CONTENTS
Wednesday 28 October 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 Frank Miclash (Kenora L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1540 in committee room 2.
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): We are ready to start. We are continuing the round of questioning which began yesterday. I'm just waiting for Ms Mushinski.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Sorry, Mr Chair.
The Chair: We are, as you know continuing the round of questioning. We'll begin with the representative for the third party, Mr Bisson, please, 20 minutes.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would like to start with one of the issues you raised yesterday, Parliamentary Assistant, while you did your discourse here before this committee late yesterday afternoon. You took great pride in talking about the whole issue of the property taxation announcement that was made by Ernie Eves but a week ago this Friday. The question I want to ask you is, would you admit that the purpose of the response the finance minister had in introducing that legislation was to fix a problem that your government had first created in creating a new assessment system?
Ms Mushinski: This is a matter of the estimates of the Premier's office today. Yesterday I spoke in terms of my responses to what I consider to be the outrageous allegations of Mrs Pupatello and I put those outrageous allegations into the context of my submissions on the Premier's estimates.
Having said that, I then responded in my statement to the Premier's estimates, or the estimates of the Premier's office. The question that has just been raised has nothing whatsoever to do with the estimates of the Premier's office. The statements that I made were in complete response to the outrageous allegations of Mrs Pupatello.
With respect to the estimates coming from the Minister of Finance as they pertain to any of the services that he delivers, I would suggest that any questions pertaining to those estimates be referred to the Minister of Finance.
The Chair: Ms Mushinski, your opening comments were very broad in nature. They are in keeping with the practice at estimates in the sense of looking at the broad scope of what ministries do with the money they have. Certainly the function of the Premier's office is broad, does reach into every avenue of government, and I think that was fairly reflected by yourself in the remarks you gave at the opening. So if you're asking for the question to be ruled out of order, I can't do that. It is your choice, of course, how you decide to handle the questions that are posed to you.
Mr Bisson, I'll take that time out of your time and we'll proceed.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair. That's quite --
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I'd like to comment on that.
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Young, you'll have a chance to comment as soon as the third party is done. You can use your time any way you wish.
Mr Young: On a point of order, Chair: The estimates committee is reviewing the operating expenses of the Premier's office. That's why we're here. We're here to look at the Premier's office as a financial entity: salaries and wages, employee benefits, transportation and communication, supplies and equipment, services, transfer payments, other transactions, recoveries etc. That's why we're here.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young. I've already made a ruling on that.
Mr Young: I wasn't finished, Chair.
The Chair: Well, so far you're not making a point of order, Mr Young, and I'll ask you to make it very quickly because otherwise I will move on.
Mr Young: If you'll allow me to finish, Chair, that's why we're here. We're here to review the Premier's office expenses. That does not include the operations of the entire government. We've already heard from the Ministry of Health. The opposition had plenty of time to review the Ministry of Health estimates and the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is our opportunity to find out how the Office of the Premier is operated, and it's a great opportunity to do that. So if we get off on all these other tangents, we're not fulfilling our mandate given to us by the Legislative Assembly.
The Chair: Mr Young, if you look at the orders under which we operate and the practices that you yourself have participated in, we have given broad latitude for questions to members of your party, to members of each party, in order to best understand the public purpose to which those funds are put. We will adhere to that during these proceedings. I will monitor them for that value, but that has been our practice and I don't see any basis under which we would change that. I believe it is in keeping with the orders under which we operate, and I would ask Mr Bisson to continue.
Mr Young: Chair, with regard to --
The Chair: Mr Young, I hope I understood your point. If there are parts of it I didn't understand, I'd be happy to entertain those, but on the basic fundamental point as to whether questions can be more broad-ranging than the actual specific salaries and so on in the Premier's office, I believe I've dealt with that and I invite you to address your opinions about that during your own time, not Mr Bisson's.
Mr Young: Why don't we hear what Mr Bisson has to say.
Mr Bisson: I am moved by the vast amount of experience that the members from the government side have on the procedures and traditions in the estimates committee. I learn something every day when I listen to the comments that just preceded. But I think what's clear is that the Chair has made a ruling and, second, it's in the tradition of what we've done here within the estimates committee. But more so, by the very nature of the response made by the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, who commented on almost everything that her government has done, this gives us the ability to raise a number of questions, and that's exactly what I plan on doing.
I will go back to the parliamentary assistant and I will ask a very simple question. We saw the finance minister last week make an announcement to introduce the seventh piece of legislation in the property tax reform fiasco in regard to the assessment system. My question to you was, is it your view that that particular legislation was to fix a problem created by the government with previous legislation?
Ms Mushinski: I will repeat to you that my second speech yesterday was a response to the comments that were made by members to my first speech. I might add that the Chair yesterday agreed that questions directed to me, as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, here to represent him on the Premier's office estimates, should only be directed to the Premier's office estimates. That's what I'm going to confine my responses to.
The Chair: I would ask you to relate the questions to the activities at least of the Premier and the Premier's office. I believe that is in order.
Ms Mushinski, I have in front of me the draft Hansard, where your comments at the introduction of this office were very wide-ranging, and I can enumerate for you the different areas they were in. But I hope you will appreciate that we will ensure that it's the Premier's office we're interested in and, obviously, by the definition of that office, it has a fairly wide scope in terms of questions about government. So Mr Bisson, if you could help us with that, I would appreciate it.
Mr Bisson: I will make it a very direct link. As we know, as in every government present, past and also future, it is the Premier of the province and the Premier's office that decides basically what's to happen with his or her government over the life of that particular government. So Mike Harris decides what legislation he would like to see passed, he decides what he wants his cabinet colleagues to be working on, he decides what he wants his caucus working on vis-à-vis the policies that are important to him and his party. That is the role of the Premier's office.
I also say, in previous estimates that we've had here -- this is not the first time we've had a parliamentary assistant to a Premier before this committee. If you go back and look at the Hansards from previous encounters, you will see that parliamentary assistants have responded to fairly far-sweeping issues that have been raised here at estimates vis-à-vis the various workings and machinations of the government.
I will put the question to you again. The finance minister made an announcement last Friday, the seventh piece of legislation in a long line of legislation dealing with property tax reform vis-à-vis the assessment system. Is it your view that this latest piece of legislation was introduced in order to fix a problem that had been previously created by the government?
1550
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The estimates committee reviews the estimates of a number of different ministries, a number of different offices. The purpose for that process is to give this committee an opportunity to delve in some detail into the budgets and activities of the particular offices whose estimates are brought forward for scrutiny. It's inevitable that areas of general government policy will overlap from one office to another and there is reason for some latitude in some of the discussion, but to get into the detail of issues that are within the purview of a ministry that is not before us, I submit, is to depart from the purposes for which we are convened here today.
I am suggesting that the question that has just been asked does exactly that. The question goes into areas that are within the purview of the finance ministry. The finance ministry is not before us today for scrutiny and the question, I submit, is out of order.
The Chair: Mr Parker, I appreciate your point and I'd like to address it this way: Mr Bisson, you should be inquiring about the operations of the Premier's office. The specific matters which we have the time today to examine should be directly linked to the activities of the Premier's office, but that can of course include a wide range of policies just by the nature of what the Premier's office does within the government. So I would ask you to keep that in mind.
Ms Mushinski, I would certainly support that your answers can only relate to the Premier's office's involvement in the various issues put in front of you and you can't independently respond on behalf of ministers or ministries that aren't in your purview. I hope that addresses your concern.
Mr Bisson, I will ask you to go forward, but I would just ask everyone's co-operation to adhere to that guideline and otherwise to understand that I have ruled on the matter of relevancy for these discussions. Thank you.
Mr Bisson: We will try this again. Do you, Parliamentary Assistant, Oh great one, believe that in the end the Premier is accountable to the people of Ontario through his office?
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, perhaps with your indulgence, I could just explain what the role of the Premier's office is.
Mr Bisson: That should be enlightening.
Ms Mushinski: 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 coordinates the government's policy development -- and I say "coordinates" -- and its legislative agenda and, as well, it coordinates the government's communication activities. It also supports and advises the Premier on issues that face 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. The Premier's office assists the Premier in carrying out his daily business.
The office is comprised of several different departments: tour and issues management, outreach, policy, communications --
Mr Bisson: Chair, it's fairly evident that the parliamentary assistant has decided --
Ms Mushinski: Excuse me, I have not --
Mr Bisson: -- that she's not going to respond to any questions but read a script. I asked you a very simple question and that question was, is the Premier of Ontario, in the end, accountable for his actions? Yes or no.
Ms Mushinski: I believe that you will find that my response, which I'm continuing to give, will answer that question.
Mr Bisson: I asked you, is the Premier's office accountable for his actions? Yes or no.
The Chair: Mr Bisson --
Mr Bisson: It's clearly evident that what you're going to do is sit there and read some script that you've been given by your masters. I'm asking you a simple question, as a citizen, as a politician: Is the Premier's office in the end accountable for his actions? Yes or no.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, come to order, please. Your question has been put. The parliamentary assistant is within her purview to answer the question in the way she sees fit. We have allowed for some dialogue between each of the questioners and the person responding. However, that has to be of a respectful variety and it has to allow the person a chance to answer the question. If at some point you have dissatisfaction with her answers, you can register that, but we cannot get into harangues here on either part. I'd like to hear the maximum of questions and answers take place.
Ms Mushinski, I would ask you to continue. She has indicated she is answering your question, Mr Bisson. Please continue.
Ms Mushinski: The Premier's office also 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 ensuring that consistent political and policy advice flows from the centre of government to ministers and ministries.
I might add that, as far as I'm concerned, this committee has received all of the information it requires in compliance with standing order 63, which states: "The minister or person answerable for the estimates considered by the standing committee on estimates shall provide each member of the committee and the clerk of the committee with advance briefing material which shall include such information as growth rates, interim expenditures for the previous fiscal year, and an explanation of the programs and funding by particular item."
The information that has been provided to you, as a committee, is exactly what is required under the standing orders. Therefore, I think I'm well within my rights to suggest to you that I will only take questions about our particular Premier's office expenditures, the vote items, and not those of other ministries which have constantly been asked of me in the last two days.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Parliamentary Assistant, for that very well-read script, but I'll ask you a very simple question. Is the --
Mr Young: That's uncalled for.
Mr Bisson: Well, I want to point something out. It's my time and I will point it out. You've been on this committee for a few years, Mr Young, and others. Normally we are not very partisan in nature at this committee. We ask serious questions about serious matters. You've been around enough to know that.
The Chair: OK, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: It's my floor and I will use it the way I see fit, Chair. I am directing this to the parliamentary assistant. You came into this committee and politicized the process by the response you gave us yesterday. Basically, you came in here and you responded --
Mr Young: You weren't here last week when Sandra Pupatello ranted for 20 minutes about Windsor.
The Chair: Order, Mr Young.
Mr Bisson: The point is, you came in here and politicized the process by the response you gave us yesterday. I went back and looked at Hansard, at your opening comments, which were equally fairly political in terms and very broad-sweeping in regard to the responsibilities of the Premier's office. That, therefore, sets up the following response of questions. I'm going to ask you a very simple question: Does the Premier, in the end, have control over the priorities and planning committee? Yes or no.
