CONTENTS
Tuesday 19 August 1997
Office of the Premier
Mr Tony Clement, parliamentary assistant
Mrs Lee Allison Howe, assistant deputy minister, corporate services, Cabinet Office
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président
Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel
Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1534 in committee room 2.
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): Welcome, everyone. It's good to see all of you again. Those of you in the press corps and in the gallery, thanks very much for your attendance. We welcome you all back.
We'll get right into it. The parliamentary assistant had just begun his right of reply. He has 28 minutes left. We'll turn the floor over to the parliamentary assistant, Mr Clement.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Dispense.
The Vice-Chair: Too easy.
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Thanks for that vote of confidence from Mr Bisson. As members will recall from the last meeting, we had been in the process of discussing the accounts as they relate to the Premier's office.
Just by way of explanation for those who were not on the committee last time, the fiscal picture for those expenses were such that in the 1995-96 year there was a decrease of 3.3% in expenditures relating to the Premier's office; in 1996-97 the decrease was a further 2.4%; and in the 1997-98 estimates there is no increase in spending for the Office of the Premier. So we are continuing to lead by example.
We heard from the Premier yesterday about how Ontario is leading the country in job creation, with 176,000 net new private sector jobs since March of this year. If we in government can continue to lead by example, I'm absolutely convinced that the private sector in Ontario will be able to do its bit to restore jobs and opportunity to this province.
When last we met, I was in the midst of discussing Mr Bisson's well-considered remarks on some of his caucus's concerns relating to the estimates of the Premier's office. I was in the commencement of full rhetorical flight, agreeing with him that we as parliamentarians have to think of new ways almost continuously to make ourselves as accountable as possible to the people in our constituencies and in Ontario who elected us to do something that is extremely important, a trust entrusted to us; and that of the accountability mechanisms that perhaps were the start of our democracy 200 years ago, some are still useful but some could be improved upon.
One of the things I do to earn my keep in government is to be responsible for putting forward some proposals that would lead to greater direct democracy in the province. I wanted to inform Mr Bisson, if he was not aware, that another committee of the Legislature, the Legislative Assembly committee, of which I was a member -- and there were a number of colleagues from the NDP caucus, including Mr Silipo and Mr Wildman. I thought all of us together had a very positive few months together. It was a few weeks longer than we had all expected, because of Mrs Pupatello, but aside from that, it was a very worthwhile few months hearing from the public in terms of what their expectations were in terms of direct democracy and putting together what I think was an excellent report.
It included some dissension from the NDP caucus and Liberal caucus which was incorporated into the report, but also included a lot of excellent input from the caucuses themselves and also from the public on how to rearrange our democracy in the sense of not detracting from the parliamentary nature of our responsibilities and our accountabilities, but to build on that and to ensure that accountability is more directly felt on issues of particular concern to citizens, looking at whether there are ways, through referendums and other mechanisms, to ensure that citizens, when they desire to have a direct say, have that opportunity on provincial public policy. One can say we are making real progress, if I can broaden Mr Bisson's concerns, in the area of accountability. I think there's going to be good news for those who believe the process has to be made not only more accountable, but by virtue of making it more accountable, more credible and more legitimate.
Mr Bisson raised in the third place the public appointments secretariat. He raised a concern, if I read Hansard correctly -- refresh my memory -- that there are individuals who are members of the Premier's office staff who are involved in the public appointments secretariat.
I wanted to assure Mr Bisson that that was the same as in the previous government. That's a standard procedure, that some input is allowable, collected by the Premier's office staff, on who the most appropriate persons are to be involved in public appointments. Of course, some of those are reviewable, as the member well knows, in the agencies, boards and commissions committee. He made reference way back when we last met that apparently there are sometimes Conservatives appointed through this process -- as are Liberals and New Democrats and in fact citizens who do not evince a particular political point of view. It probably is quite reflective of society. If and when it is not, we certainly have an accountable, transparent committee process where those points of view can be tested. I wanted to assure him for the record that it is the same kind of process as was found in previous governments.
1540
Mr Bisson: It's not the same process. There was a different process under the NDP government than there is now under the Tory government. You can't say it's the same. The public appointments secretariat had a much more open process than the government presently has. But I'll allow you to go on.
