Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

CONTENTS

Tuesday 3 November 1998

Office of the Premier

Ms Marilyn Mushinski, MPP, parliamentary assistant

Mr David Guscott, deputy minister of communications and associate secretary of cabinet

Mr Art Daniels, assistant deputy minister, Ontario Public Service Restructuring Secretariat

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel

Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1542 in committee room 2.

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The Acting Chair (Mr John C. Cleary): Members of the committee, we'll call the committee to order. First of all, we're continuing on from where we left off last week and we have two hours and two minutes left in committee. We will start with the New Democrats for 17 minutes.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I believe my colleague Mr Bisson from Cochrane South asked for some information of a financial nature from the Premier's office when he was here last week: statistics on the actual travel cost of the Premier and his office and the use of government planes etc. Do we have anything back on that? Have we been given anything to help us with that question?

The Acting Chair: Is that directed to the parliamentary assistant?

Mr Martin: I'm not sure who my colleague --

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): There were a considerable number of questions that were asked by both members of the opposition and the third party. With your indulgence, Mr Chairman, while I haven't got them sorted out by party, I will certainly attempt to answer as many of those questions that were raised last week, if you so wish.

The Acting Chair: Is that agreeable?

Mr Martin: Yes. I guess we want answers to those questions, and the sooner we can get those answers, the sooner we can be satisfied and take the appropriate action.

Ms Mushinski: Perhaps what would be best then, Mr Chairman, with your indulgence, is for me to proceed with all the questions that were asked of me that I had made some commitment to responding to this week, if that's OK.

The Acting Chair: Is that agreeable? Go ahead.

Ms Mushinski: The first question that was asked was, what is included in the services budget of the Premier's office and why did it increase from 1997 to 1998? The services budget includes such things as equipment rentals, repairs to equipment, hospitality charges and training development of staff. The services budget in the Office of the Premier went from $30,000 in 1997-98 to $200,300 in 1998-99, for a total increase of $170,300. This increase resulted from a budget increase of $197,300 for accommodations funding that was offset by a budget decrease of $27,000 for participation in the 1% efficiency measure exercise. That's by all ministries, by the way.

In an effort to ensure that accommodation spending is accounted for in an honest and open manner, the cost of maintaining office accommodation has been transferred to individual ministries from the Ontario Realty Corp and it's now government policy that ministries must pay for their own accommodation. This accountability measure was introduced by our government as part of an overall effort to ensure that the accounting systems used by the province more accurately and honestly displayed government spending. Under previous governments, the cost of accommodation was paid by Management Board and was to a certain extent hidden from view of the public. This open accounting system implemented for the Office of the Premier in April 1998 brings the public sector accounting more in line with the private sector. This resulted in the increase to the Premier's office budget of $197,300, and in our view it's brought about a more honest improvement to public sector accounting.

Finally, the Premier's office is participating in the government-wide efficiency measure exercises. This across-the-board initiative is part of the government's commitment to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of ministry programs by reducing operating budgets. The Premier's office's participation in this efficiency measures exercise has resulted in a $27,000 reduction to its operating budget for this year. The net result of these budget-wide accountability measures is, as I said, a $132,500 variance in the Premier's office 1998-99 budget estimates.

It's important to note that if the same accounting system was used in 1998-99 as was used by previous governments, the Premier's office estimates would have actually declined by 2.3%.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the Premier's office works to support the Premier in being accountable to the people of Ontario. It assists in nurturing a dialogue with taxpayers and in responding to the priorities of the people. Above all, the Premier's office meets its obligations to the Premier and the taxpaying public prudently, efficiently and openly through a budget and set of estimates that have been virtually flatlined for three years.

Question number 2: How many staff are there in the Office of the Premier, and what are their classifications and salary ranges? This type of personal salary information -- I believe I mentioned this last week -- is available through the freedom of information process. What I can say, however, is that there's only one person over the $100,000 salary level working in the Office of the Premier. By contrast, in 1992-93, under the former government, there were five people in the Office of the Premier being paid in excess of $100,000.

1550

The Premier's office supports the Premier in his role as the head of the executive council and as the leader of the government of Ontario. The office co-ordinates the government's policy development and legislative agenda as well as the government's communications activities. It also supports and advises the Premier on issues facing cabinet and the government.

The Office of the Premier is responsible for the Executive Council Act, the Lieutenant Governor Act, the Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet Act and the Representation Act, and assists the Premier in carrying out his daily business.

The office is comprised of the following departments: tour and issues management, outreach, policy, communications and strategic planning. The Premier's office works closely with the cabinet office to ensure that there is consistent political and policy advice that flows from the centre of government to ministers and ministries.

Question number 3: How many fee-for-service contracts did the Office of the Premier have last year? The answer to that is that the Office of the Premier did not incur consulting costs.

Question number 4: Why has the Office of the Premier's budget gone from $2.65 million in 1995-96 to $2.96 million in the 1998-99 estimates? As I said in my opening remarks on October 21, when your committee looks at the past years, I think you'll find that the Premier's office budget has remained virtually flat since 1995. In fact, while it was not part of your committee's mandate to review last year's budget performance, I think your committee should be aware and should know that the Premier's office actually underspent its estimated 1997-98 budget by $157,000. Last year's financial prudence is a good example of the three-year trend of the Premier's office budgets. It is a trend we would like to see continue. When you consider that fact, the change between those 1995-96 estimates of $2.65 million and this year's estimates of $2.96 million is easily explained. Simply put, the Premier's office is affected by government-wide Management Board policies as well as other changes that affect the estimates of partner ministries.

The following specific government-wide measures have influenced this year's Premier's office estimates as well as those leading up to the 1998-99 fiscal year. First, social contract funding was restored along with a portion of the Ontario government pension fund contribution. As well, we have already discussed the statutory salaries of the Premier, ministers and parliamentary assistants that were amended in the 1997-98 estimates. When our government eliminated the MPPs' gold-plated pension plan, something we promised to do, and the tax-free allowances, something else that we promised to do, as part of our efforts to make the compensation of elected representatives more open and transparent to the people we serve, this amounted to just under $18,000.

The Premier's office 1998-99 estimates include the transfer of the unfunded pension liability payment to Management Board Secretariat. This was in response to the centralization of the unfunded pension liability payment in Management Board and the according elimination of the chargeback to ministries that takes effect in the coming fiscal year. This transfer of the unfunded pension liability resulted in a $37,800 reduction in the Premier's office budget.

As well, the Premier's office is participating in the efficiency measures exercise. This across-the-board initiative is part of the government's commitment to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of ministry programs by introducing operating budgets. The Premier's office participation in this efficiency measures exercise has, to date, resulted in a $27,000 reduction to its operating budget.

Finally, as I've already stated, accommodations funding has been transferred to all ministries from the Ontario Realty Corp to cover existing accommodation costs associated with properties based upon the value of the space they occupy. The transfer of accommodations funding into the Office of the Premier resulted in a $197,300 increase in the 1998-99 budget.

In summary, while it may differ in many ways from a traditional government ministry, in financial matters the Premier's office is, as we believe it should be, treated like all other ministries. As well, thanks to more honest accounting methods, the estimates before you show that the Premier's office budgets have been virtually flatlined since this government took office.

Question number 5, asked by opposition members, also related to questions particularly pertaining to the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. As I did mention last week, OJIB is a part of the Cabinet Office estimates. They will be reviewed later this year.

Number 6, number 7 and number 8 all deal specifically with Mr Martin's question, what are the travel costs by aircraft and by car for the Premier's travel within Ontario, what are the transportation costs associated with the Premier's travel outside of Ontario, and what was the cost, specifically, of the Premier's trip to Kenora?

On September 28, 1998, the member for Sudbury asked several order paper questions related to the Premier's travel. Cabinet Office staff are currently working with staff from both the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to provide specific responses.

Question number 9: What is the budget, staff, travel costs and expenses of the parliamentary assistant's office? The budget for the parliamentary assistant's office actually decreased from $53,100 in 1997-98 to $51,800 in 1998-99. The budget of the parliamentary assistant's office represents 1.7% of the total 1998-99 estimates for the Office of the Premier. The budget consists of funding for one special assistant to the parliamentary assistant. Other staff in the parliamentary assistant's office are funded through the Legislative Assembly as part of the regular MPP's allowance. As of September 30, 1998, the only expenditures incurred were the salaries and benefits associated with the special assistant position.

Question number 10: What were the expenses for the Office of the Premier's staff for fiscal 1997-98? An information request such as this requires a significant allocation of time and resources to process. Last year, the third party obtained information on this topic through a freedom of information request. The freedom of information process is, we believe, the most appropriate way to access this information.

