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)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr David Young (Willowdale PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer,
Mr David Rampersad, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1006 in room 228.
PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATIONS
The Chair (Mr Marcel
Beaubien): Good morning. It's after 10. I'll bring the
meeting to order this morning.
First of all, there are a
couple of items that I would like to bring to your attention.
Under standing order 106(d), the standing committee on finance
and economic affairs is empowered to consider and report to the
House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the
fiscal and economic policies of the province. As a result of this
standing order, the committee must table all committee reports
before the report can be distributed elsewhere. If a report is
distributed before it is tabled in the House, a point of
privilege could be raised. Basically, what this stipulates is
that even though the committee decides to hold its discussions in
an open session, the report remains confidential until it is
tabled. That brings us to the next point. What is the wish of the
committee? Do we wish to have our discussion in an open session
as opposed to a closed session?
Mr Ted Arnott
(Waterloo-Wellington): I move that we maintain our open
session process.
The Chair:
Any discussion on that? If not, all those in favour? That's
carried. I would also like to point out to the committee-
Mr Gerry Phillips
(Scarborough-Agincourt): Let the media in.
The Chair:
Are they banging on the door?
I would also like to make the
committee members aware that any changes, when we're dealing with
directions to the researchers, are not motions; therefore, they
do not need to be voted upon.
With regard to dissenting
opinions again, I'd like to have the committee's opinion on this.
I'd like to know when we should have dissenting opinions prior to
doing the final report. In other words, we need a time frame
here. Is it two days after we're done with the report or three
days? How do you wish to proceed with this, for any dissenting
opinions?
Mr Phillips:
Just in case there is one-
Mr David Young
(Willowdale): In the unlikely event.
Mr Phillips:
I want to cover the bases.
The only challenge for some
is that next week is spring break. I don't know whether we've set
a time when we wanted to finalize this or not, but if it were
possible, my own preference would be not to submit until the
Tuesday after the spring break, which would be two weeks from
tomorrow. If that's a major problem-the House comes back on April
3, and I guess we wouldn't table this-I guess we send it to the
Minister of Finance ahead, don't we?
The Chair:
The researcher has pointed out to me, and that's quite correct,
that the dissenting report is just added as an appendix to the
final report itself. I imagine that if we did receive it within
two weeks from now, or from tomorrow, it would be more than
adequate.
I'm told that this might slow
down the process for translating the report. It's up to the
committee; it's not up to me to decide.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski
(Scarborough Centre): I take it it's not debated.
The Chair:
No. It's just added as an appendix, or just added to the final
report. However, the report has to be translated into French.
Mr Arnott:
Is there anything in the report of the subcommittee which has
given us an absolute deadline?
The Chair:
No. We didn't discuss that in the subcommittee at all.
Mr Arnott:
If this process is to be meaningful, we want to get the
recommendations to the Minister of Finance before he prepares his
budget, obviously, and before it's in its final preparation
stage. So the sooner we could get it in to the minister, in
theory, the better.
The Chair:
The House comes back April 3. What is the date two weeks from
Tuesday? Does anybody have a calendar?
Mr Arnott:
The 21st.
Mr Phillips:
The only thing I'd say is that I think there will be revisions in
this report that the staff will redo and issue an updated report.
It won't be just any dissenting reports. I think each of the
committee members will want to review the final report. In the
past, I think what's happened is, rather than meet again to deal
with it, we've delegated it to the subcommittee to deal with it.
One step will be, after we finish our deliberations this week,
the staff will go away and write up the final report and then
each of the committee members will want to get that and review
it. Then we have to confirm the final report as well. I have a
suspicion that it's going to be at least next week anyway before
the staff finish the report. The final report is prepared, I
guess, next week, and any
dissenting reports and final comments are done two weeks from
tomorrow. I also think, Mr Chair, that you'll want to be in a
meeting of the subcommittee to get any final comments on the
final report. At least that's what has been done in the past,
sometimes by phone.
The Chair:
Are you willing to make a motion?
Mr Phillips:
Let me suggest to the committee that after the deliberations this
week the staff prepare the final report for distribution,
hopefully by next Wednesday, and that any dissenting reports and
comments on the final report be communicated to the Chair by the
close of business two weeks from tomorrow.
The Chair:
Which is March 21.
Mr Phillips:
If that's what it is, yes.
Mr Arnott:
Could I just speak to this point. Gerry. I'm not sure if I fully
know what you're getting at, but it would seem to me that the
final report would include the recommendations of the
committee.
Mr Phillips:
Yes.
Mr Arnott:
Assuming that we have a unanimous report, there would be
unanimous recommendations. If that's not the case, there would be
a majority report, representing the majority opinion. Perhaps
there will be dissenting opinions from the opposition parties,
but that would form part of the body of the final report, would
it not?
Mr Phillips:
In the past what's happened is there's a final report issued. The
dissenting reports are submitted to the Chair, and anybody else
who wants them can look at them, but they tend not to be revised
after they're submitted.
The Chair:
No. After they're submitted, it's my understanding they're
strictly an appendix to the final report itself.
Mr Arnott:
But they form part of the body of the final report?
The Chair:
Yes. It would be attached.
Mr Arnott:
My understanding of the process for this week would be to go
through the draft report that our research officers prepared,
discuss it, see if there are any points of clarification that we
feel are required, and at the end of that process we would-
The Chair:
You're quite right, Mr Arnott. The only reason I brought it up is
that I just wanted to clear the air, to make sure that we had
covered as many of the bases as we possibly could. I don't want
to hear on Wednesday or whenever we're done with this report,
"When do we file the dissenting reports?" I want to put it at
home plate right now so that we're clear as to when they have to
be submitted, and if there is no disagreement, Mr Phillips has
suggested March 21, that the dissenting opinions be filed with
the Chair. Is that satisfactory?
Mr Arnott:
Then what happens-
The Chair:
In the meantime, we're still going to work on the report.
Hopefully, we'll have the report done by 2 o'clock today.
Mr Phillips:
Ted, I think then it's all finished. By close of business, there
is a subcommittee meeting held, maybe by phone, where the Chair
says, "Are there any errors in the report?" We can't change the
content of the report, but I have a feeling that will be the
final version of it, and then, if there is a minority report by
the Liberals and the NDP, both of them are submitted for
inclusion in the report. That puts the final stamp on it.
The Chair:
OK? We'll open the floor for discussion on the draft report.
Mr Arnott: I
have a preliminary comment to make. First of all, I want to
compliment the research officer on the job he has done putting
together a summary of what we heard over the two-and-a-half-week
period. There were obviously quite a number of presentations over
quite a number of days. He has done a fine job of summarizing
them.
There are a number of areas
in the report-and I would reference most specifically page
7-where it appears that there was a subjective opinion made by a
presenter which is presented as objective fact. I thought it
might be helpful to go through the report and indicate where that
has taken place; if somebody has expressed an opinion, that the
person or group that has expressed that opinion be indicated
directly in association with the so-called fact that has been
presented. That's just one area. On page 7, in the transportation
section, it says, "In the past, too many provincial
transportation projects have not taken into account the bigger
picture and have allowed extraneous factors to influence their
design." I would argue that is a subjective opinion and somebody
needs to associate their name with it, whoever made that point at
the committee. I was wondering if I could ask, as an overall
comment, that that be undertaken.
The Chair:
Is that the only general comment you wish to make, Mr Arnott?
Mr Arnott:
That's the only general comment, but I have specific comments
relating to points as we go through.
The Chair:
Discussing this with the researcher, he pointed out that many
presenters made subjective comments. Maybe as we go page by page
you should raise that particular issue and then we can
incorporate that. Is that OK?
Mr Arnott: I
could attempt to do that, yes. In some cases, it may very well be
fair to say, "Many presenters made this point," but if we don't
have some qualification it appears to be an absolute fact, some
of us might argue that it's a subjective opinion.
The Chair:
Then we can always refer to the back page and classify the
comments as to the person in the appendix.
Mr Young: We
might want to spend a brief moment addressing whether we want to
do it by way of footnotes as to who made the particular comments
or whether you want to actually include in the body of the text
the name of the individual and the location. I think there should
be some clarity as to how you're going to approach this so that
it doesn't jump back and forth. There are some instances in here
where there is reference to the fact that "submissions were made
by" or a comment was made, and there are others where it's simply factual.
There should be some uniformity in the way the report reads.
The Chair:
We did discuss this at the subcommittee, and I discussed it with
the researchers, that we wanted to maintain a brief report. We
didn't want a lengthy report. If there is any specific issue
where we have to refer to some of the presenters, we could always
incorporate a number in the report itself that identifies the
presenter at the back, as opposed to saying, "Ten presenters
represented the chamber of commerce in Ontario." If it deals
specifically with one presenter, I think we can identify the
presenter in that manner. I don't think that would be too
difficult.
1020
Mr Young:
I'd be content with proceeding in that manner. It makes
sense.
Mr Arnott:
That satisfies the concern I tried to express.
The Chair:
Mr Phillips, is that satisfactory?
Mr Phillips:
Yes. I just say as notice that there are some things in here that
the government states as fact which I don't necessarily agree
with as fact, but I think we can take that as given. It states on
the first page, "Nearly 50% of the total growth since mid-1995
has been due to increased consumer spending." I would have a
different view of that.
The Chair:
That was a statement made by the Minister of Finance.
Mr Phillips:
I realize that. I accept that they may view that as fact. I don't
view it as fact, but I'm not going to want a footnote on all of
those things.
The Chair:
Do we want to go back and start with page 1 and go through the
report page by page? Again, Mr Arnott, do you have any comments?
We'll go back and forth.
Mr Arnott:
Starting with page 1, in the section entitled "The Economy:
Economic Outlook," there is the statement, "GDP for 1999 as a
whole was 5% ...." I'd like to see that changed to, "GDP for 1999
as a whole is estimated to be 5%," because I don't think the
final numbers are yet in.
The Chair:
You're suggesting that the words "is estimated to be" be
incorporated.
Mr Arnott:
Yes. "GDP for 1999 as a whole is estimated to be 5%."
The Chair:
Anything else?
Mr Phillips:
I was distracted. What was that? Sorry.
The Chair:
On page 1 under "Economic Outlook," Mr Arnott suggested that "GDP
for 1999 as a whole was 5%" be changed to "GDP for 1999 as a
whole is estimated to be 5%."
Mr Phillips:
Good.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): Chair, sorry for my
lateness.
First off, I wanted to thank
staff. I'm sure that has been done by others, but I thought they
did an excellent job of trying to walk that incredible tightrope
that offering up this draft would be. If you think about the
reality of what they're dealing with, you can appreciate how
difficult it is. I thought they did an excellent job of trying to
ensure that it was balanced in terms of all the perspectives that
were brought.
I guess it's more a process
question than anything. The reality of this is that the
government at the end of the day is going to get the report they
want. It's that way now, it was that way under our government and
it was that way under the Liberals. That's just the way this
works. Given that we're dealing with economics, which tends to be
a major departure point for us and, I would think, also for the
official opposition, I'm just wondering about the fruitfulness of
spending time on the draft trying to revise it or find agreement
when at the end of the day on virtually every point that matters
economically we'll probably have a very strong difference of
opinion.
I was going to suggest that
we may want to talk about this report in terms of its accuracy,
if there's any point that we disagree with from a factual
perspective. Then we could have a general discussion. Again I
offer this up and I know it's going in the Hansard, but there's
not exactly a whole crowd watching what's going on. We're not in
the Amethyst Room. I wanted to suggest that at some point fairly
soon we might want to recognize that we could recess the
committee and allow each of the caucuses to submit their report,
make their arguments, take the vote and then we've wrapped it
up.
The part of working together
was to give people the opportunity to have their hearings. We've
done that. I thought you did an excellent job, by the way, even
though you and I clashed a couple of times. I just want to say
now that I thought you did an outstanding job of being fair to
all the parties involved as well as to the public. I think we've
achieved that working together about as much as we can, and now
the rubber's going to hit the road. I'm just raising for a point
of discussion with you-and maybe it would have been wise to have
a subcommittee meeting beforehand, I don't know-the reality
versus where we seem to be going here and how much time we want
to spend arguing something that at the end of the day the
government's going to accept or reject, and then we're going to
issue our minority reports.
I just offer that up by way
of suggesting we need to talk about this and where we're going.
We're certainly not going to use up all the time that's there, I
wouldn't think.
The Chair:
You make a very good point, and we touched on it briefly prior to
your being here. Your point is very well taken, that we thought
we'd go through the report page by page quickly to make sure we
can live, basically, with the information that is in the draft
report; that if there are any blatant mistakes or misquotes or
whatever, we can deal with them immediately. Then we talked about
submitting the dissenting views or dissenting reports, when they
have to be filed. Hopefully, it won't take the whole day to do
this, as far as I'm concerned, and then each party could submit
their own report.
Going through the report,
like I said, I mentioned tongue-in-cheek that at 2 o'clock this
afternoon we probably
should be done, but hopefully we can do it all this morning.
That's why we just started to go page by page. As Mr Arnott
pointed out, the first issue that he wants to deal with is that
as opposed to saying, "As a whole was 5%," it should say, "It is
estimated to be 5%," because basically we're just potentially
correcting some of the comments that some of the presenters have
made. Is that OK?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes. Again I would suggest and my
opinion is that we don't want to spend a whole lot of time other
than factual correctness or not, merely because it's in the
record, but once we have the document the government wants, I
mean, that's going to be the majority committee position and this
will disappear after that.
Mr Arnott: I
don't disagree with what you're saying, and I hope we can go
through these points relatively quickly. My issues are primarily
points of clarification that I want, minor wording changes,
that's all. We may be done here before Thursday.
The Chair:
That was the first point raised by Mr Arnott. So, any
comments?
Mr Arnott: I
have a second point relative to that same paragraph. The report
says, "It is estimated that GDP growth for the year 2000 could
range between 3.7% and 4%." I would like to change that to-again,
a point of clarification-"Based on private sector forecasts at
the time, it is estimated that GDP growth for the year 2000 could
range between 3.7% and 4%."
Mr
Christopherson: Is that to suggest that the government
disagrees with that in terms of the emphasis of private
forecasts?
Mr Arnott:
No. I think we established early on that the government did not
provide the forecast.
Mr Phillips:
They gave us nothing.
Mr
Christopherson: I know.
Interjections.
Mr Arnott:
We had quite a number of private sector forecasters, though, who
gave us their best guess. The government has not indicated what
its forecast is going to be for the coming year.
Mr
Christopherson: Ah, national security, I suppose? State
secret?
The Chair: I
can't comment.
Mr Arnott:
Going to page 2-
Mr Phillips:
I'm sorry, still on page 1, the employment numbers are
incorrect.
The Chair:
Where is that?
Mr Phillips:
Down in the second paragraph from the bottom. I think they've
been updated since those numbers. I believe for 1999 it's
actually 198,000.
Ms
Mushinski: Are you talking about jobs?
Mr Phillips:
Pardon me?
Ms
Mushinski: Are you talking about the numbers of jobs or
unemployment?
Mr Phillips:
Yes.
The Chair:
But I think these numbers refer to the figure that the Minister
of Finance presented to the committee.
Mr
Phillips: OK. You'd prefer the 198,000.
Interjections.
Mr
Phillips: Well, if you insist.
Mr Arnott:
If there are authoritative figures that have been released
since-
Mr
Phillips: It's just historical revision of the labour
force estimates, and that doesn't really matter to me.
Mr Arnott:
Is that StatsCan or is it Ministry of Labour?
Mr
Phillips: Ministry of Finance.
Mr Arnott:
We wouldn't mind the more recent number included in the
report.
Ms
Mushinski: It's 198,000 new jobs.
The Chair:
Anything else on page 1?
Mr
Phillips: I disagree with the bottom paragraph.