Mr Clement: Thanks, Mr Bisson. Maybe we could have quite a vibrant discussion about that in the House or somewhere else, about the merits or demerits of a particular process. Perhaps that's another area where there could be room for improvement in governance generally.
Mr Bisson also mentioned the necessity to clean our own house first. I think that's the phraseology he used, and I think quite aptly. I was trying to get that point of view across, that I really believe it's very important for servants of the public, as we are, to lead by example.
For instance, this House and this government have been attempting to lead by example in a number of areas. We cut the number of elected MPPs for the next Legislature by 20%. Obviously, we've felt the brunt of keeping costs under control with our own MPP budgets. MPPs' salaries lost their tax-free allowance. Also, we radically changed the pension plan to ensure that it was seen as responsible in the private sector and private life and was not seen, to use the phrase that has been used by others who critique the process, as a gold-plated plan.
He makes a very good point, that we've got to lead by example. Our government has endeavoured to do that. One sees that approach as well in our own estimates for the Premier's office. In the first two years there were certainly reductions, and we've basically flatlined it for this year and kept it at a level which is commensurate with the responsibilities undertaken in that office but at the same time are not over the top. I think that's all well and good.
At the same time, of course, we've had what I would call an increase in workload. Those who criticize the government characterize it as moving too far, too fast. But in terms of the number of sessional days, they've all been on the increase, and that has meant you've got fewer staff being involved in public policy decisions to a greater degree, so that's more time for less relative money.
In terms of staffing issues, we discussed at the previous meeting how -- I believe Mr Bisson and I have an honest disagreement about the characterization of the use of contracted staff under the previous government. We have sought to consolidate the 20 contracted positions allocated in different budgets in different ministries under the previous government, because they were in fact working for the Premier, and released an amount which we felt meant there was a fair, open and transparent process on the Premier's office's true costs.
That process added an addition $763,057 to the transparent, accountable costs to the Premier's office, making it an initial total of $2.764 million, but we felt that was a more accurate reflection of the actual resources that were being used by the Premier and by his senior staff, so you didn't have what a less scrupulous government would use as a kind of shell game to ramp up the resources being used by the Premier and his office but not having that accountability.
As a result of that and as a result of some of the changes we made in reducing the staff, we have reduced some of the operating expenses, but I wanted to remind members that there are certain statutory benefits which must continue to be paid. Those have restricted our ability to reduce even further, but we certainly are meeting all our statutory obligations.
There was a suggestion by Mr Bisson that the Premier's office had moved up a couple floors in the Whitney Block to avoid protests. I wanted to assure Mr Bisson and this committee that nothing could be further from the truth in terms of the motive behind the move of the Premier's office up to the sixth floor. Certainly those who disagree with the agenda of this government have had no difficulty finding the Premier and in fact took the liberty of protesting in front of his house at one point, so I don't think that's a real issue.
The real issue here is, is there a way to consolidate the business of government in office space that in both the medium and long run means less cost to the taxpayer? As a result of some of the changes we were able to do, that has been the case. We are quite confident that in terms of the moves that are going to be made because we are shifting people into space that has been made available in the Whitney Block and out of rental space in other buildings, the net impact is going to be very favourable to the taxpayers. The numbers I used in the last meeting are a matter of public record. They show very clearly that by doing this move it certainly is a case of spending a little money up front in terms of the moving costs, but saving very quickly in terms of the long-term lease costs what I consider quite a significant amount on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.
I would characterize the moving issue, if you want to call it that, around those terms. It's simply a matter of continually reviewing what the government is spending its money on on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario, continually trying to find ways to improve those expenditures.
They talk a lot in the private sector about continuous improvement. There's a lot to be said in government for doing precisely the same thing. That means not only the big issues. We are obligated in the Legislature to talk a lot about the $100 million here and the $500,000 there, but a lot of what we can do is the cumulative impact of some of the smaller ways we can spend money in a more effective way.
As a result, we're sending messages not only to ourselves as politicians and leading by example to the public but, if I dare say so, we're sending a message to the bureaucracy that is accountable to us as the Legislature that this is the way we're managing now. If we can find ways to do better for less, that impacts on the psyche of the bureaucracy, which sometimes, if I can be so bold, needs that reminder --
Mr Bisson: Did you say "sake"?
Mr Clement: There's no rice wine here. I want honourable members to know that.
