CONTENTS
Tuesday 1 June 1993
Committee business
Committee budget
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC)
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
*O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L)
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND)
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND)
*Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC) for Mrs Cunningham
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND) for Ms Carter
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Gardner, Dr Bob, assistant director, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1623 in room 151.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Eddy): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The standing committee on social development is now in session. The first item of business is organization re Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education. The subcommittee of this committee met yesterday afternoon but could not reach agreement on several items listed on our agenda having to do with schedule of committee meetings etc. Mr Owens.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Chair. If I can just --
Interjection: Have some water.
Mr Owens: Hey, that's good water. It's the clean water agency that's already in effect.
Anyway, thank you, Chair. It's my understanding, as I was unable to make yesterday's subcommittee meeting, that in fact no consensus was reached. With that in mind I'd like to put a motion on the floor that we begin the proceedings with respect to Bill 4 on June 7. Would you like me to provide the detail?
The Vice-Chair: That would be helpful. Please continue.
Mr Owens: Then our clerk can organize it into motionese for the purposes of Hansard, I guess, however it flows or doesn't flow.
I'd like to move that we begin the process with respect to Bill 4 on Monday, June 7. We will begin with a statement from either the minister or the parliamentary assistant. It's my understanding that the parliamentary assistant will be making a statement. We'll move into full hearings on June 8. We will continue hearings on June 14 and 15. There is discussion and agreement that we have one night, on either the 14th or the 15th, of evening hearings.
In terms of choosing those dates, I'd like to leave that up to the subcommittee, and in terms of designing the parameters with respect to the time, I'd like to also leave that up to the subcommittee. So the public hearing portion will complete on the 15th, and then we will move into clause-by-clause on June 21 and 22. I move the foregoing as a motion.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Discussion, Mr Beer.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): As was noted by Mr Owens, there was not agreement yesterday at the subcommittee with respect to the committee sittings on this bill. I think we had a thorough discussion at subcommittee and I'm not going to belabour the issue.
We thought, as did our colleagues from the third party, that we should conduct our hearings during the intersession period for a number of reasons, most particularly because the omnibus bill does touch on a number of disparate issues, but several of them are critical ones and we wanted to have more time for that discussion. So we will be voting against this motion.
I have a couple of comments, once we've completed this, that I would want to make, but I think at this point, as I said, we had a full discussion of this issue yesterday and would simply note our opposition to this motion once the vote is completed. There are a few other comments that I would like to make with respect to how we proceed and some of the suggestions made by the government whip.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Other comments? Mr Arnott.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I couldn't agree more with Mr Beer's comments. I think it's absolutely essential that this bill be discussed during the summer break. I don't know how we're going to get any opportunity to hear from teachers, for example, who are on the front lines of the education system, who can probably give us the very best advice that this committee will get directly from the teachers of this province, how we're going to be able to get that information if we're debating this bill in the month of June. I think it's absolutely essential that public hearings be in the summertime.
I know that my colleague from London North has brought forward a number of these concerns during the course of the subcommittee meeting. I want to concur with what she has indicated in that subcommittee meeting and would urge the committee to give consideration to that request.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Any other comments? We have a motion before us, or a number of motions this time. Is everyone clear on the motion, the dates etc? Any other comments? If not, all in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
Mr Arnott: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Vice-Chair: It's been requested. How do we conduct a recorded vote? I'm advised that the recorded vote should be asked before the vote is taken.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Chairman, could we vote again on the same motion?
Mr Owens: No, I don't think so. Come on, Jim, you supported the motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to get it right.
The Vice-Chair: You indicated that you were voting for it but you withdrew your hand quickly, I noticed.
Mr Jim Wilson: Well, I removed my hand quickly, so which way did you record it?
The Vice-Chair: As a no. It's not a recorded vote, so we have a majority voting in favour of the motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: Which way did you observe it?
Mr Owens: The right way.
1630
The Vice-Chair: The clerk advises me that Mr Wilson's vote was recorded as a negative vote.
Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Beer: Mr Chairman, just to the issue then, we're going to begin with the ministry on the Monday, and we've agreed then that the Chair and the subcommittee will organize the other deputants. I think I discussed with the member from London North as well as the member from Scarborough Centre that we would look at using one of the evenings of the 14th or 15th, which would be in the middle; that depending on the numbers of groups that come forward, we would sit. I think we need to see if that's necessary, but it would be important to do that.
We also, I think, noted that while the House is supposed to rise on the 24th, if something happens in the interim that suggests that it's going to be here longer, we can look at that in the light of the number of people who've come forward in terms of what we might do. But we would plan on the basis, obviously, of the dates we've discussed, and I think we're prepared to let the Chair and the subcommittee, once they see the number of deputations, determine what the scheduling will be.
I just wanted to note that and I think otherwise what the member has put forward is what we had discussed informally.
Mr Owens: Are you accusing me of telling the truth?
The Vice-Chair: Any other comments? That completes the matter then.