The Chair:
We'll put you on the record. Page 2.
Mr Arnott:
In the paragraph that begins with the title "Fiscal Situation,"
the first sentence there, "For the fifth year, the deficit target
will be exceeded, thereby resulting in a balanced budget." We
want to clarify that the report should read, "For the fifth year
in a row, the deficit target should be exceeded." Ontario is on
track to eliminate the deficit in the year 2000-01. This states
that "the deficit target will be exceeded, thereby resulting in a
balanced budget." It is projected that we will have a balanced
budget next year. We hope to achieve it.
1030
Mr
Christopherson: Those are ministry figures. I don't have
a problem with your doing that, but it should say that those are
government figures.
Mr Arnott:
Pardon?
Mr
Christopherson: I don't have a problem with what you are
suggesting. I'm just saying that if you are going to do that,
then anything beyond what can be checked factually is projection
by somebody, in this case, the government. I would prefer that
that sentence reflected that, that's all.
Mr Arnott:
Fair enough.
The Chair:
Any other comments on page 2?
Mr Arnott:
The next paragraph begins with the sentence, "At the same time,
expenditure has risen $1.1 billion." We would like to see that
changed to "At the same time, expenditure has risen $1.1 billion
over the 1999 budget plan."
The Chair:
"Over the 1999 budget"?
Mr Arnott:
Right. To further clarify what that $1.1 billion has been spent
on, we would like to say, "Significant additional expenditures
for the third quarter of the fiscal year 1999-2000 include a
$200-million increase in public service-OPSEU pension plan
expenditure, $196 million for hospitals and $196 million as a
result of the Canada-Ontario social housing agreement."
The Chair:
Could you read that again, to make sure we have the proper
wording.
Mr Arnott:
I assumed you could get it from Hansard, but if you can't, I'll
read it again.
"At the same time,
expenditure has risen $1.1 billion over the 1999 budget plan.
Significant additional expenditures for the third quarter of the
fiscal year 1999-2000 include a $200-million increase in public
service-OPSEU pension
plan expenditure, $196 million for hospitals and $196 million as
a result of the Canada-Ontario social housing agreement."
The Chair:
Thank you.
Mr
Christopherson: That change from $196 million for health
to $196 million for hospitals, do we have a source for that? Do
you have paper on that? It's a political issue.
Mr Arnott:
That's my understanding. It is factually correct.
Mr
Christopherson: If we could ask David to check it out
and it is in the material that was presented and it's just a word
clarification, I'm fine with it. But obviously it's a rather
sensitive political point, so we want to be sure.
Mr Arnott:
You want to check that out.
Mr
Christopherson: If you don't mind.
Mr Arnott:
Not at all.
Mr
Christopherson: So it's agreed, provided David checks it
and it is in the documentation that that is what the government
is saying the money was spent on.
The Chair:
Anything else on page 2, Mr Arnott?
Mr Arnott:
Yes. In the middle of the third paragraph of the same section
there is a sentence that begins, "At the same time, it should be
borne in mind that program expenditures on a per capita basis
...." We want to point out that the Ontario government is
spending more on health care in absolute dollars than any other
government in the province's history, and that while per capita
health expenditures may have dropped slightly since 1995, they
have been increasing steadily since 1996-97. So we would prefer
that the following wording be used: "While per capita health
expenditures may have dropped slightly after 1995, they have been
increasing steadily since 1996-97."
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sorry, where on page 2 do you want
to make the change?
Mr Arnott:
The third paragraph of "Fiscal Situation." The bottom paragraph
on the page. The sentence in the existing draft report reads, "At
the same time, it should be borne in mind that program
expenditures on a per capita basis have not declined
substantially and, indeed, that expenditure on health has
remained constant." We want to clarify that by saying, "While per
capita health expenditures dropped slightly after 1995, they have
been increasing steadily since 1996-97."
Mr
Christopherson: I don't want to use the word "spin," but
we're getting close to sort of making an argument about something
or taking a fact and trying to show it in a certain light, which
is fair game and I expect that to be reflected in the final
report.
But if we get into too much
of that here, we're having an argument over a draft report that
is quite frankly moot after the government's report is tabled.
You're making an argument there; you're putting a spin to it.
Mr Arnott:
If any spin is being put on it, it makes it more difficult for
the government.
Mr
Christopherson: Well, eliminate it. Eliminate the
sentence.
Mr Arnott:
I think the sentence is fine. I just think in fairness and
honesty it needs to be clarified.
Mr
Christopherson: Well, OK. Let's split hairs. You used
the word "slightly." We could argue that we don't agree with the
word "slightly." Again, just by virtue of adding that word as
part of your description, you're casting a light on it. That's
fine for you to do. As I say, I expect you to do it in your
report, but to do it here in what is basically a generic summary
of what's happened, I have a problem with starting to put words
like "slightly" in there.
I really think you're
making the argument of what you want in your final report. If
that sort of thing is what you want to do throughout this whole
document, given that this is just a base reference anyway, I'd
just as soon delete it, remove the argument, and move on.
Mr Arnott:
I think it's important to point out the level of health
expenditure and, as I say, I think this is a point of
clarification which is perhaps necessary, given the fact that the
way it's written I believe is factually incorrect.
Mr
Christopherson: So now we're going to start voting on
this report and once we have even one vote, quite frankly, that
takes us off of full agreement, it's no longer a document of
factual statement. It becomes a political document and this
process is moot.
It doesn't mean you can't.
I'm just saying it doesn't make it worthwhile putting a lot of
effort into the document if you're just going to ram through what
you want. That's what your final report is for.
The Chair:
At this point in time we're only giving direction to the
researcher, so it's not a debatable issue. I would like to see if
we can get consensus on it prior to having the final report.
There may be voting on the final report.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm trying to be helpful, Chair. It
won't happen this way.
Ms
Mushinski: Why don't we just delete the sentence then if
we want to agree in principle?
Mr
Phillips: It's easiest for us if the report reflects
what people told us. It becomes more difficult if we put things
in the report that are editorial comments, just because then I
can accept what the government said about the role exports play.
But if we start to editorialize, then I have to say: "The
government said this. I can't agree with that." Whereas I can
accept, yes, that's what the government said. I don't agree with
it, but that is a reflection-I'm just saying that if the body of
the report can reflect what advice we got, and then our
recommendations can be the point of differentiation, that's more
helpful for us. Otherwise, as my colleague said, then we're
forced to comment on each editorial comment and that becomes more
difficult for us.
The Chair:
It would make it easier to proceed with, there's no doubt about
it, because there are going to be some recommendations that will
be forthcoming and you probably can deal with that particular
issue at that particular point in time.
Ms
Mushinski: Mr Chairman, is Mr Phillips saying that he
agrees this is not editorializing and that we've actually changed this sentence
to reflect what actually happened to health care
expenditures?
Mr
Phillips: If you can show me where Mr Eves said it or a
government witness said that was the case, that's easier. If we
now are putting our own interpretation on it or we're changing
what people told us, or adding things to what people told us,
then it becomes more difficult for me. If you can show in Hansard
that when the ministry was here or his officials were here they
said that per capita expenditures were-
1040
Mr Arnott:
I don't recall the minister saying that, but I do believe it is
the case. I'm surprised that you don't want it included, but if
you don't want it included, we can delete the sentence.
The Chair:
So just delete it at this point in time? OK.
Mr Arnott:
Yes, that last sentence.
Mr
Christopherson: That's to get us over this hurdle.
Personally I would have liked to see the statement stay,
obviously, but to get us past this point-I just want to say, if
you've got a whole lot of changes coming that are similar to that
and you know it's in front of you, I'm just advising you that
deletion is not going to be a solution every way. You'd best
think in your mind, are you going to force us to have at least
one vote that makes this a political document as opposed to a
statement of fact, and not see deletion on other things as how
we're going to get past these things?
Mr Arnott:
Mr Christopherson, you can vote on any of these if you want. I
think it was a reasonable inclusion and if we've just agreed to
delete it, we've agreed to delete it, and hopefully we can get on
with the next one.
On page 3, on the section
entitled "Debt Repayment," the very first sentence states,
"Having achieved a balanced budget, the government can turn its
attention to repaying the debt."
The budget is not yet
balanced, as we heard the Treasurer say. There is still a
deficit, I believe in the range of $1 billion in the current
fiscal year. It's projected that we will have a balanced budget
next year. It's hoped, I think by everybody, that we will have a
balanced budget by next year. So if we could change that to,
"Once the budget is balanced, the government can turn its
attention to repaying the debt."
The Chair:
Any comments?
Mr
Christopherson: Well, we disagree to the extent that we
think there's a legitimate financial argument to be made that the
books are already balanced. But given where the sentence goes
anyway-
Mr Arnott:
Thank you. Later on in that same paragraph, about the middle of
it, there is a sentence that begins, "The government's proposal
to reduce the debt by $2 billion per annum during its current
mandate is regarded by some as too modest."
The government has never
stated that it's going to reduce the debt by $2 billion per
annum, but our party committed to reducing the debt by $2 billion
over the term of government should we be re-elected. That was a
statement in our Blueprint document. We need to state that it's a
$2-billion repayment of the debt over the current mandate.
Mr
Phillips: That's right.
The Chair:
That's a fact. We were talking $500 million a year.
Mr Arnott:
Actually, $500 million isn't correct either.
The Chair:
No, but during the discussion there was reference made to
that.
Mr Arnott:
Yes.
Still on page 3, in the
section "Taxes," the second paragraph in that section begins, "On
the other hand, it was pointed out that because the tax cuts took
effect when the budget was not balanced, they constituted
borrowing and therefore contributed to the growth in the debt by
more than $3 billion."
The government would argue
that this statement was made by witnesses and should be
attributed to them. The report should read, "On the other hand,
other witnesses argued that because the tax cuts took effect when
the budget was not balanced, they constituted borrowing," and so
on.
Mr Young:
That's in accordance with what we talked about before.
Mr Arnott:
Exactly.
Mr Young:
Quite simply, I have it in my notes here attributing it to
individuals who made submissions.
The Chair:
You're balancing it by coming back, "On the hand, other
witnesses"-
Mr Arnott:
Right.
In that same paragraph, the
very next sentence from the draft report reads, "Moreover, they
jeopardize the provision of social services that have
traditionally been provided by government and they benefit the
`rich' at the expense of the rest of society." Again we would
state that was a statement made by witnesses and should be
attributed to them. A neat way of wording it would be, "They
further argued that these cuts jeopardize the provision of social
services."
Mr Monte Kwinter
(York Centre): Mr Chair, may I make a suggestion?
The Chair:
Sure.
Mr
Kwinter: I have no problem with the intent but I would
rather change the word from "they" to "it." When you say "they,"
it gives the impression that the people who made the comment
before are the same people who are making this one, and they may
not have been. There may be two different groups.
Mr Arnott:
So you'd just say, "It was further argued."
Mr
Kwinter: "It was further argued," as opposed to, "They
further argued," which implies that the same people said
that.
Mr Arnott:
It may not the case. OK.
Mr
Kwinter: It may not be the case.
The Chair:
Any further comments?
Mr Arnott:
Same paragraph, last sentence. The wording here is, "It was
proposed that the remaining tax cuts be cancelled and that the
revenue be assigned," and you could again say, "Some witnesses proposed that
the remaining tax cuts," but the same kind of idea, making sure
it's attributed to the witnesses and directly so.
In the next paragraph,
entitled "Personal Income Taxes," it reads, "Personal income
taxes have already been reduced by 30% and will be reduced by
another 20% over the next five years." We want to make sure that
the wording is factually correct, so we would suggest that the
wording read instead, "Ontario's general personal income tax rate
has already been reduced by 30% and will be reduced by another
20% over the next five years."
The last sentence in that
same paragraph reads, "Approximately 1,205,000 citizens have
benefited.... I would prefer that it states those facts this way:
"Approximately 1,205,000 citizens benefit from the Ontario tax
reduction program, including 650,000 who pay federal PIT but not
provincial PIT." That's a point of clarification.
Mr Arnott:
On page 4, the very first sentence, top paragraph, it reads, "The
marginal tax rates in Ontario are regarded by several witnesses
as a cause for concern." The government believes that the
witnesses who commented on this expressed concern about the high
top marginal rates, not marginal rates in general. We would
prefer that it read, "The high top marginal rates in Ontario are
regarded by several witnesses...."
Mr
Christopherson: Just a clarification for you, Chair:
Marginal rates only apply to the high-end income earners anyway,
so what's the distinction?
Mr Arnott:
It's my understanding that the marginal tax rate is the rate of
tax on every additional dollar that you earn, right?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
Mr Arnott:
So what we're trying to talk about here, I think, what the
witnesses were trying to talk about, is the high top marginal
rates, not necessarily marginal rates in general.
Mr
Christopherson: Sorry, the emphasis being on? They only
apply to high-income earners. Did you say "high rates"?
Mr Arnott:
No. My understanding is, when you talk about marginal tax rates,
that you're not necessarily talking about the highest rate of
income tax. You're talking about the amount of tax that you pay
on the next dollar you earn above and beyond what you're earning
today.
1050
Mr
Christopherson: You're saying all the thresholds along
the way. Sorry. Again, I don't want to split hairs, but I'm
trying to understand your point. You're moving into a different
threshold tax bracket as your income increases. I agree that's
not high income, but I don't think that qualifies necessarily as
marginal rates, does it? Again, not being an economist, maybe
they used every one of those thresholds as a marginal rate.
Mr Arnott:
I think that's what they talk about. That's my understanding.
Mr
Christopherson: So anything from dollar one that's taxed
is a marginal rate?
Mr Arnott:
We've got the economists over here who want to jump in, I think.
It's my understanding that the concept of marginal rate of
taxation is the marginal rate is the amount that you pay on the
next dollar that you earn above and beyond what you're currently
earning. So you can talk about high marginal rates. High marginal
rate is the top rate, I believe, of tax that you pay.
Mr
Christopherson: I guess I was just trying to get a sense
of when you say "high top rate," do you mean the high-income
earner or the rate that the marginal tax is at is too high?
Mr Arnott:
I'm trying to remember how many tax rates are applied to income
in the country. I think there are three. We're talking about the
high marginal rate.
Mr
Christopherson: The highest?
Mr Arnott:
It could be the highest, yes. The presenters who expressed
concerns about tax rates talked about the high marginal
rates.
Mr
Kwinter: If you take a look at that paragraph, I think
they're trying to compare that in Ontario the marginal tax rate
is applied at the income level of $63,000. In other words, up to
$63,000 there is a formula for the taxes you pay on a percentage.
Once you get above that, there's a marginal rate. Comparing that
with the United States, the marginal rate does not kick in until
$400,000.
Mr Arnott:
The high top marginal rate, right?
Mr
Kwinter: It seems to be the point that's being made in
this paragraph. Their concern is that $63,000 is a number that
should be increased. So they're concerned that the marginal rate
kicks in at $63,000.
Mr Arnott:
The high top marginal rate.
Mr
Kwinter: That's the concern that they're expressing.
Otherwise, why would they be comparing it to the $400,000 in the
United States?
Mr Arnott:
The very next sentence, following up on what Monte was saying,
is, "Although middle-class earners pay the lowest rate of ...
personal income taxes in the country, they are penalized by the
marginal tax rates which are applied at the income level of
$63,000." We would prefer it say, "they are penalized when the
top marginal tax rate begins to apply at an income level of
$63,000."
Mr
Christopherson: Is that to say tax paid below that is
still a marginal tax?
Mr Arnott:
Can you ask the question again? I'm trying to understand what you
mean.
Mr
Christopherson: Again, you're insisting on this high
rate, and we're at this point where marginal taxes only kick in
when you've got high income.