I think it can send the proper signal to the civil service, to the public service, that this is the way one has to conduct oneself in today's day and age. That will have not only the short-term impact of $5,000 saved here or $10,000 saved there, but if we can change the psychology of government by finding these ways to do better for less, I think we've done ourselves a great service for the taxpayers of Ontario.
That is why one has to look at the larger picture in terms of the office moves and what have you, rather than just the straight moving costs in that particular situation.
I'd like to finish up by saying that the Premier's office is a relatively small item in terms of total cost of operations in the government, but you are quite within your rights, obviously, to look at the small items as well as the large items to ensure that we are living up to our rhetoric as a government and trying to do better for less in the heart of the Premier's office as well as in some other offices that have been given more attention in the past.
I hope that's been helpful to you to understand why we're doing what we're doing and how it impacts on the Premier as well as other branches of government.
1550
The Vice-Chair: That leaves us with 48 minutes. If we divide it by three parties, that's 16 minutes each. We'll start with the official opposition.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to talk to the parliamentary assistant and follow up on the conversation we had at our last meeting.
I'm very interested in the procedures and processes the Premier's office follows. As you know, I'm particularly interested because I'm having real difficulty in understanding how the Premier's office dealt with the Ipperwash affair. I want to use this opportunity to see if I can get some more information on how things occurred at Ipperwash and how they could have occurred at Ipperwash.
Mr Clement, you said in our last meeting that based on your observations, depending on the meeting, if it's culminating in a public policy judgement, certainly notes are kept. "Public policy judgement" means something that is going to cabinet or something that is there prior to legislation being contemplated by the cabinet.
Meetings took place on September 5 and 6, and the Premier's executive assistant was at those meetings. Immediately after, that issue went to cabinet. Based on your experience of how things work, I would have expected that in the Premier's office the executive assistant would have kept some notes over a month of meetings, because these issues did go to cabinet.
The Premier has told us that there were no notes, there were no files, because the Premier's office had no involvement in the issue. If this was going to cabinet, based on your experience and what you said at the previous meeting, wouldn't the executive assistant have kept notes in a situation like this, where the cabinet was making the decision within hours, if not within minutes, after this meeting ended?
Mr Clement: What I tried to do at the previous meeting was talk based on my experience as parliamentary assistant and draw a picture, based on public policy issues, of how judgements are made and the procedure of how those decisions are made and then where they go from there. Mr Phillips is quite right that if this were a public policy judgement issue, certainly notes or minutes would have been kept and those notes or minutes would form the basis of the discussion that would occur at cabinet -- which of course is a confidential exercise in our parliamentary democracy, has been for hundreds of years, so no further comment can be made on that.
Without opining on the particular circumstances Mr Phillips has raised -- Lee Allison Howe, who is sitting beside me here, is the assistant deputy minister. I tried to draw a distinction between processes that involve public policy judgements and what could be described as issues management situations. I confess, and I apologize, that my tenure as parliamentary assistant has been more involved with public policy issues rather than issues management issues. Issues management issues are things I know somewhat less about, in terms of how they are done and what processes they're following.
If what you're driving at is to draw a distinction between public policy issues and the processes there and issues management issues, it might be an appropriate time to draw that distinction again at these committee hearings.
Mr Phillips: I realize you're in a tough spot, but you're here and you're representing the Premier. If the Premier were here, I'd say to him directly: "I do not believe you that for one month your executive assistant went to meetings," and this particular meeting went on for more than two hours, "involving the most sensitive issue that faced the government, that perhaps still faces it, the first time ever a first nation person was killed in Ontario -- your executive assistant attended those meetings" -- I use your language that "certainly notes are kept."
I would say to him directly, "It is too incredible to believe your executive assistant would never have written a single, solitary note during all that time, not even summarizing the direction you gave her," because it's clear from others' notes that she was talking to the Premier and the Premier was giving her directions for those meetings. It's clear she came to that meeting on September 6 and told them, "I talked last night with the Premier." These notes put in quotation marks what he said. This says, "D. Hutton, Premier last night, OPP only" -- and this has quotation marks - 'Out of park only -- nothing else.'"
What I'm trying to get at is the operation of the Premier's office. Here the Premier is giving, I can only interpret, his direction as to what he wants his representative saying at that meeting. "I talked last night with the Premier: 'Out of park only -- nothing else.'" That last is in quotation marks.