COMMITTEE BUDGET
The Vice-Chair: On to item number 2: committee budget for the fiscal year 1993-94. A proposed budget is before you, a summary of the budget. Mr Malkowski.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would just like to clarify. On the budget, it looks like we're including the cost of interpretation for presentations.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): The item covering simultaneous interpretation would cover the engaging of interpreters when the committee meets outside of Queen's Park and the interpretation service from here cannot supply interpreters, or it would cover the costs of any interpreters engaged in any language that the committee might direct that service be provided in.
Mr Malkowski: So we would be providing interpreters if presenters request it?
Mr Owens: I think, Doug, there are two different issues.
Clerk of the Committee: There are two issues. To start with, if interpretation were to be provided in English and French, the first consideration would be the requirements of the French Language Services Act. Secondly, if service were to be provided in any other language, the committee or subcommittee would have to give direction to the effect that expenditure should be made.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): We can assume that's going to happen, that the needs of any presenters will be met in terms of their ability to present to the committee?
The Vice-Chair: It has been suggested that's a matter that should be directed to the subcommittee for discussion and report back.
Mr Martin: Is there room within the budget for that to happen if in fact a decision was made to that end?
The Vice-Chair: It's indicated affirmative. Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: Just a quick comment. I think that in terms of special requirements of deputants there's always an availability for the Chair to approach the Board of Internal Economy and this, it is my understanding, has been done on previous occasions. I don't believe it has been a problem. Our clerk has been quite proactive in terms of ensuring that the special needs of all people appearing before this committee have been met. I have faith that we will continue that tradition.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Did you wish a presentation of the budget, Ms O'Neill?
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Yes. In conjunction with the discussion that we just had, is the Board of Internal Economy going to approve these committee budgets tonight? Is approval necessary, I guess is my fundamental question.
Clerk of the Committee: Is approval necessary before expenditures are made?
Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Things are different this year.
Clerk of the Committee: In general, in the past expenditures have been made before budgets have been approved by the board. In some years, the board has not met for quite a long time, and in the meantime the House has ordered committees to conduct hearings and, necessarily, expenditures have been made. I understand the board is not considering committee budgets today and may not be, I understand, for one or two meetings.
Mrs O'Neill: Are these -- what should I say? -- average figures that all of the committees are considering this year?
Clerk of the Committee: The base budget is similar for all committees, yes.
Mrs O'Neill: What's different then?
Clerk of the Committee: I can tell you that changes in this committee over last year's, which provided for the same period of eight weeks of meetings in the recesses, indicate an increase of expenditure. Last year's estimate, approved by the committee and the board, was approximately $176,000. The committee spent $138,000 approximately. There's therefore about a $21,000 increase in the budget that is to a large extent provided for by an increased provision for advertising.
The committee did spend more on advertising last year, advertising twice, than the estimates provided for. In addition, there are more members from outside of Metropolitan Toronto, and certain costs required by statute are estimated for accordingly.
Mrs O'Neill: I have some difficulty at this particular time, when all of the other people are being asked to really reassess their budgets, that our budget, which came in at $138,000, is now being presented at $197,000 and was at $176,000 last year. I do understand there are some further expenses which can't be avoided regarding our own locations, but why are we not going in around $175,000, for instance, or something like this?
We, the members, are the ones who have to defend this budget and I'd certainly like to have something that's quite defensible, considering what all the other members of my community are being asked to look at.
Mr Owens: I think Ms O'Neill makes some good points, and just to carry on with the comments that Mr Arnott was making, in fact we have just barely started the estimates process under the Board of Internal Economy. In terms of how committee budgets will be viewed by all three parties represented on the committee, I think there's a clear understanding that we have to take a leadership position with respect to the amount of money spent by the committees, but also keeping in mind that there is a certain functionality the committees have to have in terms of going out to the parts of the province outside of Metropolitan Toronto.
But your comments have been heard and, as one of my party's representatives on the board, I'll be certainly pleased to carry those comments to the board meeting.
1640
Mrs O'Neill: I'd hate to have to vote against this budget, but unless I get a better explanation, I might have to do that. What I find is we're going to have what we consider less than hearings on Bill 4. We're not going to leave the city. So that's one major one. I don't know what the other piece of legislation is that we're going to deal with this summer. Maybe Mr Arnott can help us. Have we had another piece referred to us, Mr Arnott? What is your projection?
Clerk of the Committee: Government legislation? No.
Mrs O'Neill: But there likely is one of those major pieces that we're going to be handed?
Clerk of the Committee: I don't know at this point.
The Vice-Chair: Are you finished at this time?
Mrs O'Neill: I am. I'm not comfortable.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Martin.
Mr Martin: It seems to me that these budgets are put together projecting what could possibly be the activity of this committee. Given that I think we're all in a mode of being careful about what we spend and what we do, as time unfolds and as the business of this committee unfolds, we can continue to make decisions collectively about where we go, how long we go and what that will cost us. So it seems to me that we still have some control ourselves around just how much of this we will expend.