Mr Arnott:
No, I don't think that's correct. As you go up the income scale
in a graduated income tax system, if there are three categories
of tax or three classes or three rates that are applied in a
graduated system, as you go up, you're hitting marginal rates.
But the high top marginal rate is the high rate. It kicks in at
$63,000 of income. Some of our presenters indicated the belief
that the high top marginal rate should kick in at a higher level
of income.
Mr
Christopherson: Your exact wording was what?
Mr Arnott: Very consistent, I
think, with what I heard Monte expressing: "they are penalized
when the top marginal tax rate begins to apply at an income level
of $63,000," instead of, "Although middle-class earners pay the
lowest rate of provincial personal income tax in the country,
they are penalized by the marginal tax rates which are applied at
the income level of $63,000." We want the wording "top marginal
rate," because I think that's technically correct.
In the next section the
heading is "`Made for Ontario' Tax System," and the second
sentence there reads at present, "Among other things, the
province is unable to influence decisions regarding its own
Income Tax Act or introduce policy measures without federal
concurrence." We would prefer that it say there, "Among other
things, the province is unable to introduce policy measures,
other than rate changes, without federal concurrence."
The Chair:
Any comments? If not, go ahead, Mr Arnott.
Mr Arnott:
I'm afraid I have to go back to the first paragraph with a
further suggestion, again consistent with what we've talked about
in terms of adding the words, "top marginal rate" to that
sentence: "It was suggested that they be reduced to maintain
Ontario's competitiveness with the United States"-it says here
"marginal," but we want to say, "where the top marginal tax rate
begins to apply at an annual income level of $400,000."
The Chair:
So you want "top marginal" wherever "marginal" appears?
Mr Arnott:
That's right. Again, consistent with what we have already
established.
In the middle of the page,
in the section "`Made for Ontario' Tax System," the very first
sentence in that second paragraph is, "The `Made for Ontario'
personal tax system should be seen within the broader structure
of federal-provincial relations." We would like to see that
changed to, "The Minister of Finance stated that the `Made for
Ontario' personal tax system should be seen within the broader
structure of federal-provincial relations," again clarifying that
it was the opinion of the minister as expressed to the
committee.
The Chair:
Basically all you're introducing there is "The Minister of
Finance stated"?
Mr Arnott:
"The Minister of Finance stated," yes.
The Chair:
Any comments? Go ahead.
Mr Arnott:
In the next part, the paragraph that is entitled "Corporate
Taxes," getting down to the bottom of the page there, there's a
sentence on the very last line that begins, "It was suggested
that the Business Advisory Panel on Corporate Taxation proposed
in the 1999 budget should be established and that its
recommendations be implemented as soon as possible." We just want
to characterize the committee the way the government has been
talking about it, as the Business Tax Review Panel. That's its
official name, not the Business Advisory Panel on Corporate
Taxation. Again, we would call it the Business Tax Review
Panel.
The Chair:
Comments? No.
Mr Arnott:
On page 5, the paragraph on payroll taxes, the very last sentence
of that paragraph reads, "Ontario has reduced the employer health
tax for all businesses and for self-employed individuals and
businesses with payrolls under $400,000." For the purposes of
clarification, we would prefer that it read, "Ontario has reduced
the employer health tax for all businesses and eliminated it
altogether for self-employed individuals and businesses with
payrolls under $400,000." Just a point of clarification.
The Chair:
Comments?
Mr
Kwinter: I have no problem with it. I just would change
the wording and not say "eliminated it altogether," but "totally
eliminated it."
Mr Arnott:
" ... for self-employed individuals ... "
Mr
Kwinter: Yes, "totally eliminated it for self-employed
individuals and businesses ... "
Mr Arnott:
" ... and businesses with payrolls under $400,000."
Interjections.
Mr
Kwinter: I'm a former editorial director, and I just
don't like "eliminated it altogether."
1100
The Chair:
Is that acceptable?
Mr Arnott:
Yes.
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Mr Arnott:
The next paragraph, "GST-PST Harmonization," the second sentence
there-and I guess this is maybe an example of what I talked about
in my preliminary comments: "The current system, whereby the GST
is attached to the PST, creates regressive compliance costs for
small business. It reduces the competitiveness of Ontario's
businesses vis-à-vis competitors from jurisdictions that
have harmonized sales taxes. A national harmonized system is
desirable since, among other things, it would lead to a lower
rate of taxation."
We would like it to be
indicated as follows: "These witnesses argued that the current
system, which has two separate sales tax administrations, creates
regressive compliance costs and reduces the competitiveness..."
Make sure it's attributed to the witnesses as opposed to a
statement of fact that's not disputed.
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Mr Arnott:
Under the section "Gas Taxes," the very first sentence we have
here is, "The impact of rising and volatile gas prices on the
cost of transporting goods is adding to business costs, a problem
that is compounded by high fuel taxes." I guess from our
perspective as government members we'd want to point out that the
provincial gasoline tax, at 14.7 cents a litre, has remained
frozen since 1992-
Mr
Christopherson: Oh, come on, Ted.
Mr Arnott:
-and that that is not the root of the current problem with rising
gasoline prices, given the fact that our tax has not gone up
since 1992.
Mr
Kwinter: Can I address that? I do think we're getting
into a problem area when you start doing that. There's no
question that when we were hearing deputants, they were concerned
about the high tax component of it. I don't think we should be arguing that
in this paragraph. There's ample opportunity to make the
government's argument in your recommendations, but I think you're
really changing what was said and what was said to us. There's no
question that you see the Canadian Automobile Association-several
groups made representations to us about the price component of
the tax, and I think you can't argue it in this point. There's a
place for you to make the argument, but I don't think it should
be argued in this paragraph.
Mr
Christopherson: Exactly my concerns.
The Chair:
This is something that maybe could be introduced in your
appendix.
Mr Arnott:
It could be, but nevertheless it is a fact that provincial
gasoline taxes-
Mr
Christopherson: So what? The sun came up this morning in
fact too.
Mr Arnott:
Yes, it did. Provincial gasoline taxes haven't gone up since
1992, so I don't know how anyone could argue that that's-
Ms
Mushinski: Why are you so defensive?
Mr
Kwinter: Because it's well known.
Mr Arnott:
-the root cause of the volatility, the gasoline tax today.
Mr
Christopherson: Because it's an argument and it reflects
the recent political position that the Premier came up with,
which he's entitled to do. I'm not even arguing that it's not
true, but that's not the point. That point was never made
anywhere by anyone in the presentations we heard and therefore is
editorial, political, and not a reflection of what we heard.
Mr
Kwinter: That's the point. No one came to us and said,
"Whatever you do, don't touch the tax component because it's
never gone up." No one has said that. I'm not in any way arguing
that the tax should be changed. I'm just saying that is not what
was presented and it's really editorializing and responding to
something where there's a place to do it.
Mr Arnott:
I don't recall anyone making that case either. Certainly if
you're concerned about high gas taxes, it's a fair thing to say
to the provincial government, "Are you prepared to cut gas
taxes?"
All I'm saying is, it's a
point that we think could be included in the report as a
fact.
Mr
Christopherson: And we're saying no.
Mr
Kwinter: No, no. We're saying there is a place to do
it.
Mr
Christopherson: You admit no one said it, and all we're
doing is on the basis of what we heard. How can you say the two
fit? You just think it's a keen argument, and that's fine. Show
it in your final report-
Mr Arnott:
Granted it's a helpful argument.
Mr
Christopherson: -but not as a reflection of what we
heard when we didn't hear it.
The Chair:
To be fair, what I'll do is ask the researcher to look at the
presentations from the presenters. If the 14.7 cents per litre
was referred to, then fine; if not, I think maybe it's something
which should be incorporated in the appendix.
Mr Arnott:
Fair enough. I still think it's a valid point, but we can review
Hansard. I don't recall anybody making that point.
Mr
Kwinter: If I could just add one other comment. This
issue has been around for as long as I have been around. I was
the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I had to
fight this issue. What happens is: You can have all of your
fact-finding groups and gas-busters and everything else, but
nobody is going to be able to say to the oil companies, "We are
going to impose a limit on what you can charge." It's just not
going to happen. So when you get into the argument, the only way
the province-unless they want to really get draconian and say,
"We're putting a cap on the price of fuel." That is really
intruding in the marketplace. How do you tell someone, "You must
sell gas and lose money."
The only area where the
province has any flexibility is in the tax. One thing they can do
without asking anybody is say: "We understand that this is a real
hardship on drivers. We're going to cut the tax it in half, or
we're going to do whatever." That is a valid thing and the only
they can do. They have no ability to do anything else, other than
make noise and appear to be doing something. In the final
analysis, there have been eight inquiries that I know of, and
they all come up with the same determination. That is why I am
saying the argument-and I'm not making the argument-has to be
made in a different place. Nobody came up to us and said, "Leave
the tax alone, but do something else."
Mr Arnott:
Okay. That's fine. Again, perhaps we could include this in our
final recommendations, but I believe it is a valid point and
would think there is a place for it in the report.
Mr
Christopherson: It's not a valid point.
Mr Arnott:
On page 6, "Property Taxes," the first two sentences: "The
seeming inability of governments to create an equitable system of
property taxes concerned many witnesses. The introduction of the
province-wide assessment system based on current or market value
in 1998 included, among other things, `ranges of fairness' that
spelt out the extent to which taxes on commercial, industrial and
multi-residential property could differ." The point we would like
to see reflected here is that the Ontario fair assessment system
provides a fairer property tax system by updating all property
assessments and providing municipalities with tools to establish
fair property taxes and mitigate tax changes. The new system is
more transparent and taxpayers know what they are paying compared
to others.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sure you'd love to have that in
there. Who said it?
Mr
Phillips: Besides you?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, besides Ted just now.
Mr Arnott:
I've heard it stated in the Legislature many times.
Ms
Mushinski: Where did "The seeming inability of
governments to create an equitable system of property taxes
concerned many witnesses" come from?
Mr
Christopherson: I don't have a problem with that.
Mr Young: Can you delete that
initial line, the line that you wanted commented upon?
The Chair:
What are you suggesting?
Mr Young:
Nothing yet.
Mr Arnott:
Again, it's fair to make this point of clarification as to what
was motivating the government in terms of its changes to property
tax.
Mr
Christopherson: If somebody wanted to make a
clarification as to who said it, or if it was factually
incorrect, reflecting what someone said, fair game. Again, I
think the government is looking for words and editorial comments
that weren't made. And again, they can put it in the final
report, but not as a statement of factual-
Mr
Kwinter: Can I make a suggestion that might solve the
problem. I want to be fair, and I think that that is a pejorative
sentence, I really do. It would seem to me that a way of getting
around it that will serve everybody's interests is to say that
some witnesses expressed concern about what was supposed to be an
equitable system of property taxes.
1110
Mr
Christopherson: That makes the government look
better.
Mr
Kwinter: In other words, the sentence now says the
government hasn't got the ability to deal with this.
Ms
Mushinski: That's right.
Mr
Kwinter: It is saying that this is supposed to be fair,
but there are instances where obviously it is not fair, and that
was their concern. I think that is what we should be conveying.
If it were a perfect system, this wouldn't be in here.
Mr Arnott:
In terms of wording, I would prefer it to say that it's the
government's intention or the government intends.
Mr
Kwinter: This isn't a statement from the government;
this is a statement from witnesses who are expressing their
concern about what they see is an inequitable implementation of
this fair tax system. We heard it. They're saying there are all
sorts of inequities in there and lots of problems that haven't
been addressed, in their view. This is just their view. You may
not agree with it, but that's what they are saying.
Mr Young:
What are you suggesting?
Ms
Mushinski: "Some witnesses expressed concern about the
government's ability to create an equitable system of property
taxes"?
Mr
Kwinter: The point they were making was that some
witnesses expressed concern about what was supposed to be an
equitable system of property taxes.
Mr Arnott:
I can accept that if you were to say, "The government intends to
create" as opposed to what was supposed-
Ms
Mushinski: "The government's intention to create"-
Mr
Kwinter: We're not saying what the government said;
we're saying what the witnesses said. You have a chance to
respond to that later on in the same way. Then they go on to say
why they say this is their point, and this is what we have to
address.
Mr Young:
What about as a compromise saying "had some concerns about what
was tabled as" or "presented as"?
Mr Arnott:
That's fine with me.
Mr Young:
Does that satisfy both sides of the argument?
Mr
Kwinter: Again, they weren't there, and they weren't
criticizing material that had been tabled. They were criticizing
what was actually happening out in the real world. They were
saying: "Here we are. We got our tax bills. This was supposed to
be fair, it was supposed to be equitable, and here are all sorts
of cases where that isn't the case." All they're really saying
is-and, as I say, it is pejorative to say "the seeming inability
of governments to create an equitable system of property taxes."
I really don't think it's fair to say that. But on the other hand
you have to acknowledge that there are problems in the system,
and the people who came were pointing out those problems.
Mr Young:
Monte, you proposed-and I know you were just thinking out
loud-and talked about using the words "about what was supposed to
be."
Ms
Mushinski: It's a hell of a lot fairer than it was.
Mr
Kwinter: Fine, and I'm not saying that. What it was
supposed to be was totally fair, and they're saying there are
problems with it and they want it addressed. I don't think
anybody can object to that. All they're saying is that there was
supposed to be an equitable tax system and yet there are all
these anomalies that keep coming up where it isn't. They're just
saying, "Do something about it."
Mr Arnott:
What was your wording again, David?
Mr Young:
Something along the lines of "presented as" or "tabled as."
What if we took a different
approach and said something like, "Some witnesses expressed
concerns about the manner in which recent changes to property
taxes have affected them."
Mr Arnott:
Sounds good.
Mr
Kwinter: I think it's critical that we maintain that the
intent of this legislation was to provide an equitable system of
property taxes, and some witnesses were concerned that that in
fact is not the case.
Mr
Christopherson: If we can't agree on it, the easiest way
is that we take that sentence out. It doesn't really do anything.
It doesn't take away from what the paragraph says, and may remove
the language you are not comfortable with.
Mr Young:
So the paragraph would begin, "The introduction of the
province-wide assessment system ...."
Mr
Christopherson: Again, thinking out loud, that's what
I'm suggesting.
Mr Arnott:
Yes, if we can remove that first sentence, that would be
satisfactory, I guess. Getting into that, if that second sentence
now becomes the first sentence, having deleted the first sentence
of the draft-
Mr
Christopherson: That is the reference to witnesses.
Mr Arnott: Yes. It says, "The
introduction of the province-wide assessment system based on
current or market value in 1998 included, among other things,
`ranges of fairness' that spelt out the extent to which taxes on
commercial, industrial and multi-residential property could
differ."
It would be my
recommendation that we change that first sentence to, "The
introduction of the province-wide assessment system based on
current or market value in 1998 included, among other things,
`ranges of fairness' that spelt out the extent to which taxes
should differ between property classes."
Ms
Mushinski: Is that "should"?
Mr Arnott:
Yes, "should."
Mr
Kwinter: Again, if you want to do that part of it, I
would eliminate the first sentence and just say that
some-whatever you want to call them-"Some witnesses were
concerned that the introduction of ... could differ."
Mr Arnott:
That's fine, except that I'm suggesting that towards the end of
that sentence, instead of "that spelt out the extent to which
taxes on commercial, industrial and multi-residential properties
could differ," it should say "that spelt out the extent to which
taxes should differ between property classes."
Mr
Kwinter: No, that's not their concern. They're not
saying you should differentiate. They're saying: "The guy down
the street has got the same value as I have, the same house as I
have, and we have different assessments and different values.
They differ." That's their concern.
Mr Arnott:
That's where we've got a problem then. That whole sentence is
attempting to be a statement of fact of the reality of the system
that the government was trying to set up.
Mr
Kwinter: That's why I am suggesting that if you started
off to say, "Some witnesses"-
Mr Arnott:
Some witnesses are concerned about it.
