bit more fair if there is consensus how to divide up the time so that everybody would at least get a pick in the first round.
The Chair: No. We're obligated to report six ministries in the first round. Okay? Your caucus will be guaranteed to pick two. Your caucus is being given by this committee the right to choose the amount of hours you'd like to apply to those two ministries. The other two caucuses will provide input and suggest to you that, as an example, Health is deserving of more than two hours. Okay? But if you say, "It's our choice and we only want two hours," that's your decision.
Now, if you want to sit and negotiate hours, I'm prepared to do that. The Chair's in your hands. I'm just simply saying that the simple way to do it is, when I call upon a caucus, to suggest, "Our first ministry is X, our second ministry is Y, and we would like to devote so many hours to each." Then I'll proceed to the next and to the next.
Mr Wiseman: Okay. I'm not understanding something here.
The Chair: Before that comes to a final vote, there will be time to discuss it, but I find it a lot easier for the caucuses to give their feelings on the amount of time than it is to just throw it on the table and start discussing it. Is that helpful?
Mr Wiseman: I'm missing something.
Interjection.
Mr Wiseman: Yes, but what I'm trying to understand here is, if they pick their two and say, "I want seven and a half hours each and that's it," there are only 15 hours in the first round --
The Chair: No, per caucus.
Mr Wiseman: Per caucus. All right, I've got you now.
The Chair: There are 45 hours in each round.
Mr Wiseman: Then we'll just go ahead.
The Chair: Great. Mr Cleary, are you ready to give your --
Mr Cleary: Yes, Mr Chairman. I guess that we'd like Agriculture and Food as number one and Housing as number two. Do you want a third one?
The Chair: Not at the moment. Do you have a preference for the amount of time you'd like to devote?
Mr Cleary: I sat on this committee back a few years ago, but I forget. Generally you did a day on each in the past. Is that correct?
The Chair: No, we can do a seven-and-a-half-hour ministry in two days if we're lucky. Seven hours we can do in two days, because we're from 3:30 till 6. I'm sorry, three days. We do a ministry a week if it's around seven and a half to eight hours. There is flexibility in there. But one day, we can only meet from 3:30 approximately until 6, so we only have two and a half hours per day. To do a ministry in one day, we generally should only devote about two and a half hours to it.
Mr Cleary: I'm a little bit at a disadvantage here because I'm only a sub on here now and I know that there are a number of issues on both these ministries and they want to discuss them. I don't know what to tell you. I think we would want more than two and half hours, though, with a ministry. I would think that.
The Chair: Okay. Between the two ministries, Mr Cleary, you have 15 hours. Perhaps I can ask if there are any opinions on the part of other members. Did they have any thoughts on how much time we'd like to devote on the two ministries? Anybody?
1600
Mr Wiseman: I just want to review this again in terms of how fast we can get through these.
The Chair: You mean just today?
Mr Wiseman: In the elements of being fair in terms of over the committee time that we have available. My view of this would be to try to get them all done within the time that we've allocated, that we've got left in terms of sitting, and what we hope to get when the House leaders sit down and decide how many weeks we're going to have in the summer. If we have an idea of how many total hours we have, we might be able to have some element of fairness in terms of equal possibilities, of having everybody have a chance at their selections.
The Chair: I have many letters to your House leader on that very subject, which I would be pleased to give to you, but the short answer is, at this late date, we will be lucky to get eight ministries done, maybe nine if everything goes well. That's where there's no disruptions, calls to the House during our committee time, no scheduling problems where a minister has to cancel. Where it's the minister, we can't start without the minister, and we respect that. There's some flexibility there.
We're starting later and later and later every year on this committee, and I've been on estimates now for the start of my ninth year. We used to have two estimates done by this time, this very week.
Mr Wiseman: In order to get to the eight or nine, how much time did you allocate for each ministry on an average basis?
The Chair: The standing orders speak -- I apologize; I should have gotten copies of the standing orders so that I could direct you directly to them -- to a total number of ministries and a total number of hours that can be allocated, up to an amount of 15 hours. We can allocate two hours to Agriculture and two hours to Housing. The standing orders say that can total 15, but we can decide it to be four. In the nine years, everybody's taken just about their full time.
When we table our report to the House, when we're finally sitting down and doing it, we might decide to cut short by two hours a ministry because we've covered all the questions we have, but we have to report to the House the selection and the amount of time we wish to allocate. So it's a mathematical question, I guess: two rounds; there are 12 ministries; 45 hours maximum per round, which is 90 hours maximum.