1600

The Acting Chair: We've got to get some clarification here from the governing party as to whether they want us to continue on in their time or not. The New Democrats' time has been used up, and the governing party now has 20 minutes. Do you want the parliamentary assistant to carry on with that?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Sure, I think so, if she's got more details.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Mr Maves has some questions, and if we still have time, we'd like to bring Mr Daniels forward, I believe.

Mr Maves: Chair, are we just going to go 20-20-20?

The Acting Chair: That's right. We did the 17 minutes with them. Now it's 20-20 until 5:47. I think our two hours and two minutes will be up then. We'll have a few votes to put before the committee and move on.

Mr Maves: I think we'd prefer that she continue answering questions that were put, since she's done research on it. Then we'll have some questions, if the time allows.

The Acting Chair: OK. As long as everybody knows and understands. Carry on. Sorry about the interruption.

Ms Mushinski: Question number 11 -- this one was actually asked by you, Mr Chairman -- why were parks closed by the St Lawrence Parks Commission? This was the one that I actually did attempt to respond to last week. MEDTT can provide detailed information on the decisions that are made by the St Lawrence Parks Commission. As I mentioned last week, I think it's more appropriate if that question was directed to MEDTT since they're the ministry responsible for the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

Number 12: How many civil servants have been laid off since 1995? Management Board can provide detailed information on the number of civil servants laid off since 1995. Again, I believe the question that was raised last week should more appropriately be directed to Management Board.

Another question that was asked, I believe by Mr Bisson: What is the role of the Premier on policy and priorities board? The policy and priorities board is responsible for setting the government's strategic policy agenda and establishing the government's fiscal framework. P&P is the primary cabinet committee dealing with policy decisions. It reviews the majority of cabinet submissions as well as the reports of P&P subcommittees, such as the Who Does What implementation, policy coordination and jobs in the economy. It also makes recommendations, of course, to cabinet for final approval.

Policy and priorities board meets on most Mondays and is currently comprised of the Premier and six ministers: the Minister of Finance, the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, the Minister of Education and Training, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology and the Minister of Health. The Premier is the Chair of P&P.

Question number 14: What is the relationship between the Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office? Cabinet Office, as I'm sure most of you are aware, is a ministry that is headed by the secretary of Cabinet. Cabinet Office supports the secretary of Cabinet in overseeing the operation of the public service. On an operational level, Cabinet Office provides support to the Premier in a number of ways. Cabinet Office assists the Premier with his correspondence, provides bureaucratic advice on policy matters, and ensures that issues are monitored and brought to the attention of the Premier's staff, the deputy ministers and senior public service executives in a timely manner.

There is also a close working relationship between the Office of the Premier and the cabinet office to ensure that the Premier receives the complete range of information and advice and that the two offices provide consistent direction to ministries.

In fulfilling its mandate, the cabinet office manages the decision-making structures of government. This ensures that these structures are effective, efficient and well organized. The cabinet office also provides administrative and secretariat support for cabinet, the policy and priorities board, its subcommittees and the legislation and regulations committee, and coordinates linkages between cabinet and the Lieutenant Governor.

Those are all of the responses to the questions that were raised in the previous two meetings.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. I guess you have another 12 minutes, government party.

Mr Pettit: The member for Niagara Falls will be questioning.

Mr Maves: Thank you for those answers. A couple of the answers that you mentioned caught my ear, one of which was that in the current Premier's office there's only one person who makes over $100,000.

Ms Mushinski: That's correct. That was my response, yes.

Mr Maves: In the previous administration, how many people made over $100,000?

Ms Mushinski: Five.

Mr Maves: Five people made over $100,000. Those would be considered political staff making over $100,000?

Ms Mushinski: That's correct, yes.

Mr Maves: I know an MPP's base salary is $77,000, so that means in the previous administration five people were making substantially more money than MPPs were making, probably the same as cabinet ministers. I'm not sure if you --

Ms Mushinski: I don't actually know what cabinet ministers were receiving, but I would imagine certainly it would be approximately the same as cabinet ministers, yes.

Mr Maves: That's pretty high-priced staff. I'm glad to see that the Premier has gotten a handle on that.

Another one of the answers you gave, I think it was the answer to the third question, was with regard to consulting costs. I thought you had said that the Premier's office had incurred no consulting costs.

Ms Mushinski: That's correct.

Mr Maves: None at all?

Ms Mushinski: None at all.

Mr Maves: We seem to hear that the Premier's office has all kinds of consultants in it. That's not true at all, then?

Ms Mushinski: Not at all. There were no costs incurred at all for consulting services in the 1997-98 year.

Mr Maves: Another thing you talked about was the efficiency measures exercise. It was very impressive to hear that last year, I think you said, the operating budget declined by $27,000 because of the participation in this exercise. I wonder if you or perhaps Mr Guscott could elaborate a little bit about that program, the efficiency measures exercise.

Ms Mushinski: Certainly. I can pass that to Mr Guscott.

Mr David Guscott: I'd be glad to talk about it. There's a program underway involving all ministries which requires them to find ongoing efficiencies in the operations of government. The Office of the Premier participates in this exercise, as does every other ministry, and that resulted, as Mr Maves mentioned, in a reduction of $27,000.

The Acting Chair: Could you introduce yourself?

Mr Guscott: David Guscott, deputy minister of communications and associate secretary of cabinet.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. Carry on.

1610

Mr Guscott: As I was saying, the Office of the Premier is participating in the efficiency measures exercise, and the 1% savings resulted in a $27,000 savings in the 1998-99 estimates for the Office of the Premier. I should add that these are ongoing savings and will continue at 1% each year through 1999-2000 and 2000-01. This initiative is the result of a government commitment with respect to delivering its programs through a reduction in the ongoing operating costs of each ministry's budget. I should say that it's 1% for ministries whose operating budget is less than $50 million a year and it's 2% per year for those whose operating budgets exceed $50 million. Ministries are not allowed to offset the reduction through taking capital funding from other programs and applying it to the savings or through any new tax revenue proposals.

I might add that the Ontario public service pension contributions were exempt from the calculations of the efficiency measures.

Once again, it was a $27,000 saving in the current fiscal year being reviewed by these estimates.

Mr Maves: This might be throwing you a bit of a curve, asking for a little more detail, but are there any examples you can give of some of the efficiencies we've found through these programs?

Mr Guscott: I can give you some in various ministries. I've worked in about six different ministries and in three since this program has been underway. There were substantial reductions in the Ministry of Transportation's programs with respect to some of the consulting contracts that they participated in. In the Ministry of Labour there were examples related to better use of staff vehicles and better targeting of initiatives between the staff of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the inspectors of the Ministry of Labour. Those would be operating examples.

In the Premier's office, as you can see from these estimates, almost all of the budget is in the salary area. It's a very low cost area with respect to other direct operating costs and it just has been through a reduction in those direct operating costs. There is an ongoing effort to achieve more efficiencies in how messages are moved, courier services, long-distance phone calls etc.

Mr Maves: Excellent. I hope that exercise continues in important savings.

I also understand during your comments you said that the Premier actually underspent his budget from estimates in 1997-98. I heard that appropriately?

Ms Mushinski: Yes, that's correct. Let me refer specifically again to the breakdown. It was the new accounting and the transfer for the housing costs, if that's the correct term I've used there. Actually, if the same accounting system had been used in 1998-99 as was used by previous governments, the Premier's office estimates would have actually declined by 2.3%, which I believe translates into about $132,500 for the 1998-99 budget estimates.

Mr Guscott: That's with all the accounting measures.

Ms Mushinski: That's with all the accounting measures. You were asking specifically for -- OK, I'm sorry. If you're asking specifically for the services budget, it went from $30,000 in 1997 to $200,300 in 1998-99, for a total increase of $170,300. That resulted in a budget increase of $197,300 for the accommodation funding, which I called housing earlier. That's from my old municipal days. Sorry about that. That was offset by a budget decrease of $27,000, which was the participation in the 1% efficiency measures exercise. Essentially, that resulted in a total of an underspent amount of $157,000.

Mr Maves: Excellent.

Ms Mushinski: Sorry about that. I misled you when I said $197,000.

Mr Maves: I don't think you misled me. I would never think you'd do that.

Ms Mushinski: I wouldn't want to mislead you.