I guess to respect the work that has been done by the clerk in putting this thing together, he has put, it seems to me, a framework within which we should be able to work. Yes, it's more than last year, but even with the difficult economy that we're in, I think we need to be realistic and understand that sometimes the cost of doing business around here goes up and we need to at least have the freedom, if we as a group see fit or see a need to consult perhaps further than we had thought on some issue, then we can.
I think a case in point is the piece of legislation we have in front of us here. The opposition would like us to go out or sit longer and thereby spend more money on that piece of business, which is neutral as far as I'm concerned, but it costs money. We're saying we'd like to do it in a shorter time frame which will allow us to be a bit more cost-conscious and not spend as much.
I think we still have, even with passing this budget, room to make decisions collectively around this table that will allow us to make those savings that the member opposite is wanting us to do, it seems.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Arnott.
Mr Arnott: I'm only substituting in this committee this afternoon on behalf of my party and I may have missed this point earlier, but I would like to ask the clerk how much time was spent on travel last year with this committee. Were there several weeks of travel involved?
Clerk of the Committee: There were two weeks of travel to six cities outside of Toronto in the winter recess.
Mr Arnott: I assume that's a very significant part of the additional expenditure that's reflected in this new budget, the anticipation that we'll be doing more travel than we did last year.
Clerk of the Committee: A small amount more.
Mr Arnott: How do you come to that conclusion when you're making your guess, your estimate?
Clerk of the Committee: In part it was direction by the subcommittee when I was preparing the budget and in part it's a guesstimate.
Mr Arnott: Okay. I just find myself in agreement with Mrs O'Neill. It's very, very difficult for us to put forward a budget and approve it, the bottom line being significantly more than what was actually expended last year. I just raise this as a point of concern.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: Just in terms of the subcommittee process, I was part of that process and certainly suggested that in terms of a buffer with respect to travel, we may want to build that in. But I think it needs to be noted that if in fact the money is not spent, it goes back to the Legislative Assembly and is certainly not utilized by the committee.
On the other hand, if we find ourselves with a project of the same significance as we had during the last intersession, that is, the long-term care legislation, which required a significant amount of committee time, then we have the funding in place, not having to go back to the Board of Internal Economy requesting supplementary funding.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comments? If not, we have a proposed budget before us. How would you like to deal with it?
Mr Owens: I move the motion.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Owens. All in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Any other items of business to come before the committee today?
Mrs O'Neill: Mr Chairman, Mr Gardner has begun to try to present to us some of the questions that we will have to have answers to before we actually even begin the process. I think all people have the same handout I do. You don't? Okay. Well, I do think there are certain pieces of data that we should have on the table before we begin, particularly in the very confined time lines that we now find ourselves in.
I think we should have from the Ministry of Education the number of boards providing and those not providing junior kindergarten; I think we should have the enrolment numbers and the percentage of children in those enrolment numbers from the respective age groups; and surely the ministry must have looked at the funding provisions and the cost estimates of the expansion of junior K from their perspective. I do know that the boards are certainly telling us what they think the costs are. Perhaps the ministry would like to have its side presented on the costing. I think we also need information on the hard-to-serve, which of course is a very fundamental part of Bill 4. How many students are categorized -- a terrible term, but the term we use at this moment -- as hard-to-serve in the province, and what kind of facilities are they in or where are they being educated?
Mr Owens: A good question.
Mrs O'Neill: I don't think that we're clear yet on the ministry's policy directions and integration. We haven't yet seen mandatory integration, but we certainly have seen very strong encouragement. So perhaps we can have an update. These are things I think should be covered in the opening remarks, if possible.
Then of course the final item is the child care within Bill 4. We'd like to know the number of schools and boards, but particularly boards, with school-based child care services, the number of children who are served in those, and indeed the number of schools, and we've seen some media, where there are child care services that are not being used. I think that's important.
I'll think of others as we go along, but to put this bill in context, and I think we have to do it rather quickly, we have to have some idea of what's actually going on out there or we're really going to be spinning our wheels. This is basically data. Other than the integration question, everything I'm asking for is data.
Mr Martin: There's no doubt that those are very important questions and we will be attempting to provide as much information as is absolutely possible to all members of the committee so that in the end we can have a piece of legislation that reflects both the reality and the aspired end that the government has in this, to provide the best of education opportunity for the children we serve in this province. We'll have as much as we possibly can, and if it isn't enough, then we'll go back and get some more, Ms O'Neill.
The Vice-Chair: Did you wish to speak to your memorandum circulated?
Mr Bob Gardner: No, Mr Chair, I think that's sufficient. Ms O'Neill has made her request known and the parliamentary assistant has responded -- unless there's anything else members want specifically from me -- but the ministry would be the source of those data anyway.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Any other comments? The subcommittee should meet for a moment either to deal with the two matters referred to it or just set a date for a meeting.
Does that conclude the business? Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1650.