Legislative Assembly of Ontario

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

CONTENTS

Tuesday 27 October 1998

Office of the Premier

Ms Marilyn Mushinski, MPP, parliamentary assistant

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 Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Viktor Kaczkowski

Staff / Personnel

Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1544 in committee room 2.

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): We'll call the meeting to order. Mrs Mushinski, thank you for your attendance.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Apologies for being little late, Mr Chairman.

The Vice-Chair: All right. We will begin with the NDP, who have 22 minutes left in their opening remarks.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): To the parliamentary assistant, we're glad that you are able to be with us today. You're somewhat late, but I imagine being the parliamentary assistant to the Premier is a very busy job, always having to confer with the Premier on every decision, having to talk to him in detail about what decisions he's making and making sure he's properly advised. We all know that is the job of the PA.

I have a number of questions I would like to raise further on in the committee. I would like to use the time for a few things to say up front, and I do have a series of questions that I'd like, if the parliamentary assistant can make sure her staff note that we're able to get answers to. I would also like to note that last year when we had the Premier's office before this committee, there were specific questions asked that were never reported back to me and back to this committee, and I don't think that's the way we should be doing business.

Needless to say, I have a large ideological difference with this government. I respect that this government has its views, that they believe in what they're doing, as far as they're concerned it's right, but basically in my view a lot of what this government's doing in the longer run is going to come back and bite us. I think a lot of decisions that are being made are somewhat problematic.

I look at the decisions being made today around Ontario Hydro. This whole issue of the stranded debt, the whole issue of transferring over assets of Ontario Hydro to the private sector the way that this government is doing, this particular exercise really gives me a sense that when they talk about reducing the deficit they're really talking about not reducing the deficit of the government so much but transferring that deficit on to people by way of user fees and added taxes. In the case of Ontario Hydro, we're going to see that probably in spades.

Also, I have a difficulty with your government, Parliamentary Assistant, with regard to a number of the decisions that you make, because it seems to me that this government seems to sometimes forget the role of government. If I listen to Mike Harris -- during the opposition years and now in government -- they really are trying to tell you that government is not especially a good thing, that government is too big and we should make it smaller and if we do that everything is going to be better. From where I sit in northern Ontario that's not the case. Government has a very important role to play in making sure that we do a few things right, and those things are, in my view and list of priorities, that we need to ensure that we have a good system of health care that responds to the needs of individuals in our communities, not just in some communities, but making sure that we have a proper infrastructure of health care across the province. Equally important is a good system of education.

We all know that Ontario is not a low-wage economy; Ontario is a high-wage economy that competes on the basis of a knowledge-based economy. In order to be competitors in that kind of economy, you have to have an excellent system of education that responds to people. I see this government making a number of changes, not all of them bad, but on the mix I would say a lot of them are bad. I can't say that all of them are bad, but I worry about policy decisions around education. I also worry about funding issues. I see the government reducing overall budgets at the primary-secondary level when it comes to actual dollars spent in education. I really worry about the tuition increases that we have. We've had not only your government -- in fairness, there were other governments before in opposition under the Davis government, under the Peterson government, the Rae government, and now the Harris government -- under which we have seen tuitions rise at the post-secondary level.

I really worry about that and my good friend Mr Bartolucci from Sudbury would probably concur on this point, and probably children or young adults in other parts of the province, that as tuition starts to rise it's not just the question that young people are having to assume a larger and larger debt to go to school, but it becomes more difficult for them to make the decision to get there. I really worry about your decision to deregulate tuition fees on post-graduate programs at university.

We in northern Ontario are having a heck of a problem, as are other places, attracting doctors. One of the solutions is the long-term one, to encourage our young people to become doctors and come back into our northern communities and practise medicine. But if we see tuition fees go the way they are because of the deregulation of post-graduate programs, we're going to see virtually a lot of kids in northern Ontario, as in other places, who won't be able to afford to go to school: 18,000 bucks for tuition is a lot of money, and most kids I know in Timmins or Iroquois Falls or Matheson don't have 18,000 bucks a year to go to university to become a doctor. What I think that does over the short term is block kids who want to go into medical school from going, and second, over the longer term it's a real societal problem, because what you're going to end up with eventually, if this is not reversed, is most members of the fraternity will come from the upper classes. What is that going to do for health care and what is that going to do to the overall well-being of our economy? It's going to really be one class level, those people with dollars, who will be in those positions, because kids at the bottom end of the scale, kids of working parents and working-class kids, are virtually not going to have an opportunity to go.

