Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre / -Centre L)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Mr David Young (Willowdale PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Rampersad, researcher,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1108
in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Marcel
Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. We'll bring the
committee to order. It is after 10 o'clock. The purpose of the
meeting this morning is to consider the subcommittee report of
May 17, 2000. Who wants to start? It's in front of you; I think
the report of the subcommittee is in front of each committee
member.
Mr Doug Galt
(Northumberland): Mr Chair, I have a very important duty
here, and maybe we should get this looked after first.
The Chair: I
will let you proceed with that.
Mr Galt: I'd
like to make a motion. I move that the following substitution be
made in the membership of the subcommittee on committee business:
that Mr Young be substituted for Mr Arnott.
The Chair:
You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion?
If not, then all those in favour of that motion? The motion
carries unanimously.
Any other motion? No? Then
we'll proceed to the subcommittee report, which is in front of
you.
Mr Gerry Phillips
(Scarborough-Agincourt): I move the subcommittee report,
Mr Chair.
The Chair:
Mr Phillips moves the subcommittee report. Any discussion?
Mr Galt: I'm
looking at the 9 o'clock start and wondering if the committee
might consider a 10 o'clock start rather than a 9 o'clock start,
for two hours on each of the two mornings.
The Chair:
It's up to the committee to decide what your preference is. I am
only the Chair; I cannot decide on your behalf. The subcommittee
made the recommendation of 9 o'clock.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): I would suggest, since
there's likely to be a dramatic shift between the subcommittee
report and the final report, we get that settled and then see
where we are. I mean, why amend this if you're going to kill the
whole thing anyway?
Mr David Young
(Willowdale): If it's in order, Mr Chair, I'd like to
move a number of amendments to the subcommittee report, if I may.
I have them here in a form that might be of some assistance to
yourself and to the clerk. I have copies for each of you. If this
document is considered in conjunction with the report of the
subcommittee, it'll hopefully clearly indicate where it is I
suggest this committee goes. I'll read them out, Mr Chair, but I
have given you a copy.
The Chair:
Mr Young, are those the only two copies you have?
Mr Young: I
have one for myself. Do we need additional ones?
The Chair:
We'll just take a quick recess; I'll get the clerk to
photocopy.
The committee recessed
from 1112 to 1114.
The Chair:
First of all, Mr Phillips, since you moved the subcommittee
report minutes, could you please read them for the record?
Mr Phillips:
Sure.
"Your subcommittee met on
Wednesday, May 17, 2000, to consider the method of proceeding on
Bill 72, An Act to pay a dividend to Ontario taxpayers, cut
taxes, create jobs and implement the Budget, and recommends the
following:
"(1) That the committee meet
in Toronto on June 1 and June 8, 2000, in the morning and
afternoon each day and invite the minister and appropriate
ministry staff to the meeting to explain the bill and answer
questions.
"(2) That the minister attend
the committee meeting for the first two hours on June 1 and that
the ministry staff attend for the duration of the committee's
meetings on June 1 and June 8, 2000.
"(3) That amendments be
submitted to the clerk of the committee by 9 am on June 6, 2000,
and that the clerk will distribute the amendments to the
committee members the same day.
"It is noted that Mr David
Young dissented from these recommendations."
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Phillips. Mr Young, I'll go back to you now.
Mr Young: Mr
Chair, again so that the record is clear, I will read the
amendments I propose, being as follows:
That section 1 be amended by
removing the words "invite the minister."
That section 2 be amended by
removing "the minister" and replacing it with "ministry staff" as
the group to attend for the first two hours of June 1, 2000.
That section 2 be further
amended by removing "ministry staff attend ..." and replacing it
with "ministry staff be on call ..."
Finally, that the date in section 3 be amended to
"June 2, 2000" and that the amendments be tabled by 9 am and
distributed by 12 noon on that same day.
The Chair:
You've heard the motion proposed by Mr Young. Any discussion on
the motion?
Mr Phillips:
Let me start by saying that I find it unacceptable that the
minister is not prepared to come and defend the bill. I view this
bill as the most sweeping tax bill we've seen in 15 years at
least. I reread the campaign document of the Conservative
government and it never mentioned corporate tax cuts of up to 40%
and capital gains cuts of one third. In the end it will be $9
billion worth of tax cuts. It will, in my opinion, unless we see
evidence to the contrary, threaten our health care system
funding. It is a huge policy decision that we've decided we are
going to have corporate rates lower than our neighbouring states.
It's the first time I can recall where the budget essentially
referred to simply how we compete with our neighbouring US
states, and there are, as I say, huge policy implications. If
this bill is passed, to make any future changes requires
referendum.