Ms Mushinski: Again, I will tell you that I am here to answer questions pertaining to the Premier's office.
Mr Bisson: We are asking questions.
Ms Mushinski: I have already stated that my speech yesterday was in direct response to the speech and the allegations contained therein of the member for Windsor-Sandwich, Ms Pupatello, and --
Mr Bisson: So he's not responsible for P and P.
Ms Mushinski: -- I am going to confine the responses I have to the particulars of the estimates that are in my hands.
The Chair: I'm sure you don't intend to challenge the ruling of the Chair but we have had broader latitude than what you've described. In choosing, as you are free to choose, to respond in any way that you see fit to the inquiries put to you, you are outside of what has been the tradition of estimates.
Ms Mushinski: I consider it to be outside my jurisdiction, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Excuse me, I will make this point and hopefully it will assist to have some fruitful discussion in the several hours that we have left in front of us. In each of the cases of the ministries, we looked at the direct and indirect responsibilities to which public dollars are put. I would encourage Mr Bisson and the members of the committee to reference directly the activities of the Premier's office --
Mr Bisson: That's exactly what I'm doing, Chair.
The Chair: -- because that is what we are permitted to do on this committee and indeed what we are charged to do on this committee. It is more than specific line-item dollars; it is the purposes to which they are put. I think that has been the tradition of the committee.
Ms Mushinski, I would remind you, your opening remarks were of that broad nature. I certainly thought they were in order and in keeping with that tradition in estimates committee and part of the useful debate that this committee can achieve. I would invite you to perhaps understand that. I will ensure that the questions you get pertain to the activities of the Premier's office and I hope you will see fit to provide responses in the best way you can.
Mr Bisson: A very simple question, again, Mr Chair.
1600
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chair, if I may respond to that.
Mr Bisson: Chair?
The Chair: One moment, Mr Bisson.
Ms Mushinski: I want to assure you that I'm perfectly willing to contribute to fruitful discussion around the whole issue of the Premier's estimates.
The Chair: Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair.
You say you're perfectly willing to provide answers in regard to the Premier's office and I ask you a very simple question: Does the Premier's office have anything to do with priorities and planning committee, yes or no?
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, if I could take that question under advisement. I'll have the response later.
Mr Bisson: OK, it's under advisement, so we don't know if the Premier, according to this committee, has anything to do with priorities and planning committee. Does the Premier's office have anything to do with coordinating the decisions or leading the decisions or leading the discussion at Cabinet Office?
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chair, I will get back to what I was just saying about the Premier's office.
Mr Bisson: We're not too sure. All right.
Ms Mushinski: The office coordinates the government's policy development and legislative agenda --
Mr Bisson: So we're not sure.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, I'm having trouble hearing Ms Mushinski.
Ms Mushinski: -- as well as the government's communication activities.
Mr Bisson: I thought she was finished. Sorry.
Ms Mushinski: I believe that responds most directly to the question that is being raised.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much.
Ms Mushinski: The Premier is responsible specifically for certain pieces of legislation. I believe I have explained and articulated what those pieces of legislation are, but I'm perfectly willing to repeat them, if you so wish.
Mr Bisson: No, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm asking a very simple question.
I've asked two questions. The first one was, is the Premier responsible for coordinating or leading the priorities and planning committee in any way? Does he have any connection? "We don't know," is the answer, or you'll get back to me sometime.
Ms Mushinski: No, I did not say that. I'm waiting to answer that.
Mr Bisson: I've asked about Cabinet Office -- "We're not sure." I'm still asking the question.
I'm going to ask you a third question. I've ask you about P and P, and I've asked you about Cabinet Office, and we haven't got a response as to the Premier's involvement with those two bodies. Let me ask you this one: You said earlier in your comments that part of the responsibility of the Premier's office was to coordinate legislative initiatives through the House. Does the Premier's office have anything to do with coordinating legislation that goes through this assembly? Yes or no.
Ms Mushinski: Perhaps I can hark back to what I said earlier about the pieces of legislation that the Premier's office does coordinate. The Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet Act sets forth the composition and duties of the board, and I'm quite sure that Mr Bisson is aware of this. The board is the committee of the executive council.
The executive council, as I'm sure most of you are aware, but I will repeat it, is responsible for: developing reviewing, coordinating and advising on policy and priorities relating to long- and short-term goals of the government in relation to social and economic needs; the general outline of budgetary and fiscal policy and levels of taxation and priorities among expenditure programs in accordance with the goals; recommendations from policy field committees; program proposals; reappraisal of existing programs and governmental relations.
As I have already explained to this committee, the Cabinet Office has a separate set of estimates and this estimates committee is, in my understanding, to be dealing with those estimates at some future time, and the coordination of legislation is carried largely by the House leader's office.
Mr Bisson: We're going to try it again. You just read to us, for the second time, the responsibilities of the Premier's office, which include the coordination and direction of legislation; the communication strategies and policies of the government; the overall policies of the government; the coordinating of legislation through the House through the House leader's office; P and P, priorities and planning; Cabinet Office.
You also talked about, "The government, through the Premier's office, establishes the long-term and short-term goals of the overall government, is responsible for determining a number of the financial matters in regards to the various ministries and the ministry of finance, and responsible for overall policies."
So I have a very simple question: Does Mr Harris, the Premier of Ontario, in the end, have anything to do with establishing the policies of the government of Ontario through his office? Does he do anything like that, or is he just a bookend at the end of the office somewhere?
Ms Mushinski: The Premier is on the policy and priorities committee; I am not. From the perspective of what I am willing to discuss with this committee --
Mr Bisson: With all due respect, it's not what you're willing --
The Chair: Mr Bisson, please.
Ms Mushinski: I'm willing to respond to questions of which I have knowledge. I do not sit on the policy and priorities committee, and I do not have an awareness of what happens at that committee, nor have I had an awareness of what happened on that committee in the past. So, again, as I have said to you before, Mr Chairman, I will confine my answers to as they relate to my sphere of knowledge.
The Chair: Mrs Mushinski, if there are areas which you're not directly involved with, what other parliamentary assistants have done is undertaken to obtain information for this committee -- we understand that ministers and particularly the Premier will be busy -- and perhaps that's a way we can channel those constructive requests.
Ms Mushinski: If I may, Mr Chairman, several of those questions, specifics, were asked of me yesterday and I have assured the questioners that I will get those responses.
The Chair: That co-operation is appreciated.
Mr Bisson, you still have approximately four minutes remaining.
Mr Bisson: I would want to ask the clerk of the committee a question. If I look at the last page in the estimates, I look at the Premier's salary and the parliamentary assistant's salary. Is the parliamentary assistant's salary one that we have the ability to vote on at this committee?
The Chair: It is all part of one vote.
Mr Bisson: He knows what I'm asking.
Ms Mushinski: I believe that's set by --
The Chair: Actually, no. The allocation is statutory; it is not subject to the vote.
Mr Bisson: Rather unfortunate, Mr Chair, because if it wasn't statutory I would make a move here by way of a motion that we withdraw the salary of the parliamentary assistant, because I have no idea what that woman does when it comes to the Premier's office. She can't answer me what happens in the Premier's office.
The Chair: Mr Bisson.
Mr Young: On a point of order: That's abusive. That's a sexist comment.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, I'd ask you to maintain your questioning to the matters at hand. I will not permit personal characterizations on either part, in terms of the interaction we're hoping for here today.
I invite you to continue with questions you have concerning the operation of the Premier's office.
Mr Bisson: For the record, Chair, I am saying it's unfortunate that we don't have the ability to vote on this as a line item, because I would move to reduce the salary of the parliamentary assistant from $11,155 down to zero. It's quite apparent that this person has no idea what goes on in the Premier's office, and quite frankly, I don't know of what use she is to this committee.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, your point is made.
Mr Bisson: Am I out of time?
The Chair: No. There's time remaining.
Ms Mushinski: May I respond, Mr Chairman? I find it somewhat unfortunate that obviously Mr Bisson was not here when I did have the opportunity to explain to the estimates committee my responsibilities, especially in terms of volunteerism and voluntary action in this province. In the Premier's office, I am responsible for volunteerism. It is unfortunate that Mr Bisson does not have any idea of what I do because I can assure you --
Mr Bisson: I just want to know if you know what you're doing. That's all I want to know.
Ms Mushinski: -- that I'm very proud of my responsibilities for voluntary action. I spent most of the spring touring this province to recognize the tremendous contribution that Ontarian citizens have made to community development and community life in this province. That also includes certainly the riding of Mr Bisson. It's unfortunate that he's not aware of that, but certainly I would be willing to send out a very strong message about the tremendous contribution that volunteers make to the quality of life in this province, something that the Premier has appointed me to be responsible for in his office.
The Chair: The time for this segment has expired. Over to the government party. You have 20 minutes.
1610
Mr Young: Mr Art Daniels is here and he's prepared to make a presentation to the committee on public service restructuring. We'd like to use our time, because we think it will be very interesting and informative.
The Chair: Mr Daniels, could you identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard?
Mr Art Daniels: My name is Art Daniels. I'm assistant deputy minister of the Ontario Public Service Restructuring Secretariat, Cabinet Office, responsible for the service quality initiative and the restructuring initiative.
Mr Young: That's exhibit A, right?
Mr Daniels: This will be exhibit A.
I've had the pleasure of representing the public service of Ontario in an international awards program that assessed the quality of public services across the Commonwealth, including non-Commonwealth countries like the United States. One hundred and twenty-one submissions were received from all over the Commonwealth and the Ontario submission was, in the first sort, in the top 30, worldwide. It then was sorted to the top 10 in the whole of the Commonwealth and emerged as the top public service program across any of the cabinet systems in the world.
I brought some brochures just to let you know the kind of opposition we had because, when all of us study public administration or public services, we hear about projects in New Zealand, projects in Australia, projects in the UK. We were successful in being evaluated by a distinguished panel of 10 jurists, representing most of the Commonwealth countries, and also had an opportunity to stack ourselves against Australia's really innovative Centrelink program and the state of Victoria's public safety program in Victoria. We were able to compete successfully against the United Kingdom's service quality initiative, the service charter, and the recent innovations to the service charter in Great Britain, or to the restructuring of the military in the UK -- I can't remember all of them, I'll make sure the brochure comes around -- the whole country of India's educational initiative.
A very interesting one to me was the village payphone in Bangladesh, or in Canada the SchoolNet, the computers for schools project that Industry Canada launched, or the kiosk for jobs across Canada through Human Resources Development Canada. It was quite a contest. STRATEGIS was a large Internet system, one of the largest in the world, developed in Canada. It received honourable mention.
But Ontario, and its vision of public service and Ontario public service delivery initiative, emerged with the gold medal -- this is the gold award -- out of 121 submission.