I look at what your government does when it comes to economic development, and I really worry about this one. We all understand, and I think we all agree on all sides of the House, that economic development is one of the most important things we can be doing in government, ensuring that we create the climate for investment, ensuring that we have an ability to assist the private sector where need be to participate in this thing that we call the economy. I look at what's happening not only here in Ontario but I look at North America and the world economy. The economy has shifted to the right. It is an economy that is based on the big guy, the big company. The big multinational organizations are the ones that are controlling the vast share of capital that's available to business.

1550

I look at what happens in my community and I think it's the same for most. You have a whole bunch of individuals who would like to start their own businesses who are having more and more difficulty getting off the ground. Why? Because the banks have become very conservative in their policies when it comes to lending money to individuals and small businesses that are established to either start a business or expand an existing business.

I look at what this government has done. It has cancelled economic development programs. It has cancelled programs such as the ones we had at NODC. I look at programs of the heritage fund, MEDT, a number of programs that were cancelled, that didn't fix the problem but went a long way to assist the small business community and individuals to participate in the economy. I would much rather see the government utilize its resources and its expertise to look at developing policies and investment vehicles that are not so much aimed at the big guy -- the big guy will always do well; the multinationals have got bucks, they've got lawyers, they've got access to capital -- but it's the small guy on the street, the man and the woman who want to start a business, the man and the woman who want to invest in their own business and expand it. Those are the people who need our help. That's where government can play a good role. I'm not saying give them money -- I don't think that would be right either -- but there's certainly an ability by government by way of loans or loan guarantees to make the borrowing of money a little bit easier.

All in all, I have great difficulty in the direction this government is going, because I really believe the government forgets what its role is. I think its role is supporting communities, making sure that we have a good system of education and health care, so that we are able to perform as an economy.

I have a number of specific questions I want to ask the ministry and I want the parliamentary assistant to note these questions and hopefully get answers to specific questions that I have. One of the things I've noticed in the estimates, as far as the budget of the ministry, is that the spending seems concentrated in services when you look at the estimates of the Premier's office, particularly for this year. One of the questions I have is -- I don't need a response at this point; what I want are written responses coming back -- what are these services that you're spending money on, and are there any communication activities involved in that spending? Is any of the money that we see in the $2.6 million of last year or the $2.9 million for next year going to be utilized in communications activity? I'd like to know what those activities are.

The other thing is as I look through the estimates I notice a large enough increase in the budget over the last couple of years, and again I would ask a response to this particular question: How many staff are there in the Premier's office at this point, what are their classifications and what are the salary ranges? I don't need to know specifics but I'd like to know what the ranges of salary are for these people.

Ms Mushinski: Do you want the range of each one of them?

Mr Bisson: I want the range, not the specific. I'm not interested in knowing that staff such-and-such is making so much.

Ms Mushinski: You don't have any specific --

Mr Bisson: I just want the salary ranges. I'd like to know bottom range, top range, what people are getting paid. I want to know how many people you have in the Premier's office and what the classifications of those individuals are.

The other thing I want to know, because we all know that this government is very big in fee-for-service contracts when it comes to getting particular projects done -- again another question -- how many fee-for-service contracts did the Premier's office sign last year, and again, what the ranges of those contracts were, and if at all possible, what some of those were for. I don't think I'll get an answer to the last one.

Ms Mushinski: Ranges and purpose, right?

Mr Bisson: Ranges and purpose, yes.

I also want to know what individuals who formerly worked for the Premier's office are currently working in the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board and what capacity they're working in. We know that there's been a shift of a lot of people who have gone over to the Ontario jobs board and I'd like to know who those people are.

Ms Mushinski: That is cabinet office, and questions relating to that would come under those particular estimates.

Mr Bisson: All right. I'll come back to that when we have questions a little bit later. You might be right, but I have a suspicion there are some people who have gone over there.

The other thing is, you used to have Ab Campion who worked in the Premier's office and who is now doing work at the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. I'd like to know what he's doing on that particular board. I don't seem to have a line on that.

Ms Mushinski: Could you repeat that?

Mr Bisson: You had an Ab Campion who is now doing work at the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. He used to be with the minister's office. I'd just like to know what he's doing these days. I haven't seen Ab in a while. Also, we note that David Lindsay has moved away from the Premier's office, again to the same board, the jobs and investment board. I guess the question I have, and if I can get this, in that particular board, is there any restriction to the political activity of individuals working at that board? Because we all know how David Lindsay is.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): On a point of order, Chair: We are here to deal with the estimates of the Premier's office, not the estimates of the cabinet office. I wonder if you might admonish the member to train his inquiry to matters relating to the estimates that are in fact before us.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Parker. Mr Bisson, you have 11 minutes and maybe you could try to tie in Mr Lindsay with the Premier.