I happen to think it's
certainly the most important economic issue facing us. It just
seems absurd to me that the minister would not want to be here to
explain the rationale behind this tax policy. As I say, there was
never a mention in the campaign about cutting corporate taxes
like this, never a mention in the campaign about cutting capital
gains taxes like this. I think we are owed a very fulsome
discussion on the rationale. I now find that the staff will be on
call. They can't even give us two days of their valuable time to
be here to answer, hopefully on behalf of the minister, the
policy issues and the detail issues behind the bill.
Essentially, in my opinion,
it's an insult to the opposition, to the Liberal caucus and to
the NDP caucus, that the minister can't find two hours to come
and explain the rationale behind this bill and to have a debate
on it. It is, I gather, the cornerstone of the Conservative Party
policy. It's the thing you feel proudest about, I gather, and I
think the government owes us a visit from the minister and an
opportunity for a really vigorous debate.
I regret very much that the
public has no opportunity for input into this. I have had calls
from at least one group wanting to express their view on what I
regard as the most sweeping tax legislation I can recall. I'm
angry that the minister has decided he won't appear. I'm angry
that the minister is only going to allow his staff to appear for
two hours and then be "on call." I just find this unacceptable. I
think the public has a right to have their business done in
public. I understand that when you win elections you think you
can do whatever you want, but that isn't how I view democracy. I
can't imagine why anyone would support these amendments. I find
it insulting.
1120
Mr
Christopherson: I share the concerns of the critic for
the official opposition and feel even more strongly about the
public being involved here. Quite frankly, other than maybe one
session with the ministry staff, we achieve nothing here that we
couldn't achieve by virtue of asking for a technical briefing and
meeting with the staff one on one. To me, it's almost pointless
beyond the first morning. Four sessions, four half-days of
talking with staff, is not going to produce the kind of
discussion that needs to happen here. You can't grill staff;
that's not fair to them. Yet the questions we have to ask are of
an adversarial nature. The minister won't come; he's hiding
behind his bureaucrats. That's shameful. A bill of this
importance, and the minister refuses to come forward. It's an
insult to the people of Ontario by virtue of the fact that the
opposition is the only voice for those who didn't vote for the
government and don't agree with the government, and yet the
minister who is sponsoring this bill refuses to come before the
committee. Further to that, we can't bring anybody in from the
outside. So we're all going to have a nice session of
navel-gazing.
This is just outrageous. I
can't put into words how strongly I feel that the government is
muzzling the whole process of any kind of democratic interaction.
And it's not just this committee; every bill that comes forward
is being rammed through here with very little or no input by
anyone. I've been around here long enough that I can see and feel
the dramatic, draconian change that's taken place. This is just
one more example of it. I not only oppose with my voice and vote
but every fibre of me that this is any kind of decent way to deal
with a bill that has the implications it does. We're getting
further and further away from this Legislature and its committees
having any relevance whatsoever. I understand the backbenchers
get a little upset when people from the public come forward and
say things that aren't nice about their government, but too damn
bad. The fact of the matter is, there is supposed to be an open,
lively debate, and we're not going to have one with these
amendments.
Quite frankly, I will attend
to the point where we're getting something out it, but once we
just start going around and around and around and the bureaucrats
start saying, "Well, that's the policy, that's the policy, that's
the direction, that's the way the minister says," once we get to
that kind of stonewalling, I am not going to waste my time at
this committee being run around when there are other places where
I could do something more productive.
If the government would give
its head a shake and let the public come in and have a real
discussion-they can bring in their supporters and we'll bring
those in who disagree with the government and we'll have an open
debate. That's the nature of this place. That's what's supposed
to happen, and it's not happening and it's outrageous.
Mr Young: My
colleagues may have some comments as well, but let me try to
address some of the points raised by Mr Phillips and Mr
Christopherson.
First of all, it's important
to recall that this committee has spent a great deal of time
consulting with the public. The views of the public were
obviously very important to this body, and that undoubtedly
explains why a total of 10 days of hearings were held across the
province in, I believe,
six cities-cities, by the by, represented by politicians of all
different stripes. There were numerous representations made to
this committee, many of them non-partisan. Some of them, as Mr
Christopherson described future representations in this manner,
would clearly be biased or partisan on one side or another; that
inevitably happens and did happen, but there were a lot of
excellent submissions made to this body. Many of those
recommendations and submissions are in fact embodied in the
actual budget document. This committee heard from 102
organizations representing unions, social advocacy groups,
community groups, businesses, heard from individuals, and
received written submissions.