I'm going to spend a few minutes showing some of the material that I used to summarize what we have achieved in Ontario in terms of service delivery. What particularly impressed the jurists and puts Ontario out in front is its use technology and its use of 24-hour services with Service Ontario and Ontario Business Connects, which allows Ontarians to have public services available and accessible and meet the requirements. I'll be able to share with you some of the statistics we used for these programs.
We're really proud of this. I think any award is as good as the people you're up against, and when you look at that list of countries and programs that made it to the top 10 and those that made it as honourable mentions, you can see we're in great company. People benchmark the United Kingdom's service quality, people benchmark Australia's Centrelink, but people do benchmark and will continue to benchmark Ontario's service delivery strategy.
I've got some slides here, the material that we used in the presentation. I'll read it. It might not be 100% clear. One of the things we did when we were putting this together is look at what was happening in the public services across the Commonwealth. This was a study actually far beyond the Commonwealth. This was a study done by the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, asking most of the countries of the world what was driving public sector reform, because every country in the world is going through some form of reform.
I'll go back to another slide that the same group put up: 98% of countries, whether they're in the western economy or the eastern economy or in an emerging Third World economy, are all in the process of public sector reform. When they were asked what drove the reform, interestingly enough, it would be economics; balanced budgets, deficits, would be the number one driver, almost to the 100 percentile, but ideology of government is a driver. The important one for us and what we look at is how important technology is as a driver of public sector reform. It's not just to enable reform; it drives it.
When the Commonwealth asked questions about public sector reform across the Commonwealth, they said that new governments should be thinking differently about the role of government, thinking differently about their service users, the customers -- that's the main driver of our reform -- harnessing technology, and working in partnership in the public-private sector. These are very important to the public service reforms in Ontario.
The international institute then said, "What about developed countries?" That one slide I showed you was all the countries of the world, but when you isolate the most developed countries in the world, the economies there, you get a different kind of a driver. You still get deficit and productivity, but what comes very strongly into the equation is good customer service. Countries in Africa are struggling with their issues of fairness and corruption, whereas in Canada we really aren't struggling with those areas. We're struggling with customer service and quality service delivery. It does change for the developed countries. Ontario's service strategy is all to the customer.
In a summary of new public management and traditional public management, there's a shift of paradigm. It doesn't say that the old paradigm is wrong. It just says now that we have the state and the citizen relationship, but in the new public management that's centred on the citizen as customer, the government has products and services, so it's a producer, and the people who receive those products and services are customers. As we think about them that way, we begin to get a vision of government and government services that's more responsive. It deals with timeliness, speed, accessibility.
There's a wonderful quote from Dr Don Kettl from the Brookings Institution in Washington, who is the adviser to Mr Gore and Mr Clinton on their restructuring, called the National Performance Review. This is his definition of customer-centred government. It's kind of interesting. It "focuses downward, towards citizens. It forces them" -- the public services -- "to shape their behaviour by looking outside government to outcomes rather than within government for processes."
I've been a public servant for 33 years. I was hired as an administrator and I had titles like "officer" and "regulator," but that's not looking at the customer; that's a process job. We're looking at public service now as a producer of products and not processes, but outcomes and service delivery. When you see some of our restructuring material, it talks about government from the outside in, and this is what every government in developing countries is looking at, restructuring themselves around their products and their services, rather than around the ministries or the departments or their branches or their rule of law, but beginning to, as I call it, envelop the customer, the business client, the child -- Mr Kennedy and I were talking about social services -- around the family and the child, around seniors. This is Ministry of Health; this is Ministry of Community and Social Services; this is Ministry of Labour. You begin to see it as a whole customer and try to integrate programs. That's what this definition really says. Don't worry about your process; don't worry about where you live or work; think about your customer first.
When Canadians are surveyed about government; they're not too flattering, because the National Quality Institute lumps all government together, which is pretty unfair. Nobody ever lumps all private sector together and says, "What do you think of the private sector?" But when survey companies like the National Quality Institute survey Canadians they say, "What do you think of government?" they don't even tell you what they mean. Does he mean federal, provincial, municipal? That all gets carried into the old ethos, and of course we'll hit rock bottom; 60% of Canadians don't think the government does a good job.
1620
Ms Mushinski: It's that high, is it?
Mr Daniels: Yes. But now we did better. We did a survey with the federal government. It's an interesting group called the Citizen-Centred Service Network, of which Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick are the key parts. If you look at where public sector reform is occurring, it's the province of Manitoba, the province of New Brunswick and the province of Ontario. We funded, with the federal government, this study on what Canadians think of public services and what they would do.
The first question we asked was, "Begin to rank the services in terms of public-private." They were asked a series of questions about what things they liked, particularly their last experience with government or their last experience with the private sector, and then put it all together. You get a more truthful picture than lumping us all together, and that myth begins to deteriorate.
The top public services -- and it shows you that we're quite egalitarian in Ontario. We look at municipal services and they were the number one service that Canadians liked. This, by the way, was true in Ontario. Fire services were way at the top, better than any private sector service. It rated the highest service, public or private. The second-highest were our public libraries. The former minister would recognize that as an excellent place. People do appreciate public services.
Then you go down and you see supermarkets, police, driver's licence. We asked the private sector in general. They only got a 5.8 on that scale, but at least better than our 4.0. You can go down there and see banks at 5.1. Revenue Canada is more popular than the banks, because it's getting its service quality right.
The other thing it asked and I think this --
Interjection.
Mr Daniels: I shouldn't admit that, eh? They're doing a lot of good stuff.
The citizens' expectations: This is a really important one for all of us in the room, public servants and members of Parliament, because it asked about government in general. I think we always feel, when people do surveys about the public service or politicians, that people don't understand us and they give us low ratings. Here's a great survey of 30,000 Canadians that said, "Being in government is harder than being in the private sector." Some 54% of Canadians realize that the job of the public service is more difficult, but then they turn over, on the same side of the slide -- you can't be complacent because they're saying, "But we expect the service to be better or the same." Only 5% of Canadians would accept less service than the private sector would give them. This sort of sets the challenge for us.
When they were asked what they want most from government services -- it would be true of the private sector, but this was a government survey -- it was getting things fast. This has become a really important thing. We did a similar survey in 1991 and found things like quality, competency and courtesy rated very high, and timeliness would be in the middle. But timeliness has shot up in the last six years to be almost the only criterion that matters. All of us notice this. We are a very fast generation. We don't wait around for services. We can't wait around. We have two-income families trying to stretch the quality of life. Look how important time is. It represents almost 70% of all the activity. So when citizens are asked what they want from government, they talk about timeliness.
In our model of public service reform -- we spoke before of the award -- this became our mantra, our lexicon: speed, simplicity and seamless government. If we can get the thing done quickly with simplicity, less red tape and not a lot of forms, and make it seamless, cluster around the individual or the business, then we'll have it right. We call it Ontario Delivers. It was a name that Dr Galt from the Ministry of the Environment came up with. I just borrowed "speed, simplicity and" -- it used to be called "borderless" by a guy called Jack Welch, the president of General Electric, but I wondered why he didn't complete the alliteration, so we've improved on Mr Welch and made it "seamless." If we can do this right, we'll have right government.
As I said earlier, Ontarians and Canadians want us to cluster primarily around the unemployed, the family, the seniors and the business. So in Ontario we have some projects that actually begin to really understand that and provide single-clustered services. I chose these four to highlight because they're the most automated, and we have a really good demonstration of what has happened. We've got outcomes and good customer surveys. We picked Service Ontario, Ontario Business Connects, Direct Access Ontario and Teranet Land Information. That's the four. There are others, but I picked those four.
You know how important business is. What generates jobs in Ontario? What generates our economy? It's small business, one or two, three or four people coming together, families and units. Before we had Business Connects, even within the Ontario mandate, we made businesses go all over the place. You would have to go to the Ministry of Labour for registration of labour standards. You'd go to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to get your business licence, but you'd also get your business name. You'd have to go to the Worker's Compensation Board employee insurance program to get your employees' insurance registered and, of course, to the Ministry of Finance to register for retail sales tax, corporate tax. At the municipal level, you're registering with health; you're also registering with other municipalities. The federal government has a series of permits. In fact, if you're a small business person running a gas station and fixing and selling cars, you'd run into 40 business permits because of all the different licensing requirements.
We said, "You can't have that." Even getting a business name in Ontario prior to Business Connects was a cumbersome journey. We had one location, 393 University Avenue. Not all Ontario exists in Toronto, but we only had one office. You would have to write to us if you couldn't drive into the office. By writing to us, it would take six weeks to have your letter acknowledged. We send you the forms; in six weeks they come back and we process the forms. Canadians aren't that inarticulate, yet 50% of small business people would get the form wrong, and we'd send it back. That's 14 weeks. You've had a business idea and you couldn't implement it for three months.
But now, through Ontario Business Connects, you can register your name, your business registration, your vendor's licence for retail sales tax, your Ministry of Labour registration, your workers' compensation. Starting next year -- we've signed an agreement with the federal government -- GST will be there, UI, the federal suite of services; two governments coming together and encircling the business customer and providing a single window for business licensing and permits so that businesses don't just get one service, they get a lot of services.
We developed this logo and it's kind of cute. I worked on it. It sends a single message. It shouldn't be a concern what level of government gets that message, or what ministry or department. It is one message that they get and we transfer all over the government. Businesses can now start in 20 minutes. Starting last month, there are 100 places in Ontario you can do this. In co-operation with the federal government, you can go to Revenue Canada. You can go to a chamber of commerce office. You can go to an enterprise centre. Now you can go there on the Internet. The Internet takes credit cards, so it's a cash transaction. People can start their businesses, get working with their families and friends.
Mr Young: It's on the Internet?
Mr Daniels: Yes, in Ontario. This is the first in the world. That's why when we presented this -- it's part of the gold medal; it's part of being number one. Lots of countries are going to copy us. I had over 40 countries come to Ontario last year and take a tour. I take them down to the Ontario Business Connects workstation and the next one I'm going to show you.
The Chair: Mr Daniels, we're almost out of time. We have only about 30 seconds left. Perhaps it's possible to have the slides copied and distributed to the members of the committee, and there may be interest from some of the other questioners as well.
Mr Daniels: I didn't get to talk about the other three, but they are spectacular, as you would guess. The one window for individuals, over one million people will use it this year. That's the kiosk you see in malls. They provide drivers' licences in three minutes instead of hours and hours.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Daniels. We now turn to the official opposition.
1630
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the parliamentary assistant. I go back to my job as a parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Northern Development; it was Northern Development and Mines at the time. My role in that job was to act on behalf of the minister at various functions, whether it be at a function outside of this place or to appear before committees. I would assume the role of the minister at the time. Now, as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, can you tell me what role you assume when the Premier is not available?
Ms Mushinski: Well, certainly the Deputy Premier is Mr Eves; I'm not. OK?
Mr Miclash: I know that.
Ms Mushinski: I have been given a very special responsibility --
Mr Young: Be nice.
Mr Miclash: Drop dead.