Mr Bisson: I will definitely. I guess when you evoke a reaction from the government, saying, "Don't ask questions in this line because we think it might be out of order," it would tell me that maybe they're a little bit more nervous about this than I thought they were. We know who David Lindsay was. We know David Lindsay was a staff member of the Premier's office. We know David Lindsay, as many others would know, is a very politically active person within the Conservative Party, and we have the right to know, through the Premier's office, if he's been transferred over there, what the heck he's doing.

Mr Parker: He's not in the Premier's office.

Mr Bisson: I get a sense that we really have hit a nerve here.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): What are you trying to hide?

Mr Parker: Why don't you ask about Bill King? He's no longer with the Premier's office. Why don't you ask what he's doing now?

The Vice-Chair: Mr Parker, please. Mr Gerretsen, Mr Bisson has valuable time; he'd like to use it.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much. I just make this point yet again: When you get this kind of reaction from the government side, they must be nervous about something and maybe we need to do a bit more digging on that side, considering the reaction we get. Political lesson number one is that you should not react to these things, because it gives us the suspicion maybe we should go further.

With regard to the Premier's office as well, I note that the budget of the Premier's office has gone up again this year. We know that last year, in 1996-97, their actual expenditures were $2.6 million. We know that they estimated before this committee -- $2.8 million was being requested from the Legislature to run the Premier's office. They came in at $2.67 million, an increase over last year. Now this Premier and his office has come back to us again, just before an election, saying, "We want $2.9 million." That's an increase over what they had the year before.

You know what? I distinctly remember something. I remember being on this committee, because I've probably been on this committee longer than most -- I've been on this committee since 1990 -- and I remember, je me souviens that the government, then the third party, with honourable members --

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): You're not as old as that, are you?

Mr Bisson: I'm as old as you are, my dear friend, as old sometimes I feel. But I do remember my good friend Mr Stockwell, the honourable member that he is, as an active, quite eloquent member of the opposition; I remember Mr Turnbull coming before this committee; and I remember other members of the Tory party coming before this committee and complaining of the expenditures of the office of Bob Rae, who was then the Premier of Ontario, and about how Bob Rae was spending lots and lots of money in the Premier's office and he supposedly had lots of staff and how terrible that was. They were going to be different. They were going to come in here and they were going to be austere. They were going to be the most austere group that was ever seen walking into the Premier's office. They made us that kind of pledge at estimates when we were here from 1990 to 1995. I just want to review the record because I think this is important and I think it's rather interesting. In the 1992-93 budget year, the estimates for the Premier's office were $2.59 million -- $2.5 million, to round it out. In 1993-94, it went down. It went from $2.5 million to $2.3 million under Bob Rae. In 1994-95, it went from $2.3 million to $2.1 million. In 1995, if we had finished out our time, the estimates were $1.8 million requested, again a reduction over what it was in the years before.

1600

I want to say why it is that the Premier of the day, Mr Bob Rae, and his government had reduced his expenditures in that way, because we were fairly conscious of the questions being asked by the then third party and the opposition of the day, Lyn McLeod. We were somewhat sensitive to the allegations that were being made about the size of the Premier's office and the amount of staff that were there. Obviously there seems to have been some kind of response, because when I look at the estimates, I see that, year over year, from 1992 on, the actual expenditures in the Premier's office went down.

But I look in 1995-96, half of that year served under Bob Rae, up until June 8, 1995, and the rest of those expenditures afterwards were spent by who? Mike Harris, the now Premier of Ontario. It was estimated at $2.8 million, and his actuals when he actually finished were $2.1 million. He was going to be different. I want to know from the parliamentary assistant later, how is he different?

Mr Beaubien: It's shorter.

Mr Bisson: It's a little bit shorter, but I just look at it and I want to review the numbers. We start with a $2.5-million expenditure in 1992; it goes down to an actual $2.1-million estimate in 1994-95; it was going to go down further than that in 1996, but we did not finish our term. The Tories got in our way, as we might say, and so did the Libs, I guess. But anyway, I look at the expenditures at this point, and at the end of 1996-97 we estimated the expenditures at $2.7 million. We finished with $2.6 million. I guess we can say: "Hooray, hooray, the Premier came in under budget. He came in under estimates. Boy, what a good money manager he is." But if you were to raise my budget in my constituency office, year after year, to the extent that you've increased the budget of the Premier's office, I'd be able to come in under budget every year too.

Members of the assembly have not had that ability. The members of the assembly have seen their budgets go down overall. One of the big jokes or one of the big scams, as I would call it -- oh, that's not parliamentary, is it? I can't say the word "scam" in committee, I would say, Chair?