Mr Maves: You did mention that it's a small part of the total, but your own parliamentary assistant's budget, which was I think you said 1.7% of the total, actually fell from $53,900 in the previous year down to $51,800, which is also an impressive saving. You're to be congratulated on that. Is that just from a little bit of belt-tightening here and there?

Ms Mushinski: A little bit of belt-tightening, not quite as exorbitant in salary, that sort of thing.

Mr Maves: Super. Thank you very much. A few more minutes, Chair?

The Acting Chair: You have another four minutes.

Mr Maves: This is just a question about some of the staff who would be in the Premier's office. You mentioned in some of your opening remarks a number of about 408,000 net new jobs that had been created in Ontario since September 1995. This is just a phenomenal record when you compare it with the 10,000 net jobs lost over a five-year period in the previous government.

Ms Mushinski: I think so. It is phenomenal.

Mr Maves: I just wondered whether that kind of statistic would be compiled in the Premier's office, or is that compiled somewhere else?

Ms Mushinski: Are you referring to the OJIB? Are you wanting information with respect to Ontario jobs?

Mr Maves: That statistic about 400,000 net new jobs would probably be compiled not necessarily by the Premier's staff but in the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism or --

Mr Guscott: The information with respect to net new jobs in Ontario is an important part of the intelligence-gathering part of the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. They keep close tabs on what's happening in terms of identifying barriers to growth in that sector so those barriers can be removed.

Mr Patten: That's an oxymoron.

Mr Maves: Similarly, another statistic you gave was that over 300,000 people left welfare since the government took office, which is another staggering success story, I would say. That again would be something that would be compiled by Comsoc and not necessarily the Premier's staff?

Ms Mushinski: Yes, it would. That would be compiled by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

It's important for you to appreciate that it is the Premier's role and responsibility to communicate, to consult and to coordinate. When I referred to those particular statistics, while they are indeed compiled specifically by the ministries responsible, it's important for us to communicate that information from the Premier's office, just as it is to consult with the people of Ontario to develop appropriate policies in response to their concerns.

Mr Maves: Again, there were similar statistics that were mentioned in your opening remarks. For instance, the government promised when it took office to maintain a health care spending envelope of $17.4 billion, and now it's up to actually $18.5 billion or maybe even higher, I read the other day in the press. That again is something that's compiled and brought forward probably by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health.

Ms Mushinski: Absolutely. Again, it is important for me to convey the context in which the estimates are presented to you today on behalf of the Premier.

The Acting Chair: We'll move on to the official opposition.

1620

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm substituting for other members, so it's interesting to enter this surrealistic world of estimates. The first question I'd like to ask is, how come you didn't use up any of my time when you were answering all those questions, Marilyn?

Ms Mushinski: I'd be happy to repeat them if you'd like, Mr Patten.

Mr Patten: I have, as you'll understand, some difficulty in believing -- by the way, who is the staff person who makes over $100,000 in the Premier's office?

Ms Mushinski: That would be the chief of staff.

Mr Patten: There's nobody else?

Ms Mushinski: Nobody else.

Mr Patten: And there are no contracts that the Premier's office has with anyone else in terms of advice, or the Premier's office has not asked any other office of cabinet to pick up any costs related to any advice to the Premier's office?

Ms Mushinski: That's correct.

Mr Patten: Unbelievable. What's the relationship of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, which I gather is related to the Cabinet Office?

Mr Guscott: That's correct.

Ms Mushinski: That's part of the Cabinet Office, yes.

Mr Patten: How is that set up? Was this a request from the cabinet secretariat?

Mr Guscott: The Ontario Jobs and Investment Board is set up to help develop a strategy for Ontario's industry well into the next century. Because it operates at a very high level and coordinates the activities of the nine to 11 ministries that are involved in the economic development field, it makes sense to locate it in a cabinet office where that kind of coordination could take place.

Mr Patten: That's kind of strange, isn't it? This isn't an arm's-length board. This board actually coordinates all the economic activities of all the ministries?

Mr Guscott: The estimates for Cabinet Office are scheduled, but the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board is out now operating public consultations with respect to getting advice from the public and private sector interest groups and others on the future direction for the economic vision for Ontario. The board aspect of the board actually is a board composed of the Premier, ministers of the government and private sector representation to provide advice on the information received in the consultations that are now underway.

Mr Patten: By the way, who heads up this board?

Mr Guscott: David Lindsay is the president of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board.

Mr Patten: What was his previous position?

Mr Guscott: His previous position was principal adviser to the Premier.

Mr Patten: Where is his office?

Mr Guscott: His office is in the Whitney Block.

Mr Patten: How far from the Premier's office?

Mr Guscott: Several floors from the Premier's office.

Ms Mushinski: And several floors from the cabinet secretariat.

Mr Patten: Has he changed his office?

Mr Guscott: I don't believe he's changed his office as he's been president of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board.

Mr Patten: It's kind of a cosy relationship. When that board supposedly sent out that material explaining the great job that the government was doing, even with the picture of the Premier in it which cost a couple of million dollars, did that money come from its own budget or from another source?

Mr Guscott: Mr Patten, you're starting to get into questions that I don't have direct knowledge of in my capacity, but the Cabinet Office estimates are scheduled for the committee.

Mr Patten: OK, we'll find it there.

Ms Mushinski, I'm sure you really enjoy this experience. If I were you, I don't think I would. You have to protect the Premier, of course, but is this kind of scenario that the Premier pays no consulting fees for any services whatsoever unfair or implausible? The job of the Premier's office is to coordinate pretty well everything that happens out of the government collectively, and presumably individually if the Premier or his staff or a committee of cabinet are not happy.

Interjection.

Mr Patten: I'm talking about the Office of the Premier, which includes the Premier. The Premier receives no other paid advice, is that what you're telling me?

Ms Mushinski: I think I've answered the question in terms of consulting fees. If you continue to have concerns about OJIB, I can tell you that the previous NDP government, for example, spent $7.6 million on Premier's counsels in 1991 alone. There were all kinds of examples of consulting fees paid for by previous governments.

Mr Patten: Exactly. That's what I find it incredible that this Premier doesn't have any.

Ms Mushinski: Under the previous government, the Premier's office staff totalled 42. I believe this was mentioned last week. It should be stated that only 25 of those staff were officially paid for and recorded by the Office of the Premier. Other ministries paid for the other 17 staff members' salaries. This practice ended in fiscal year 1996-97 when the estimates for 1995-96 were restated to include the cost of these staff. That amounted to $761,500. In fact, the 1995-96 estimates were $2.65 million for the Office of the Premier, not $1.89 million as the third party and their colleagues have stated in the past.

Mr Patten: We're talking about a shell game here. We're talking about whether it's paid out of this envelope or that envelope.

Ms Mushinski: Are you speaking about the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board?

Mr Patten: I'm talking about that and other initiatives. I'm talking in particular of the advertising campaign, which is extremely self-serving. Every time we ask the Premier, he mentions, "Here is the amount of money that was spent by other governments." I would like to ask legislative research if they might not do a content analysis of the previous two governments in terms of where that money was spent.

Frankly, I can remember being in cabinet and receiving a warning from Premier Peterson to all the cabinet ministers that said: "I don't want to see any of your mugs on any advertising. If it's for information for a ministry, that's what it is." I think that was abided by fairly well.

To just throw out the figures that were spent in a particular category doesn't tell you the whole story. I find it somewhat embarrassing as a member of the Legislature to see the boldness of putting out information that says nothing about anything in terms of content other than the political position of the government, to release and to try to justify their approach to education or to health care or whatever. I find that abhorrent and I'm sure some of the members of your party do too. Using the resources of the taxpayers seems to me to fly in the face of what your Premier says he stands for.

1630

I would like to find out the expenditures, particularly of the advertising of the jobs investment group from Mr Lindsay, former secretary to the Premier. I am not convinced that the relationship is as arm's length as you might suggest.

I would like to go on. I'm not the labour critic at the moment but I was up until about a month ago, and I had a chance to talk to a lot of people in the public service. I was speaking to an ex-deputy minister, who shall remain nameless, who left not too long ago. The ex-deputy said that morale was extremely low, that there was an incredible shortage of middle managers and that the deputies and ADMs remaining were burning out because of the pressure they received.

I ask this because it relates directly to the Premier and Premier's office in terms of policies related to the public service, and they're always glad to show they've chopped the public service. It has gone to such a point that I'm sure most of the members here, in terms of their experience in their ridings -- I get complaints, and I feel like I'm an Ombudsman for the overall sector that I'm part of, or the Legislature; I'm not part of government, of course. People call and say, "I cannot get through." "We cannot get through." As you know, if an MPP calls, you're probably in a position to receive a phone call back and then play the role of the middle person in trying to find the answer to the concern that has been presented to you by the constituent who raised it in the first place.