Ms Mushinski: -- and I believe you're aware of it, Mr Miclash, with respect, Mr Chairman. It's a very special responsibility, and it's one that I'm very proud to represent the Premier on. I have been given the lead responsibility for voluntary action in Ontario. Mr Miclash, I did have the opportunity to explain to some of my colleagues on the government side what those specific responsibilities are, and I would be happy to walk you through some of those if you so wish.
Mr Miclash: What you're telling me, then, is that as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier your role differs from that of a parliamentary assistant to any other minister.
Ms Mushinski: I'm not quite sure how you would define "differ." Certainly I have been given that specific responsibility with respect to voluntary action, but of course, as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, I am responsible for appearing on his behalf, certainly before this committee. That's the reason I'm here today.
Mr Miclash: Great, so you're appearing on his behalf. So, I should be able to ask you any question that I would feel comfortable asking the Premier, if you're appearing on his behalf. Is that correct?
Mr Young: Related to the estimates.
Mr Miclash: Related to the estimates, yes.
Ms Mushinski: I should say that most certainly I would welcome and attempt to answer any specific question you have, Mr Miclash, in terms of my representation of the Premier on the Premier's office estimates. I should make that perfectly clear.
Mr Miclash: Normally when I come to estimates, I ask a minister questions, but the questions will vary in terms of anything that minister is responsible for. Now, I see the Premier as being responsible for all the issues in the province. I think you alluded to that earlier, government policy and priorities. So, would I not feel comfortable in asking you a question about the spending of this government?
Ms Mushinski: Obviously I can't speak to your comfort level; I can only speak to my own. As I have said to you, Mr Chairman, I am perfectly willing to respond to any questions pertaining to the item that is in front of us, and that obviously has to deal with the estimates within the Premier's office, the Premier's office budget. If you are going to ask me questions pertaining to other ministries' budgets, clearly my responsibility is to the Premier's office estimates, and other estimates must be left to those particular ministries and ministers.
The Chair: Just as a point of information, Mr Miclash, I've ruled that I certainly will accept questions about the activities of the Premier's office in keeping with our tradition of estimates. So, if the Premier's office is involved in the activities of other ministries, to that extent those questions are appropriate. How the parliamentary assistant chooses to answer those, of course, is up to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Miclash: I appreciate the clarification, Chair.
When I'm driving down the highway these days, there are signs located on the highway and the name of the Premier is on those signs. My question to you as the parliamentary assistant is, being that the Premier's name is actually on these signs, can you tell me why they are located at various projects throughout the province along our highways and how much they might have cost?
Ms Mushinski: Again, that question, I believe, was asked yesterday, and I suggested that that particular question deals with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation; certainly in terms of signage it does. As far as the Premier's name being attached to those, as the head of government, it would seem to me that has been a practice that has been in place for many years. I can certainly recall projects with Mr Peterson's name on them, and certainly I can recall projects with Mr Rae's name on them. But if we want to get into the details of the estimates process and how those signs are paid for, I suggest that those are questions better answered by the minister responsible for that budget, which would be the Minister of Transportation.
Mr Miclash: I want to go back to the deputy minister, who has shown us an award for the public service sector in terms of Ontario. I want to ask him if he's aware as to how many public servants have been laid off under this government since 1995.
Mr David Guscott: The exact number, Mr Miclash, I'm not aware of, but I'd be glad to get that information for you. It's several thousand. I'd be happy to get that for you.
A lot of this relates to the kinds of things we talked about in the previous presentation from Mr Daniels. Technology has allowed government services around the world to be delivered in other ways that better meet that time-sensitive performance factor which is of so much importance to the people of Ontario. Certainly this government, in Ontario, has continued to advance the application of new technology for the benefit of the service that government can provide to people.
Mr Miclash: I think of the people I meet, who come through my office door, and you talk about the several thousand public employees who have been laid off. It's nice to come and display a beautiful award here, but I can tell you of many of my constituents. A personal friend of mine whom I went to school with, 44 years old, did nothing but work at MTO all of his life. He walked through my door and told me he's losing his home. That was because of a move on behalf of this government. Many jobs have disappeared out of our small town in northwestern Ontario into larger centres. As I'm sitting here, I could just put myself in the shoes of a person like that 44-year-old who is now without his home because he lost his job. You've got to remember, he has been doing this since he got out of high school.
Those are the things I see as the MPP. We can talk about awards, we can talk about public service, but we seem to forget about the folks who are told that next week they're without a job. We can talk about thousands of public service employees who are gone. I get to face some of them on a daily basis. I'd just like to enter that aspect regarding a government that wants to tell us about their achievements.
1640
We had one of the government members introduce a bill suggesting that there should be no more answering machines or whatever in the public service in terms of public offices. I have constituents walk through my door and tell me about the hours and hours they wait because they want an answer and they're being put on hold by a machine. I have people who tell me about being put into a circle, into a complete loop, phoning to ask a question. We talk about technology taking over from people. Those are the complaints I get. Again, there is another aspect to this, an aspect that we in northwestern Ontario are certainly seeing. I just wanted to make that very clear today to the parliamentary assistant, hoping that she might take that back to the Premier, as she is the parliamentary assistant to the Premier. I guess my impression of what the parliamentary assistant does for the Premier was not correct, and it certainly has changed since I walked in here today. So, a few of those things are on the record.
I recently issued a survey. One of the main issues that has been brought to my attention in this survey is the problem in getting through to government. I'll be producing those results shortly. I like the stat that 60% don't think government is doing a good job, and I will certainly be using that, because I think it's the present government that I can apply that to through the survey results I have and through what the deputy has told us today.
Ms Mushinski: I can start off with a response, if I may. There are a number of points that Mr Miclash has made. I need to start off by saying that I believe we were elected as a government to do better with less and to scale down the size of government. Certainly that was a commitment we took to the people in 1995, and we've done just that.
Coupled with that, we've cut the provincial income tax, which we know creates jobs. I think the record speaks for itself. Over 408,000 jobs have been created since 1995, which is certainly a significant improvement, I would suggest, over the 10,000 job losses that occurred under the previous government, at a time when that government was raising taxes 33 times.
The other thing, which I think I need to ask Mr Daniels to respond to, is the fact that we just won this award this year. We committed to improving the way we deliver service to our customers. This award, which I do not believe should be taken lightly, is symbolic of the significant improvement that we as a government have made in delivering service to our customers, and I'd like Mr Daniels to enhance that.
The Chair: Mr Cleary has a subsequent question. I think the indication in the official opposition is that they feel you've answered their question.
Mr Clearly has a new question.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): This is to Mr Daniels. You said you've had many titles in your lifetime. Have you always worked with the public service of Ontario?
Mr Daniels: Yes.
Mr Cleary: In the same ministry?
Mr Daniels: No. I've had a great career in the public service. I'm very fortunate. I graduated from university in 1966 and entered the public service in correctional services. I moved from corrections, where I was head of probation, parole and after-care -- in fact, that's where I'm going tonight, to talk to the probation officers -- into community and social services, assistant deputy minister of adult and children's services. From there I went to Management Board, where I was a civil service commissioner responsible for the civil service regulations and acts. Then I moved to consumer and commercial relations, where I was assistant deputy minister of registration, which has land information and business information and all the registry. Then I moved to the business regulation ministry, again looking after business regulation, and now into Cabinet Office.
I've worked all over. I've been in the region. I've worked in Millbrook Correctional Centre. That's where I started out, in the field. I've worked in head office. I've worked in central agencies. I've worked in line ministries. I think I am the kind of public servant most of us want to be, who has worked in lots of places, learned a lot and understands a lot about the service.
I want to answer the question about technology and what happens. It's not, as some people portray it, always a negative.
The Chair: Mr Daniels, Mr Cleary is asking you a specific question.
Mr Daniels: Oh, sorry.
Mr Cleary: I just wanted to ask you, how long has this award been given out?
Mr Daniels: What is really exciting about this award is that it's the first time it's been given out in the world. That tells you that it's a pent-up -- the Commonwealth association felt a lot of people had a lot of ideas that have been quite innovative across the Commonwealth, from the service charters in the UK to the restructuring of the British military system to the centre link. This the first year. Usually the first year of any award program will generate the most awards and the most competition. To win it the first time out means you're up against everything that's been really creative over the last decade, and that's what this is about, including the federal government's SchoolNet program, their HRDC kiosk -- really good stuff. Yet we can stack ourselves up against all the federal governments in the Commonwealth and still come out with a good public service.
Mr Cleary: The other thing is, my colleague had mentioned it a bit earlier and I just delivered a letter to the Deputy Premier yesterday, about small business investment people trying to get information from the government and getting voice mail or getting some other mail -- anyway, not getting the answers, not able to get through. I think the government has slipped a long way there. As I said, I spoke to Mr Eves, the Deputy Premier, about it and he kind of shook his head and grinned, so I think he's been getting this before. These are people trying to create small business in Ontario, not able to get through and get the information from the government. I'm very concerned about that. You told about all of the great things they're doing and I'd just like to have your comments on that because I'd like to send back to him what you say.
Mr Daniels: I think the presentation I gave you showed you what it was like. In 1994, to start a small business in Ontario, there was only one government office. Mr Miclash actually wrote to me when I was in this job wondering why we didn't have services more dispersed across the north, and now there are 100 workstations, in every community, but now you can actually transact on the Internet. This is replacing 12 to 14 weeks of waiting to start a business. You can start a business in Ontario, and only in Ontario, in 20 minutes.
Mr Bisson: When was that started? Under the NDP government.
Mr Young: How do you start a small business in Bob Rae's Ontario? You start with a big business and wait.
Mr Bisson: You guys are so mean and partisan.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant is, I see in the estimates book travel and communication. What all is involved in that, "Transportation and Communication"?
Ms Mushinski: "Travel and Communication." Hang on, just let me check my notes here.
Mr Cleary: That's in your estimates, Office of the Premier.
Ms Mushinski: OK, you want both the transportation and communication?
Mr Cleary: This "Transportation and Communication," I just wonder what all is involved in that.
Ms Mushinski: You want an actual line-by-line breakdown of all of the expenses?
Mr Cleary: Well, I'd like to know something.
Ms Mushinski: It represents $70,000, or 2.4%, which is travelling, relocation expenses, postage, courier and telephone charges.
1650
Mr Cleary: Whose travelling?
Ms Mushinski: For the whole staff in the Premier's office.
Mr Cleary: And where does the Premier's transportation show up, his travel?
Ms Mushinski: That's included in the overall. You wanted a specific breakdown for the Premier?
Mr Cleary: No. He goes on these -- like he's on right now, and I'd just like to know where that money is coming from.
Ms Mushinski: The Office of the Premier spent $12,933 in 1997.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Ms Mushinski: That's 2.4% of the overall --
The Chair: Ms Mushinski, you said that you have a number for this year as well.
Ms Mushinski: Yes, for "Transportation and Communication" it's $70,000.
The Chair: Mr Cleary, I'll have to ask you to pursue this question in the next round that you have. Now I'd like to turn to the third party, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I want to follow up on the question just asked previously, which is, can you tell us how much money was set aside in last year's estimates vis-à-vis the amount of travel that was done by the Premier directly. How much money did it cost the taxpayers of Ontario, excluding his trips as an MPP? We know that's reported under another act. What is it in his travels as Premier; what did that cost us? Can you give us that number?