Mr
Kwinter: -"state that this statement of fact could
differ." It's supposed to mean that there's fairness and there's
a range and they're saying that this range could differ,
depending on the particular property.
Mr Arnott:
Could we get around that by creating a new first sentence, saying
very simply, "Some witnesses came before the committee expressing
concern about the property tax reforms in the province of
Ontario?"
Mr
Christopherson: I think Monte's point is well taken,
that the "could" or "should" does shift the emphasis that the
witnesses were placing in terms of the point they were making. Do
you know what I mean? As opposed to your looking at it in terms
of how would you phrase what it is you want to accomplish,
Monte's point is well taken that the witnesses were pointing out
that there could be these differences and they shouldn't be
there. That emphasis on "could"-I don't want to spend too much
time on one word; next thing we're debating the word "so"-I think
his point is very well taken, whether making that shift that you
want really alters things as opposed to clarifying it.
Mr Arnott:
If you start the sentence with, again what words, Monte?
Mr
Kwinter: "Some witnesses were concerned that the
introduction of the province-wide assessment system based on
current or market value in 1998 included, among other things,
`ranges of fairness' that spelt out the extent to which taxes on
a commercial, industrial and multi-residential property could
differ."
Mr Young:
What happened to your editorial board background? That's a long
sentence.
Mr
Kwinter: No. I'm just trying to get the intent of the
thing. We're not going to rewrite the whole paragraph. I just
want to take a look at that sentence.
Mr
Christopherson: Could we hear it again?
Mr
Kwinter: That was the intent-
Mr
Christopherson: Adding "Some witnesses" in front of
that. Eliminate the first sentence and then start the second as
the first with "Some witnesses." I think it should be "Many
witnesses," because that's the description-
Mr Young:
There has to be another word.
Mr
Christopherson: Other than that, it's the same.
Mr Arnott:
"Some witnesses" what?
Mr
Kwinter: " ... were concerned that .... "
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, and everything else runs the same
as the draft.
The Chair:
Have we got consensus on this here? "Some witnesses were
concerned that ...."
Mr Arnott:
Thanks, Monte.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr
Kwinter: OK.
1120
Mr Arnott:
Towards the end of that paragraph, the last sentence in that same
paragraph, it says, "Moreover, while the 10-5-5 cap has prevented
the imposition of tax increases for some businesses, it has
allowed a number of municipalities to postpone decisions on this
complex issue." I would point out the provincial government has
undertaken the difficult task of reforming an outdated property
tax system in recent months. Many municipalities chose not to use
the available tools to manage tax changes resulting from moving
to a fairer system. The result was that too many businesses would
have experienced severe and unmanageable tax increases, and this
is why the government stepped in to impose the 10, 5 and 5 limits
on property tax increases.
Municipalities are required
to limit tax increases related to property tax reform on
commercial-industrial-multi-residential properties to 10% in
1998, 5% in 1999 and 5% in the year 2000. For municipalities
which adopted the 10, 5 and 5 cap, they were required to
recalculate the 1998 taxes, redistributing taxes closer to the
way they had been distributed in the previous year. This means
that property owners whose taxes were increasing in 1998 would
see less of an increase than they would have faced, and taxpayers
whose taxes were decreasing in 1998 would see less of a decrease
than they had anticipated.
Mr Christopherson: Is this a
reflection of what was said, or is this a creative writing
course?
Mr Arnott:
This is something we would like to see-
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sure you would.
Mr Arnott:
-included in the body of the report because it accurately I think
clarifies the government's position, which would be of assistance
to people reading the report.
Mr
Christopherson: Ted, sorry. There's no way we're going
to go that far off the thing. I will say, however, if it's
helpful to you, that "allowed a number of municipalities" is a
pejorative statement against municipalities. Maybe the word
"allowed" changed to "resulted in" is fair, and then do not
suggest why they did it. "Allowed" almost sounds like the
municipalities were pulling a fast one. So "resulted in" I think
is fairer in terms of what the end result is. Other than that,
you're asking for an entire change which, again, dropped into
your report is fine, but you really do alter what was said at the
committee.
Mr Arnott:
So again, Dave, you're suggesting that the word "allowed"-
Mr
Christopherson: I was just suggesting that where it says
"allowed" in the second-to-last sentence of "Property Taxes,"
first paragraph, we change that to "resulted in a number of
municipalities postponing decisions on this complex issue."
That's factually correct and that's what was pointed out. When
you say "allowed," you're suggesting that councils were deviously
trying to manipulate, and I don't know that we want to say that
about all municipalities. I would hope we wouldn't want to say
that. But the rest of it, I think you're asking for a bit much
from a factual document. I don't know how those will stand
up.
Mr Arnott:
I don't object to changing "allowed" to "resulted in." I think
that's a helpful suggestion. Thank you.
The Chair:
In order to move this thing on property taxes along, correct me
if I'm wrong, but I think what we've heard is that there were
some ranges of fairness, bands of assessment. However, some
municipalities decided not to use those tools. It created a
problem, and I think with a report to the Minister of Finance the
presenters wanted to make us aware that it created a problem.
Consequently, this is what we should be reporting to the
ministry, that those tools were not used within the act itself.
Am I correct or am I wrong?
Mr
Christopherson: I don't know that you can limit all
their concerns to just those two things.
The Chair:
I'm just referring to those two items, but generally
speaking.
Mr
Christopherson: But look at what we have. The sentence
says right now, "Moreover, while the 10-5-5 cap has prevented the
imposition of tax increases for some businesses, it has resulted
in a number of municipalities postponing decisions on this
complex issue." I'm sorry, what more are you suggesting we need
to make the point?
The Chair:
I'm not suggesting anything. I think we're trying to make it too
complex.
Mr Arnott:
That could be, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
I think the word you suggested, "resulted," is adequate. That's
the clarification you were looking at.
Mr Arnott:
That's fine. Ideally, we'd like to see more clarification on
education tax rates and we'd like to see some reference to the
fact that there is a new appeal process underway as part of the
property tax reform. The appeal process has been streamlined and
there is a new consultation process.
Mr
Kwinter: You'll get a chance to use all that good stuff
in your response.
Mr Arnott:
We think that the report would be improved if all of that was
included.
Getting down to the section
on the SuperBuild Growth Corp, page 6, the very last line on page
6-
The Chair:
Excuse me, Mr Arnott, for the purpose of the record, could you
repeat the clarification. We're just changing the word "allow" to
"resulted"?
Mr Arnott:
Fair enough.
Mr
Kwinter: And also postponing-"resulted in a number of
municipalities postponing decisions."
The Chair:
Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr Arnott:
Going back to the last paragraph on page 6, the reference to the
SuperBuild Growth Corp: The sentence there reads, "For the first
fiscal year of the program, the government has allocated $2.9
billion, the bulk of which will be devoted to highways ($936
million), education ($742 million) and health ($504
million)."
In fact, the words
"post-secondary" should appear before the word "education,"
because all that money is going to post-secondary institutions;
none of it is going to school boards.
The Chair:
Comments?
Mr Arnott:
Earlier in that paragraph there is a statement that reads, "Those
proposed partnerships are the key to leveraging government's
initial investment of $10 billion over five years to attract
matching private sector investment." We want to change the
wording there to, "The proposed partnerships are the key to
leveraging the government's initial investment of $10 billion
over five years to attract additional investment from private
sector and other non-governmental partners."
Mr
Christopherson: Why not the word "matching"? Isn't it
$20 billion over five and you're going to provide $10 billion and
you want players elsewhere to provide another $10 billion? So the
word "matching" is still accurate, I believe, isn't it?
Mr Arnott:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: If you agree with that, then you're just
suggesting that it may not be only private sector, it could
be-what were your words?
Mr Arnott:
"Other non-governmental partners." The word "additional" is in
there because it is $10 billion of government investment and $10
billion in addition.
Mr
Christopherson: But "matching" said that. "Matching" is
actually better because rather than just leaving the impression that it's $10 billion
plus something, you're actually doubling it. So "matching" it
would seem to me is in your favour, but if you want to say
"additional," that's up to you. I'm just trying to help you a
bit.
Mr Arnott:
I appreciate it.
Mr
Christopherson: That's why I came here today.
Mr Arnott:
Thank you. That's fine, but I think it is important to point out
that the additional $10-billion investment will include other
non-governmental partners, for example, the post-secondary
institutions that received SuperBuild Growth money last week or
two weeks ago.
The Chair:
Are we staying with "matching"?
Mr Arnott:
Sure. It accomplishes what I'm trying to suggest we need to
do.
Mr
Christopherson: So all you're adding is the
"non-governmental" sources?
Mr Arnott:
"And other non-governmental partners."
Mr
Christopherson: That's fine.
Mr Arnott:
On page 7 there is a section on the Red Tape Commission. The
second sentence of that paragraph in the draft report reads, "It
was pointed"-"It was pointed out," I guess it's supposed to say.
"It was pointed out that since its institution, the commission
has been responsible for the introduction of 11 bills that have
repealed 28 statutes and amended 149 others. Moreover,
approximately 1,300 pieces of outdated legislation have been
revoked." Again for clarification we would prefer that it read:
"Between 1995 and 1999 the commission has been responsible for
the passage of 11 red tape reduction bills that have repealed 28
statutes and amended more than 150 others. Moreover, more than
1,300 outdated regulations have been revoked."
1130
Mr
Christopherson: So it's just "regulations" that you're
changing?
Mr Arnott:
No. We're saying: "Between 1995 and 1999," which of course is
concurrent with our first term in government, "the commission has
been responsible for the passage of 11 red tape reduction bills
that have repealed 28 statutes and amended more than 150 others.
Moreover, more than 1,300 outdated regulations have been
revoked." So the first point is clarification, and the second
point is correction.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes. A couple of things: First, I don't
have a problem with 150 if that is the more accurate figure, but
I would ask that it be checked so it's confirmed on paper.
Second, even in the draft I'm not thrilled with the words
"outdated regulations." In many of those regulation changes there
were differences in the House as to whether they were important
and outdated. Certainly we agreed that some were outdated, and we
didn't have a problem with that and I made that comment in every
single speech on red tape bills that I made in the House.
However, there is a significant difference of opinion on a great
number of them, and I would have trouble standing behind a
statement in this document that gives the word "outdated" to
describe all those regulation changes. That is very difficult for
me.
Mr Arnott:
Could we say, "1,300 regulations that the commission recommended
were outdated"?
Mr
Christopherson: If you put "the government considered
outdated", that would be absolutely fine with me. When we
collectively are trying to find a document we can agree on and
you make the statement that they are outdated, I and my party
don't believe all those regulations were outdated.
Mr Arnott:
OK. It's just that they were identified by the commission; so if
we could find some wording that captured that.
Mr
Christopherson: If you said "the commission considered,"
I don't care.
Mr
Kwinter: Could I suggest that we just take out the word
"outdated" and do nothing else: "1,300 pieces of legislation have
been revoked," period.
Mr Arnott:
It's actually 1,300 regulations. Unfortunately it's a
mistake.
Mr
Kwinter: Whatever it is: "1,300 regulations have been
revoked," period. You don't have to say what they were. They're
outdated only in the sense that the Red Tape Commission says they
were outdated and should be revoked.
Ms
Mushinski: Except if the witnesses referred to them as
being outdated.
Mr
Christopherson: Then you would have to say the witnesses
said that.
Ms
Mushinski: It starts by saying, "A number of witnesses
from the business community praised the work of the Red Tape
Commission."
Mr
Christopherson: Earlier you made the argument, on a
number of paragraphs, that you wanted it very clear in those
paragraphs. I just want to apply now the same excellent thinking
you were using then.
Ms
Mushinski: I couldn't agree with you more.
Mr
Kwinter: The point is that when you take a look at the
first sentence and say, "A number of witnesses from the business
community praised the work of the red tape commission for
ensuring the streamlining of the regulatory burden," that doesn't
necessarily mean they were outdated. They may have been very
dated; it's just that three or four of them were duplicated, so
something was done about them. As long as you say that 1,300
regulations have been revoked, it's a fact that 1,300 regulation
were revoked. You don't have to go on to say that some of them
were outdated, some of them were consolidated or whatever. It
just gives the factual information that 1,300 regulations have
been revoked.
The Chair:
Could we get consensus on that?
Mr Arnott:
We could argue that the commission determined that they were
unnecessary and the government agreed. I think the government
believes they were outdated.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm fine either way. I just don't want
to take ownership of the descriptive word "outdated," because I
don't agree with it.
Mr Arnott:
I understand that. For my part, I would prefer that the word
"outdated" remain in there.
Ms Mushinski: Yes. The commission
did it for a reason, and the reasons were primarily that they
were unnecessary or outdated.
Mr
Christopherson: Public input on changes to the
environment are no longer considered dated by this government. We
have a different opinion. If not to get into that world is what
we're trying to achieve, I can live with either attributing it to
the commission's belief or Monte's, which is to withdraw it.
Either way-
Mr Arnott:
My understanding of the process that was followed was that the
commission made those recommendations and the government agreed
with them and responded with the elimination of certain outdated
regulations. So if we could capture that wording, I would be
happy about it.
Interjections.
The Chair:
If we give credit to the commission-
Mr
Christopherson: Or blame.
The Chair:
-and then, "1,300 pieces of regulation have been revoked."
Legislation.
Interjections.
Mr
Kwinter: Regulations.
Mr
Christopherson: Are you moving off that paragraph?
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Mr
Christopherson: I was just unclear when I read it
through about the last sentence, "There was consensus that the
commission be made permanent." Consensus among whom?
Mr Arnott:
Good point.
Mr
Christopherson: Us? Presenters?
Mr Arnott:
I think the government members would agree that the commission
ought to be made permanent, but I'm not sure about you guys.
Mr
Christopherson: The commission members?
Ms
Mushinski: I'm not sure because I wasn't sitting on the
committee at the time.
Mrs Tina R.
Molinari (Thornhill): Consensus among the witnesses.
Mr Arnott:
You could say among the witnesses who talked about the Red Tape
Commission. Many of them agreed that it should be made
permanent.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sorry, but I would want to see then
just a qualifier to the extent of "witnesses who made reference
to the commission's work...."
Mr Arnott:
Fair enough.
Ms
Mushinski: That's what the section starts off with.
The Chair:
That's fair.
Mr Arnott:
On the next page, looking at the section entitled "Agriculture,"
about halfway through that first paragraph there's a sentence
that begins with the following: "The reduction of government
support, from $453 million in 1991-92 to $296 million in
1998-99, at a time when international commodity prices have been
falling, the closing of ministry extension offices and the
elimination of crop extension specialist positions will have a
detrimental effect on farming operations."
We find this to be
factually incorrect. There has been a change, of course, to the
property tax system affecting farmers. Under the new system,
farmers have eligible farmland and outbuildings taxed at 25% of
the normal residential tax rate in each municipality instead of
paying 100%, as they previously did, and then receiving a rebate
through the farm tax rebate program of about 75% of their taxes
paid. As part of the government's local services realignment
initiative or the Who Does What program, the benefits of the
former $150-million to $160-million farm tax rebate program were
maintained through the creation of a special property tax class
for farmland.
Mr
Christopherson: Which witness said that?
Mr Arnott:
I'm not sure which witness said that, but again, if we're going
to leave this sentence in the way it is, I think it's important
to say that some presenters suggested the government has done
this. Again, it's our contention that it's inaccurate, given the
fact there were changes to the budget of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food perhaps, but the most important change was
the change in the property tax rebate program for farmers, where
they previously received a rebate of 75% of their taxes paid on
their farmland and now pay a different rate of 25% on the
farmland and don't get a rebate any more.
1140
Mr
Christopherson: I want to avoid a problem or I'm going
to head into one. I can appreciate what it is you're trying to
inject, Ted, but that extensive a piece to add when nobody really
came in and made that case for you is really not reflective. But
I am open to other suggestions to raise your comfort level.