What is your view related to the health of the Ontario public service? Do you feel it's a very happy workforce; that the people are feeling good about what they do; that there is a general sense of contentment and a general sense of pride about the profession in which they're working?

Ms Mushinski: I think that, perhaps, is a question that should be responded to by Mr Guscott.

Mr Guscott: I'm pleased to take that question. This is what I live. The sense of pride in the public service now is approaching unprecedented levels, I can tell you. That has to do with the fact that we went through a period where the staff did feel quite put upon and quite unclear in terms of the political and the non-political aspect of public service. That balance has been restored, and we are now involved in initiatives, some of which this committee heard a little bit about last week and I hope will hear more about today from Mr Daniels. We have initiatives underway now that are causing us to win awards in terms of public service, and that's really what it's about.

When I say "public service," I don't mean that generally; I mean service to members of the public. We're actually now getting visits from governments from around the world to see how we're doing it. I hope you'll have a chance to hear some of that in more detail from Mr Daniels in a few minutes.

I would say that to a large extent the sense of pride in public service has been restored, that people do now see a challenge that's a stretch challenge but one they're prepared to take on and take on in a big way.

Mr Patten: I congratulate you, because you're one of the few I've met. If you know me, I tend not to be super-partisan. If I say something that isn't true, then call me on it, truly. I try to deal with the facts the way I see them. I don't know whether you deal directly with the public any more, but I must tell you that the public ain't happy. They are certainly not happy. It's an all-time low in terms of level of service. So, if there are a lot of people who are coming to visit Ontario public service, ask them to drop by my office, because I'll give them a few other areas to check out as well.

Mr Guscott: Perhaps as I'm starting to answer this, I'd ask Mr Daniels to assist with this, because we have some facts and figures that are hot off the press related to what the public feels about public service in Canada and in Ontario in particular.

I should add that there are in fact initiatives underway of a general nature dealing exactly with what you're talking about. There isn't good enough service with respect to answering telephones in the Ontario government. Everyone from the secretary of cabinet on down feels that way. There are precise and detailed programs underway right now to change that. While the proof is in the pudding, when your constituents start to see and feel that difference, I can tell you that the change has begun, and it's a change in recognition of the fact that none of us feels that service interface has been as good as it could be.

There are several other channels of public service that are opening up. The committee heard a little bit about Ontario Business Connects, not anything yet about Service Ontario, but those relate to it as well.

Perhaps Mr Daniels could talk a little bit about this very recent survey. In fact, I'm not sure it has been completely released yet, but it's very recent information.

Mr Art Daniels: First of all, I'd like to talk about the question --

The Acting Chair: Mr Daniels, could you please --

Mr Daniels: Oh, I should say who I am. My name is Art Daniels. I'm the assistant deputy minister of the Ontario Public Service Restructuring Secretariat. My job is to talk to staff across the OPS about restructuring.

Mr Patten: Restructuring? This isn't the health restructuring?

Mr Daniels: No. Public service.

Mr Patten: Oh, public service restructuring.

Mr Daniels: I've had an opportunity since 1997 -- I'm seconded from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- to speak to over 30,000 staff at 300 meetings about public sector reform, both in Ontario and worldwide and where we fit in and what the directions are. At those meetings, people can ask questions and talk about their frustrations, but they really are enthused about the direction we're going.

An indicator -- and I think this is really important, Mr Patten, because I look to rewards and recognition as a way of tapping into people's pride. The Ministry of the Attorney General this year had a pride and recognition program where 2,200 employees were nominated for recognition for public service, not by their managers, not by their bosses, not by their deputy ministers, but by each other, for initiatives they had undertaken that should be recognized. I think that tells you about a healthy organization, where people work together and have pride in what they do.

Ontario started an Amethyst Award program, which celebrates excellence, again, from your peers.

Mr Patten: How long has that been going?

Mr Daniels: This will be the sixth year.

Mr Patten: There used to be one in government services, which goes back 10 years.

Mr Daniels: I started one in CCR in 1985, so there are lots of them. But the one that was for the whole public service -- we decided we should recognize those people who really stand out in the hall of the Ontario public service -- the largest number of nominations and recipients will be honoured this year. There will be over 30 recipients -- Ontario public servants who stepped up during the ice storm in the emergency area and in the Ministry of Agriculture. It's a great year in terms of that. I was reading over the nominations. I'm not on the selection committee; I'm the executive lead.

I'm also the vice-president of the Quarter Century Club. We want to honour people who have worked for a long time in the public service in terms of their volunteer work. Again, we're putting an honours program out, because people do even more than at the job.

I have not had the same kind of feedback that you're getting. I'm seeing people who are looking forward with pride, are prepared to salute each and to talk about their successes. I did a survey this year as part of the restructuring to ask people to send me some of the best practices that they felt very proud of, and it's a huge text.

Mr Patten: What's the rate of turnover, Mr Daniels?

1640

Mr Daniels: I'm not sure what the rate of public service turnover is, but it's pretty low; in some areas, negligible. At CCR, where I worked for a number of years, we surveyed in terms of performance, and we always got a pretty high rating of around 87% job satisfaction. That's in a high-tech organization that's changing every minute. I'll show you some material on that.

Mr Patten: When was this?

The Acting Chair: We'll have to turn this over to the New Democrats now. Time is up.

Mr Martin: If I might pick up from Mr Patten before I get into my line of questioning, I don't think anybody for a second is questioning the dedication and the commitment of the Ontario public service. They've shown time and time again how committed and willing they are to do the job, to go beyond the call. What concerns me and, I'm sure, Mr Patten is that there are fewer and fewer of them to actually do that and to carry the can in front of the tremendous challenge that confronts us today in Ontario.

This brings me to the question that I want to bring to the parliamentary assistant particularly. Flowing from your answers to the questions -- and I appreciate your putting on the record today some answers to the questions my colleague brought before the committee over the last few days -- it's obvious that this government is consistently wanting to and being successful in shrinking government and downsizing the role government plays in the lives of all of us who call Ontario home. More and more, you're turning over what government used to do to the private sector. While there may not be specific consultants or contracts we can point to or tie to the Premier's office, certainly the Premier gives leadership, according to your definition of how everything flows and the role that he plays on P&P it is the Premier's office that gives leadership and is ultimately responsible. The turning over of more and more of what the government does to the private sector is in fact what's happening.

When we look at figures that are now coming out about what's happening in the private sector, the fact that corporations out there are making ever-increasing profits and the salaries the CEOs of these corporations are getting in some cases are becoming, in some people's view, almost obscene, at a time when government believes things should be delivered in a more cost-effective way by the private sector, that you would not be unhappy with that surprises me.

I look at some of what we've had come before us over the last two or three weeks, for example, the exorbitant amount of money you've paid the person you brought in to restructure Ontario Hydro. I remember when we were government and we paid some $260,000. That was an amazing amount of money to be paying a civil servant.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It was $260,000, and the Tories thought that was outlandish.

Mr Martin: It turns out that you've brought in a hired gun from the States and you've paid him over $1 million. Not only that, but you've thrown in, to boot, a pension program that will see this guy continue to take money out of the public purse in Ontario for years after his work is done. Plus, I'm lead to believe that there were a number of other people hired at the same time to help him with that work. Am I not correct, Mr Maves?

Mr Maves: That has nothing to do with estimates in the Premier's office.

Mr Wildman: I suppose it doesn't, considering the Premier doesn't believe he's the leader of the government.

Mr Martin: I would say it certainly does, given the role that the parliamentary assistant suggested a minute ago the Premier plays in giving leadership to all of the things that happen in the various ministries and the streamlining that has been done so that control is in fact securely and firmly in the Premier's office.

That the Premier would have hired his own good friend and political supporter to oversee Ontario Hydro, in the person of Mr Farlinger, and then Mr Farlinger -- I would expect with the blessing of the Premier, in that I'm sure they still get together from time to time and talk over things -- went out and hired this hired gun from the States, this American who this government thinks -- it seems to me anyway, because I've got some other examples to share with you before I finish. Not only does the private sector do it better, but American private sector people do it better. We have these people coming in to restructure Ontario Hydro who are getting paid extraordinarily high wages.

Then we have the example today that was raised in the House.

Mr Wildman: Wasteful wages.

Mr Martin: Wasteful wages, I would say. Some people in the province I know and interact with who make a wage of between $20,000 and $40,000 a year and are thankful for that see this as quite obscene.