The Vice-Chair: You're right. Withdraw.

Mr Bisson: I withdraw the word "scam" and will think of some other word in my vocabulary that doesn't come to me right now.

They have said that members are not to have free mailing privileges. We used to have the ability to do three householders a year, plus we had unlimited mailing. We were able to do as many letters as we wanted to our constituents. The government now says "within a global budget." All of our communications are done through a global budget of $201,000 that's meant to run our constituency office. That's a reduction of around $30,000 to $50,000 per member, depending on how much you used to communicate. And this Premier comes to us at the estimates committee and yet again this year asks for more money to run the Office of the Premier?

I have great difficulty in accepting these estimates. If it's good enough for members of this assembly to have a reduction of their budgets overall, if it's good enough for members of this assembly to actually have their expenses frozen since the reduction of 1996, why should this committee allow the Premier of Ontario, none other than Mike Harris, to ask for an increase this year in excess of $132,000? I want to know what's different about Mike Harris. Does he have a new tailor who charges more money? We need answers for these questions.

Mr Gerretsen: New golf clubs.

Mr Bisson: Did he buy new golf clubs that we have to pay for? Does he have a new car? Is the coffee set in the reception office now no longer brass but silver? What's this all for?

I, for one, as a member, am somewhat miffed at a Premier who would come before this committee and ask us to approve yet again another increase in expenditure. Mike Harris is really good at cutting everybody else's salaries. Mike Harris is really good at firing civil servants. Mike Harris has no problem reducing the budgets in hospitals in this province on average 8% last year and the year before. This government led by Mike Harris has no difficulty taking over $1 billion out of public education. This government has no problem under Mike Harris raising the tuition fees of students across this province and deregulating post-graduate programs at university level. If that's the Mike Harris everybody else knows, why should we accept increasing the expenditures of the Premier this year, as they did last year?

I would say in closing, I look forward to the questions and the discussion we will have with the honourable parliamentary assistant, Madam Mushinksi, but I've got to say, I, for one, am not going to be supporting this request. I think it's wrong. If everybody else in this province has had to tighten their belt, I think Mike Harris has got a couple of notches on his belt that he can do.

Mr Gerretsen: Cut 22%.

Mr Bisson: Exactly. I would only close on this point, and it's a very good point: If he saw fit to cut the most vulnerable people in our society by 28% on social assistance, maybe we should be asking the same from the Premier. I might just be moving such a motion over the next little while.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Mushinski, you now have 30 minutes to respond.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for inviting me to appear once again before your committee. I want to tell you it's a pleasure to be here.

Interjection.

Ms Mushinski: Notice my tongue firmly in my cheek when I say that.

Last Wednesday, I appeared before your committee to present the Premier's office 1998-99 estimates, especially noting how the Premier's office was supporting the Premier in responding to the ideas, concerns and challenges suggested by the people of Ontario. Following my comments, a number of questions and, I would suggest, allegations were voiced by some members of this committee. I'd like to take a few minutes to respond to these questions and allegations in the interest of offering even more clarity and context to your review of the Premier's office estimates.

First, there was some concern about the quality and accuracy of the financial information that your committee received. I want to say, let there be no doubt, these estimates are thorough, they are complete and they are fully accurate. We have been forthright in passing on the information you need to do your job as committee members. As a government, we believe fully in the twin principles of accountability and transparency. These estimates reflect our commitment to these basic fundamentals. In fact, your committee has received all information 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 provided to you is exactly what is required under the standing orders.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich, Ms Pupatello, also made some what I consider to be truly outrageous allegations and comments regarding renovation expenses. This is an important issue because it deals with not only the best uses of taxpayers' dollars but also the best use of government buildings. Again, I would like to be very clear on this: There are no costs related to moving and renovations in the 1998-99 estimates that are before you.

1610

You may remember that the topic of renovations and the moving of offices came up last year during the committee's review of the 1997-98 Premier's office estimates. At that time, the Premier's parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton South, the Honourable Tony Clement, made the following comments:

"Property management is handled by the Ontario Realty Corp. This corporation is an entity created by the previous government to manage the province's real estate assets on a businesslike basis. The relocation of provincial government offices out of Toronto, begun by the Peterson government and continued by the previous government, resulted in underused pockets of space in government-owned and leased buildings.

"ORC wanted to consolidate this space in government-owned buildings and to sell off the resultant empty ones that it owned or terminate the leases for the ones that it rented. That was the driving force behind the relocations at the Whitney Block.... A number of the existing occupants in the Whitney Block were required to relocate within the building to achieve the best use of the remaining office space, including the Premier's office.