Would it be usual that the executive assistant would never write down, over a one-month period, any of the directions the Premier gave to take to those meetings, nor any of the discussion or conclusions out of those meetings?
As I said, I apologize. I would much prefer the Premier to be here, because I'd like him to answer that directly. Does anybody here believe that any Premier's senior executive assistant would go to those meetings for one month, day after day after day after day, and never write down a single note? I don't. Help me understand how that could possibly happen in the Premier's office.
Mr Clement: I'll endeavour to do so. I guess I'm not making myself clear. What I said at our last meeting was that if there's a public policy issue which tends to lead to either a regulation or a piece of legislation, formal minutes are kept, as I think Mr Phillips well knows. Those formal minutes form the basis of discussion at cabinet. That's what the quotation you cited from our last meeting referred to, when I was describing how those issues get to cabinet.
Without commenting directly on some of the issues Mr Phillips has raised -- which I think were very ably dealt with by the Premier, if I may say so, in the Legislature yesterday. Mr Phillips, you have to decide whether you think Ipperwash was an issue that related to a regulation or a piece of legislation, or whether it related to an issue of issue management. If it related to an issue of issue management, the rules are, based on my observation, somewhat different, that there need not be a cabinet minute; there need not be formal minutes taken; there need not be the form of minute-taking that implies a cabinet discussion leading to a piece of legislation.
If your conclusion is, sir, that it was an issues management issue, I think you can also fairly conclude that there may be circumstances where minutes are not taken.
1600
Mr Phillips: I conclude that this was an issue going to cabinet within minutes of the conclusion of this meeting, and I conclude that it is normal that for an issue going to cabinet, the Premier's staff would provide him with some advice on the issue going to cabinet, and I conclude that the executive assistant would leave that meeting, summarize for the Premier what took place and provide him advice on the issue they knew was going to cabinet. The government made a policy decision not to negotiate with the first nations.
I will say, and I raised it yesterday, that the OPP had a detailed plan. This is only a part of it. They had three teams set up to negotiate on a rotating basis, teams 1 and 2, and then team 3 was being held in reserve to relieve the teams if required. It says here, "ie, rest days, long-term backup." That means the expectation by the OPP was that they were going to be in a protracted negotiation. The next step arising from the September 5 meeting was no negotiations.
Again, I'm sorry to be raising it with you. I would have a strong preference for raising it with the Premier. But I can't understand the process, because the Premier in his remarks yesterday said he was under the understanding that their decision was that negotiations were to take place, but it was the OPP that made the decision for no negotiations.
The reason I raise this -- help me along in a comment you made the other day: "The Premier is not only the first among equals, shall I say, as the Premier and the head of the executive council; he is also the party leader, he is also the leader of the parliamentary caucus he; is also the political leader of the government of Ontario." In other meetings it's typical or appropriate that you have a structure.
The Premier's executive assistant participated in that decision: no negotiations. That decision came out of that September 5 meeting. This is September 6, yet the Premier yesterday said, "Gee, that was a decision made not by the government but by the OPP." The reason I raise this is, how could it be that a decision is taken by this interministerial group with representation from cabinet office, from the Premier's office, from the Solicitor General and from the Attorney General for no negotiations -- that was the decision taken by that group. Cabinet met afterwards and I assume was told about that decision. How could it be that the Premier yesterday said that decision was not taken by the interministerial group but by the OPP?
Mr Clement: Let me say a couple things and hopefully help shed some light for Mr Phillips. First of all, I want to put on the record that I have no knowledge of whether cabinet did in fact discuss that issue.
Second, as to my comment last time about the Premier and his various roles, the context for that discussion was that depending upon what role the Premier is playing, there are different processes at work which reflect his different role. For instance, the Premier doesn't chair cabinet meetings, but he chairs the policy and priorities board meetings, so as chair of that board of cabinet he is undertaking a certain role. The Premier obviously also is the party leader, and as the duly elected leader of the party -- in the broadest franchise, I might add, in Ontario -- he has a different role, and there are different processes at work for Mike Harris, party leader.
Finally, he also plays a role responsible to caucus. We had a caucus meeting today. The Premier doesn't chair caucus, but he spends a lot of time deliberating with his caucus colleagues on issues. Caucus is at times a deliberative body, in my view. I can assure you that no formal notes are taken.