The Acting Chair: Mr Martin, do you have a question for the parliamentary assistant?

Mr Martin: It's coming.

Mr Wildman: He has to put it in context.

Mr Martin: That's right. It takes a while to put this in context. Today we heard in the House of the very disturbing contract the government seems to have cut with this Andersen group, which is now doing a whole lot of things.

Mr Wildman: They're doing well.

Mr Martin: They're doing extremely well going after the poorest in the province to see if they can get any more out of them. You'll remember, Mr Chair, that the first thing this government did when it got elected in 1995 was cut 21.6% out of the income of those in our communities who were at the bottom of the pile.

The Acting Chair: We're still looking for the question.

Mr Martin: It's coming. Just have a little patience, and it will be there.

Mr Maves: You're starting to challenge the Chair.

Mr Martin: I'm not challenging the Chair. I'm asking him to have some patience, and I'm sure he will. The first thing this government did, and I was astounded, when it got its hands on the levers of power in this province was to cut 21.6% from the income of the lowest-paid people in our communities. Now we find out that they've hired this American firm, Andersen, to come in and see if there's any more they can get out of these people, see if they can suck any more out of these folks.

We have these very high contracts with these people who are restructuring Hydro, we have the revelation today that we have this Andersen group which is being contracted by the government to get money out of the folks on welfare, to collect on overdue student loans, to collect on grants and loans that were made to small businesses in this province under the aegis of the Northern Ontario Development Corp, and the list goes on and on. These people are being paid an exorbitant amount of money, in fact a contract that will see them get, it says, 90% of what they collect; so the government gets 10%, they get 90% of what they collect. That's not to speak of the money that is being paid to the people who are now producing and putting out this very attractive advertising campaign to sell the programs of this government.

1650

Do you not see some inconsistency there? On one hand, you've got government reducing, you're beating up on civil servants by way of contract negotiations and closing down public offices because you think they're not efficient, while on the other hand you're contracting with primarily, it seems, American private sector corporations to do work for you that the Ontario civil servants used to do. Is there not an inconsistency there? Is there not something there that the Premier would find difficult to rationalize or to justify?

Ms Mushinski: I detected there were a few questions in there.

Mr Martin: Good.

Ms Mushinski: One pertains particularly to the recent hiring of some Ontario Hydro executive individuals. That particular question, of course -- I have to explain why I'm here and that is clearly --

Mr Patten: Because you have no choice.

Ms Mushinski: -- to take questions and speak to the estimates of the Office of the Premier. I'm not equipped to answer in any detail whatsoever questions pertaining to other ministries, for example. I'm not aware if the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology has had their estimates considered by this committee at this time, but I suggest that questions pertaining to the matter of the Ontario Hydro hirings should be referred to those estimates.

With respect to the auditor's report, which has also been raised, once again, I can't speak to the specifics, but what I would say is that we actually welcome the auditor's report and we welcome it for one simple reason. The auditor plays an extremely important and critical role in government. He protects the interests of taxpayers and in that respect he absolutely does play exactly the same role as the government. It's important for you to know that we too are here to protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers. We don't believe we are the government. We're the party that has been elected --

Mr Wildman: Then who is? Who is the government if you're not?

Ms Mushinski: We're the party that's been elected to fix --

Mr Wildman: To govern.

Ms Mushinski: -- to fix government --

Mr Wildman: But you are the government.

Ms Mushinski: -- and that's why we wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations of the auditor and we will ensure that they're acted upon.

Mr Wildman: If the Premier is not the head of the government, he should turn back his salary.

The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.

Ms Mushinski: In response to the question surrounding the comments with respect to the Andersen contract, once again I can't speak to the specifics of that and believe it is a question that should more appropriately be referred to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

There was one final statement that was made with respect to government advertising, communications, I believe. In response to that, I would say that this government has made substantial --

Mr Wildman: Wait a minute, you said you weren't the government.

Ms Mushinski: -- changes to the health care and the education system. In fact, we've made more changes to the health care and education systems, something that has been sorely needed for many, many years --

Mr Wildman: So you are the government.

Ms Mushinski: -- clearly, as has been reiterated by both Mr Cooke and Mr Sweeney, far more so than in the history of this province, those changes that we have made.

Unlike the previous two governments, who absolutely refused to address the outdated and ineffective systems that I've just referred to, I would say to you that we had the courage to initiate these reforms and we continue to ensure that the taxpayers' needs are being served. We believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that our taxpayers know what these reforms are and what they mean to the public, because the public wants to know.

If we want to get into specifics of what previous governments have done, let's talk about the NDP and how they spent their advertising dollars. In 1994, $6.6 million for TV ads for Smile, Ontario, and that actually came to a total of a $10-million advertising campaign. It was a program to put your picture on the health card in 1994.

The Acting Chair: Does that have something to do with this year's estimates?

Ms Mushinski: It's really in response to the rather long and detailed question that was asked by Mr Martin when he did --

The Acting Chair: You have three minutes left.

Mr Martin: I have a supplementary.

Ms Mushinski: It provides the context in which I feel required to respond to some of the allegations that he has made. If you want to also look at --

Mr Martin: It seems the parliamentary assistant has indicated by her answer that there is no connection between the Premier's office --

The Acting Chair: Ms Mushinski is going to finish, and then you've got the chance of another question.

Ms Mushinski: Getting back to the previous government's advertising campaign, $1.5 million was spent on television ads about Jobs Ontario, which, I might say, did not create a single sustainable job -- not one. To quote Mr Rae on advertising -- Mr Rae, who suggests that capitalism isn't a really bad thing -- he states: "Successful governments have a communications and advertising budget to beat the band. Unsuccessful governments think that advertising is sinful."

If we want to turn to the Liberal record, in 1990 the Liberal Party spent $50 million, which was $7 million more --

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Chair: I think I've been gracious in allowing the minister to answer some of the questions I've tabled. If she's going to monopolize the rest of the time that I have, I have a supplementary that I'd like to ask. It sounds like she's going to go off now into the Liberal record when they were government, and I don't think they denied that they were government when they were government.

The Acting Chair: I think we're getting off the track on the estimates questions that were asked, so I'll ask you to ask your supplementary. Two minutes.

Mr Martin: Thank you. There was a suggestion by the parliamentary assistant that the contracts that went to Ontario Hydro and Andersen and that the advertising campaign that we've seen flying around us over the last number of months had nothing to do with the Premier's office and that that was something that would be more readily answered by somebody else or that was under somebody else's responsibility.

Yesterday we tabled in the House a document that actually ties the advertising campaign, and I suggest that we could probably find documentation that would tie all of the other initiatives that I've mentioned in my previous question, to the government. I'd like some answer from the parliamentary assistant as to why she thinks that this is acceptable, how this fits in with the concept of good government that we've all come to expect in Ontario and how she is going to distance herself from this.

In this document which is about the advertising it talks about --

The Acting Chair: Mr Martin, there's only one minute left.

1700

Mr Martin: OK, very clearly: "The emotional impact of our advertising is perhaps even more important than the content of the copy"; "Most Ontarians believe that the government's motive in education reforms is cost-cutting." It goes on to lay out the Premier's and the government's position in front of these advertising campaigns. Are you saying that this doesn't flow from the Premier's office and that the Premier's office isn't responsible for the expenditures on these campaigns?

Ms Mushinski: I have not personally seen the document in question and I really do not feel equipped to respond to that.

Mr Wildman: Supplementary. The Premier did admit in the House yesterday that what he thought was a junior staffer, a junior staffer in his own office was the one responsible for this document.

The Acting Chair: One at a time.

Mr Wildman: Are you denying that?

Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, with respect, are you going to give me an opportunity to --

The Acting Chair: Yes, but it's got to be fast.

Ms Mushinski: OK then, I'll just say that most certainly I will do my very best to get a response to the members.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. Governing party.

Mr Pettit: I think, Mr Chairman, Mr Daniels had more to say. Do you want to finish your presentation?

Mr Daniels: Thank you very much. I've brought a couple of extra copies of the brochure for the Commonwealth innovation awards for Mr Martin, Mr Wildman, Mr Patten and Mr Maves. They weren't here the other day, and it sets the context of what I'm going to talk about.