Ms Mushinski: The Office of the Premier, as I say, spent $12,933 on travel last year.
Mr Bisson: Say that again? The Office of the Premier spent --
Ms Mushinski: Spent $12,933.
Mr Bisson: That's for the entire Premier's office, for all of the travel in the Premier's office?
Ms Mushinski: Yes.
Mr Bisson: That includes the Premier of Ontario?
Ms Mushinski: Yes, it does.
Mr Bisson: OK. I'm just curious. I assume this Premier, like every Premier before him, travels to various parts of the province making announcements on behalf of his government and representing his government at various events. Does he travel in a Volkswagen or in a Honda or is it a motorcycle? There's got to be just gas charges here, because certainly an airline ticket --
Ms Mushinski: With respect to the Premier's international travel --
Mr Bisson: No, I don't want to go there right now. I'm looking at travel within Ontario for the Premier of Ontario, excluding his MPP travel, because all of us members have the ability to travel to our ridings 52 times per year, in other words one trip per week to and from work, and we're entitled to 12 trips per year within the province and the mileage within our riding. I want to exclude that because we already know that. It's reported. What I'm asking is, how much money did it cost us to travel the Premier around his various responsibilities and events last year, excluding his travel as MPP within the province of Ontario?
Ms Mushinski: As I explained, for 1997, the overall cost of travel for the Premier's office was $12,933. I don't have the specific breakdown for the Premier. That's for the overall Premier's office expenditure, but certainly I would be happy to provide that particular breakdown.
Mr Bisson: This Premier is no different from any Premier before: He travels. This is not a comment on the ability of the Premier to travel, because we want him to represent his government in different parts of the province. I know, for example, that the Premier was in the city of Timmins making a nice announcement not more than five months ago, which I attended. It was a very nice announcement vis-à-vis tourism dollars and I know he got there by plane. In fact, it wasn't on the plane that I travelled, because I flew the commercial flight of Air Ontario. He came in on the government plane, which he's entitled to do; I don't begrudge him that. I understand the Premier has a tight schedule and it's very difficult for him to make scheduled flights, so I don't profess that I want him to do that -- plus, there are security matters that have to be dealt with.
My question is that I'm sure the travel of the Premier has got to be more than 12,000 bucks, considering just the trip he would have made to Timmins. That would have cost 4,000 or 5,000 bucks right there for the rental of the aircraft and other things. So in which way do you account for that? Is there some way you can provide us some numbers as to how much it was charged back to the MNR?
Ms Mushinski: I've given you the information that I have, and certainly with regard to this specific breakdown for the Premier, I'll take that question under advisement and attempt to get that information.
Mr Bisson: Just to be helpful, there must be somebody on staff here with the Premier's office who can explain to this committee how we account for travel. We know there's a plane -- as a matter of fact there were two of them the last time I checked that belong to the Ministry of Natural Resources that are at the disposition of ministers, parliamentary assistants and the Premier, rightfully so. I don't make any argument against that.
When I was a parliamentary assistant I utilized that plane on a number of occasions and I would have to account for it through my budget as a parliamentary assistant. The Ministry of Natural Resources would say, "Here's the cost for utilizing that aircraft to your budget," and we accounted for it in some way, and that showed up. I think if I spent more than $10,000 per year, that number was published so that everybody knew what the PA of northern development was spending. I imagine it's the same with the Premier. Can somebody here from the Premier's office tell us how much travel was charged back to the MNR in regard to that plane and other travels?
Ms Mushinski: As I suggested, I don't have that information available immediately. I certainly will attempt to get it.
Mr Bisson: So you will provide us with that information?
Ms Mushinski: Most certainly.
Mr Bisson: Can I just ask the Chair a question? We have how much time left at estimates overall with the Premier's office?
The Chair: I'll provide that to you in just a moment.
Mr Bisson: As I'm asking the next question, because I want to make sure we have the chance to see each other again so we can take a look at that. I want you to be clear as to what I'm looking for. I don't want his travel as a member of the Legislature. We know what that is. I'm looking specifically for how much money it cost for the Premier to travel within the province of Ontario for his job as the Premier -- so every time that he would utilize the MNR plane, or utilize the cars that are available to him, commercial flights that may have been scheduled, or other charters that may have been done. Separate from that, I would also like to have a breakdown of his travel outside the province of Ontario, travel within Canada, then international travel. If you guys can provide us with that, we'd appreciate that. Is that clear? Is there any question to clarify? You understand what I'm asking for?
Ms Mushinski: Yes, I do indeed.
Mr Bisson: Thank you. That's most helpful.
Ms Mushinski: I will attempt to get that information expeditiously.
Mr Bisson: All right, as he's still adding up the hours of the estimates for the Premier's office, I will move to the second question. I just want to make a comment to my friend who sits to the left of you. Your name again was?
Mr Daniels: Art Daniels.
Ms Mushinski: That's to the right of me, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: To my left. I always look to the left; I never look to the right.
Ms Mushinski: Believe me, I know the difference between left and right.
Mr Bisson: Thank God. Thank the bejesus that you know the difference between something. Anyway, Cabinet Office: I just want to make a general comment.
The Chair: That was unnecessary, Mr Bisson, please.
Mr Bisson: I first of all want to congratulate you for your long years of service not only to this government but to former governments in the province of Ontario, because I know you to be an honourable person who's served the province well. I think that should be put on the record. There are many people like you who try to do the very best they can with all stripes of government. You may or may not like a particular government, but I've always found the civil service to be very professional in doing its duties vis-à-vis following the policies of the government and I want to thank you for those years of service.
I also want to thank you for reminding my good Conservative friends of the good NDP initiative that we started back when we were in government, which was called Clearing the Path, which allowed for businesses to register on-line across the province rather than having to send away to get all the papers. In fact, I was at the ribbon-cutting of the very first kiosk that was set up in the city of Timmins. It was the first pilot. I remember that well. As a matter of fact, it's still up and running and quite successful. The NDP government did some things right, it would seem.
All right, on to the next question. Could we have an answer to my question to the Chair first?
The Chair: We have approximately two hours and 58 minutes remaining in this section dealing with the Premier's office.
Mr Bisson: We'll be back next week, so, to the parliamentary assistant, you'll provide the answers to my question of the three areas of expenses, within Ontario, within Canada and internationally, by next week?
1700
Ms Mushinski: In terms of the international travel, which Mr Bisson has just mentioned, the Premier's international travel falls under the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. I can speak to that but as far as the estimates themselves are concerned, they would fall under that ministry's estimates.
Mr Bisson: You will attempt to provide us with that information, I take it, is what you're trying to say. That is good.
I just have another question: Does the Premier ever talk to you?
Ms Mushinski: What kind of a question is that?
Mr Bisson: Well, it's a question. You're his parliamentary assistant.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Come on, be relevant.
Mr Bisson: I want to know if the Premier talks to the parliamentary assistant. You're his parliamentary assistant.
Ms Mushinski: Of course he does.
Mr Bisson: OK, that's good. We're getting somewhere. When he talks to you generally, does he talk to you about policy matters or just, "Hi, how's it going?"
Ms Mushinski: Again, the conversations that I have with the Premier in terms of estimates I would be happy to respond to, but I don't think that I should be getting into a long dialogue about the conversations that the Premier has with me.
Mr Bisson: I'm not asking for an itinerary of what you talk about.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, I'll ask you to connect this to something in the Premier's office please.
Mr Bisson: I am connecting it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Bisson: You will see, my friend the Chair.
Your salary, Parliamentary Assistant, is one of the items that is part of the estimates of the Premier of Ontario?
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, I answered that question yesterday. My salary, along with every other parliamentary assistant's salary, is determined by statute.
Mr Bisson: That's right, and I don't argue the amount of money you get. It's probably not nearly enough to compensate you for the work that you do. The point I'm trying to connect here is that you have an office as parliamentary assistant to the Premier, and the budget to operate that office is part of these estimates, is it they not?
Ms Mushinski: Yes.
Mr Bisson: Thank you. That's why I was asking. So if you have an office within the purview of these estimates, I can ask a very simple question like, do you have staff who work for you? Do you have one or two people?
Ms Mushinski: I do have staff.
Mr Bisson: We don't need names, just one or two? How many people do you have working for you in your PA's office?
Ms Mushinski: I have a legislative assistant --
Mr Bisson: As a member, to which we're all entitled. I understand that. I'm talking about your PA's budget that falls under these estimates.
Ms Mushinski: The PA's budget is precisely the same in the Premier's office as it is for every other parliamentary assistant.
Mr Bisson: I'm not attacking --
The Chair: I think, if I may, the specific question was, do you have staff that are paid for under this vote? I think that was the specific question.
Ms Mushinski: Yes, in accordance with --
Mr Bisson: Yes, so do you have one or two? I'm just asking the question.
Ms Mushinski: I have --
Mr Bisson: I know we all have staff as MPPs. We're entitled, in my caucus, to three and a half staff paid by the Legislative Assembly. As a PA, do you have one executive assistant or is it two? I'm just asking. Do you know how many people work for you? That's all I want to know.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, please. We'd like to keep the tone of this constructive.
Mr Bisson: I'm trying to be constructive. It's a simple answer.
The Chair: That wasn't. We'd like to give Ms Mushinski a chance to answer.
Mr Bisson: Ask me how many people work for me. I'll tell you the answer. It's pretty simple.
Ms Mushinski: If you want me to get into comparing my record with yours, Mr Bisson, I'd be happy to do that, but I'm sure you don't.
The Chair: Have you had an opportunity to answer?
Ms Mushinski: Yes, I have one staff member paid under --
Mr Bisson: Thank you. That's what I was asking. We've established that under the estimates of this ministry, you have one staff paid for by the parliamentary assistant's office. We know that you have a stipend as a parliamentary assistant. You also have travel as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier. I would expect that you travel on behalf of the Premier?
Ms Mushinski: As I explained earlier, certainly to Mr Bisson, as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, responsible for voluntary action, most certainly I have undertaken a number of visits to approximately 20 communities in Ontario, recognizing volunteers through the provincial awards ceremony which is delivered as a part of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.
Mr Bisson: Do you do any travel for the Premier's office? That's all I'm asking. Yes or no.
Ms Mushinski: Yes.
Mr Bisson: OK. Could you provide this committee with a list of -- as well as the information I wanted from the Premier's office -- how much travel is charged back to the Premier's office in your capacity as the parliamentary assistant? Can you provide us with those answers?
Ms Mushinski: By all means, sir.
Mr Bisson: Do you have it with you or is that something you'll have to bring back next week?
Ms Mushinski: No, I don't have those specific details but I would be most happy to provide them next time.
Mr Bisson: Do you ever go out for supper, business meetings, that kind of stuff and have charges -- because you're entitled to it; I make no bones about that -- for suppers, meetings, anything like that, in your capacity as a PA?
Ms Mushinski: They are not covered under my parliamentary assistant's budget.