Ms
Mushinski: Could I ask a question?
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Ms
Mushinski: Where did the comment, "In areas like
Chatham-Kent, where approximately 70% of the economy is dependent
on agriculture, farmers are experiencing considerable hardship"
come from? Did that come from representatives of the
Chatham-Kent-
Mr
Kwinter: We met in Chatham, yes. We had hearings in
Chatham.
Ms
Mushinski: OK, so that came from the farming community
witnesses?
Mr
Kwinter: Yes, the groups that came to see us.
The Chair:
To respond to Mr Christopherson's point, I think the point with
regard to the $453 million, the $296 million-and I stand to
be corrected-I think that was a pull from the Ontario Federation
of Agriculture presentation here in Toronto. So maybe you want to
zero in and identify that that was made by a witness, or
witnesses, whatever.
Mr Arnott:
That's fine. It's important to point out that perhaps it was the
opinion of one of the witnesses or specifically which witness it
was. That's fine, but I think it's unacceptable the way it's
worded because, again, it's a point of major disagreement.
The Chair:
So you're suggesting then that we put in front of the
reduction-
Mr Arnott:
Factually incorrect from our perspective.
The Chair: -"a witness made the
presentation" or whatever. How you want to word it, I don't
know.
Mr Arnott:
OK.
Mrs
Molinari: Can we name the witness?
Mr Arnott:
You could name the witness; that's fine. "The Ontario Federation
of Agriculture suggested" or "alleged... ."
Interjection: Not "alleged." They
did say it.
The Chair:
So we'll have the researcher check out the source of
information.
Mr Arnott:
I think it's fair to point out that if there was a change in the
overall budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the
change in the property tax rebate program that the OFA had asked
for for years, that that also be included in that paragraph. The
OFA was on record for many years saying that the rebate program
was not acceptable and that farmers shouldn't have to pay
property tax on their land, and governments for years accepted
that to a point and created this rebate program. But the change
the government made a few years ago was something the OFA
applauded.
Mr
Christopherson: Again, that's for you to debate in your
caucus as to what you'd like to see in the majority report, as
opposed to a reflection of what was put before the committee.
The Chair:
We'll have the researcher look at how they made that particular
presentation, or reference to that particular point.
Mr Arnott:
All right. Thank you.
Getting into the trucking
section, the second paragraph, about the middle of the paragraph,
there's a sentence that begins, "It is estimated that the various
taxes on the industry result in revenues of approximately $200
million per annum." More accurately, we would prefer to see the
dollar figures included there, "$175 million to $200 million per
annum," because I'm afraid that the $200-million figure may
overstate the actual impact.
The Chair:
Comments on that?
Mr Arnott:
It provides a range of between $175 million to $200 million per
annum.
Mr
Christopherson: Can I ask through you, Chair, to the
researcher who made the statement?
Mr David
Rampersad: The Ontario Trucking Association.
Mr
Christopherson: Why don't we just put in there that they
said that?
Mr Arnott:
Yes, you could, or you could say "up to $200 million per annum,
as was stated by the Ontario Trucking Association."
Mr
Christopherson: So you want to say, "It is estimated
that the various taxes on the industry result in revenues of up
to $200 million per annum"?
Mr Arnott:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: But that does put an absolute cap on it.
Not to split hairs, but I want to know how they presented it.
They may deliberately want "approximately" because they think
it's $190 million to $210 million, so they wrote in
"approximately $200 million." I just wouldn't want to put an
artificial cap on what they were saying is the figure.
Mr Arnott:
Did they not say it was $200 million?
Mr
Christopherson: I don't know. That's why I was
suggesting-
Mr Arnott:
I'm just suggesting that in terms of accuracy, it's between $175
million and $200 million, and it may fluctuate from year to year,
I suppose.
Mr
Christopherson: I don't think there would be vast
disagreement-can we ask David to take a look at it?-if we were to
give direct attribution or acknowledge that there was some
flexibility around this figure $200 million. What I wouldn't want
to do, Ted, is just say that the association wanted an upward
limit of $200 million when maybe they didn't. They may have
deliberately wanted it as 200 because they thought, "Give or
take," and we've changed what they think.
Mr Arnott:
I see what you're saying.
The Chair:
We'll reference their presentation.
Mr Arnott:
OK. Thank you.
The very next sentence in
the draft report reads, "Moreover, the price of diesel fuel is
now approximately 176% higher than it was a year ago." It's my
understanding that this statement is incorrect. The report should
indicate that the price of diesel fuel is now approximately 146%
higher than it was a year ago, as of last week.
The Chair:
I think the truckers association pointed out the figure 176% in
their presentation.
Mr Arnott:
One hundred seventy six? Could we attribute that-
The Chair:
We'll check it out.
Mr Arnott:
Again, check that out. I think it's also worthwhile to note that
the tax on diesel fuel has been 14.3 cents per litre since
January 1, 1992-
Mr
Christopherson: No.
Mr Arnott:
-and that it has not been increased since that time. For my part,
I think it would be helpful for people reading the report to know
that.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sure you do.
The Chair:
I think this is the same debate we had before. It probably can be
introduced in the appendix of the report.
Mr Arnott:
OK, going to page 9, the paragraph on tourism. About halfway down
that paragraph there's a sentence which begins, "However, factors
such as high property taxes, insufficient government marketing
budgets and low-quality attractions, among other things, are
threatening its future." I think it's worthwhile to point out
that the provincial government committed $120 million over four
years in the 1998 budget to a new Tourism Marketing Partnership
Corp to improve the marketing of the province to tourists who
live in Ontario and also to residents who live outside of
Ontario.
There have been a number of
changes to assist tourism-related properties through the property
tax reform process, through the 10, 5 and 5 caps. The government
has an eight-year plan to reduce business education tax rates in
municipalities where rates are above the provincial average. What we would want to see as
a minimum in terms of this statement would be, "Some witnesses
suggested that factors such as high property taxes, insufficient
government marketing and low-quality attractions" and so
forth.
Mr
Christopherson: Where exactly do you want to insert
that, Ted?
Mr Arnott:
At the start of the sentence. "Some witnesses suggested that
factors such as high property taxes, insufficient government
marketing budgets" and so forth.
Mr
Kwinter: Our only qualification, unless we can attribute
it to some organization or somebody, if it's just, "I don't where
it came from, I don't know where you got that number," then I
have no problem with "some witnesses."
Ms
Mushinski: I have a question. What was defined as
"low-quality attractions"? It's almost like an oxymoron.
1150
Mr
Rampersad: The tourist attractions, particularly in
Toronto and outside, are not being maintained or kept up. In
fact, the quality has been deteriorating.
Ms
Mushinski: You're not talking about restaurants.
Mr Arnott:
It was the Greater Toronto Hotel Association that made that
point, wasn't it?
Under the section entitled
"Small Business," the first sentence reads as follows, "Small
business is an important creator of jobs but access to financing
is a particular worry since there appear to be fewer sources of
financing now available to small businesses than in the past." We
would like to see some statement which reflects the fact that the
government is moving to simplify small business financing through
changes to the Ontario Securities Commission regulations. The
proposed changes would significantly alter the regime for
prospectus and registration exemptions, which would assist small
businesses that are trying to find capital to fund their
operations.
The second sentence reads,
"Venture capital funds are not appropriate for the sector." We
would suggest that venture capital activity in Canada is growing
at a very strong rate and we would want to encourage venture
capital to be more available to small business.
Ms
Mushinski: That's factually incorrect.
Mr
Kwinter: That is not factually incorrect. That point was
made by the CFIB that venture capital is not appropriate for
small business. It depends on your definition of a small
business. They were talking about their particular membership,
which is a very small mom-and-pop store or something else. No
venture capitalists are going to put any money into that because
the administration costs are prohibitive for the amount of money
they're looking for. The big concern they have is that old
cliché about, "They're too light for heavy work and too
heavy for light work." They fall into this little niche where
they can't get that money and that's their concern.
Ms
Mushinski: It doesn't say that, though, anywhere in that
section.
Mr
Kwinter: It says, "Venture capital funds are not
appropriate for the sector." The sector we're talking about is
small business, and they're saying there are "fewer sources of
financing now available to small businesses than in the past."
That's their concern.
Ms
Mushinski: But it doesn't say that anywhere in that
section. All it says is: "Small business is an important creator
of jobs but access to financing is a particular worry since there
appear to be fewer sources of financing now available to small
businesses than in the past. Venture capital funds are not
appropriate for the sector." It doesn't say that CFIB argued that
venture capital is not appropriate for the sector.
Mr Arnott:
I don't think we want to say that venture capital is not
appropriate. We might say that venture capital is not currently
available in a big way to small business. That may be so.
The Chair:
I think that if you reference CFIB, it probably would eliminate
all the concerns you have. It's a presentation that was made by
them.
Ms
Mushinski: But we don't agree with that.
Mr Arnott:
I'd still want to check that, because I think it's a challenge
for government, perhaps-government with a small "g"-if venture
capital is not available to small business. What can we do to
stimulate and encourage venture capital to be available for small
business?
Mr
Kwinter: I don't want to editorialize, but just so you
know the concept of venture capital, the venture capitalists come
into a business with one intent: They want to invest in a company
where they in turn can maximize their return and take it public
and do whatever they have to do to get a return on their
investment. It isn't appropriate for them to go into a really
small business, because that business is never going to go public
and is never going to give them that chance. They're not just
there to invest money in risky businesses. They're in start-ups,
in high-tech kinds of things where normal financing is not
available. But there's got to be an upside for them.
Mr Arnott:
Many of those are small businesses, though; in fact, probably all
of them.
Mr
Kwinter: Yes, but this is not us; this is the CFIB
saying that in effect venture capital funds are not appropriate
for this sector. That's the sector they were talking about which
is, if you want, the bottom end of the small businesses. They're
the ones that have the biggest problem. If you get a couple of
people who want to start up a business, it is very difficult for
them to get any kind of funding, and that was a concern that they
were expressing. They're saying there are fewer of those funders
available now than there were in the past. You may not agree with
them, but that's what they're saying, and if you attribute it to
the CFIB, then it solves the problem. That was the point of their
presentation to us.
Mr Arnott:
That's fine. You could attribute it to the CFIB if that's exactly
what they said. It's probably a summary of a fairly complex
argument they may have expressed.
The Chair: For clarification,
for those who were up north, we heard the same discussion from
the mine developers, prospectors, that venture capital has dried
up for small business and the prospecting business and it's gone
to the high-tech business. That's where the flow of capital is
going. So if we reference the CFIB here, I think it pretty well
clarifies the situation.
Mr Arnott:
I don't think we have a huge disagreement here, but it is fair to
reference the CFIB as having made this statement and check it out
to make sure. The words that I'm a bit hung up on, and I'm sorry
if I'm hung up on them, are the words: "Venture capital funds are
not appropriate for this sector." I know of a company in Waterloo
called Research in Motion. It started as a very small business
and it now has a market capitalization in the billions of
dollars. It started as a small business and I assume it had
venture capital money at the start.
There are some small
businesses that can access venture capital, perhaps because of
their nature, if they are a high-technology business or whatever,
and it's a good idea. I think it's up to maybe the government to
find ways to make sure that more small businesses have an
opportunity to access venture capital. That would be fine.
The Chair:
Yes, but I think Research in Motion would not probably be a
candidate as a member in the CFIB.
Mr Arnott:
Well, it may have been at one time.
The Chair:
Because it's the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and
Research in Motion is a high-tech firm.
Mr Arnott:
It started as a small business.
The Chair:
It's not the type of membership that the CFIB has.
Mr Arnott:
But most large businesses started as a small business.
Mr
Kwinter: There's no argument there at all. The problem
you have is that if you're talking about the high-tech business,
and you have that as a separate category-and you talked about
some of these people having trouble. I think if we attribute it
to the CFIB, they're saying that more and more people are
becoming entrepreneurs, more and more people are starting up
their own service industries or service businesses and they are
just not candidates for venture capitalists. The nature of their
business is such that a venture capitalist has no interest. If
someone is going to start up an office cleaning business, venture
capitalists say: "That's not our role. We have no interest in
that."
The point they were
making-this is the CFIB-is that more and more people are leaving
the workforce to go into their own small businesses, to become
entrepreneurs, but unfortunately there isn't a source of venture
capital for them. As we go further along, they talk about:
"Although the government has tried to improve access to financing
for small business, its efforts have not been extensive, either
in application or in their impact." This is their opinion.
Whether you agree with it or not, this is what they're
saying.
The Chair:
If we're done with that section, have you got anything else
dealing with small business?
Mr Arnott:
No.
The Chair:
Then we'll stop here and we'll recess until 1:30.
The committee recessed
from 1159 to 1331.
The Chair:
We'll bring the committee back to order. We'll take up where we
left off, at page 9 with "Northern Development."
Mr Arnott:
Just for the benefit of all members of the committee, could you
point out again exactly what page we're on?
The Chair:
We're on page 9. We've completed "Small Business" and we'll start
with "Northern Development."
Mr Arnott:
We think the section on northern development was well done, and
the reference to snowmobiling is particularly important, given
that a number of the presenters were talking about that.
For our part, we would like
to see some recognition in the report that talks about the
Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp approving about $5 million in
financial assistance to the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile
Clubs in September 1999. It's my understanding these funds will
be used to give the organization the opportunity to develop and
improve snowmobile trails, purchase grooming equipment and
provide additional signage in order to make the trails safer and
more user-friendly.
The government has
facilitated an Ontario snowmobile task force that will identify
major issues within the snowmobile industry, addressing five
categories: sustainability; land use securement; legislation and
policy; safety and enforcement; and emergency services. However,
we would say that this section on snowmobiling is good. We would
like to see further recognition of the points I've just made.
Mr
Christopherson: No.
Mr Arnott:
No?
Mr
Christopherson: No, of course not. It's the same
argument as before, Ted. It's nice and I'm sure we'll see it in
your majority report.
The Chair:
I can't remember if in the presentation there was any monetary
amount. There was recognition of the fact that the provincial
government has provided money for trail development and
enhancement through the northern Ontario heritage fund. That's
the second-last sentence in the bottom paragraph.
Mr Arnott:
Exactly, in the amount of around $5 million. So we would suggest
that that might provide additional clarification.
The Chair:
We'll have the researchers check that, if we could.
Mr Arnott:
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr
Christopherson: It was our understanding that if it was
referred to, then we'll include it; if not, we won't.
Ms Elaine
Campbell: Can I just ask for some clarification? Is it
the committee's wish to have all of Mr Arnott's points
included?
Mr Christopherson: No.
Ms
Campbell: Just the dollar amount?
The Chair:
Yes, if it's in the presentation.
Mr Arnott:
Page 10, moving along, the section on mining. There is a
statement, the very first sentence in the paragraph, that I want
to refer to. It says, "The mining industry contributes $1.5
billion to provincial revenues each year and generates
approximately 160,000 direct and indirect jobs." Just to clarify,
we think the report should read, "The mining industry contributes
$1.5 billion to government revenues each year and generates
approximately 106,800 direct and indirect jobs." Again, this is a
point of clarification.
Mr
Christopherson: If I can, if it should be 106,000
instead of 160,000, that's just straight factual checking. So,
obviously if 106,000 is the number, that's what will apply.
Mr Arnott:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: And we'll ask research to do that.
Mr Arnott:
If necessary, what we would like to see is that, if these numbers
conflict with a presentation, perhaps we could make reference to
that fact.
Ms
Campbell: Actually, one of the witnesses did say 160,000
direct and indirect jobs, but I'll double-check.
Mr
Christopherson: Why would you want it lower?
Mr Arnott:
It's just a more accurate figure from the government's
perspective. I believe it's a more accurate number.