It depends on what role the Premier is playing as to what the processes are for that particular role.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks, Mr Clement. We're going to have to cut short the answer, as your time is up, Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: At the last meeting they said they would make available a document. I haven't seen that yet.
Mrs Lee Allison Howe: I didn't know it was a formal request, but we will submit it to your office. The procedures guide?
Mr Phillips: Yes.
Mrs Howe: Certainly we can make that available.
Mr Clement: My understanding is that they were looking around for it and they have found something. They wanted to ascertain today whether it was a formal request.
Mr Phillips: Dust it off.
Mr Clement: It's got a few layers of dust on it.
The Vice-Chair: Could we have that as quickly as possible? It was requested at the last meeting?
Mrs Howe: It's basically the Management Board guidelines.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, you have 16 minutes.
Mr Bisson: Sixteen whole minutes.
I have a question about a number of staff people and what they do in the Office of the Premier. I wonder if you can help me with that. The first one is Ed Arundell. What did he do in the Office of the Premier?
Mr Clement: He was the director of communications.
Mr Bisson: How long was he there?
Mr Clement: Can I refer this? Mrs Howe, do you remember?
Mrs Howe: It was a period of about a year.
Mr Bisson: One who's still there is Guy -- I can't pronounce it -- Giorno. What is his position?
Mrs Howe: I believe the proper title is director of policy.
Mr Bisson: What does Jane Hart do?
Mrs Howe: Jane Hart is assistant to the principal secretary.
Mr Bisson: What did Scott Munnoch do?
Mrs Howe: Scott was the manager of tour and scheduling.
Mr Bisson: A director of policy, going back to -- say it again?
Mr Clement: Guy Giorno. Just think of buon giorno.
Mr Bisson: I don't want to mispronounce it, because I know that is not the type of thing you should do.
As a director of policy, he would be mostly working inside the Office of the Premier. Most of his work would be done in the office?
Mr Clement: Are you asking physically?
Mr Bisson: Yes, physically.
Mr Clement: Sure. Well, that's where he is on a day-to-day basis, but there might be a premiers' conference or what have you where his policy needs are required there; there might be some travel involved. But in terms of where he on an average day walks to work, it would be the Whitney Block.
Mr Bisson: Would he sometimes be required to set up meetings for bringing people together to discuss issues, bringing large groups of people together, anything like that?
Mr Clement: Are you referring to stakeholder groups and things like that?
Mr Bisson: Yes.
Mr Clement: It's possible. In his job, because it involves policy and he's the head of that department, there's a fair amount of latitude. I'll give you that, Mr Bisson, in terms of how he executes his job. That could very well be a function of his job.
Mr Bisson: What's the policy within the Premier's office when it comes to employees in the Premier's office and their expenses: entertainment expenses, travelling expenses? What's the policy? How does that work there?
Mrs Howe: The staff of the Premier's office, like other employees, are required to submit their expense account forms and they have to --
Mr Bisson: I understand that part. Is there a requirement that if you're going to spend over a certain amount you've got to get clearance from somebody? Are there ceilings on how much people can spend, anything like that?
Mrs Howe: My staff was reminding me that they must follow the Management Board guidelines for hospitality and expenses, and they would have to seek approval for extraordinary expenses. I'm not sure if there's one specific one you're looking at.
Mr Bisson: I'm curious about a particular one for Scott Munnoch. I look at his expenses in terms of what's reported in information we got through freedom of information. What struck me was the size of some of this individual's expense claims. As a former parliamentary assistant myself, I know there are times when you go with somebody to a meeting and you end up picking up the cheque for $60, $80, $100, or $150 sometimes. But there are some fairly large ones here. One in particular jumps out from the paper. I think the number is $2,187 for one such expense. I'm wondering if we can get any detail on what exactly would have been charged for that kind of expense.
1610
Mr Clement: Let me say first of all in terms of the particular request that we'd be happy to take that back and get you and your caucus and this committee some details.
I can say generally, though, that Mr Munnoch attended with the Premier on pretty well every international travel trip that occurred. As you know, sometimes costs in other countries we would deem to be way out of whack, but in those countries they are considered normal. As part of the Team Canada missions, for instance, I know Mr Munnoch was directly involved with the Premier in arranging and being a part of his arrangements with Team Canada and other such ventures.