"Offices for the Centre for Leadership were consolidated from leased space at 790 Bay Street into the Whitney Block, with immediate savings in these costs of $700,000 a year.

"Based on these lease savings, this relocation project will pay for itself in about four years, and through similar co-locations and consolidations our government has saved more than $25 million in office accommodation costs."

Mr Gerretsen: Where?

Ms Mushinski: Let me reiterate what my colleague said. Based on the lease savings of $700,000 a year, last year's relocation of the Premier's office -- and I say the Premier's office because that's what we're talking about -- will pay for itself in four years. That in turn proves two things: (1) that taxpayers were the beneficiaries of the relocation; and (2) quite clearly the allegations made last week by the member for Windsor-Sandwich are completely groundless and without any basis in fact.

Nonetheless they were illustrative of one particular point: They reflected the typical Liberal credibility gap, the startling difference that exists between what they say and what is actually true. It's comments like those that give honest, hard-working politicians a really bad name. I'm sorry to say that, Mr Chairman.

With that said, I'd like to move on to the issue of spending comparisons which was raised by the New Democratic representative on this committee, Mr Len Wood, the member from Cochrane North. Simply put, if the member thinks that the Premier office's spending under the previous government was lower -- you should hear this, member from Cochrane North, I believe --

Mr Bisson: South.

Ms Mushinski: South, sorry -- than the flat-lined Premier's office budgets of our Conservative government, I'm afraid that I have to pour water on that fantasy. As I indicated during our last session, our total spending estimate for 1998-99 is just over $2.96 million, which is up approximately $132,500 from last year. But the increase can be attributed, and I said this last week, to the implementation of new public sector accounting measures which were introduced in the spirit of transparency and accountability to taxpayers.

The biggest change in 1998-99 is due to the introduction of a $197,500 cost for office accommodation, basically an internal government space rental charge levied this year by Management Board to all government offices. If that $197,500 accommodation figure is factored out of the Premier's office budget, in other words if the old system of accounting is used, our 1998-99 estimates would equal $2,766,915. When you compare that figure to the previous government's spending, using of course the restated estimates which tell the full story of their spending, not their initial global estimates, it rapidly becomes apparent that we're spending considerably less than the NDP.

As an example, let's take the fiscal year 1993-94 when the NDP Premier's office budget was $3,125,248, as shown by the restated estimates.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): How much was that?

Ms Mushinski: To repeat, $3,125,248, as shown by the restated estimates. That's $358,333, or 11.5%, more than our government has budgeted in the 1998-99. Do you want me to repeat that?

Mr Gerretsen: What does it prove?

Ms Mushinski: All I'm saying is that all this serves to prove (a) that we're spending less than previous governments, and (b) since we came to office in 1995, our Premier's office budget has been virtually flatlined. We've also brought in a new accounting system that more accurately and honestly displays government spending. It also makes government more accountable by bringing public sector accounting practices into line with those of the private sector.

In the interests of context, the member for Cochrane North may also want to compare staffing levels between our government and his, and he has raised that.

Mr Bisson: No, York South.

Ms Mushinski: Sorry, York South. My apologies.

Mr Bisson: Do you want me to call him?

Ms Mushinski: You should listen to this, because you did ask these questions.

What he failed to mention to the committee during his remarks last week was that the staffing complement in the Premier's office has dropped dramatically under Premier Harris. In fact, the NDP once had as many as 61 political staffers in the Premier's office; we have only 42. That's over 30% fewer staff.

This trend of fewer political staff carries right across the entire government, as you should know. Overall, the political staffing complement has been reduced substantially, by more than half in some ministries. For example, the NDP required two ministers without portfolio to oversee citizenship and culture, with a total of 29 political staff. Today, nine people do the same job in only one minister's office. In Management Board, nine political staff now do the work done by 17 under the NDP. Under the NDP, the Minister of Environment and Energy required 23 staffers. Under our government, only 17 staffers are required under two ministers, despite the fact that we have also added the vitally important portfolios of science and technology to the workload. In essence, we've doubled the portfolio responsibilities, yet we operate with over 26% fewer political staff, and that's important. In the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the NDP needed 17 political staffers to do the work that 10 do now, a 41% reduction in staff.

The bottom line is that under Premier Mike Harris, this government is doing more work in less time, more effectively, with fewer political staff, than any other government in the history of this province, bar none.

Mr Gerretsen: How many people did it take to write this speech?