It was a pleasure to be before the committee, Mr Chairman, the other day, to talk about the award Ontario won in the first international competition in the Commonwealth for public service excellence in reform. The document I handed out indicates the ten finalists from throughout the Commonwealth, from Singapore to Australia, England and South Africa. Ontario was the most successful of the presenters and won the gold award against programs across the Commonwealth that we continue to benchmark, like the service initiatives and the service charters in the United Kingdom and Centrelink in Australia. So it's with pride that I talk about the --

Mr Patten: Was this in 1985? When did you get the award?

Mr Daniels: Last month, September. Well, a month and a half ago, 1998.

A quick summary of what it's about: it's about service to customers. That's what the whole thing is about, service to the citizens, and it comes from a number of studies, one most recently completed that David Guscott mentioned earlier, which indicated that citizens want government that's timely; in fact they want government that's both timely and expeditious. Timeliness, as I said last week, is important to citizens across Canada. This was a study sponsored by Ontario, the federal government, the provinces of New Brunswick and Manitoba, to give you an idea.

If you look across Canada for provinces that are innovative on customer service, I think you'll find that they are in the lead. We wanted to know what Canadians -- and in our case we had special data about what Ontarians want from their public service. They want services that are timely. They want services that are delivered through single windows. They don't want to have to go to various ministries and various operations to get service. They want the service to envelop them. They want single windows for business, single windows for land information, and I'm going to talk about some of those single windows.

They want less red tape and they want the government to measure up in terms of standards of service, so we put forward a number of our single-window services. Last week I talked about Ontario Business Connects, and I'd like to spend some time on the other three, Service Ontario, Direct Access and Teranet, which are also electronic single windows for service in the province. The Ontario public service prides itself in having a vision of providing services to our customers and our citizens that is when and where and how they want it, so it has to be available electronically.

Last week I talked about Ontario Business Connects, which took a bunch of windows and brought them together. To start a small business in Ontario, there were multi-ministries, multi-contacts, and it would take you 12 to 15 weeks to complete a business start. In Ontario today, we have 100 workstations providing six licences and having a 96% customer satisfaction. In fact, it's not just through workstations; you can now start a business in Ontario -- again, when we were presented with our award, this is why countries are coming to benchmark Ontario. There is nowhere else in the world you can start a business in 20 minutes or start your business on the Internet in the middle of the night, if you have a good idea and you want to get going. That's what the economy is based on --

Mr Patten: You can start a business in 20 minutes?

Mr Daniels: Yes, 20 minutes.

Mr Patten: I'd like a list of people who have started a business in 20 minutes.

Mr Daniels: Sure, 100,000 people used the system last year.

Ms Mushinski: I didn't hear that question.

Mr Patten: You can start a business in 20 minutes?

Mr Daniels: Sure, in the old days to get a business name, a business licence, all the permits took 14 to 16 weeks. All those permits are brought together in 20 minutes and you can print the master business licence on your home computer.

Ms Mushinski: Tremendous improvement.

Mr Maves: Unbelievable.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Why? Have you got a good idea, Richard?

Mr Patten: Many.

Mr Daniels: Another innovation that puts Ontario right at the top in terms of service is the whole area -- and it's quite a busy area; a lot of people don't realize how busy it is -- of automobile liens. Each year there are a million inquiries and two million searches as people transact cars, and in the old days, not too long ago, the process we had was very labour-intensive. Before we had Direct Access, people would call, wait for 15 minutes, wait in a queue. We didn't take credit, you had to have money on account, you would have to wait for our operator to call up the data and read them to you over the phone, then you would write down that the car was free and clear or, if there were any liens, what they were.

As you could guess, when people are transacting those kind of data over the phone there are a lot of opportunities for errors, omissions, mistakes, but now we take credit cards for lien searches. We used to be only open from 10 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon, Monday to Friday. Not many cars are sold in those hours, as any of you who are in the car business know. We found from the used car dealers and the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association that most cars are transacted on Saturday and in the evenings. Now we're open from 8 am until 8 pm, Monday to Saturday. That allows the business community, the banks, the car dealers, individual consumers to call right in and get an electronic on-line lien search, but more importantly, to do an on-line lien registration from the bank right in rather than going into the government and transacting in paper. It is fully electronic. We're running at 96% electronic transactions. This is virtual government, what all government will be like in the future, in the transactional world.

Mr Patten: I hope not.

Mr Daniels: Oh, I think for transactions you don't -- this is customer service.

Ms Mushinski: Absolutely.

1710

Mr Daniels: That allowed the province now to reduce its expenditures by half, to go from a $4-million expenditure to a $2-million. More importantly, because the service is more accessible, more people used it; not that the fees were raised, this is very important, but accessibility increased revenues. That branch operates at a net profit of $36 million. At the same time, it provides fast service, more products, higher customer satisfaction.

Another technology that's quite innovative, and it does bring together the public and private partnership, is Teranet. I talked a bit about it the other day. Before we had Teranet, a land information system, land parcels had been transacted in the same way since 1795. We had developed four million land parcels in Ontario in two systems, one an old British registry system and one the 1895 -- that's the modern one -- Torrens system of land registry or land titles. We had 400 million pieces of paper in the land registry offices -- 400 million pieces of paper would circle the globe at the Equator four times.

In order to create an electronic system -- of course, you could only transact in the county you lived in; the land registry offices would only allow you to transact locally -- we had to have a service that would not be limited by hours, not limited by jurisdiction, and would take those 400 million documents so that people could search the history of the property and image them. Can you imagine imaging that kind of paper functionality? With our partnership with Teranet, 250 million pages of documents have already been imaged; 2.5 million properties have been turned from paper-driven to electronic.

In the very near future, you'll be able to register and search title from anywhere in the world, not from the local land registry office. If somebody in Europe wants to open a business in Canada, they can actually look at our Web site for small business start-up or business start-up. They can look at the land that they wish to acquire. Teranet integrates all land systems so that you can see all the adjoining properties, the values, the major routes of transportation, your taxation. All that information is brought together so that business, commercial and residential people can transact electronically. You can transact from your home.

The result for government of a project like Teranet is electronic access to land systems. There were 61 civil servants transferred to Teranet. Teranet now employs directly 1,000 people and indirectly up to 2,000. It created jobs, jobs with the highest retention in any high-tech industry in Canada -- low turnover, high morale. There's a recent case study done on the morale and -- the question Mr Patten asked -- these were civil servants at the heart of this company that is now competitive and creative. It is the world's largest land registry project. It is the world's largest imaging database. To back-file that many documents --

Mr Patten: They're not government officials any more.

Mr Daniels: No, but the government is a partner and the --

Mr Patten: They're working for a private firm, are they not?

Mr Daniels: They're working for a partnership of which government is a 50% shareholder.

Mr Patten: Who are they working for? Are they public servants or are they --

Mr Daniels: They're OPSEU members. They're not public servants, but they are represented by a public service union. They are owned by the province of Ontario and by the partner groups, which include SHL Systemhouse, Canada, and EDS Canada. The major shareholder is a company called Teramira, which is a pension trust group of Altamira, a very strong Canadian concern.

That's Teranet. We should be really proud of everything it's accomplishing for Canada. It's selling its products in Lebanon, Jamaica, Trinidad, Shanghai. It's a world-class company using data, services and programs developed in the province.

Now I'm going to talk about the last one. It's probably the one most people are familiar with, and it's our partnership with IBM to deliver electronic services to individuals. We've created a single window for business through OBC, a single window for land information through Teranet, a single window for financial services through Direct Access, but the most important one is the individual and how they transact with government, particularly around transactions. I'm not talking about value-added things like social services and that, but when it's a transaction, people want to be served quickly from their homes and they don't want to waste time lining up in a government office. They want their services electronically.

Some 86% of businesses recently surveyed by Decima, by our Ontario Business Connects, said they preferred to file electronically. Only 6% of businesses prefer to file paper. The world has turned to electronic services and the government has kept pace.

Service Ontario is a spectacular success. It provides vehicle licences, driver histories. You can change your health card address. It has the whole automobile lien -- this is the thing I talked about earlier, the personal property search system. It has personalized licence plates, you can pay parking fines and for hunting and fishing licences.

The strategy behind Service Ontario is very simple and totally focused on the customer. We call it the wallet strategy, something as simple as that. People carry a wallet around and in that wallet are several government -- at all levels of government -- transactional cards. In the old days, if you lost one card you'd lose them all, usually. In one part the government asked you for two other proofs of identification. It was kind of silly.