Mr Bisson: I'd like to get details for voucher 4290. It would have been in the period after November 1996, somewhere around there. It could be, like you say, quite okay, but it just struck me when I looked at the amount that if I had been the minister or the parliamentary assistant and my staff brought me a bill like that, I'd choke. That's the first thing I'd do, then I'd probably put my hands around their neck.
I know the Premier's office at times will hire lawyers into the Office of the Premier or into a cabinet minister's office if something is going on. Is it the practice to pay their law society fees?
Mrs Howe: The policy of the Ontario government is to pay the law society fees for those who are providing legal advice to the government. That goes across the board for all ministries.
Mr Bisson: In the case of Jane Hart, she's an assistant to the principal secretary. That's not a position where you're required to be a lawyer, is it?
Mrs Howe: I believe Jane Hart's position is an executive assistant type of position. She reviews materials for the principal secretary. You'd have to ask Mr Lindsay exactly what legal services she provides for him, but that was authorized through the Premier's office.
Mr Bisson: I'd be curious about that. I accept and agree that in a case where an employee, either working for the Premier or for the ministry -- if they're utilizing their legal expertise on behalf of their employer, of course they should be paying for their professional fees. But I was wondering what an executive assistant -- I've had executive assistants in the past working in government. Some of them have been lawyers, some not. In the case of executive assistants, I've never paid their professional fees. Mind you, I wasn't the Premier of Ontario; I was the parliamentary assistant to northern development, a bit of a difference.
The point is, I just wonder why that is, whether indeed she is giving legal advice, and if so, what kind of advice she's giving. If we can get that kind of information that would be of use as well.
Another thing is that I notice in a lot of the expenses, not for everybody but for certain individuals, that parking is paid. I always thought parking was provided here at the Macdonald Block for employees at the cabinet level. For employees in the Premier's office or the minister's office, normally parking is available in the lot. Who normally pays for that?
Mrs Howe: I'm not certain what item you're looking at, but if it's offsite parking, parking has always been paid for when people are attending meetings outside the office.
Mr Bisson: No argument there at all, but in the case of a couple of people it almost looks like their monthly parking fees are being paid in and about the Legislature somewhere. I just assume that if you're working for the Premier or you're working for a cabinet minister, there's parking provided or you TTC it to work or whatever. What's the policy when it comes to parking?
Mrs Howe: We have some spots that have been provided, and there are others that people are required to pay.
Mr Bisson: What does Dee Dee Heywood do? What is her position?
Mr Clement: She's in the scheduling and tour department.
Mr Bisson: I notice there are a lot of parking charges, but it's not like $10 and $5 and $20; it's a recurring number every month. It's almost as if we're paying the parking. I was just wondering if that's indeed what's going on. Can we get a bit of information on that as well?
What does Judith Parry do?
Mrs Howe: Judy Parry is special assistant to the principal secretary. She works for David Lindsay.
Mr Bisson: Can I have the same information in regard to her parking? There seem to be a lot of parking charges; $150 recurring all the way through.
What does Christine Bujold do?
Mrs Howe: Christine works for the media unit here, as a media assistant.
Mr Bisson: I know it's picayune, but I come back to the point that the parliamentary assistant makes, which is that we need to watch every dollar we spend and we've got to lead by example. In some cases we provide parking, pay for it, and I understand that. In other cases, some employees are not covered in parking. I'm just wondering if special arrangements have been made or if it's because that's the way you have to pay for this spot. That's what I'm looking for in particular, if you can give me that information.
I've got a number of other things. How much time do I have left?
The Vice-Chair: You have another four minutes.
Mr Bisson: In a case where you're an employee, hold a fairly responsible position as a staff member for the Premier's office, is it normal that you pay the moving expenses, or is that just negotiated? Are there any rules about that?
Mrs Howe: There are rules concerning relocation expenses. If an employee is attracted from another community, as part of the attraction to move the person to another city, the government generally pays for relocation, up to a certain maximum, depending on the cost of the move.
Mr Bisson: Can you provide us with what the policy is and the maximums?
Mrs Howe: Certainly. We can do that for you.
Mr Bisson: That'll be all for now.