Mr Bisson: That's news. You never would charge back to the Premier's office any expenses incurred for a supper meeting, entertaining guests of the Premier or anything like that? You would not charge any of that back to the Premier's office?
Ms Mushinski: Not to the parliamentary assistant's budget.
Mr Bisson: So you would have no difficulty providing me with the list of expenditures against your budget as a parliamentary assistant for yourself or your staff when it comes to travel and entertainment, supper, that kind of stuff?
Ms Mushinski: I believe all that information is available, and I'd be happy to provide it.
Mr Bisson: You will provide it. Very good. That's what I'm asking for.
Mr Wettlaufer: As long as it's compared with the PA under your administration.
The Chair: We're about to reach your turn, Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Bisson: You'll get your turn and if you want to see my records, you're more than entitled. I'll give them to you.
Ms Mushinski: I'll be happy to provide that to the government side too.
Mr Bisson: I have no difficulty providing that.
Mr Wettlaufer: I bet you she doesn't buy $50 bottles of wine.
Mr Bisson: I couldn't afford to buy a $50 bottle of wine. I have to make my own.
Mr Wettlaufer: Some of your people did.
Mr Bisson: I'm a poor working person. My wine is a lot better.
Ms Mushinski: Not to mention the number of political staffers that they had under the NDP.
Mr Bisson: Yes, I had a political staff person.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's right. You people knew how to travel first class.
Mr Bisson: I wish we did. We didn't. Maybe we should have.
All right. So far we know we've going to get information vis-à-vis the Premier's travel in Ontario, within Canada and international, and you'll provide us with your travel budget for you as a PA, and also travel for your staff, your one person, and the expenses that you would have charged against the Premier's budget for entertainment, meals or anything else.
Ms Mushinski: In terms of travel for my staff you will not find there will be any expenditures.
Mr Bisson: Oh, that'll be easy to answer. Yes, that's fine. You can report that back to us. Zero. At the end of the name just put a big zero, no travel. I just want you to provide us with that because we have to vote on these estimates.
How many staffers? I don't even need to know how many. I won't even ask because it's probably less than the former Premier, I'll be told. You have staff who work for the Premier's office, I take it. You have communication assistants, chiefs of staff, sundry staff people who work for the Premier. Do any of those people ever charge back meals, travel, anything like that, under the Premier's office budget?
Ms Mushinski: I do not have the detailed breakdown of every line item expenditure under the Premier's office.
Mr Bisson: You will provide it?
Ms Mushinski: If you want to know what the overall figures are for staffing, I can certainly provide that information.
Mr Bisson: I would just say, the last time the Premier's office was before a committee Chair -- I think it was before you were our Chair, if I'm correct; I don't quite remember -- we were provided with that information. If you weren't, I stand corrected, Chair, I just don't remember. The former parliamentary assistant, Mr Clement, provided us with this information so that we had an opportunity to look at it, examine and decide if there was anything there we wanted to pay more attention to.
I would ask you to provide this committee with a list of who works in the Premier's office, as I asked yesterday, what their titles are, what the range of salary is, because you haven't provided me with what I asked yesterday, and whatever charges were made by those individuals against the budget of the Premier by expense sheet; if you remember, Chair, the last time the various staff people from the ministry were reported. Here's the claim they made on such-and-such a date and this is what it was all about: so much was travel, so much was food, so much was lodging. We had an opportunity to look at that and determine that everything was in order as best we could determine at that time, and I would like to have the opportunity to do so again. Could you provide us with that information for next week?
Ms Mushinski: It's my understanding that all of that information was requested yesterday and I mentioned at that time that, certainly, I'll be happy to provide you with that level of detail. What I can respond to, however, is --
Mr Bisson: It was less than the former government.
Ms Mushinski: -- what the current staffing complement is. We currently have only 36 staff. That's down from a high of 43 under the Liberals in 1985 and 41 under the NDP in 1993. I'm quite sure that you'll agree that that's a considerable accomplishment, given the level of change that we've had to undertake. That's a huge accomplishment for such a small staff relative to previous governments. We believe that staff size is yet another indicator of how our government is committed to doing more with less and also committed to winning gold medals such as what you see in front of you in terms of providing excellent customer service.
1710
The Chair: Mr Pettit will now commence for the government side.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you very much, Chair. Ms Mushinski, as I did yesterday, I will try not to be as harsh on you as were the opposition members.
Ms Mushinski: I didn't find them at all harsh, Mr Pettit.
Mr Pettit: OK. I will also try and bring some meaningful discussion back to this.
Ms Mushinski: That would be very helpful.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Chair: Were the questions I asked previously in my 20 minutes out of order in any way or not in keeping with the estimates?
The Chair: No, but this is not really a point of order, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: For the record, I think the questions were very much to the point and specific to the estimates of this ministry, and I just want Mr Pettit to recognize that.
The Chair: Thank you for your commentary, Mr Bisson.
Mr Pettit: You'll notice the difference here, Chair, where we try not to interject and show some integrity when Mr Bisson is speaking, yet all we get from Bisson is buffoonery.
The Chair: I'll refrain from comment on the various habits of the members.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Chair: I just heard a comment by the member Mr Pettit calling me a buffoon and I ask him to withdraw that comment.
Mr Pettit: I did not call him a buffoon.
Mr Bisson: Yes, you did.
The Chair: Mr Pettit, I give you an opportunity to withdraw that if it was made. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Mr Pettit: I did not call him a buffoon.
The Chair: Then I would ask you to continue.
Mr Pettit: Thank you very much. I have a question for Mr Daniels, but first I want to get back to the travel costs etc. I guess it's safe to assume that in any ministry when you're doing budgeting or forecasting, the odds are that the people doing that probably reflect back upon travel costs or the like by previous administrations. I'm just wondering if you, by chance, would have anything with you relative to the dollars that may have been expended by the previous Liberal and/or NDP government on not only domestic travel but, more particularly, foreign travel. Would you have anything on that? And if you don't, could you get it?
Ms Mushinski: I'm glad you raised that because certainly both the opposition and the third party should know better than to try to score political points on this particular topic. For example, who can forget that in June 1988 Mike Harris brought to light the fact that the Liberal-dominated Board of Internal Economy and committees that were either chaired by Liberals or had majority Liberal memberships approved over $200,000 for MPP trips to places like Australia, Europe and the Nevada gambling resort of Reno?
Mr Pettit: Nevada gambling. Who was that?
Ms Mushinski: In fact the Liberals approved a 9- to 11-day trip for MPPs and staff to Geneva, Brussels and Paris.
Mr Pettit: Surely you jest.
Ms Mushinski: They approved a week -- that's a whole week, Mr Chairman -- for MPPs in Reno. It wasn't just for MPPs, I might add. It was also for MPP staff.
Mr Pettit: You wouldn't jest with the committee, would you, Ms Mushinski?
Ms Mushinski: No, actually, in the very next year, in November 1989 the Liberals proved that they hadn't learned the lesson the first time around when Premier David Peterson and a dozen Liberal MPPs of Italian descent went on an eight-day trip to Italy. I should add, Mr Chairman, that the NDP aren't immune to this travel bug either. While they were in government -- and, by the way, they were also racking up $11.3 billion in deficit -- NDP cabinet ministers took over 17 major trips to every corner of the world, including Asia, Europe, Africa, Mexico and the Middle East.
Mr Pettit: For what? Do we know what they went there for?
Ms Mushinski: Who can forget the Toronto Star editorial in September 1994, which comments on --
The Chair: Point of order, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: She forgot Italy -- Verona, Italy -- twice. You forgot to mention it.
The Chair: That's not a point of order. Please continue, Ms Mushinski.
Ms Mushinski: It actually called upon the Premier of the day, Premier Rae, to justify to taxpayers the trips that were taken by Marion Boyd and Elaine Ziemba, who took trips to Malaysia, Poland and the Ukraine. I'd be happy to read excerpts from the Toronto Star article of Wednesday, June 29:
"It will cost Ontario taxpayers around $200,000 to send MPPs to Australia, Europe and Nevada. The estimated bills for some of the trips Peterson promised to study are $37,000 to $44,000, which is a 9-to 11-day trip to Geneva, Paris and Brussels for staff and the 11-member finance and economic affairs committee that was studying free trade, and $25,000 for a week in Reno for staff and the 11-member Legislative Assembly committee to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures. The trips were approved unanimously by the Liberal-dominated Board of Internal Economy and by committees that are either chaired by Liberals or have a majority Liberal membership."
That, of course, was brought to light by Mr Harris. I should also refer to an article that was published on Thursday, September 29, 1994, wherein the Toronto Star, a good newspaper, said:
"When it comes to spending public money to travel abroad, politicians need a better excuse than whim or the desire to score points with their constituents. The rash of Ontario cabinet ministers taking expensive trips overseas as the government nears the end of its mandate is bound to raise questions.
"How can Premier Bob Rae possibly justify spending about $15,000 to send Attorney General Marion Boyd to Malaysia for nine days to attend a four-day conference on child abuse? Wouldn't a copy of the report of the conference proceedings suffice? As for the claim that she took the extra time to follow up a Rae-led spring trade mission to Malaysia, one can think of far better trade emissaries than the province's chief legal official.
"Citizenship minister Elaine Ziemba hasn't offered any convincing explanations for her trip to Poland and the Ukraine next week either. She'll go at taxpayers' expense but no one in government seems sure what the 11-day junket is meant to accomplish."
Mr Pettit: I don't know that I can take much more.
Ms Mushinski: Have you heard enough?
Mr Pettit: I guess it's safe to say, based on the line of questioning of the third party, that they either have a short memory or hypocrisy rules the day. It would also be safe to say that in no way, shape or form has the spending of their current government even -- I mean, surely it must pale in comparison to what you've just told.
Ms Mushinski: I would suggest to you, Mr Chairman, that compared to the previous NDP and Liberal records we have a very frugal record.
1720
Mr Pettit: I'm appalled. If I might just go to Mr Daniels now, I think it was two or three weeks back, I was reading about some of the changes they've made in Britain in the public service under Tony Blair. Are you familiar with that?
Mr Daniels: Yes.
Mr Pettit: Could you please tell us what you know about what Mr Blair has done with the public service over there?
Mr Daniels: In fact I was going to show some material from a conference which both Mr Blair and, more particularly, public service minister Clark attended, called Shifting Government Boundaries, in terms of new public administration in the UK. Mr Clark had visited Ontario and told both government and private sector officials that he would like Great Britain to be like Ontario and that he hoped, by the end of their mandate, that 25% of transactions would be electronic in the UK. Actually, I use that quote --
Mr Pettit: So you're saying that Tony Blair would like to have his public service nearer Ontario's?
Mr Daniels: Yes.
Mr Wettlaufer: And he's a socialist.
Mr Pettit: As the member for Kitchener says, "He's a socialist."
Mr Bisson: Well, they've got to clean up after many years of Conservative mismanagement.
Mr Pettit: That's absolutely unbelievable. I'll defer to Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Young: Can I comment on that?
The Chair: Oh, Mr Young wants to comment.