Mr Doug Galt
(Northumberland): We wouldn't want to be accused of
trying boost up the numbers.
Mr Arnott:
No, distort the number of people working.
Mr
Christopherson: So nice to have your contribution this
afternoon, Mr Galt.
You went from "provincial"
to "government." I'm just curious why. Not that it's the end of
the world, but I'm just curious, why would that jump out to you
or your staff?
Mr Arnott:
"Provincial revenue" doesn't necessarily mean revenue that's
coming in to the provincial government.
Mr
Christopherson: I see. We wouldn't take it that way.
Mr Arnott:
We might assume that. But to be more clear, I think it would be
appropriate to say "provincial government revenues" or
"government revenues."
Mr Galt:
It changes the connotation from being purely provincial to all
government when you say just simply "government. Isn't that what
you're putting in?
Mr Arnott:
I believe it's "provincial government revenues."
Mr Galt:
You're saying, "$1.5 billion to government revenues each year,"
so that statement says to me municipal, provincial and
federal.
Mr Arnott:
I think I said "provincial government revenues."
Ms
Campbell: If you give me the direction, I'll put in
"provincial government revenues."
Mr
Christopherson: Then we're going to have to check and
see what they said. It's going to make a difference if it's $1.5
billion directly to the provincial government or whether it's
$1.5 billion total to all levels of government.
The Chair:
We'll clarify that.
Mr Arnott:
The next statement I want to make reference to is the second
sentence in that paragraph, which in the draft report reads, "In
northeastern Ontario alone, over $1 billion is paid annually in
salaries and benefits to mine workers." From the information I
have it's my understanding that actually $1.2 billion is paid
annually in salaries and benefits to mine workers. If we want to
be factually correct, that's a more appropriate figure.
Mr
Christopherson: We do have to be careful, though, with
great respect. Just because you say it, or for that matter that
we say it, it doesn't make it true.
Mr Arnott:
I've been advised that that's the case.
Mr
Christopherson: Normally you get an agreed fact by
having disparate groups agree on a common number. I'm just
pointing out that if we have a disparity between what a presenter
said and what the government said, it isn't automatically true
that the government is correct. It's not etched in stone, so we
need to keep that in mind when we're asking that these things be
clarified. If they're saying one thing and the government is
saying another, then we need to have at least a look at what
number we're reflecting and why.
Mr Arnott:
Perhaps a way around it would be to suggest that the presenter
said such and such and the government figures would indicate-
Mr
Christopherson: I don't know that we would include "the
government figures," but certainly attribution is a good way to
clear it up.
The Chair:
The presenter did state "over $1 billion," so I think if you were
to introduce the witness's-
Mr
Christopherson: OK, then why don't we just attribute
it?
Ms
Campbell: Can I suggest a rewording?
The Chair:
Sure, go ahead.
Ms
Campbell: Could I suggest that it be reworded to say,
"In northeastern Ontario alone, the committee heard that over $1
billion is paid annually in salaries and benefits...."?
Mr
Christopherson: That's fine with us.
Mr Arnott:
If that's what we heard. I'm trying to remember exactly what we
heard, but I'll take your word for it.
The Chair:
We'll make sure the figure is correct, but the wording will be in
that fashion. Go ahead.
1340
Mr Arnott:
In that same paragraph, about the middle of the paragraph, we
have a sentence that reads, "For example, between 1996 and 1998,
Ontario mineral exploration experienced a 36% decline in
investment...." To be very clear, we would like to change that to
"Ontario mineral exploration expenditures experienced a 34%
decline," which in my understanding is a more accurate figure.
Getting back to what you have said, if that's exactly what we heard, we would want to
attribute that to the witness, but as I understand it, it's
actually a 34% reduction in expenditure for exploration.
The Chair:
Any problem with incorporating "exploration expenditures"?
Mr
Christopherson: Same discussion as last time, Chair: as
long as it's an accurate reflection of what was said. If not,
then we need to find compromise language or bring it here and
we'll make a decision, even if it includes a vote as to what
we'll go with. Again, where we have something we can count on,
when most people agree on the same numbers, especially if they
disagree on what ought to be done from here.
Mr Galt: A
question, Chair.
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Mr Galt: I
questioned the mining organization, whatever their right handle
is, when they were in about if they dropped it from 20% to 12%,
or if we dropped it for them, how many jobs that would create,
and it was my understanding they were going to do some looking at
that. I guess we've never heard back from them?
The Chair:
I never received anything.
Mr Galt:
That would have a significant effect on the Minister of Finance,
possibly, if they had those figures.
The Chair:
Nobody else has received anything.
Mr Galt:
That's fine. That would be consistent with Quebec, from what we
were being told. If it created a large number of jobs, the
Minister of Finance just might go for it. I had the feeling they
were going back to look, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, thanks.
Mr Arnott:
Those are the only changes we want to recommend to page 10.
Turning to page 11, the
very top of the paragraph, we're into the discussion of the Early
Years Study and Fraser Mustard's work. Ideally, we on the
government side would like to see some recognition of the fact
that the 1999 budget committed up to $30 million annually for the
early years challenge fund by the year 2001-02 to match business
and community contributions to early child development programs,
and reference also to the five demonstration projects which have
been set up throughout the province to support early child
development and parenting. These projects demonstrate how to
bring business, voluntary and charitable organizations together
to support early child development.
Getting back to your
consistent point, Dave, I think there was some recognition in the
presentations that we listened to about the government's response
to the earlier study. It seems to me there was.
Mr
Christopherson: Before we put too fine a point to that
whole thing, that's always the touchstone and I think we have to
use what was presented, but if we're not careful, what will
happen is-and this would be new; I don't know that it's
necessarily helpful-but in the future each of us will be thinking
of our report ahead of time and those groups that we might have a
close tie to, asking them to bury that in there so that we can
have the argument about the content of the generic summary of
what we heard versus putting all of that in our government
report.
I appreciate what you're
saying. You've raised it. It's not here, and normally I would
object because it wasn't heard. I think you're saying it was
heard. But clearly what it's meant to do is to provide a
different perspective; by the time the reader has finished the
paragraph, an attempt to put the government in a better light.
That's your job, and I understand and respect that, but that's
not what this report is.
So as much as I'm arguing
it's got to reflect what we heard, just because we heard it
doesn't mean we have to put it in the report. Just because we
heard it doesn't mean we reflect it. Somebody could have come in
out of the clear blue as a citizen and said, "Inflation's going
to be 25% next year." Would we include it? Probably not, for good
reason.
I point that out because I
think you're in the same area again in terms of trying to reflect
a different outcome by the reader. Yes, your memory is possibly
right that it was said by someone, but what it's going to do is
force us into negative votes when we're almost through the
document.
Mr Arnott:
Could we at least have our research staff check to see to what
extent people acknowledged the efforts of the government in this
regard?
Mr
Christopherson: Ted, I caution you, if you're going to
do that, then maybe we are going to meet the rest of this week,
because I'll go back in every one of these categories and I'll
check my papers and find something that somebody said and ask
that that be put in there just because it was said.
You've really got to be
careful. You're going to get your chance. You're going to get
your report. You've got the vote; that's a given. We're not
squealing about that. But given that we are trying to have this
report reflect the demeanour that the total committee tried to
present as we moved around the province, which was, "We want to
hear from you, we want it be even, balanced, fair; give us your
thoughts, give us your hits," if you will. I think your folks
have been a little overeager here in terms of wanting to do what
they want to do in their report and spilling it over into
this.
Mr Arnott:
Reading what's there already: "Private and broader public sector
groups spoke positively of the report of Dr Fraser Mustard and
Margaret McCain entitled the Early Years Study and called on the
government to pay close attention to its recommendations." The
government has responded in a number of ways, as I outlined
earlier, to this report, so I think it's germane to the
discussion, even if there was one sentence which acknowledged
that.
Mr
Christopherson: Which acknowledged what?
Mr Arnott:
The government has responded to this report by implementing a
number of demonstration projects.
Mr
Christopherson: Come on. That's pretty political, Ted.
It sounds like a news release. in fairness. Right? Because you
could also turn it the other way and say, "In spite of the government doing
this, it's still a disaster," if you like that. It still contains
the information you want.
Mr Arnott:
What do you think, Doug? Tina?
Mr
Christopherson: We're close. We're at page 11. We've
only a few more to go. You guys have got the power; co-operation
you have to buy.
Mr Arnott:
I want to co-operate. I still think it's a reasonable thing to
include, but if you object, we'll concede that point.
Moving on to page 11, the
entire section on post-secondary education, ideally we would like
to see some reference to the programs the government has
committed itself to and is presently delivering in terms of
post-secondary education support to students: the Ontario student
opportunity trust fund, for example, the Aiming for the Top
scholarships, and the grant program which forgives student loans
above $7,000 per year, all of which help to ensure that
post-secondary education continues to be accessible for all
students who are qualified to participate in post-secondary
education.
Mr
Christopherson: That sounds like a statement we might
make-
Mr Arnott:
Another press release?
Mr
Christopherson: -he says facetiously. Come on. This is
easier to take when you don't keep a straight face when you're
presenting. I realize you've got to do what you've got to do.
Mr Arnott:
Again, I think it would improve the report to include those
facts.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sure you do.
Mrs
Molinari: I have a question. The report, once it's
completed, the inclusion in this report, is it only the
presenters or is it also our common discussion and comments that
we've made in response to the presenters? If it's to include some
of the comments that we've made in a presentation, certainly this
is one of them that was clarified for some presenters who were
not aware of some of the programs.
The Chair:
My interpretation of committee reports, and I stand to be
corrected, would be that we would report on what presenters told
us as it pertains to northwestern Ontario or education or health
care. There might be some commentary, some discussion between the
presenter and the party in power or the opposition or the third
party or whatever, but I think the role of the committee is to
report to the ministry the concerns and what we heard. That's the
way I would look at it. I stand to be corrected on that.
Mrs
Molinari: Further to that, then, when we engaged in
questions and in comments to the presenter's report, there was an
acknowledgement of some of the comments that were made or a
denial of those comments that were made either by the government
or the opposition side. So is that not something that should be
reflected in the report?
1350
The Chair:
You bring up a very valid point. We discussed figures a while
ago; I can't remember on which page. On page 9, I think we were
talking about 160,000 or something, and somebody said it was
160,800. Maybe if a committee member had challenged a presenter
that the figure was not totally accurate, for the record we
probably should have incorporated 160,800, but if the presenter
is not challenged, I think we have to go by that particular
figure.
So with regard to some of
the statements, it may entail going back to some of the
discussion that occurred if there was some correction. But again,
Mr Arnott's point is that he wants to introduce Aiming for the
Top scholarships, and I don't recall if that was discussed.
Mrs
Molinari: With due respect, Mr Chair, I do recall
bringing those issues forward when presentations were made with
respect to the funding for education, and post-secondary
education in specific, that there were a number of things the
government had done and implemented to take care of some of the
concerns that were expressed. If you review Hansard, you'll see
that I did raise some of those issues.
Mr
Christopherson: If I can, Chair, I agree. The point is
well taken. But again, I think there's a difference between what
the report suggests we heard overall, to try to get a feel for
it, versus the interplay between members and presenters. That's
why Hansard is there, and we're not trying to replicate
Hansard.
Again, it's actually
surprising we can get this far, given the diversity of thought
between the three parties that are here and just the massive
amount of information that we heard. I know it's difficult. Maybe
you could appreciate, if you were sitting over here, that I'd
like to see it loaded up with a whole lot more anti-government
stuff. A lot of it was said and isn't reflected in here, but
that's not the purpose of this document. Our document will do
that. You know that and I know that. Yours is going to put the
best light possible on the government and you can do whatever you
want with it. But again, we're trying to find a document here
that we can stand behind, and every time you folks take that next
step, it creates a problem.
Mrs
Molinari: I appreciate that, and in the spirit of
co-operation my questions are more for my own knowledge as to how
we put together this report. I need to understand what I can
argue a point over and discuss. If in fact our comments and our
clarifications to the presenters were acknowledged or denied,
then that should be reflected in the report. Otherwise, if you've
got presenters, they can say all kinds of things and they would
be included in the report.
Mr
Christopherson: So you're suggesting that your comments
fit into sort of the exemption that the Chair mentioned, that
somebody said something and it was refuted?
Mrs
Molinari: I believe putting in the fact that there are a
number of things-the Ontario student opportunity trust fund,
Aiming for the Top and these things were brought into the
discussion to clarify some of the issues that were brought forth
in the post-secondary panel, and it wasn't disputed by the
presenter. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand the
process here so that I can better participate.
Mr
Christopherson: It's not clear, and that's why you're
having difficulty and we're sort of groping along step by step as
we go.
There isn't a really clear
formula. Anything really could be in and anything could
legitimately be out by majority control, which is you folks. The
fact that you're trying to reach a consensus around this document
means we all have to approach this differently than just in a
partisan fashion. I realize that you would love to have details
in there that refute things, but I think anybody who really
watched the presentation would argue and agree that most
everything we heard from the educational side of things was not
very positive. That's just the reality. I think, if you take
what's here, you've done quite well in terms of the way it comes
across.
But if I could raise
another point, maybe as an extension of that, Chair, we're very
close to the end anyway, but I've got to tell you, I'm still not
clear at this point whether we're looking at four reports,
whether it's one report that hopefully we will all endorse with
three reports attached. Is it going to be three reports, which is
one committee report that has the majority government position
with two minority reports attached? That's kind of the one I
prefer, which is why I've made the argument that this is
important, but after the government adopts their own majority
report, this becomes relatively moot in terms of it being a
written summary of the key things that we heard.
Without that, I think it's
hard to answer your ultimate question. If you go the latter way,
sort of the one that I prefer, where the committee report is one
that we will vote against, the official opposition will vote
against, you'll carry with your majority, and we'll attach our
minority reports, it is the easiest. You could spin everything
you want for as long as you want and go for it.
It's only in the context of
this document, and again I make the point-not to make the
researchers' work seem like it's not important; it's been an
important part of the process. But at the end of the process,
personally I would give it the same status as individual reports
that we heard. It's important; it's there to be looked at. I
think it says something if we can agree on what some of the
factual points are. However, for the purposes of the public
looking at us, they'll want to see: What does the government say,
what do the Liberals say and what do the NDP say?
The Chair:
For clarification here with regard to report writing, I'll quote
section 129, (a) to (e):
"(a) The report of a
standing or select committee is the report as determined by the
committee as a whole or a majority thereof.
"(b) No minority report may
be presented to or received by the House.
"(c) Every member of the
committee other than the Chair shall be permitted to indicate
that he or she dissents from a particular recommendation or
comment. The committee shall permit a member to express the
reasons for such dissent in an appendix to the report.
"(d) The Chair of a
committee may establish a reasonable deadline for filing any
dissenting opinion with the clerk of the committee."
We talked about that this
morning, and that's to be done by March 21. I don't think you
were here, Mr Christopherson, so if you'd like to write this
down.
"(e) The report as agreed
to shall be signed by the Chair on behalf of the committee and
shall be presented to the House by the Chair or by another member
of the committee authorized by the Chair or the committee."
So it's my understanding
that there would be one report with appendices attached to it.
That's my understanding.
Mr
Christopherson: Right, which will of course in reality
be a reflection of the government because it will be the
majority, and I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb
to suggest we'll probably vote against it.
In terms of what you've
just said, Chair, I don't think it argues against my point that
this draft becomes a reference point of the summary of all that
we heard and need not necessarily, and likely will not, be what
the committee ultimately adopts. Certainly, hearing from Ted, it
would seem that even if you went with this as a template, there's
a lot of stuff you're going to want to add at the end of the day;
it'll be a different kind of report.