We're developing a strategy that brings all transactional services together. It wasn't long ago when all our drivers' licences expired on the same day and people would wait until the last minute. It would expire in February and March, the coldest times in Canada. When I tell this story to people from other countries and tell them it expired in the middle of winter -- it wasn't a very thoughtful thing on our part. I don't know what we were thinking back then. Now, of course, you can get your driver's licence, as I did this year, using the kiosk, in three minutes. I did it on my birthday. I waited until the last possible moment. I was working late in the government office and I walked downstairs and transacted, because that one is open all the time. Most of them that are in the malls are open as long as the malls are open, so you can get your driver's licence on Saturday, Sunday, Monday night, Tuesday night, your birthday -- wait until your birthday. It's an amazing program and it's very simple. If any of you have used it, it's an on-screen technology.

Mr Patten: We don't have any in Ottawa.

Mr Daniels: Sure you do.

Mr Patten: Where are they? I've never even heard of them.

Mr Daniels: One's at the Rideau Centre.

Last year, 700,000 people used these machines and next year over a million will use them.

Mr Preston: But not Richard.

Mr Daniels: But all people will eventually. When you use them you'll be amazed. As I say, there are astonishingly real benefits. You don't see public service get those kinds of marks for service, commitment and delivery: 97% said it saved time -- that's 700,000 people they surveyed; it's not like one or two people caught out in front of a building; this is real, high-end stuff -- 95% said it was easy to use and 94% said it was convenient.

The most important question is -- remember now, you're paying the government for your parking tickets, your driver's licence, you're transacting in money, and you're saying, "Hey, I enjoyed this" -- when do you hear people say they enjoy giving the government money? They remember what it was like when it was a service where you lined up in the cold or for hours and wasted your lunch hour waiting for the government to serve you. That's not going to happen in the future. People won't wait for that, and they don't, and you can see, as I say, astonishingly real benefits.

Other countries across the world want to be like Ontario. The Minister of Public Service in the United Kingdom, David Clark, in a speech in the United Kingdom, not here, but to civil servants and leaders of the business community in Great Britain, said, "I want to be like Ontario." In fact, Mr Blair went on to say himself that he'd like to provide citizens of UK with electronic services 25% of the time by the end of his term.

Everybody in the world is benchmarking Ontario now. Now that we've won the award and shown our leadership, and more and more countries will come here to study Ontario's public sector reform and service delivery models. As it is already, we've had over 30 countries with 3,000 public servants. We're in partnerships in developing similar programs in Arizona, the Czech Republic. We're partnering with the government of Lithuania -- my roots -- to help them set up a public service.

1720

Am I almost finished? I'll do my last two slides very quickly.

The Acting Chair: You'll have to hurry, because your time's up.

Mr Daniels: OK. I guess I'll use one slide then.

The Acting Chair: Make it fast.

Mr Daniels: When I was representing us here, we said we have products that have benchmarked nationally and internationally. We have partners in other parts of the world who have modelled on Ontario. But the thing I think we should be most proud of is that we have 96% citizen-customer satisfaction in high transaction areas.

Mr Maves: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The presentation was impressive. I just wonder if Mr Daniels could get some hard copies of that presentation to the members of the committee. That's the first part.

Second, maybe you could get unanimous consent to dispense with the remaining time and move to the vote.

The Acting Chair: Is that agreeable? There's 20 minutes left for the official opposition and five minutes left under our hours for the New Democratic Party.

Mr Patten: I'd like a few minutes, anyway. I'll take half my time.

The Acting Chair: It's your turn now.

Mr Patten: By the way, Mr Daniels, thanks for that. I think that's great. What percentage of households in this area have computers?

Mr Daniels: I can't say, in terms of individual computers, but we found that 86% of small businesses have Internet capability.

Mr Patten: Households.

Mr Daniels: I think I've seen it somewhere, and it's going to be quite high by the year 2000. It's pretty high.

Mr Patten: You're skating around. You're a good politician, Mr Daniels.

Mr Daniels: I don't have the answer.

Mr Patten: About 14% or 15%, maximum. Yes, most businesses have computers.

Ms Mushinski: As of what year?

Mr Patten: Let's say last year. It was 13% or 14%.

Ms Mushinski: I'll bet it's higher than that.

Mr Patten: Let's say it's 16%. Let's say it's 20%. It doesn't matter. My point is that most households don't. It depends on your income level. The higher your income the more likely you are to have a computer, which is not to discredit what you're doing here, because I've seen the threads of that go back for many years, especially on the land transfer arrangements. I think there was a program called Polaris. I remember that very well. I think that was the pioneer of what has --

Mr Daniels: It was the precursor of Teranet.

Mr Patten: -- eventually emerged, so it's great to see that that's happening. I agree with you; there are many services that can be like that.

Ms Mushinski: We are talking about kiosks, not in households.

Mr Patten: Yes, I understand that.

Ms Mushinski: And we're talking about serving small business.

Mr Patten: I understand that. But we also have to serve everybody.

Ms Mushinski: We understand that too. The kiosks serve the public too, by the way.

Mr Patten: Yes. My point is that that's only one part of the area of service. I would venture to say, as I mentioned before, that members would receive calls where they've had difficulty -- you will know this, parliamentary secretary -- in the area of the family support program, with the centralization of computers into Toronto. It's great if you live in Toronto, which is obviously the apex of the world. Most of the public servants are from Toronto. A lot of the politicians are from Toronto.

It skews the perception of managing a province, a huge piece of territory, which is very diverse and very regionalized. I'll tell you, you don't have to go very far outside of Toronto, and the further out you go, the more embittered people are about the advantages of being in Toronto.

First of all, if you're in Toronto you don't have to call long distance. I always tell my constituents, "Call collect," because there are certain places that used to have an 800 number and now don't. There's a discrepancy in service to people, especially if they're from outside of Toronto and outside of 416.

I've even had people phone the Premier's office when they were upset. I said, "Don't tell me. I'm not government." They said, "What's the Premier's number." I said, "Here's the Premier's number." They'd phone the Premier's number, and whoever answered said, "Who is it?" I said: "Call collect. Why should you pay for this? You pay your taxes like anybody else in Toronto. Why should you not have the same advantages?" So they're asked: "Who are you? What do you want?" The person said, "I'm a taxpayer." Then they took the call.

Ms Mushinski: I'll let Mr Daniels speak to the more technical aspects of your question, but every service that he referred to is no more accessible in Toronto than any other part of this province.

Mr Patten: Yes, it is. They live here too. Where do you live? Where does the deputy live? Mr Daniels, where do you live?

Mr Daniels: I live in Toronto, but I've lived in Peterborough and London. I've lived all over Ontario.

Mr Patten: You live in Toronto. Everybody here lives in Toronto. All the advisers live in Toronto, so you get this perception that comes out of Toronto --

Mr Daniels: I've worked in --

Mr Patten: I'm not trying to dump on Toronto. I'm just saying it's a fact of life, and we always have to be aware of it. That's all I'm saying. I want to talk about other services.

Ms Mushinski: But you have left a misconception here that the services that have been described by Mr Daniels are more accessible in Toronto than they are in other parts of the province --

Mr Patten: I didn't say that. I said that --

The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.

Ms Mushinski: -- and I think he should have the opportunity to respond to that.

Mr Patten: I did not say that. I said what he was talking about was fine, and then I went on to say there were other kinds of services, like family support services, where people from all over the province had a hell of a time. They had such a difficult time that the government placed a special number in every MPP's office in order to respond. They had centralized everything in Toronto, and as we know, they left hard-copy files in some of the regional offices when they closed them down so fast, because the government's wish was to save money. I'm saying to you that hurt the service to a lot of people and a lot of families throughout Ontario. It still goes on, because they're human services. I'm not talking about the hard services, just transactions like this kind of thing.

The Acting Chair: Three minutes, Mr Patten.

Mr Patten: I'm talking about those services, and if you're saying to me that you're happy with all of the services for family support services, the Ontario disabled program, which took over for family benefits program -- the same thing, another computer program here.

I had a man who was 48 years of age and had injured his back. He had always worked all his life and never wanted to be on welfare. His doctor told him he couldn't work. It took him six months to be able to get on to this particular program. There was no transitional program because it was in Toronto. He had to write to Toronto. Toronto would only send him something. The guy could hardly read and write English. The Greek community association was helping him and I was helping him to try and get this kind of service. I'm just saying that there are areas of service to people who have human needs and problems in their families where I think we could do a better job. I'm not saying you're the only government, by the way, that has not. I don't think there's any government that has been as adequate as we should be.