Ms Mushinski: I'd like to now turn my attention to the issue of property taxes and respond further to comments made by members of this committee last week. As you well know, this is the second week of the government's salute to small business. We recognize that small businesses are the engine of the Ontario economy, creating about 80% of Ontario's jobs. A question arose during our last committee session concerning how small businesses would be affected by the municipalities' implementation of property tax changes.

Mr Bisson: Caused by you.

1620

Ms Mushinski: Given the interest in small business issues that I heard last week, I know members of this committee must have been pleased with the Minister of Finance's proposed three-year plan to limit property tax increases on Ontario's small businesses. As you will recall, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, proposed legislation to protect small business from unnecessary and unacceptable increases in their property taxes.

Interjections.

Ms Mushinski: This legislation, if passed by the Legislature, will guarantee that no commercial or industrial property owner will face a tax increase related to property tax reform of more than 10% in 1998 and a further 5% in each of 1999 and 2000.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: People, could we allow Ms Mushinski to speak without interrupting or bantering across the way, please.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was hoping that while I broke for a quick drink of water you would be able to bring some order back. I appreciate that.

Let me start by again saying that if the legislation is passed by the Legislature, it will guarantee that no commercial or industrial property owner will face a tax increase related to property tax reform of more than 10% in 1998 and a further 5% in each of 1999 and 2000. This will provide small businesses with more planning certainty and it will help them to make decisions about investment, expansion and job creation.

Since the beginning of our mandate, this government has brought tax fairness and relief to millions of Ontarians. Minister Eves's plan, announced last Friday, will ensure that municipalities do the same for small business property owners and, perhaps more importantly, it will ensure that one baker in the Windsor area will have to sell only a fraction of the panini he would have had to under the old plan.

I'd like to turn to another matter that engaged your members last week. Ontarians from all walks of life have told us that they want our world-class health care system strengthened and improved. They want access to improved services like cardiac and cancer care. They want to see long-term-care services expanded. They want assurances that the safety net of emergency services will be there when they need it.

As last week's efforts by the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care show, this government is working hard to meet these demands. Just as the Premier promised, money targeted to alleviate emergency room pressures is now flowing.

Mr Bisson: Only after you were forced into spending the money.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, please.

Mr Bisson: It takes gall to say that.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Is there anything in the standing orders that prevents her from doing anything that takes gall?

The Vice-Chair: No.

Mr Bisson: Why?

The Vice-Chair: Continue with --

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, on a further point of order: As I understand it, the standing orders will allow me to say the following: It takes gall to do what you've done. You didn't spend the money for six months and then you were forced to spend it.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, you really are out of order now. Let's bring it back. Ms Mushinski.

Ms Mushinski: As I said earlier, I am putting this within the context of allegations that were made last week. I feel that I must respond.

The Vice-Chair: Continue, Ms Mushinski.

Ms Mushinski: The Ministry of Health is working with Ontario hospitals in a constructive manner to address this long-standing problem.

Health care is an extremely important issue to us. It is one that quite rightly evokes tremendous emotion, because in many ways it is a symbol of our Canadian existence. When dealing with such an important and emotional issue, it's important to understand all of the facts. It's important to gain a little perspective. It's important to examine how the different political parties approach such an important set of programs.

When it comes to health care and the three political parties, the facts are quite clear. The track records are there for all of us to see and, not surprisingly, the facts clearly illustrate that on health care, as on other issues, some political parties suffer from a truly dramatic credibility gap.

When political rhetoric is swept aside, the truth, as they say, is always revealed, and the truth shows that only one party has cut health care spending in Ontario. Didn't we hear that today? The Liberal Party, from their bastion in Ottawa, cut health care transfers to the province of Ontario by over $2 billion.

In response to these unprecedented cuts, and to protect the health care system that we know Ontarians hold so dear, the Conservative government under Premier Mike Harris invested not only to offset the Liberals' cuts, but to raise health care spending in this province to $18.5 billion per year. That, as they say, is the highest level in the history of this province. In fact, that's more than $1.2 billion more than the NDP spent on health care during their last year in government.

Mr Gerretsen: Look at the BNA act.

Mr Parker: Is that your explanation?

The Vice-Chair: Continue, Mrs Mushinski.

Ms Mushinski: It doesn't end there. It doesn't end with transfer payment cuts, and it's timely, given the Minister of Long-Term Care's announcements last week, to look at the history of long-term-care beds in this province.

As you know, our Conservative government has put in place a plan to introduce 20,000 more long-term-care beds in this province, at a cost of over $1 billion. That's over 175 new long-term-care facilities, and it also means more community-based long-term-care services for more than 100,000 Ontarians. This is the biggest expansion of long-term-care services in the province's history, and we are proud to make it.