In addition, it is important
to recall that the minister took part in extensive pre-budget
consultation. His efforts included 13 round tables representing a
broad spectrum of interests. His consultations involved
discussions, in one fashion or another, with 370 organizations
and individuals. I should add that since joining the Ministry of
Finance two or three months ago, I too participated in many
discussions with groups, ranging from community living groups to
various business organizations. Some 300 individuals participated
in total in that set of pre-budget consultations done through the
ministry.
It should also be noted that
the minister did attend at this committee. Based on my review of
previous years, he attended longer, arguably twice as long as
most ministers do. It's my submission-and I think the facts will
bear this out-that the formative and primarily important part of
this process we're now engaged in the last stages of takes place
when one does go out and listens and crafts the bill, based of
course on a position put forward by a political party during an
election campaign, but also based on what one hears through those
committee hearings. That's exactly what occurred.
As to Mr Phillips's concern
about this fundamental shift, the notion of cutting corporate
taxes being perhaps offensive but certainly unique in the manner
he describes, I point out that as far back as 1995 in the Liberal
red book, the Liberal Party acknowledged that corporate tax rates
had to be cut to make businesses more competitive. They seemed to
understand that at that time.
I should also point out to
you that we are not only trying to be competitive in relation to
other provinces and border states; we're now in global
competition with countries that have cut tax rates for businesses
and continue to do so, countries many of which, by the way, have
very strong health care systems. Denmark, Norway and Finland are
some that come to mind. The nexus that Mr Phillips attempts to
draw between lower taxes and less health care funding is, in our
respectful opinion, simply fanciful. The history of this
government with cutting taxes and increasing health care funding
suggests otherwise. Our commitments suggest otherwise. There is
nothing new or unique in the direction we are heading here that
is different than we have espoused over the last five or six
years, both in the Legislature and in election campaigns.
In closing this segment of
comments, I would also like to say that it's of course open to
the members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to
pose questions to ministers of the crown, including Minister
Eves, during question period. By my count, this privilege has
been utilized on very few occasions, if any.
Mr Phillips:
Have you seen him there since the budget?
Mr Young: I
have indeed, on numerous occasions, as a matter of fact, as
recently as yesterday. So it seems to me that if there were some
pressing political questions of the sort that Mr Phillips was
describing a few moments ago, surely those would have been
presented during question period.
1130
The Chair:
Any further discussion?
Mr
Christopherson: You're damn right. The parliamentary
assistant talks about the excellent submissions that came in
beforehand and then somehow wants us to believe that's the end of
the democratic debate, that everybody gives input and then you
just do whatever you want and there's absolutely no comment
afterwards, which is ridiculous. It matters probably more what
you did with the input than the fact that you got it: whether you
ignored it, whether you implemented it, whether you changed it,
whether you brought in something that wasn't raised at this
committee.
Your suggestion that somehow
question period could be used for some of these things-if that
were the case, then we would just triple question period and
eliminate committees. The fact is, there are detailed questions
here that are not macro enough to warrant a question in the House
but certainly need to be looked at, and that's what committees
are for. We're supposed to roll up our sleeves and do the
detailed grunt work, quite frankly, that the media aren't
interested in and that most of the public aren't interested in
but that have major implications at the end of the day on how
this province is run and, in this case, how our economy
works.
We've got a bill that's about
36 pages, which is a fairly lengthy bill. It makes amendments to
the Corporations Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Land Transfer
Tax Act, the Mining Tax Act and the Retail Sales Tax Act. Given
that taxation is one of the biggest levers of power that
governments have, particularly majority governments, it makes
sense that we would give people who are experts in this
field-neither Mr Phillips nor I are economists, we're
politicians, but we would like to have economists come in, both
those who are supportive of this bill and those who are opposed
to it, and point out to us what the concerns are.
I also want to point out that
this is such a sham. The amendments that were just moved by the
government have this committee meeting on June 1, and then on
June 2 we're to have our amendments in. Then the committee
meets, for the other 50% of the time, on June 8. What a
absolute joke. You haven't even covered up the fact that it's a
sham very well, to offer up two dates for committee discussions,
and nobody gets to come in except bureaucrats, the minister refuses to
attend, and then half the committee hearings happen after the
deadline for amendments.
There's no way you can make
the argument to any reasonable person that you really care about
what anybody thinks about your bill. I don't even know why we're
bothering. It's an insult to refer it to committee and somehow
suggest that the parliamentary committee process is alive and
well, because it's not. That's why I'm so outraged. It's just an
absolute sham, a fraud perpetrated on the people of Ontario that
somehow their parliamentary system is working the way they
expect. No, it isn't.