I also would like to ask you why this centralization to Toronto is taking place. Do you think that, ultimately, this is going to give you the best bang for your buck? Because it's obviously --

Ms Mushinski: In speaking to the disadvantaged and the disabled, there are things that we are doing. It's unfortunate that you weren't here last week, Mr Patten, because Mr Daniels did describe a particular pilot project that actually does serve the most vulnerable and disabled citizens. It's a pilot project that we've started in Thunder Bay and it uses technology. I'd like Mr Daniels, just very briefly, Mr Chairman, to explain what that program is, because I think it will respond in some degree to some of the concerns you've raised.

1730

Mr Patten: I have another question if there's any time. How much time have I got?

The Acting Chair: We can't do the vote until 5:47. The way it was, you had your original 20 minutes and Mr Martin had five and it would bring us to --

Mr Patten: No, I said I would cut down my time. I just want to know how much time I've used.

The Acting Chair: You're out of time. In fact, 10 minutes you're out.

Mr Patten: I want another two minutes, if that's all right.

Let's chat afterwards and you can tell me about this program, OK? Because I want to get this question out.

Ms Mushinski: It is in keeping with our whole approach to moving service out into the community vis-à-vis the centralization that you've just talked out. It's an important program that has been started by the Ontario public service to address the very things you have said. I urge you to pursue that because it does respond to those concerns.

Mr Patten: I truly would be interested in that because I think that's the propensity of all governments. I say that as a non-partisan comment. It's something that big governments have to particularly watch for because it's so easy -- you read the Toronto newspaper, you listen to Toronto radio and you begin to see the world through the eyes of them. But it is a provincial government; that's what my point is.

Ms Mushinski: It is, absolutely.

Mr Patten: My last question is one that was first raised by Mr Wood. The Premier said that one of his junior staff, I don't know who it is -- presumably you hadn't seen this, or you said you didn't see, this communication strategy that was developed. Is that what you said, for the record?

Ms Mushinski: I believe I did say that I hadn't received the document that was referred to by Mr Martin.

Mr Patten: So you're not aware of which junior staff it was that the Premier referred to who were considering this or working with this.

Ms Mushinski: No, I'm not aware.

Mr Patten: And who would have hired Mr Watt to put this in it? This is in the Premier's office. He agreed that it was yesterday. If it was for the Premier's office, why wouldn't it be paid for by the Premier's office? Who's paying for it, this advice? Here's a consultant. James Watt is not a public servant. He's not full-time on the Premier's staff or any other staff. He's obviously being paid as a consultant. Who's paying him?

Ms Mushinski: Again, I have not seen the document. I'm not aware of any of the details with respect to Mr Patten's question whatsoever.

Mr Patten: This principle has been developed through Jamie Watt's observations of focus groups when they were first writing the document. Can I ask you if you can table that at a future point?

Ms Mushinski: As I've said, there are absolutely no consulting costs in the Premier's office.

Mr Patten: The Premier himself said this was a document from his junior staff where they were looking at it. If they were looking at it, who paid Jamie Watt to put this copy together, this particular communications strategy, which is quite insidious, I must add, in its strategy to, essentially, dupe the public on their perceptions about things and use taxpayers' money through the various ministries, I suppose.

Interjection.

Mr Patten: Well, they are, through the various ministry advertising budgets, dictated by the Premier's office. I would like to know who paid Jamie Watt and which staff did he relate to?

Ms Mushinski: As I have said, I am not aware of any of the details pertaining to Mr Patten's question, but I will take the question under advisement.

Mr Patten: I would like an answer to those questions. If you don't know, fine, I can appreciate that, but I'd like you to dig into it and report back to the committee on who paid Jamie Watt and who are the two staff, apparently, or whichever junior staff, related to him on this particular strategy.

We will watch to see whether there's another advertising campaign that will emerge in relation to the school closures. We all know who's going to pay for that.

If it's not from the Premier's office, why is the Premier on TV? Why do all those pamphlets have his signature? Why do they all say, "Write to the Premier of the province," with his address? This has nothing do to with the Premier's office, nothing at all to do with the Premier's office? It's incredible, it's an embarrassment. I'm ashamed to say I'm even connected with this kind of stuff and I'm sure a lot of members of your party are too. It's terrible.

Ms Mushinski: As I've said, I will take the comments and the question under advisement.

The Acting Chair: Mr Martin, five minutes.

Mr Martin: I want to go back to the issue of leadership and the responsibility the Premier's office and you as a parliamentary assistant have re the direction this province finds itself going in. A report came out last week that was reported widely in the news. It's called The Growing Gap: A Report on Growing Inequality Between the Rich and Poor in Canada. If you read it, everything in here speaks of a reality that is quite troubling. Lower-income people in Ontario are actually getting poorer while the rich are getting richer and the middle class is disappearing altogether.

Mr Preston: Could you tell us who put out the report you're quoting from so we'll know?

Mr Martin: Centre for Social Justice.

Mr Preston: Who is that?

Mr Martin: They are a think tank at 836 Bloor Street West in Toronto, "a progressive think tank engaged in research and educational activities designed to strengthen the movement for social justice. The centre brings together people from universities, unions, faith communities and other community organizations. Founded in 1997 in order to carry on much of the work of the former Jesuit Centre for Social Justice, Faith and Action."

The numbers that were put out are actually quite troubling and you should have a look at them, particularly the last couple of years. Even with the gap growing in the last 15 years, the bottom end were still increasing their income ever so slightly. It's only in the last two years of the study, 1995 and 1996, that you actually see the poor losing ground while the rich continue to increase in leaps and bounds.

I just wanted to put into the record and then perhaps have the parliamentary assistant respond quickly, if I might, on a couple of the comments out of the report. It says, for example:

"The government of Ontario cut welfare by 22% in 1995, affecting more than 750,000 people. In the spring of 1998, pregnant mothers on welfare lost a further $37 monthly nutritional supplement allowance, which the Premier referred to as 'beer money.'

"A single employable person on welfare can get a maximum of $515 a month now for all allowances and shelter costs. At the bottom, the issue is not lifestyle enhancement but trying to escape abject poverty."

Then it goes on to say:

"The appropriate incentives for the elite are richer and richer bonus and stock option packages. For the rest, the appropriate incentives are high unemployment rates and restricted benefits from unemployment insurance benefits and lower social assistance. The explanation we are given for both phenomena is free market forces."

This type of reasoning leaves a lot to be desired, in my view. It goes on to talk a bit about the five faces of the gap. I'm just going to mention a couple here.

"The employment gap: Access to paid work, any work or enough work, is key to understanding what has been happening to the poorest families over the last generation. The casualization of work has hit young people and families the hardest but has become a permanent feature of the labour market."

Then it goes on about the income gap:

"Governments have made radical changes in the way they provide income for people without a job and how much income support people can expect. The erosion of this help has been most rapid since 1995. The social stability enjoyed by Canadians for much of the past 25 years is starting to give way to increased inequities in the distribution of income."

I could go on further, but I don't think I need to.

Mr Preston: It sounds like it was written in 1992.

Mr Martin: I think you understand the points I'm making here. The gap is growing, and it's growing because of the move, particularly by this government in the last two years, to everything being driven by forces of the market. I shared with the committee earlier some examples of where this government is now turning over a lot of the work it does to private sector firms that don't seem to have any concern re how much their executives make, while at the same time programs they continue to run are taking more and more away from those who are at the bottom end of that income scale. Are we to expect more from this government of that kind of initiative? Is that where we're going as a province? Does that concern you at all, as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier of Ontario?

Ms Mushinski: First of all, it's important to note that the statistics in the Centre for Social Justice report actually only go to the year 1996, which was less than one year into our mandate, so the study results are really a report card on the opposition party years in government.

We actually agree with the findings of the study. The middle class took it on the chin really hard, both under the Liberals and the NDP. They hiked personal income taxes on individuals making $25,000 annually by $290. Mike Harris has cut their taxes by $510. We've actually made it our business to be the champions of the middle class. The reason we've done that is because we're sick and tired of seeing successive provincial governments put the screws to hard-working families. That's the reason I have a resolution that's going to be debated on Thursday asking for even further cuts for the middle class, because we believe it's time government supported the hard-working middle class and stopped putting the screws to them like previous governments did.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Mushinski. That completes the time allotted for the review of the Office of the Premier. I'd like to thank Mr Daniels, the parliamentary assistant and the committee members.

It comes time for a vote now on the Office of the Premier and I've got to put the question: Shall vote 2401 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall the estimates of the Office of the Premier carry? Those opposed? Carried.

Shall the report of the estimates of the Office of the Premier be reported to the House? Agreed.

Mr Preston: Are we adjourned?

The Acting Chair: Yes, adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1744.