Mr Young: I'd just like to comment, for the record, that the farthest I've been from Queen's Park on a government-paid trip is I went to Dryden on Bearskin Airlines and the only food was a sandwich with a cherry tomato in a plastic box.
The Chair: Mr Young, the committee appreciates your sharing that experience with us. Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Bisson: What's your point?
Mr Miclash: I do that twice a week. What's your point?
Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Daniels, I'd like to direct some comments to you because I would like to hear a little bit more of what you have to say.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Bisson: Imagine that. We have to travel every week back to our ridings. We should stay here, Frank.
The Chair: Order. Mr Wettlaufer, please proceed.
Mr Wettlaufer: It's pretty hard to talk over Mr Miclash and Mr Bisson, but I will give it my best shot.
Mr Daniels, I would like to direct a question to you. I'd like to hear a little bit more about what you say as far as the efficiency of the civil service is concerned. In 1993 a book was written by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler entitled Reinventing Government. The book talked about the bankruptcy of bureaucracy and how the system developed, how it was allowed to develop and the fact that we had rather unethical businesses in the late 1800s, the turn of the century, and how some of the presidents, ie, Theodore Roosevelt, decided that a bureaucracy was the way to go, and that for a time it did serve the public interest quite well.
That was great because they didn't have the information system then that we have now. People didn't have the expectations then that they have now of the public service. While it provided some security and stability, it couldn't meet the demands of today. It's a very interesting thesis on why the bureaucracy must change. I'd like to hear more of what you have to say in that regard.
Mr Daniels: Actually, the Gaebler and Osborne book was a groundbreaking book that led to government restructuring in the United States. It also finds its roots in the United Kingdom in the reforms of the Thatcher government, where you see a lot of the things happening across the Commonwealth. In the national performance review by Al Gore I was quite pleased, as a Canadian, to see that they always refer to the starting of government reform in the UK. I know they're not of the same political stripe, and I'm not a politician, but it's good to see that people are copying each other. It doesn't matter. It's the reform of government that's most important. That for me, as a public servant, is the best thing. We can make it better, and there are ways of making it better.
Gaebler and Osborne talked about something that we have done really well in Ontario and that is finding alternative ways of dealing with service delivery. Gaebler and Osborne came up with the famous quote that government should, "Steer, not row, the boat of government." What it was saying there is, government should be expert in policy, policy development, setting agendas, being the moral steward. If I can show a slide --
Mr Wettlaufer: Please do.
Mr Daniels: This is actually Canadian -- you're quoting from Gaebler and Osborne, who did a lot of work in the United States. Here's a really interesting piece of work for the Federal government of Canada by a research firm, Ekos, a guy called Frank Greaves. He's really articulate when he presents it. He did several thousand Canadians, a major study on what they thought government of today and tomorrow would be. This sort of goes with what you were talking about: the rowing and steering that Gaebler and Osborne talked about. I find it interesting. He says that government should not be worrying about its vertical control, ie, up and down its ministries. I think that's really important. We've got to start knitting around program and output, not just around ourselves.
When I talk about vertical and horizontal and about the last one, organizational imperative versus the customer imperative, if you want to see where government has got it wrong, go to the blue pages and find in there that the government lists itself in three governments: federal, provincial and municipal. Then, within the federal, provincial and municipal, does it ever talk about its products? No. It only talks about its departments, its branches and its ministries.
At one time I was the registrar general, and birth certificates are what that branch is about. It's in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and children are not usually a commercial transaction, but that's where it's housed. You would never think to find a birth certificate in the blue pages under Consumer and Commercial Relations unless you're a historian like I was and understand naming culture. What the heck is a registrar general? That's called the Office of the Registrar General. How many Canadians know what the heck it is? Why not call it the birth certificate office?
We just developed new blue pages in Kingston. All three levels of government said, "Let's just put the products out," so it says, "hunting licence," "fishing license." That's what it is and that's what the citizen wants. They don't care what level of government gives it, "Just give me the program." So, we're getting it right.
Mr Parker: You'll put my annual calendar out of business.
Mr Daniels: That's the whole purpose of my annual mailing. I'll decode the government phone book. If you go to Kingston, Mr Parker, you'll see blue pages that are done on product -- remember I said to change government from citizen-state. There's nothing wrong with citizen-state if you look at the government as producer and the people who receive it as customers. This little slide is what it's all about.
Mr Parker: Congratulations.
Mr Doyle: I can recall trying to get hold of a government office one time. My call was transferred 22 times from the time I started to call and I still never got what I was looking for.
Mr Daniels: Again, the blue pages wouldn't help you because you would be phoning -- I think of that birth certificate. If I were a Canadian knowing a little bit about this stuff, I would have thought that Stats Can must keep my birth certificate, so I'd look all through the Canadian side of the blue pages and then find it's not there. Then I'd say, "Didn't I register my birth at the municipality?" which is true, and I'd look in that part of the thing and I wouldn't find it there either.
Mr Doyle: I might add that this happened about 10 years ago.
Mr Wettlaufer: During the Liberal administration.
Mr Daniels: Anyway, we're getting better. I think the key to government of the future, as it says here, is that government should only steer, it should be customer-centred, it should think about products and being organized horizontally rather than vertically and be a partner with its citizens and all its sectors. Those are pretty good. Then look at the surviving and new roles. They're pretty good roles for government: visionary planner, guardian, moral steward, economic framework steward. Those are the roles that citizens in Canada see for their governments. You asked about that and that's at the heart of what restructuring government is about.
Gaebler and Osborne also talked about delivering government in an alternative way. I know we talked earlier about people losing their jobs, but there's another side to that story. I was responsible for the establishment of Teranet, which had an interesting history, but today it's one of the best news stories in public administration. Teranet started with 61 public servants and it now has close to 600 staff directly employed by Teranet. It has created over 2,000 jobs in the economy. This is a profit-making company of which government is a 50-50 shareholder. It's a wonderful story.
1730
Mr Bisson: Who started it? Was that the NDP government again? Oh, gee, not again.
Mr Daniels: All government had a hand in it.
Mr Wettlaufer: We'll give you credit for it.
Ms Mushinski: Absolutely. Just like hospital reform.
Mr Parker: Just like the current hospital reform.
Mr Daniels: The project covers all three governments. They have worked hard to get this Teranet project going.
Mr Bisson: So it wasn't a lost 10 years after all. I'm beginning to believe the mantra.
Mr Daniels: What it has done in the last couple of years is create over 2,000 jobs.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Daniels. Now we turn to the official opposition. Mr Miclash.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would ask for unanimous consent to give him another five minutes. I find him most fascinating.
The Chair: We have a request for unanimous consent.
Mr Bisson: It comes off the Tory time next time.
The Chair: I see. I think it's probably out of order to suggest that from the beginning. I'll ask Mr Miclash to proceed.
Mr Miclash: My question is to the parliamentary assistant, who rattled off a great number of figures about travel in previous governments. I need to know from her how much it cost the Premier when he came to Kenora by jet, had the jet sit out on the tarmac to go fishing with his son, how much downtime there was, what that downtime cost specifically, what the cost of the jet into Kenora was, the total cost, how many staff were with him and who else was with him on that jet when he came fishing in Kenora. She had a lot of specifics regarding other government travel. I would like to know those specifics.
Mr Young: Are you trying to say you don't want the Premier to come to the north? You don't want the Premier to come to Kenora?
The Chair: Mr Young, please let Mrs Mushinski answer.
Ms Mushinski: I don't have the specific details of that question. Again, Mr Chairman, I'll be happy to take the question under advisement.
Mr Miclash: I'm confused. With all due respect, PA, you had a great amount of specifics about other government travel. Why would you not have this government travel at your fingertips? I'm totally confused.
Mr Bisson: Good question.
Mr Wettlaufer: We've noticed for three years that you're confused.
Mr Miclash: I don't think that was appropriate.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mrs Mushinski.
Ms Mushinski: The specific information I've provided was required to be submitted, certainly, for the estimates. I certainly did give you the information pertaining to the Premier's office travel budget. The information I provided you with was really in response to those questions. If there are specific details pertaining to that budget, as I had suggested, I would be happy to provide you with that.
Mr Miclash: I want to go back to a comment that was just made, whether it was on the record or not, by the Conservative member Mr Young: "I always want the Premier to come to Kenora and I always encourage the Premier to come to Kenora; I encourage ministers to come to Kenora." He indicated earlier through some of his comments that yes, he had been to Dryden, that we were happy to see him in Dryden. I'm not sure Bearskin are going to be too happy with the comments he put on the record regarding their services, but that's beside the point.
What I have to stress here to the PA is that when the Premier was in Kenora he did not meet, and he refused to meet, with any groups that asked for meetings with him during that visit. There were a good number of requests made. There were a number of presentations made to him when he was on the dock participating in the fishing event and bringing in his catch. Yet, he refused an audience with any of the many groups that met with him. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Back to some other comments made here earlier regarding travel in northwestern Ontario: I certainly look forward to reviewing those comments on Hansard. I hear it every day; it's a typical attitude of this government when it comes to northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario. I go back to Mr Daniels. With all due respect, Mr Daniels, I really appreciate the things you've said in terms of your presentation, but what we don't hear about, what this government doesn't seem to hear about is the number of lives that are affected when a government cuts back. It just doesn't seem to get the message when a number of people are laid off, when services aren't provided. At our local hospital right not we're into some real problems where this government just does not seem to get the message that we need some of these programs in order to allow psychiatric services to patients.
Mr Young: On a point of order, Mr Chair: These are important issues but they really aren't related to the estimates of the Premier's office.
The Chair: Mr Young --
Mr Miclash: I'm commenting on his report to us. He spent 20 minutes of your time giving us a report. I'm asking questions about his report. I'm making comments on his report. Is that out of order, Chair?
The Chair: Mr Miclash, you are in order. Mr Young, you are not. Please continue.
Mr Young: You made a ruling earlier that the questions had to relate to the estimates of the Premier's office and the member's comments are not.
The Chair: Mr Young, we've spent an undue amount of time talking about process today. I'd like the committee to continue to move forward. I have ruled on that, I believe I am in conformance with that ruling and I'd ask you to observe that. Mr Miclash, please continue.
Mr Miclash: Again a question to Mr Daniels. In terms of the evidence you gave when you were audited for this award or however it happened, were there ever any questions about what layoffs from the government did for the citizens of that particular province?
Mr Daniels: A number of the alternatives I talked about were actually job creation alternatives, moving from government being the sole deliverer to going into partnership. Teranet, as I was telling you earlier, moved from 61 public servants to 1,000 jobs in the private sector, directly created. Teranet is one of the top companies in Canada in terms of high-end technology employers. It has less than a one per cent staff turnover, and last month those staff, all staff at all levels, got a two-week salary bonus for productivity and performance of the company. I think we should always look at that.