Absolutely nothing of any
value will come out of these hearings except what the government
wants. There won't even be an opinion from outside of this
committee meeting except for those of us who are members, and
there are two of us here who have an opposing view to the four of
you across the way. That's all that's going to happen. It's so
insulting, and what drives me crazy is that it's so blatant. I
can scream all I want from the rooftops, but that doesn't do any
good if nobody's listening and the media doesn't seem to feel
that this is any particular problem. I'm trying not to be over
the top about it, but the reality is that the democratic process,
the parliamentary tradition, the notion of a pluralistic society,
doesn't exist much around here any more. This is one of the most
blatant examples; however, it's just another example, because
there are lots of them. There's absolutely nothing that the
parliamentary assistant's said that in any way, in my opinion,
mitigates the legitimate criticism of this farce and this
insult.
Mr Phillips:
The tragedy is that the parliamentary assistant says it and
almost sounds like he actually believes it. This is an insult of
the first order. The consultation that took place was input. The
bill is now implementation. That's all background. Now the
government has declared itself and has introduced a bill, in my
judgment a hugely important bill. It sets up Ontario's own tax
system for the first time ever. It sets in place corporate
tax-rate cuts that will put our corporations substantially lower
than the US. That may be acceptable, but I've outlined the
questions in detail that we need answers to. It sets in place by
legislation small business tax cuts, including in the future, by
the way, for organizations like doctors. I understand that, but
I've got questions on it.
It is unbelievable that a
minister wouldn't want to come before us and defend the bill. It
is unbelievable that with what I regard as the most sweeping tax
bill in Ontario, certainly since I've been in the Legislature-I
defy anyone to find one more sweeping-that the Minister of
Finance won't even give us two hours of his time to come in and
defend it, explain it. I've taken the time to write a four-page
letter outlining what I regard as some of the key issues,
questions and discussion points.
You've got the votes, so you
can ram it through, you can muzzle us, you can cut off debate on
it. The Minister can say, "I'm not coming," and he won't come.
"Furthermore, I'm going to allow my staff to be there two hours
and then they're leaving. If you want them, you've got to phone
them to come back." I just say this is obscene. That's strong
language, but that's how I feel about it.
I can't imagine that anyone
who got elected to come to here to do the public's business, to
involve the public, to let the public see what's going on, to
allow some opportunity for input, would accept this. As my
colleague from the NDP said, it is turning legislative committees
into a farce, and I can't imagine why the government members
would allow themselves to be a part of it.
Mr Galt:
It's interesting to hear some of the comments coming from across
the floor. This is my first year to be sitting on this particular
committee. I was extremely impressed with the extensive
consultation we carried out in the month of February, both in
Toronto as well as, I believe, some six communities around
Ontario, north, east, west. Over and above that, the minister
carried out extensive consultations, and I personally chaired a
task force on rural economic renewal which again went around the
province for some seven days getting input for the Minister of
Finance. It's really impressive the extensive consultation that
was carried out by many different facets of the government prior
to the budget being struck.
1140
I think it's interesting how
well this budget has been accepted by the public. Certainly when
I was on CJBQ a week ago Friday, half the calls coming in over a
two-hour period were congratulating the government. There was
practically no criticism of the budget. Listening to CFRB
recently, driving in yesterday morning, there was approval of the
$200 rebate and the budget in general. As was previously
mentioned by the parliamentary assistant, I believe there's only
been one question in the House to the Minister of Finance
questioning this particular bill and the budget in general.
I do empathize with the
opposition on ministry staff availability. I think there's a bit
of a misunderstanding. Certainly whoever they would like will be
here; it's just a matter of identifying who they need as a
resource person. We don't need a whole army here from the
Ministry of Finance as we go through clause by clause. There are
areas of expertise that are needed and other areas of expertise
that are not needed, and from an effective, efficient point of
view of government, I don't think we need a whole lot of people
sitting in here for two full days.
Interjection: How insulting.
Mr Galt:
Well, how many would you want here? How big an army do you want
for the two days? All you have to do is let us know who you want
here and we'll have them here for you. But I don't think we need
20 or 30 people sitting in this room at your beck and call just
to make you feel good. Those you need, we'll ensure they are
here.
It's interesting how the
opposition talks about this deteriorating into a sham. Chair, I'd
like to let you know just how much time was spent on committee
work by the opposition when they were government. In our first
term, from 1995-99, we had 798 hours of committee work on
the road. What did the NDP
have? It had 645 hours. And what did the Liberals do during their
five-year term? They had 349 hours. I think that in itself speaks
well of this government and what we've been doing.