The Vice-Chair: To summarize, Mr Bisson, it's to make sure the committee is supplied with the following: details on voucher 4290; parking for Dee Dee Heywood, Judith Parry, Christine Bujold, the rationale and a breakdown of the amounts; and the policy and maximum with regard to the rules for relocation.
Mr Bisson: Can I also ask for two other vouchers for the same individual? I asked for 4290. Can you give me 3062 and 3474?
The Vice-Chair: That's 3062 and 3474. Anything else?
Mr Bisson: No, that's it for now.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the government side.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Clement, over the course of the last couple of months I've had people make allegations in my office that the Premier's office staff size has increased. This is rather coincident in that we've had some Liberal and NDP MPPs in our area making guest appearances. It appears that some allegations have been made to that effect by these individuals.
You made reference to the fact that there was a $2.7-million budget for the Premier's staff under the previous Premier. The size of the Premier's budget for Premier's staff at present is how much?
Mr Clement: For 1997-98, the salaries and wages are $2.27 million.
Mr Wettlaufer: The actual staffing levels in the Premier's office under Bob Rae, the previous Premier, without contracted employees: Do you have the actual numbers there?
Mr Clement: I can give you the average staff complement.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's fine.
Mr Clement: Under Premier Rae it was 43.
Mr Wettlaufer: Was that without contract employees or with contract employees?
Mr Clement: I think that was a consolidated number, to be fair. The average staff complement for us has been 33.
Another interesting point, if I may say so, is that in terms of salaries in 1992-93 the Office of the Premier had five staff members earning over $100,000 a year, and now there's only one. I could guess who that person is, but there's only one staff member in excess of $100,000. We've gone from five to one in terms of over $100,000 annual salary.
Mr Wettlaufer: I assume it's not you.
Mr Clement: Oh, no. You have to be non-elected to earn that kind of money.
1620
Mr Wettlaufer: Have we increased our staffing at all over the course of the last two years in the Premier's office?
Mr Clement: The answer to that is a qualified no. The reason I qualify that is, as I said before, that the way we treat some of the contract employees has changed. We've tried to put all the persons who had previously been contracted by other ministries but worked in the Premier's office into the Premier's office staff budget, to be fair and accountable and transparent. Other than that accounting change, there has been no increase from 1995-96 to 1996-97.
It looks here like we went up from 30 to 32 from 1996 to 1997, but that was filling vacancies. As I say, the average was 33, once you took into account all the vacancies being filled. It might have been just where they counted.
Mr Wettlaufer: And there's no anticipation of a dramatic increase in the number of employees, perhaps one or two and that would be about it, maximum?
Mr Clement: That's correct, sir.
Mr Wettlaufer: So what we're looking at in actual fact is a reduction of 10 employees in the Premier's staff from the previous government to this government, which is a reduction of about 25%.
Mr Clement: I think it's quite accurate to say it that way.
Mr Wettlaufer: I can't think of anything else right now.
The Vice-Chair: Anyone else? Okay, do we have concurrence to move to the vote?
Mr Bisson: Hang on. I still have questions, Mr Chair. I thought we were going in rotation.
The Vice-Chair: We have three minutes left. We'll go through again, I guess. If we divide it evenly, it's one minute per party, starting with the official opposition.
Mr Bisson: I left myself about four minutes last time because there were a few things I wanted to ask. I didn't realize. As long as I get a minute, I'll do it quickly.
The Vice-Chair: Anything from the official opposition? No? Mr Bisson, that means you now have two minutes.
Mr Bisson: Very good. I have a question. David Lindsay is still the principal secretary, right?
Mr Clement: Correct, sir.
Mr Bisson: I'm looking at the annual salary range for staff within the Premier's office. It says for David Lindsay between $143,000 and $160,000 a year. I believe that's more money than former Premier Rae made, or most deputy ministers in the government of Ontario.
Mr Clement: I think that's the deputy minister range, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Under the revised pay system you guys gave cabinet ministers and deputy ministers. In actual fact, the principal secretary makes how much? I've got a range. Can you peg it down a bit?
Mr Clement: I'm sorry, I missed the last part.
Mr Bisson: What's David Lindsay's annual wage?
Mr Clement: We don't know. We just know salary ranges.
Mr Bisson: So it is between $143,000 and $160,000. Do you find that a bit excessive?