To go back to Tina's point,
it's really not so much, at the end of the day, did anybody say
it? That's an important point for us to clarify, but just because
it was said doesn't mean it necessarily has to be reflected in
here, and at some point-it can't be totally anti-government;
you're never going to support it. It can't be totally
pro-government; we won't support it. So somewhere in between is
where we're all trying to find ourselves.
Mr Arnott:
In relation to Tina's point, I think she's quite right that the
dialogue that takes place with the presenters and the witnesses
can lead to information that would be very important to contain
in the main body of the report, or the recommendations that might
be put forward by the opposition parties or the government side.
But I think, Dave, you're quite right too that there may be some
stuff that you would want included in the body of the report that
we can't accept.
Mr
Christopherson: I didn't come in here with all that
stuff, right?
Mr Arnott:
We might want to vote that down if it came to a vote. But in the
spirit of co-operation, I think we're trying to talk this
through, and that's a good thing.
My understanding is of
course that there's one report and it represents what we heard,
based on our broad agreement. I suppose if we could have some
sort of motion saying that we all agree that this is a fair
representation of what we heard and then the recommendations in
the next part; we may have different recommendations than you
would want to see in the final report.
Mr Phillips: We can do whatever
we want to do, as they say, but in the past we've done this: The
first paragraph is an introduction and it says, "This report is a
summary of the information received by the committee during the
hearings."
Mr Arnott:
What year's report is that you're quoting from?
Mr
Phillips: This is 1998. This is the last one that was
done, but I have a feeling, without looking at 1996-97, that
there would be a similar paragraph.
Mr Arnott:
We've got 1997 over here.
1400
Mr
Phillips: "The report is a summary of the information
received by the committee during the hearings. It has been
prepared on the basis of the information presented by the
Ministry of Finance, ministry staff and invited witnesses. It
excludes information on the 1998 budget," blah, blah, blah.
As I've been listening to
this debate, I've been trying to say, "All right, does what we're
putting in this report reflect what we heard by the minister, the
minister's staff, and witnesses?" At the end of the day, as they
all say, for that part I can say: "Yes, it's a fair compilation.
I don't agree with everything in there because I may choose to
disagree with witnesses, but that's what we were advised."
Then in all likelihood we
will have difficulty supporting the recommendations that might
come forward. So I would be saying to the public: "The first part
of the report we felt was a fair compilation of what we heard;
not everything, and I don't agree with everything, but that
represents a good summary. The recommendations," as I suspect
will be the case, "we had difficulty with, so we submitted a
dissenting opinion." I think that's what we call it, if I'm not
mistaken, Mr Chair, and the dissenting opinion would say, "We
believe that there's a different set of recommendations that we
should follow."
That's what I kind of
thought we were doing. Therefore today, unless it's clearly not
something we've heard, I won't get everything in here that I
wanted, but none of us will. I don't know what 1997 said. I don't
know whether that was a similar paragraph.
The Chair:
The 1995 has a similar paragraph. I think most of them have. It's
based on some of the-as you quote.
Mr Arnott:
I'm not suggesting we depart from that established routine,
Gerry.
Mr
Phillips: I was just responding to Dave.
Mr
Christopherson: It's good to hear this discussion,
because it still leaves me unclear as to exactly where we are
going. If we go with that alone as a fresh starting point, then
all the things you wanted to put in here, Ted, and all the things
your folks didn't even put on your list that you might ultimately
want, when it's not necessarily a mode of co-operation-where will
all that happen? When do those amendments take place? Or is this
it; once this is done, that's it, your work is finished?
Mr Arnott:
No.
Mr
Christopherson: What are you going to do?
Mr Arnott:
We've gone through page by page, and I put forward some
suggestions. You agreed to some and you rejected some, and we
conceded some of those points. I would expect that the
researchers are now going to rewrite the draft report into a
final report, or at least into wording that's acceptable.
Mr
Christopherson: Where were you planning to reinsert the
things we didn't agree on today?
Mr Arnott:
I think you have suggested that that might be something we would
want to put in the government recommendations. That's something
we might entertain. I don't know.
The Chair:
To clarify, Mr Christopherson, if we look at the 1995 report,
appendix A was the report of the government caucus, appendix B
was the dissenting opinion of the Liberal Party and appendix C
was the dissenting opinion of the Progressive Conservative
Party.
Mr
Christopherson: Right, and that makes the most sense to
me.
The Chair:
So you would have three appendices. If the recommendations he
might bring up during the discussion this morning and this
afternoon are not consented to, they would probably be presented
in the appendix report of the government caucus.
Mr
Christopherson: So at the end of the day there are four
documents.
The Chair:
One document with three appendices.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
Mr
Phillips: That's fine. If my memory serves me right,
1995 may have been an unusual year in that the Conservatives were
not in power then. We may be better to look at 1996, 1997 and
1998. I think there will be two choices for the government. One
is to simply submit recommendations and word them in a way that
captures the concerns of Mr Arnott, or have three appendices. The
three appendices seem odd to me. There is no official report and
dissenting reports; there are almost three dissenting reports, if
you follow me.
The Chair:
We can do it differently. For instance, in 1998 we had appendix
A, special witnesses; appendix B was the witness list; appendix
C, Liberal Party dissenting opinion; and appendix D, New
Democratic Party dissenting opinion. I'm willing to entertain
whichever way you want to proceed with it. I thought that in some
of the discussion we had, if we had a report we could consent to
and then an appendix from each side-but I can entertain whatever
the committee wants.
Mr
Phillips: Right now my feeling would be that we have the
first part, the body of it, in a way that we can all say, "I can
agree to that." You can almost assume there will be a Liberal
Party dissenting view, which will be several pages long. Then I
think it's up to the government members to decide-I have a
feeling it would be awkward to have a dissenting opinion from the
government caucus. It would be more appropriate that you have
several pages of recommendations, and in those you incorporate
the issues that aren't in the body, what we are talking about
right now. My vision would be a summary of the witnesses, a
section on the recommendations with whatever editorial comment you want to put
around them, and that would become the report, with maybe a
witness list. Then there would be two dissenting reports from the
Liberals and the NDP. That would be most logical, I think.
The Chair:
Mrs Molinari.
Mrs
Molinari: I'm trying to understand how this all plays
out, and my confusion is around not being able to include some of
the comments we made in the discussion. I don't see the purpose
of our having our time to discuss or question or make comments
when the witnesses present if none of that is going to be taken
into consideration in the compilation of the report. If some
comments and statements that witnesses make are not true, it is
incumbent on the government to clarify that for the purpose of
discussion and for the purpose of being included in the report,
since we don't have an opportunity to have a report as both the
opposition parties do. The Liberal caucus has its opinion on the
report, and the NDP caucus will have its opinion on the report.
The government doesn't have another paper that can clarify what
is in the report, and so we are at the mercy of reaching
consensus here on what gets put into that report. I'm trying to
understand what the purpose is, what role we play. When witnesses
come and speak and we clarify or ask questions, what's the
purpose of that if it's not for inclusion in the report?
Mr
Christopherson: Two things. First, with great respect,
just because any of us counters something that is presented
doesn't automatically make it factually the truth. It may be
subjectively the truth as we see it, but there's no guarantee it
is universally accepted as the truth. Secondly, I entirely agree
with your first point, which is why I saw it differently. But I'm
prepared to be very flexible; the third party is not going to wag
the dog here, as much as I might like it to. I think your point
is very well taken, and I didn't see it that way at all, and I'm
glad you are raising it sort of on behalf of your side. Because
if your opinion is held back and watered down by virtue of trying
to reach consensus, and then we can go full blast in dissenting
reports, where is your right to make political statements? That
is why I didn't see this, and then just two dissenting reports,
as being where we would be, quite frankly. I didn't think you
guys would accept that. If we end up there, great, we've silenced
you to a great degree.
Mrs
Molinari: That's right.
Mr
Christopherson: It's true, and it wouldn't take a rocket
scientist to see that, which is why I think I'm closer to where
Gerry is, although not entirely. At the end of the day, this gets
supplanted by a political document that you are pretty much doing
and supporting, and we are disagreeing with it. Whether we like
it or not, it's very rare that the majority opinion of any
committee is anything other than what your government wants.
That's how majority governments work. We had the same right, if
you would, when we were in power. So I still remain unclear as to
how we do this in a way that is fair. I'll just articulate
again-and if it needs to get shot down so be it-that I saw this
as a sort of piece of the last piece of our collective work where
we were working as a group, as a one-entity legislative committee
on behalf of the people to allow an airing of what the budget
ought to look like from the point of view of those who came
forward or who made submissions. That is completely different
from the political document that becomes the final report. So
when I heard that this report might form the first piece, with
other pieces added, the only way to really do it is to add a
government point of view as well as two opposition points of
view. But as Gerry rightly points out, if you're going to do
that, then really the committee, as much as we might not like the
definition of the committee, which is the government's opinion,
is non-existent. So I really think we need to nail this down,
because it's crucial.
1410
The Chair:
You have raised a very valid point, and maybe it is my fault,
prior to giving directions to the researchers, that we did not
give them direction exactly or clearly as to what they should
report on. I can't exactly recall the discussion we had, but
certainly the direction was to report on what we had heard in the
committee.
You bring a very valid
point. If somebody raises an issue that is not quite accurate and
somebody challenges or corrects the accurateness of the statement
or the figures or whatever the case may be, maybe that should be
part of the report. However, it's really up to the committee to
decide what we put in the report. It's not my decision. Maybe I
erred in not asking the committee to give the researchers a
clear, concise description of what should be included in the
report, but it's up to the committee to decide as a whole what
you want incorporated. That's not my decision. Mr Galt, you had
your hand up.
Mr Galt:
If we could simply flag this-I'm talking ahead of time now for
another year-that maybe one of the first things that should be
discussed by the committee is how the report will be formulated,
identifying some of the concerns coming out of this discussion.
It's not something you'd think of ahead of time, but it's fresh
in our minds now, so if some of these issues were brought out and
put before the committee to make some decisions ahead of time, it
might make it a little easier for the author to write it. Now
we're thinking of our own positioning and our own agenda and
getting a little hung up with that in the debate, but we might be
more objective prior to heading out on the road and thinking
through the kinds of questions we would ask for information to go
into the report. I'm just suggesting that it be flagged for next
January or maybe a little earlier-we might get started in
November-that it might be discussed by the committee in
advance.
The Chair:
I think it's a very valid point, because we've spent a fair
amount of time discussing that particular issue.
Mr
Phillips: I'm actually quite comfortable where we are.
The exercise we've gone through is that we're the public hearings
on the budget and we've invited a bunch of groups to come and give us their advice. I
think you gave the right direction, which is that we need a
summary of what they said. We don't need a summary of what we
agreed with, we need a summary of what they said, without our own
interpretation of what they said on it. That's what this first
section is. As we look at next year as well, Doug, right now I
would think we should do the same thing. After that, it's over to
the committee as to what interpretation we want to put on those
witnesses, plus our own judgment on what advice we want to give
the Minister of Finance for the budget.
I think that has to be one
report that has, if we want, dissenting opinions, but I don't
think it can be a Conservative-Liberal-NDP. That essentially
defeats the purpose of an all-party legislative committee; that
they're not really an all-party legislative committee, they're
then a committee of the parties, if you will.
I can predict confidently
what we will do, which is write a report not unlike what we've
done in previous years. It's then up to the government caucus to
do either just recommendations or recommendations with some
editorial comment that allows you to get on the record the
interpretation you want to put on the recommendations.
I'm back where I started.
I'm quite satisfied with the first section as we're proceeding,
that it will be, as best we can, a compilation of the witnesses.
Then it's over to the committee to put forward the
recommendations and deal with them.
Mr
Christopherson: I said I'd keep an open mind and I do.
Gerry has now convinced me that I disagree with him. That's what
that did. I don't know. I'm thinking about it, Gerry, and to
others. The notion that on this diverse a question of virtually
everything in the province we can find consensus on some
reflection of what was heard, not even that we agree but the fact
that, out of everything that was said, we agree that these things
best reflect the opinion and thought of what we heard, to me
that's a major achievement. What normally happens around here in
these kinds of things is that right off the bat we lock horns and
we all go our different ways and then you hold a whole series of
votes and it becomes very partisan. Yet if we can all agree on a
14-, 15- or 16-page document and then deal with our political
differences after that, we may have actually improved the product
we are delivering to both the government and the people.
I have a lot of difficulty
even supporting this. For me, it's going to depend on how we word
the motion. Therefore, that will reflect on the kind of process
we are doing. But there is only so much support I can give to
this document, because from where we are coming we would have put
a lot more emphasis on other issues. Rather than the tax cut
issue, we would perhaps have talked a lot more about health care
and child care, and made those more important by putting them
higher up in the report and dedicating more space to them.
Again, in the interest of
trying to reach consensus around a series of facts that would be
useful in terms of the work we do for the people of Ontario, I
was prepared to sort of: "That's not the end of the world. I can
live with that. We'll do those things in our report." But you
move away from the concept that this document reflects consensus.
Whether it's the introductory part or whether it's just part of
the record and the government's desire is clearly the first
section matters not to me; what matters is that if this is going
to form the part of the report where we all agree, then it would
make sense to me that all three of us would get a crack at saying
what we want to say politically about these issues.
Mr Arnott:
But don't you get that opportunity in your dissenting opinion, if
you choose to do one?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
Mr Arnott:
Right.
Mr Galt: I
understand that the only place we are going to get any
opportunity to put in our political viewpoints is in the report
itself, because you can't have a dissenting report from the
government. The two opposition parties get the opportunity to put
forward their partisan viewpoints in their dissenting
reports.
Correct me if I'm wrong. We
seem to be struggling for a consensus, which lacks the ability
for the government to put their views into the report, because we
can't have a dissenting report; at least it doesn't make
sense.
The Chair:
But in the part where you are dealing with the recommendations,
you would introduce the government's position or challenge
something they may not agree with in the report, and that would
be part and parcel of the final report.
Mr Galt:
When I look back at 1997, they have a list of 11 crisp
recommendations. There are no political overtones; it's just
straight boom, boom, boom, boom. I haven't read them in detail,
but they don't come in with some of the rhetoric. Are you
suggesting there should be a chunk in the recommendations, like
an intro to the recommendations, which would be our political
position?
Mr
Christopherson: When I started this this morning, I was
going on the assumption you were at the beginning, that there
would be one report, it would be the government's opinion-
Mr Galt:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: -and you would literally ram it through,
probably in one vote. We would just say that we disagree with the
whole thing, maybe make comments about it-
Mr Galt:
Oh, far be it from us.
Mr
Christopherson: -take one vote, straight up and down,
and then we would attach our dissenting reports. But that has
started shifting now, and it certainly changes my strategy in how
to approach this.
Mr Arnott:
I'm not sure where we're going. It seems to be going around in
circles to some degree.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, we are.
Mr Arnott:
We have this established procedure that Gerry has pointed out a
couple of times, and, having been a long-serving member of the
committee, I think he has characterized it very fairly. This is
the 1997 report, you have the 1998 report and somebody has the
1995 report. If you go through it, there is some sort of outline,
broadly speaking,
which attempts to characterize fairly what the committee heard.
Then there is a page that says, "Recommendations" and, "The
committee recommends the following," and there are 11 things
there. I assume that a motion was probably put before the
committee-
The Chair:
But you would have to vote on the recommendations.
Mr Arnott:
-and that the majority of the members present supported it. Then,
of course, those who didn't support the motion filed minority
opinions, and that comprised the report.
What we were trying to do
today was offer clarification that we thought was required on
certain points.
Mr
Christopherson: No, you were trying to spin it and
doctor it.
1420
Mr Arnott:
We tried to put in a few germane points that we thought would be
of assistance to people that fairly characterized the
government's actions in some respects. Again, on some of those
points I think we agreed, and I think the research staff
understand that and are going to make those appropriate changes.