How many bills were passed,
and days of sitting? Sessional days were 431 for our government,
and we passed 114 bills. What did the NDP sit? It was 385 days
and they passed 163 bills. The Liberals sat 297 days and passed
183 bills. That can be broken down into how many sessional days
or how many bills per sessional day. We have spent a lot more
time in debate on each and every bill, whether it be second
reading or third reading. You can talk about hours, you can talk
about days. Whatever measure you would like to use, we have had
far more consultation, far more debate on the bills, on second
and third reading as well as in committee.
What they're saying about how
this government operates, ramming things through-I think they're
remembering what they were doing rather than the government
that's now in place that does pride itself on and certainly
carries out extensive consultation, extensive debate. I'm quite
comfortable with the amendments. I would like to see that we meet
from 10 to 12 on the two mornings rather than 9 to 12, but that's
certainly flexible.
Mr Young:
Very briefly, Mr Chair. I appreciate that I've spoken before, but
I did want to comment on a couple of points and ask what is
perhaps a rhetorical question.
I heard with interest that Mr
Christopherson was not pleased, to say the least. I think he said
every fibre of his body was offended, or something of that sort.
I wonder if the same offence was felt in 1994, when there were
four bills that might be properly characterized as budget bills:
the Ontario Loan Act, the Budget Measures Act, the Revenue Act
and Liquor Licence Act. Based on my review of the documentation,
not one of those bills spent a day at the committee stage. I can
recite other bills at other times. While I appreciate that my
friends have different positions, and they've certainly put their
positions forward in a very emphatic way, I do question their
comments about the unprecedented nature of what is being proposed
here. I think that is not an appropriate characterization. I
think we have had a good discussion with the public and with
others and that two days is a sufficient amount of time to
complete this process.
So I'll be supporting the
amendments I have moved. I have the utmost confidence that it
will allow for the process to be completed in a reasonable
fashion.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Young. I will now pose the question on the
amendments to the subcommittee-
Mr Phillips:
May I ask a question before we get-why won't the minister
appear?
Mr Young: If
the question's posed to me, Mr Chair, I'd be pleased to have the
opportunity to answer it. The minister did appear at this
committee previously. He appeared for rather an extended period
of time, based on past precedent and on the precedent that has
been established over the years. The minister has, at a very
crucial time, been in front of this committee. I know it's the
opposition's job to try to waste time and elongate processes to
try to get some attention in the media, but there's no purpose
served by it at this juncture.
The Chair:
We will now go to the amendments that Mr Young submitted:
That section 1 be amended by
removing the words "invite the minister."
That section 2 be amended by
removing "the minister" and replacing it with "ministry staff" as
the group to attend for the first two hours of June 1, 2000.
That section 2 be further
amended by removing "ministry staff attend ..." and replacing it
with "ministry staff be on call ..."
Lastly, that the date in
section 3 be amended to "June 2, 2000" and that the
amendments be tabled by 9 am and distributed by 12 noon on that
same day.
Mr
Christopherson: A question on the motion: Do I
understand correctly that indeed halfway through the committee
discussions the amendments are expected to be put in by the
opposition and then the committee continues for the other 50%? Do
I understand these dates correctly, Chair?
The Chair:
That's the way I would read it, Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: That pretty much sums it up.
The Chair:
So all those in favour?
Mr Phillips:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Arnott, Galt, Molinari,
Young.
NAYS
Christopherson, Phillips.
The Chair:
The amendments carry.
Now we'll need a motion on
the subcommittee report as submitted.
Mr Ted Arnott
(Waterloo-Wellington): So moved.
Mr Phillips:
Recorded vote.
The Chair:
All those in favour of the amended subcommittee report of May
17?
AYES
Arnott, Galt, Molinari,
Young.
NAYS
Christopherson,
Phillips.
The Chair:
The amended report carries.
Mr Young:
Chair, just a point of clarification: Dr Galt, just as we were
commencing the vote, correctly asked whether or not that was to
be 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock by way of a commencement time. I
thought we had achieved some level of agreement that it was to be
10 o'clock.
Mr Christopherson: You've got no
agreement about anything.
Mr Young:
Then let's start at 9. You can get somebody to cover you as House
leader.
Mr
Christopherson: You can do whatever you want.
Mr Young:
Nine o'clock is great.
The Chair:
What I have in front of me right now is that the amended
subcommittee report recommends that we meet at 9 o'clock. That's
my understanding, correct?
Mr
Phillips: Yes.
The Chair:
Any other business? If not, then I'll entertain a motion to
adjourn.