Why did our Conservative government have to make such a massive investment in expansion? For one reason, and one reason only: It was necessary simply because the number of long-term-care beds in this province was frozen in 1988 by the Liberal David Peterson government.

Interjections.

Ms Mushinski: Yes. Do you want me to repeat that?

The Vice-Chair: Go ahead, Mrs Mushinski.

Ms Mushinski: In 1988, David Peterson and Dalton McGuinty decreed that seniors in this province didn't need any more beds. So for more than 10 years, despite a growing and aging population which we're all rapidly racing to join, not a single long-term-care bed was added in this province. That is, of course, until Mike Harris and the Conservative government had the courage to step in and to take action to ensure that seniors in this province get the long-term-care services they need and deserve.

Rhetoric aside, the facts are clear: Liberals cut health care; Conservatives step in to protect it. The Liberals say that seniors in this province don't need more care, and Conservatives refuse to accept that.

History shows that Liberals are willing to jeopardize our cherished health care system through funding cuts and frozen programs. As Conservatives, we've shown on behalf of Ontarians that we will not accept cuts to such an important and cherished service.

1630

Mr Gerretsen: Why are you closing hospitals, then?

Ms Mushinski: Put simply, history shows time and again that Liberal action does not live up to Liberal rhetoric.

Moving on, last week Ms Pupatello also stated her concerns about the need to stand up for Ontario's middle class, the hundreds of thousands of families who have borne the brunt of tax-and-spend days of past governments. I'm here to tell your committee that there is no government, no Premier in the history of this province, that has done more for the middle class than Mike Harris. The benefits of our 30% tax cut for middle-class taxpayers say it all.

The Peterson and Rae governments hiked personal income taxes on individuals making $25,000 annually by $290. Mike Harris has cut their taxes by $510 a year. The Liberals and NDP hiked the PIT of $40,000 earners by $630 annually. Mike Harris gave the same individuals a tax cut of $1,100. Middle-income earners at $50,000 saw their annual income tax bill rise by $890 between 1985 and 1995. Mike Harris cut their taxes by $1,555. Middle-income taxpayers with earnings between $25,000 and $50,000 per year receive 64%, or $3 billion, in tax cut savings each year under Mike Harris's plan.

With our tax cut fully implemented, the top 10% of taxpayers pay a greater portion of Ontario's income tax revenues, 45%, than they did under the Liberal and NDP tax regime at 42%.

In a nutshell, we've made it our business to be the champions of the middle class, because we're sick and tired of seeing successive provincial governments put the screws to hard-working families.

Speaking about how our policies benefit taxpayers brings to mind the great strides the government has made in providing efficient, cost-effective and accessible government services to our customers, the taxpayers of Ontario.

As I noted in my remarks last week, the Premier's office, like other parts of the government, is keen on being accountable to the people. This accountability extends not just to being careful and frugal in our treatment of tax dollars, but also in giving value to each taxpayer. Value is something we hear a lot about these days. In today's competitive, booming economy, newspapers are filled with advertisements that offer not just lower prices, but also high-quality services and value incentives in order to attract customers.

It is a similar situation in the public sector. As everyday lives become more hectic, people want to conduct their government business when the time is right for them, not when it is right for the government. That means keeping offices open for extended hours, and making services available seven days a week in some circumstances. It also means making a variety of services available, ranging from traditional staffed offices to convenient service kiosks and accessible Internet services. The sum of all this is that hard-working Ontarians quite rightly demand value for their tax dollars.

With the leadership of Premier Harris, the government has responded to Ontarians' expectations for high value public services. The government has proposed an agenda that reduces red tape, provides better service to the public, restores consumer confidence and creates new ways of delivering customer service. The key here is innovation, coming up with novel, exciting service approaches that meet taxpayers' needs. It also means doing the work in a manner that is both efficient and fiscally prudent, something that has become the hallmark of this government.

The great news for your committee is that the government's new customer-centred approach, coupled with more technological advances, has reduced costs even as we have met the increasing and legitimate demands of Ontario taxpayers.

I realize that my life -- my time --

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Your life is fine.

Ms Mushinski: I was going to say my life is limited, but --

The Vice-Chair: Your life is fine; your time's a little limited.

Ms Mushinski: The Premier, the cabinet, the staff of the Premier's office and many other members of the public service have made some great strides over the past year towards their goal of making the government of Ontario work smarter and better. In the interests of accountability, I did want to spend a few minutes telling you more about what has gone on, but I'll wait for some questions hopefully from my colleagues so that I can expand more on what I want to say.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Mushinski. Now we'll start the rotation of the questioning, and we'll start with the official opposition, who have 20 minutes. Then we'll move to the third party and then to the government.