We can only sit on Tuesdays and Wednesdays after routine proceedings. We need a special motion to sit past the hour of 6, and even that is highly suspect.
In all likelihood, we will not be able to call the first ministry until June 22 or June 23. This is why, if I didn't call the meeting for this week, we might not have gotten estimates started until October, because we come back in October. Do you see our problem now?
Mr Wiseman: I understand all that, but let's just make the picks.
The Chair: You are ready to continue? Mr Cleary, I'm seeing no recommendation of time. Might I suggest that you allocate six hours to Agriculture and nine hours to Housing? Is that helpful? If that's not helpful, would you give me two numbers, please.
Mr Cleary: Okay, I'll give you two. Can we change them after, do you think?
The Chair: Until this comes to a final vote, it can be amended. I would just like to proceed with this.
Mr Cleary: Okay, I'll go half and half on it.
The Chair: Seven and a half and seven and a half. Thank you.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Chairman, a question. Is it normal procedure in your experience as a member of this committee over the last number of years -- can two caucuses put forward one particular ministry? Is that normally done?
The Chair: It's a redundant point because your selection is made. I mean, you can waive if you no longer have any selections, but if one of your selections has been made, then you move to your next selection is usually what I used to do when I was a subcommittee member.
Mr Arnott: I guess my question is, all caucuses have an opportunity to ask questions during the course of the hours allocated?
The Chair: Oh yes, I'm sorry.
Mr Arnott: Fair enough. Our caucus would like to see 10 hours devoted to the Ministry of Health and five hours devoted to the Ministry of Labour in the first round.
Mr Wiseman: Women's issues and francophone affairs.
The Chair: I'm waiting.
Mr Wiseman: Seven and a half each.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Cleary, do you have two additional selections to share with the committee?
Mr Cleary: Education and Training hasn't been taken, and Economic Development and Trade.
The Chair: And the amount of time, Mr Cleary?
Mr Cleary: The same.
The Chair: Seven and a half and seven and a half?
Mr Cleary: Yes.
Mr Arnott: Community and Social Services, 10 hours; Ministry of Natural Resources, five hours.
Mr Wiseman: Northern Development and Mines and Culture, Tourism and Recreation, half each.
The Chair: Okay, I will go through the list for members. In the first round, our first selection will be Agriculture, seven and a half hours; the second selection, the Ministry of Housing, seven and a half hours; the third selection, the Ministry of Health, 10 hours; the fourth selection, the Ministry of Labour, five hours; the fifth selection, the women's directorate, seven and a half hours; the sixth selection, francophone affairs, seven and a half hours.
Round two: the Ministry of Education and Training, seven and a half; the eighth selection, Economic Development, seven and a half hours; the ninth selection, Community and Social Services, 10 hours; the 10th selection, the Ministry of Natural Resources, five hours; the 11th choice, the Ministry of Northern Development, seven and a half hours; and the 12th and final selection, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, seven and a half hours.
May I receive a motion to submit that to the House?
Mr Wiseman: I'll move it.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed, if any? It's carried.
Is there any other business for the committee?
Since our budget speaks to requesting time, and the question has been raised about whether we have sufficient time to complete our estimates, it would be helpful to have a motion for us to write the House leaders now to request two weeks of summer sitting time. Can I have that motion?
Mr Wiseman: I'll move that.
The Chair: Any discussion? All those in favour? Carried.
The one piece of difficulty in all this of course is that the estimates books may not be ready, which is something we do not control. I'd just ask you to leave that in the Chair's hands to pursue. We will notify the first several ministries immediately to let them know that they've been selected, to determine, to ascertain that we need the estimates books immediately.
Secondly, is the committee is satisfied that the clerk will obtain those as quickly as possible and have them delivered to the caucus office, to the critic of record and to the subcommittee chair? Now we'll get them to everybody, of course, but immediately we want to get copies to your caucus office for your research department, a copy to the critic and a copy to the subcommittee representative. I don't want to hold things up while we're trying to chase copies around, while we're trying to get them in those people's hands.
We may not have a need to meet until we can confirm a commencement date. You might consider that it might be the 22nd or the 23rd to begin Agriculture, but out of courtesy we'll notify that ministry immediately. This motion might be ready to present to House tomorrow.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn has been received by Mr Abel. All those in favour? Carried. This meeting stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1611.