Mr Clement: If I can explain the reason I'm not giving the actual salary, that is confidential information, confidential between the employee and the employer in this case. That's a standard practice throughout government, that you don't give the actual salary, just the range. I want to assure you that this is absolutely within the deputy minister range.
You asked the question related to some of the changes we made, which of course eliminated completely our tax-free allowance, which I'm in agreement with --
Mr Bisson: Here's my question, before we run out of time.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, you had your four minutes from before, plus another two minutes, so you now have five minutes left.
Mr Bisson: I have five minutes left? I didn't realize.
Here's the question I'm getting at. It appears that your directors within the Premier's office make a salary range between $89,000 and $111,000 and that the principal secretary makes between $143,000 and $160,000 a year. What I would like and request for this committee is a comparison to what directors were getting under the Rae government in his office and what the principal secretary got at the same time.
Mrs Howe: If I may, I believe the records for the previous government have been sealed. We don't have access to those any longer.
Mr Bisson: I can provide them to you if you want.
Mrs Howe: Okay, provide them.
Mr Bisson: I would be glad to compare numbers.
Mr Clement: It looks like you can compare the numbers better than we can, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I will do that in the House.
Don't you find that excessive, though? It's bewildering, because under the last government, the range of salary for the Premier wasn't anywhere near what the principal secretary gets now. Is it not an increase over what was there before?
Mr Clement: I tried to remind you that there was a notable tax-free portion of salaries.
Mr Bisson: Not for staff.
Mr Clement: No, but I'm talking about the Premier's salary. There was a tax-free component.
Mr Bisson: Even with the tax-free part. The point I'm making is if you added the tax-free and the Premier's stipend -- the Premier's wage he gets as Premier and his member's wages as an MPP -- this individual as a principal secretary would make quite a bit more than the former Premier was making. It just strikes me as a very large increase in pay to staff principal secretaries, at least for the Premier. I'd hate to see what principal secretaries are getting for cabinet ministers.
Mr Clement: I'm trying to recall back. As you know, the government of Ontario did do a revision on deputy ministers' salary ranges.
Mr Bisson: They went up.
Mr Clement: They're pegged to market indicators now, so if they are effective and productive, there's a possibility of an upward tick in that. If that's what you're referring to, some of the circumstances involving deputy ministers' salaries have changed. That's fair to say. But if your question is, is it fair, the way I would answer that is to say it is in complete conformity with the details that have been shared with the Legislature.
Mr Bisson: Would the government be interested in providing the same kind of treatment to the employees of the various ministries in the province that principal secretaries and directors and cabinet ministers and deputy ministers received? Would that be fair?
Mr Clement: I personally would love to have a situation where all employees of the government of Ontario and therefore the taxpayers of Ontario are paid according to productivity, but apparently we've got a collective agreement which militates against that.
Mr Bisson: I'm sure if you sat down with OPSEU they would be more than glad to accept that kind of offer from the government. If you were to give the employees of this government the same treatment that deputy ministers got, that ministers got, along with political staff, I think most civil servants would be happy.
Mr Clement: I'll pass that one along.
Mr Bisson: I will too. I'll pass it along to Leah.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, there's one minute left in the time. Would you like to use it?
Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, please.
I find it very interesting that Mr Bisson is questioning the amount of salary etc that individuals are making. I think it should be stated that we feel in our government that people should be paid the appropriate amount. They should be paid what they are worth. If Mr Lindsay happens to have a salary range of $143,000 to $160,000, then so be it; he's worth it.
I also find it passing strange that this man is from the same party many of whose members exceeded their global budgets this year. I wonder if he would allow us to scrutinize their figures as much as he is expecting to scrutinize the Premier's.
Mr Bisson: The answer is most certainly. The rules of the Legislature, Wayne, are that if you overspend it comes out of your pocket.
The Vice-Chair: Except, Mr Bisson and Mr Wettlaufer, we're here to analyse the Premier's office and not any member's. Is there a question directly, or not?
Mr Wettlaufer: No, that will be fine.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Wettlaufer. We'll now move to the vote.
Shall vote 2401 carry? All in favour say "aye." Opposed? Carried.
Shall the estimates of the Office of the Premier carry? All in favour say "aye." Opposed? Carried.
Finally, shall I report the estimates of the Office of the Premier to the House? All in favour say "aye." All opposed? Carried.
I would suggest that the meeting is over. We will reconvene tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1630.