Also, the government transferred its laboratories, its research and its education to the University of Guelph without a job loss. The benefits and salaries of the staff improved. The Teranet staff, as you can see, will make better money than a public servant because it's a competitive market. They're a high-tech company. The Ontario government's technology salaries are not yet competitive. We're losing at a rate of 17%. Teranet doesn't lose staff. The average age of the public service is 48; Teranet's is 28. Sometimes when you have to compete in a high-tech market, it is better to move it out of government. We moved our high-technology services out of government. We've also --
Interjections.
Mr Daniels: Yes. If we're going to be in laboratories and research, I think it was right for us to move. Another wonderful experience that's paying off very well is a movement of all our inspection, investigation and technical standards, which was about a year and a half ago. Mr Parker helped me get that legislation through on industry self-management.
We had lost our way as civil servants or as a delivery of service. I had 40 clerks and one inspector looking after real estate. We collected $6 million in revenue and spent $2 million on keeping the industry fair. But we created a self-management industry. It has increased the number of inspectors and it has provided a public-private partnership of delivery where the consumers' association is a member of the board, users of the real estate industries are members of the board and the public service is a member of the board. It's a board of directors were all stakeholders are directing the industry and keeping a level playing field.
Again, 300 jobs left the public service. Nobody lost their job. In fact, those people's salaries went up and their benefits were improved. We recently conducted a staff survey in the 90 percentile of job satisfaction at the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. I think you have to look very carefully at all these stories and put them in balance, because you're seeing people who move out of government into new relationships with higher morale. Teranet staff productivity improved 250%. They didn't have any kind of transfer of genetic skills. They were just better tools, better rewards and better recognition. Government is a fair employer but it's a level employer. It can't give the same kinds of rewards and recognitions that the private sector can.
1740
I also want to talk to you about another good-news story and it's in the northwest. I was the assistant deputy minister responsible for the transfer to Thunder Bay of the registrar general: a wonderful story and probably one of the best stories in government in terms of relocation. Over 130 staff work in Thunder Bay; 80% were single mothers off welfare, in real, good jobs; 20% were First Nations; 20% were physically challenged: deaf, blind, quadriplegia, paraplegia. It's an exciting opportunity. They have imaging technology, therefore if you're without limbs you just talk to the machine. We created a model workplace in Ontario. None of those staff has left and their productivity is 60% higher than the group we had in Toronto because of tools and skills, but also recognizing people working together in a workplace based on a model that was called "knowledge workers," where you're paid for what you learn, not for seniority or time. You move from class to class, from job to job in a wonderful place where you're paid for your knowledge. Everybody teaches and everybody learns and at any time of their cycle they're both the teacher and a learner, so everybody is equal.
It's a place where the job classification has only one job title and one pay grade for the entire workforce at the front end and it's called "customer service representative." It's not called "data entry clerk" or "phone operator." We said: "Everybody is the same. Let's empower the whole team to be the same." Organizations should look like that and behave like that. We've got some great places and high productivity both in and out of government. I don't think we take credit for all the things we've done in terms of creating a good workplace, but also, the workplaces that alternative deliveries have created are world-class and we should be really proud of what we've all accomplished. It's a good thing we've all focused on: service to Ontarians.
The Chair: : Thank you Mr Daniels. Mr Miclash.
Mr Miclash: I didn't think my question had asked all that --
Ms Mushinski: It was an excellent question.
Mr Young: Ask it again.
Interjection: You asked about people losing their jobs.
Mr Miclash: I want to go back to the fact that you stated that 60% of folks don't think government is doing a good job. That relates very well to Mr Doyle's comment about being what I call "clicked over" 22 times in trying to make a --
Mr Doyle: That was 10 years ago.
Mr Miclash: I understand that. I still think that was one of the biggest comments of a good number of the folks who just returned my survey, that they were sick and tired of talking to a machine. You have a member of the Conservative Party at the present time who has introduced a private member's resolution. Yes, he still is a member of the Conservative Party. Mr Daniels, I would just like to ask you how you think government can go about changing so that we don't have 60% of the folks out there thinking they don't do a good job. I can understand it with this present government but I'm talking about government in general.
Mr Daniels: The point I wanted to make there by showing that survey from the National Quality Institute is to show you that when government is aggregated, and that was all government -- federal, provincial and municipal. It didn't differentiate between the kind of service we provided. This slide I've put up is really important, not just to focus on the 40%; that's what people think in general. Even the private sector can only score 5.8% when you ask about them in general. But when you ask about certain public services, and the number one public service in Ontario is the parks, our provincial parks are rated very high. What we've got to look at is, what do the public libraries offer, and can we emulate why they are so popular with Canadians? Public libraries are important because they integrate the community, the government, they offer a multiple level of service. They are a clustering place.
The Ontario Business Connects workstations are in libraries where they should be. That's a good place for government to be accessible: where citizens access it. This gives us a good signal of what we should be doing in the future.
My vision of the public service of the future is that it's not a bunch of ministries and departments but a bunch of programs that circle around the needs of the citizens. We should be really proud of Ontario Business Connects and we should be proud of -- I didn't even get to talk about it -- Service Ontario, which lets you get a driver's licence in three minutes.
The Chair: Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: Being that Mr Daniels had brought up the provincial parks of Ontario, I agreed with him that at one time they were great parks and everything, and in our part of eastern Ontario, the St Lawrence Parks Commission, I think they're a disgrace. They've been closed. They used to have all kinds of campers coming in from the province of Quebec, from the United States, and they were good for small business and they've been closed. Maybe you could give me some advice on how we might get those parks opened again. This government will not even talk to the municipalities or anyone else about opening these parks. In my particular area they're in South Glengarry, namely Raisin River, Charlottenburg, Lakeview Heights parks. I know you said you're proud, but I'm not proud. They're closed; they're a disaster. Everything has rotted. The buildings have been vandalized and smashed down. I just wanted to mention it. Maybe you've got some good advice for me on how we might get those parks open? Give government a lesson.
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, I believe that perhaps is a question with respect to estimates as they pertain to parks that are open and parks that have been closed.
The Chair: Ms Mushinski, I want to be clear: It is not up to me to deal with the quality of your answers. The liberties that are taken here to explore the expenditures of the Premier's office run both ways. I don't arbitrate your answers when you talk either in a partisan form or more broadly about issues. I would ask that these interventions not be obstreperous; that we allow for some flow of dialogue. If you choose not to answer, that's fine, but please don't reference the fact that it's not appropriate for this committee. I've ruled on that. These issues have been raised by people representing the government's side, and I think it's important for future discussions that we're going to have on this that we don't try to have the rules work one way.
Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, with the greatest of respect, if you had given me the opportunity to finish my answer, I was about to say that I will take that particular question under advisement and get a response. I do not believe that it is a question dealing with the management of this government but more to do with the parks that are closing, and have to do with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the parks policy. I will get a response to that. I do not believe that I was being at all obstreperous in my response to Mr Cleary.
Mr Young: Mr Chair, on a point of order.
The Chair: Ms Mushinski, I want to explain: I thought you were finished speaking. On several other occasions you've declined to respond on those grounds. and that is your right and your privilege.
Ms Mushinski: You've given me the opportunity to respond fully.
The Chair: I just want to make sure because it can affect how other people will participate in these discussions. There is nothing about Mr Cleary's discussion with items that have been raised by members of your staff that is outside the purview of this committee. If we stand agreed on that, then that's fine.
Ms Mushinski: I did not say that, Mr Chair, with respect.
The Chair: I don't mean to make any inference. I appreciate your clarification. I believe that Mr Young has a point of order.
Mr Young: I do, Chair. With all due respect, I believe it's beyond your authority to make comment on the quality of the answers in committee. I don't see our Speaker in the House making comment on the quality of the answers in the House.
The Chair: Mr Young, I made no comment on the quality of the --
Mr Young: It's beyond your authority.
The Chair: You are not in a point of order, and we'll ask Mr Cleary to continue.
Mr Cleary: Thanks Mr Chair. I've been very careful in this committee to only ask questions that have been brought up by the parliamentary assistant, in this case Mr Daniels, and how proud he was of the parks of Ontario. I'm just telling him that I differ from that because I'm not proud of the way they've been used and the way they are right now. I just want to ask for his advice on how we might get attention because the municipalities are interested in working out an agreement with this provincial government on the parks. We almost had an agreement at one time but it got scuttled in cabinet somehow. I'm asking this of Mr Daniels.
Mr Daniels: When I was talking about parks it was that in terms of the Canadian public and the Ontario public, the parks are rated in the top two or three services in Canada. The Ministry of Natural Resources conducted a survey on its services last year through Goldfarb and Associates and found that their parks were running at an 85% customer satisfaction rate. In other words, people are satisfied with the parks and they use them. In that booklet we passed around there's a good story about the park in Bronte and its accessibility to the disabled.
Mr Cleary: I read that.
Mr Daniels: You should all read that: how a park can be a city park and be really exciting. Bronte Park is a good story and it's written up in the article.
Mr Cleary: That was exactly my point. You said they're proud, and I had said I'm proud of them too, but I'm not proud of the ones that have been closed and vandalized and a government or a government service that will not listen to local people who are interested in possibly working out some kind of agreement to open them. That was my comment. I wouldn't have brought it up, only you had brought it up, so I thought I should have something to say here too.
The Acting Chair (Mr Miclash): Thank you very much Mr Cleary. We'll move on.
Mr Cleary: Are we done?
The Acting Chair: Yes we are.
Mr Cleary: We're just getting started here.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, I took up a lot of time. Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I just want to put something on the record vis-à-vis my --
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: Order. Mr Bisson.
Mr Pettit: They have never been used.
The Acting Chair: Mr Pettit, Mr Bisson has the floor.
Mr Pettit: I was just replying to Mr Cleary.
Mr Bisson: I would like to put on the record my view to a question that was asked earlier vis-à-vis the Premier travelling to Kenora and bringing his son with him on a fishing trip. I don't have an objection to the Premier's bringing his son with him. God knows, I may not like the Premier of Ontario and his policies, but we know that the job of the Premier takes him away from his family, as it does all members of this assembly. I think that as members we should recognize among ourselves, and also openly with the public, that our jobs take us away from our families. We should never engage in anything that would somehow infer that bringing your children somewhere, if it's at your own expense, is in any way a detriment to our ability to do our jobs.
We are privileged people serving here in Ontario. We have an ability as members, because we have chosen to do so by way of the Legislative Assembly, to have what's called "family travel". You're allowed, as an out-of-town member, to have your wife or your children come and visit you in Toronto when you're here during the session. That's something I respect and very much value, because it's hard to keep a marriage together and your children close to you when you're doing this job. I think we should recognize that the Premier -- we may not agree with him, but I know it's a tough job and that the Premier loves his family, wants to be with his children, and that's something we should encourage him in. I just wanted to put that on the record. Nothing otherwise was inferred, I'm sure. I just wanted to make sure that nobody misunderstood what my views and the views of my party are. We believe that the family is important and that's something we need to try to maintain.
I want to go back to questions we asked earlier vis-à-vis -- I've got four minutes so I don't think I'm going to have time to get into it. I would move adjournment of the committee until the next time we sit.
The Acting Chair: Mr Bisson has moved adjournment of the committee. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1753.