On others, for our part, we conceded your point that it wasn't
useful to include that in the report. That's what I recall
happened this morning and it went very well.
We're almost done. I've got
one more point I want to make relative to page 13 and then we're
done with that part of it. Before you came this morning, we had
decided that the opposition parties, in the event that they
wanted to present a dissenting opinion, would have two weeks from
tomorrow to file it with the clerk and that would become an
appendix to the report, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr
Christopherson: Ted, can I just pursue that?
Interjections.
Mr Arnott:
Do you have a problem with anything I've said?
Mr
Christopherson: In that context, then, Ted, and I don't
have a problem with anything you've said, but you said earlier,
when I raised it, that yes, we will look at getting in these
points that you wanted to make here, that were rejected,
somewhere later on.
Mr Arnott:
All right. I don't know if I said that. I think you suggested to
me that might be appropriate to put in the government's
recommendations, if you want.
Mr
Christopherson: Is that where you saw it then, just in
your recommendations of our recommendations?
Mr Arnott:
I think it was useful to have the discussion on the issues this
morning. I would stand by what I was saying before, and it has
been repeated numerous times now, that it would be helpful to
have that information in the report. But again, I think it's
important that there be some agreement around the main body of
the report, the presentation of what we heard. I think we've had
a good discussion on that and you've accepted some of the points
I've made. I think we've tried to listen to what you've had to
say and be cognizant of that as well.
Mr Galt: I
have some problems. The consensus of the report I think is great.
I think that's an ideal route to go, and then the government has
their recommendations. Where I have difficulty is when I look at
the dissenting report. If they were clear recommendations only,
without all the other rhetoric, then I think the consensus is
just great. But when you put in all the other stuff around the
recommendations, then that's an unbalanced report because it's
giving all of the political positioning of the two opposition
parties. If they were clear-cut, sharp recommendations, I think
it would be a great idea, the consensus as we've been working.
But that isn't how I see the dissenting report. In the New
Democratic Party's it's a one-pager in 1997, with six
recommendations, I gather, whereas in the Liberal one it goes on
for pages and pages-nothing nasty, it's from page 1 to page 17
and then there's 18 on the back. There are a lot of graphs and
stuff; it has to be a lot of political rhetoric and not
recommendations. If it's pure recommendations, I have no problem
with the straight consensus of all three parties, but when the
dissenting report has more than recommendations, then I have some
difficulty here.
The Chair:
But in some of the discussion we had in the subcommittee, and I
know in some of the discussion I had with the researchers, we
wanted to maintain the report as concise as we possibly could
without having reference to, "So-and-so said this and so-and-so
said that." We can refer to it when it calls upon referring to
that particular group, like we've done this morning, and if you
have a report of 14 pages and the dissenting report has 30 pages,
then the people who are going to read this report are probably
going to say, "Why is that?" On the converse, if you have a
concise report, it's probably going to entail that if you've got
a dissenting opinion, the credibility of your report-if it's
twice as long as the report, if I were to read it, and I'm trying
to maintain my objectivity here, I would say, "What is this all
about?"
Consequently, having said
that, I don't know what the problem is, really, except that maybe
we should have given, and I probably should have given, the
researchers more direct direction initially. But if we proceed in
the manner we have gone so far, if the government introduces the
recommendation, and those recommendations are going to have to be
voted upon, and then with the dissenting opinion attached to the
report as appendices-
Mr Galt:
Chair, I have another suggestion that might help control the
length of the dissenting report. If we were to charge per page
for the insertions into the report-
The Chair:
That's beyond my control.
Mr
Christopherson: Anything to stifle democracy.
Mr Galt:
We've been hammered a lot about user fees, and I would think this
could be a user fee on the part of the Liberal Party, so much a
page for putting it in.
Mr Arnott:
Think of the trees you'd save.
Mr Galt:
It would be environmentally friendly, help preserve trees.
The Chair:
It brings us back to the point where we started.
Mr
Phillips: I can live with anything we want to do. I'm
not unhappy at all. I thought Mr Arnott was attempting to be accommodating to all
of us, to have this first section one where we can all say, "I
can agree that represents the witnesses, maybe not with the right
emphasis that I might like, nor do I agree with what the
witnesses said, but that represents the witnesses." I personally
wouldn't mind finishing that off, and all of us can say to
whoever wants to hear it, "That doesn't imply that I agree with
what they said or that it's totally complete." Then I think it is
somewhat up to the government if they want to accept that.
If you don't feel you've
got a place to express your editorial views on some of this, that
you feel a little bit, "Gee, we're forced to just have
recommendations and then the opposition can put all sorts of
editorial comment on," I think there's a way you can editorialize
around recommendations if you want to do that.
Then on the dissenting
report, if we do one, and of course, it'll depend on the
recommendations-
Mr Galt:
You used up enough pages last time.
Mr
Phillips: In that I tend to have to write it, I have no
interest in too many pages. So I would undertake to be as concise
as possible.
Mr Chair, I'm in your
hands. I, for one, don't mind at all the advice you gave the
staff. In fact, from my perspective, it was the right advice. I
would feel very comfortable finishing this off and then saying to
the government, "Now can we see your recommendations?" and then
maybe come back tomorrow with your recommendations, if that's
appropriate, with whatever editorial comment you want. Again, my
experience is that we could spend a lot of time debating the
government recommendations, but in the end we in the opposition
would have difficulty agreeing to them all, so we'd say, "Listen,
we just have difficulty agreeing to them all, and we'll put our
own recommendations in."
1430
Mr
Christopherson: For the record, only because you've
mentioned it a couple of times, Chair, I agree with Gerry that
you weren't incorrect in the way you approached this. I think,
had you attempted to do that on your own or with the committee,
you'd have gotten into some trouble. I think we needed right at
the end of it to give the staff the direction, "Give us as
generic, balanced and fair a reflection of what we heard as you
can, period, full stop, and bring that back to us." So I would
have had some concerns about changing that process. I only raise
it because you raised it a couple of times. I think you and the
committee did exactly what needs to be done vis-à-vis the
kind of work that legislative research can provide to a body
that's this political.
Mr Arnott:
I think the staff have endeavoured to do that. What we've been
trying to do this morning and for the last half hour is to
suggest changes. Again, I think there has been consensus and
agreement on some of those changes and others not. I'm
comfortable with where we are right now, and I think we're
following the established procedure that has been pursued by this
committee in recent years.
I would like to inform the
opposition members that I have in my possession the
recommendations that I'd like to move this afternoon, if we could
get to that point and we could vote on those. I think it's
established procedure that we would do that and certainly we're
interested in receiving the opposition parties' dissenting
reports. I don't think there's ever been a tradition that the
length or the format of those dissenting reports would be in any
way prohibited. I look forward to reading the dissenting opinions
and I'm sure that if you want to make them 30 pages long that's
fine with all of us over here.
Mr Galt:
Provided they pay by the page.
The Chair:
Do you think we can proceed and try to finish the initial
report?
Mr Arnott:
I think there's a chance, and I have the recommendations that our
caucus wants to put forward for the committee's consideration,
which I can table with the clerk at this time, and then proceed
to make motions on each one of the recommendations individually,
if that's OK with you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair:
What you're suggesting, Mr Arnott, is-let's say if we take the
subject on the table at this point in time, post-secondary
education-that you want to go back to a recommendation-
Mr Arnott:
I have said as much as I need to say today to try and influence
changes in the report's body. Right now, I've signalled my intent
to move a motion to adopt these recommendations and would then,
in turn, make a motion that these recommendations be considered
by the committee and be included in the final report.
The Chair:
OK. Before we go there, the researchers would like to bring a
couple of issues to your attention.
Ms
Campbell: If we're finished with the post-secondary
section, I was wondering if I could direct your attention to the
paragraph under the heading "Universities." The last sentence
reads: "The two research-related government-commissioned reports
... ." I was wondering if the committee would mind removing the
word "the" from the beginning of the sentence and having it read,
"Two research-related government-commissioned reports ... were
commended to the government for consideration."
Mr Arnott:
Agreed.
Ms
Campbell: Then the paragraph under "Health," the first
one at the bottom of page 11, the sentence reads, "Issues
relating to health care generated many comments and
recommendations from hospitals, nurses and those in the extended
health system ... ." Perhaps the inclusion of the word "care"
after "health" would make it read a bit better.
Mr Arnott:
Yes.
Ms
Campbell: On page 12, the second paragraph under the
subheading "Physicians," the final sentence there reads,
"Consideration should also be given to implementing incentive
programs with varied payment schedules recommended by Dr Robert
McKendry in his recent report ... ." I think that is a case of
two thoughts being merged into one and it would maybe be more
appropriate to read, "Consideration should also given to
implementing incentive programs with varied payment schedules and to
recommendations made by Dr Robert McKendry in his recent report
... ."
Mr Arnott:
Fine. Agreed.
Ms
Campbell: Thank you.
Mr Arnott:
Mr Chairman, I would therefore make a motion that the following
recommendations be included-
Mr
Christopherson: Sorry. That's all the changes to the
document?
Mr Arnott:
-in the committee on finance and economic affairs pre-budget
report:
(1) That the government
should maintain its policies of strong fiscal management and
continue to reduce the deficit and balance the budget by the
fiscal year 2000-01.
(2) The government does not
need a balanced budget to continually search for efficiencies in
government. The government should be ever-vigilant to ensure that
taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely.
(3) Tax cuts are an
important economic stimulus. The government should fulfill its
commitment to further reduce personal income taxes, stimulate job
creation, investment and consumer confidence.
(4) The government should
continue its commitment to reducing red tape and eliminating
barriers to doing business through the work of the Red Tape
Commission and other initiatives.
(5) The government should
commit to a strategy to reduce the debt once the provincial
deficit has been eliminated.
(6) The best social program
for those living in poverty is a job. The government should
continue to promote policies that create a climate conducive to
strong private sector job creation and solid economic growth.
(7) The government should
continue programs that promote economic development throughout
the province of Ontario, particularly in communities which have
yet to achieve their full economic potential.
(8) The government should
continue to support policies that assist small- and medium-sized
businesses to build equity.
(9) The government should
continue working towards province-wide tax fairness within the
property tax system.
(10) In the interest of
assisting youth employment and their employers, the government
should continue to call upon the federal government to reduce
job-killing employment insurance premiums to $2 or less per $100
earned.
(11) The government should
work with other levels of government and the private sector,
including small business, to encourage youth employment.
(12) The government should
continue to call upon the federal government to restore their
commitment to health care and post-secondary education by
returning the Canada health and social transfer funding to
1994-95 levels, and by including a new CHST escalator clause
which would take into account Ontario's growing and aging
population.
(13) The government should
maintain its commitment to health care funding and continue to
maintain a health care system that invests in priority
services.
(14) Our children are our
future. The government should continue to support programs and
initiatives that ensure our children grow up in a healthy, safe
and supportive environment.
(15) The government should
support post-secondary education programs aimed at student
assistance, as well as those programs aimed at reducing the level
of student debt.
(16) The government should
continue to find ways to ensure that more of the education budget
goes to the classroom.
(17) The government should
honour its commitment to capital infrastructure in the province
of Ontario with the innovative SuperBuild Corp.
Mr
Christopherson: Are you going to move them as one?
The Chair:
I think they should be moved one at-
Mr
Christopherson: No, I was going to say as a group.
Mr Arnott:
I move them as a group. Does somebody have a problem with that? I
assume the motion is in order to do it that way.
The Chair:
So you're moving them individually or as a group?
Mr Arnott:
One motion.
The Chair:
Any discussion?
Mr Galt:
Unanimous approval?
Mr
Christopherson: You might want to do a standing count on
that.
Mr
Phillips: I propose it should be a recorded vote.
1440
The Chair:
Recorded vote. All in favour?
AYES
Arnott, Galt, Molinari.
The Chair:
Opposed?
NAYS
Christopherson,
Phillips.
The Chair:
That carries.
I think we'll probably need
a motion now to adopt the report as presented.
Mr
Christopherson: Minus the recommendations or with the
recommendations?
The Chair:
With the recommendations. Then it will be presented back to the
subcommittee for final approval or for presentation to the
committee after.
Mr
Phillips: I think the staff needs that-
The Chair:
That's right. They need time to rewrite the report. So we'll need
a motion to-
Mr
Christopherson: If you vote with the recommendations in,
you're going to get us offside. If you vote for all the work we did, we lose all the
benefit of what we did this morning. If you do it in two stages,
we can at least give some credibility to the work that we did
this morning in trying to find things we can agree on.
Mr Galt:
I'd like to extend a motion of appreciation to David Rampersad
and Elaine Campbell for the work that they've put in to packaging
this report. They almost arrived at a consensus for all parties.
I appreciated their efforts.
The Chair:
All those in favour? That's unanimously approved.
Mr Galt:
We finally got a motion that everybody agrees on. It must be the
first time in my life.
The Chair:
I stand to be corrected, because I'm certainly not an expert in
procedural matters, but I would say that we probably need a
motion to approve the report with the recommendations as a
whole.
Mr Arnott:
We don't have that until we see the final report.
The Chair:
No, but the amended report so that it can be rewritten and
submitted to the subcommittee.
Mr Arnott:
Unless you empower the subcommittee to make that decision. Could
we do that?
The Chair:
Yes, we can do that. What about a motion enabling the
subcommittee to pass a motion to accept the report? How does that
fly?
Mr Arnott:
This is just a suggestion, Mr Chair. What we're saying is that
it's worthwhile to see if we can come to an agreement to create
some statement at the end of the summary of the presentations
that, in the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee, this is a
fair representation of what the committee heard. That would maybe
come at the tail end of the main body of the report, or the
beginning perhaps, before you get into the recommendations that
have now been adopted by a majority of the committee and the
dissenting reports. If we don't empower the subcommittee to do
it, we're going to have to have another meeting of this committee
to pass a motion that says, "We agree with the changes that the
research staff made relative to what was discussed this
morning."
Mr
Christopherson: The downside of that is that it provides
the government members with a sort of veto, if you will, over the
deliberations of the subcommittee, because they can always say,
"I'm going to take this back to the committee," so maybe building
it back into the committee, and we all know it's in our
schedules. If there's agreement, then the meeting will be over in
30 minutes; if not, then we'll have to tussle it out. You could
ask that the work the researchers are doing on behalf of the
committee and the report, as amended today, go to the
subcommittee with one reference back for final approval by the
standing committee.
The Chair:
That's exactly what we're going to suggest. The changes have been
minor in the report itself. So if it were to be referred to the
subcommittee for approval after the report has been fianalized by
the researchers, then the subcommittee could vote on it. How does
that sound?
Mr
Christopherson: I feel silly raising this point, but I
think the government would want to reserve the right to have
their final majority crack at it. The subcommittee is two to one,
and you'll have the right to appeal a matter if that happens. We
can always cancel a committee meeting if we don't need it, but if
we build it in now and agree there's going to be one-
Mr Arnott:
The trouble is, we don't have the power to establish a meeting
beyond Thursday when the House isn't in session.
The Chair:
We have the next four days scheduled for that.
Mr Arnott:
How long is it going to take for the staff to make those
changes?
Ms
Campbell: I would think a day.
Mr Arnott:
Could we come back tomorrow and look at it again?
Mr
Christopherson: Could you make it Wednesday?
The Chair:
It has to be Wednesday.
Mr Arnott:
I'm amenable to that.
Ms
Campbell: We could have it on Wednesday with the changes
marked in the document.
The Chair:
Are we agreeable to that? We would meet here at 10 o'clock
Wednesday morning. OK.
Mr
Christopherson: Did you take the vote on the
recommendations? I don't know if we did a formal recorded
vote.
The Chair:
Yes. It was a recorded vote.
We'll adjourn till 10
o'clock on Wednesday morning.