Mr Gerretsen, you're going to start?

Mr Gerretsen: Yes. Let me just say how disappointed I truly am that we have had to be subjected to the standard rhetoric for the past half hour. As a relatively new member in the Legislature, I had always been told that the real work of the provincial parliamentarian takes place in committee, so it was always my hope that this would be the place for some serious and honest debate. It certainly doesn't take place in the House most of the time, because we hear nothing but rhetoric as well, and from time to time we may even be involved in our own rhetoric as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): From time to time?

Mr Gerretsen: I try to be honest about these things.

It's extremely disappointing to listen to a speech filled with political platitudes. I hope it's a recycled speech, because I hope that people haven't spent too much time putting that stuff together. It seems to me quite obvious that this committee isn't all that much different from what takes place in the House on an ongoing basis, in that it's just rhetoric versus rhetoric.

I have some very specific questions of Ms Mushinski. I know Mr Parker may object to this, because remember, he said we've got to stick to the actual --

Mr Bisson: She didn't.

Mr Gerretsen: Just a minute -- to the actual wording that's contained in this pink document -- although you're quite correct. I don't think Ms Mushinski ever even referred to the document at all, but she talked about just about everything else that's out there.

I had an opportunity earlier today to look at the Web site of the Premier's office, and off the Web I got a number of interesting pages. I would like to ask Ms Mushinski some questions on what's actually on the Web site. It is the Premier's Web site, so I assume she's fully familiar with what is being put out by the office on an ongoing basis. As a matter of fact, it has an introduction by the Premier of Ontario, and then he talks about investing in priority services, health care. I'd just like to talk about that for a moment. It says he puts patients first, that we've "put patients first."

1640

I wonder if she could relate that to the fact that I think today we saw the 36th hospital in Ontario being closed by the government: 36 hospitals are closed or slated for closing. At least three of them happen to be Hotel Dieu hospitals, run by the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph, in Cornwall, Kingston and St Catharines. I'm not sure whether there's a religious element to this or not. I sure as heck would hope not, but I can tell you that there are many people in my riding who think there is a religious element to all these closings.

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I think that allegation or that question of a religious element, it is below even Mr Gerretsen to raise that suggestion in this committee. As a Catholic myself, I am very offended at that line of questioning, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw that.

Mr Gerretsen: I will not withdraw that. These are comments that are made to me by people --

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: What I said was that I have heard from a number of people in my constituency who are questioning whether there's a religious element involved in this, and maybe Ms Mushinski can answer that.

My question, though, is, how do you think patients are being put first with the closing of 36 hospitals in this province?

Ms Mushinski: First of all, this question has absolutely nothing to do with the estimates that are before us; in fact, I can say that the estimates for the health budget were completed on June 24, 1998. I'm assuming that Mr Gerretsen, being a member of this committee, was probably there at that time, and perhaps he should have confined those questions to that time.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, in your speech, and I haven't got a copy of it right here and now, but you made reference to the fact that the Premier of the province was attempting to make sure that the excellent health care --

Mr Pettit: On a point of order, Chair: I don't believe you ruled on Mr Wettlaufer's point of order.

The Vice-Chair: The reality is I'm not going to ask him to withdraw it, because he did qualify that. He said, "I hope that's not the case," but that he had heard that, and he had asked the parliamentary assistant to comment on it. She can dispel it by simply saying --

Ms Mushinski: I think I've answered the question, Mr Chairman, in that this is a matter for the health estimates, and my understanding is that they were completed on June 24 this year.

Mr Gerretsen: I would hope that the government members of this committee would not try to muzzle opposition members when they raise issues which are raised to them in their own ridings.

The Vice-Chair: The reality is, Mr Gerretsen -- let's not waste a whole lot of your time -- they have a right to rise on a point of order, just as you have. We'll rule on it and we'll move on.

Mr Gerretsen: My question to you is simply this: In your speech that you just gave, you gave examples of how the so-called excellent system of health care in Ontario has been improved, how you're spending more money and how you're putting patients first etc. I am simply asking you -- this comes out of your speech to us earlier today -- how the closing of 36 hospitals in this province puts patients first, as is shown on your Web page. How does that put patients first?

Ms Mushinski: I'm going to respond first of all by suggesting that my submission this afternoon was clearly a response to what I considered to be some outrageous allegations that were made by the member of the Liberal Party last week. When I presented my own submission last week, I clearly put that submission on the estimates within the context of our government and our government's agenda. The submission that I have made to you this afternoon was a response to the submissions that were made by both the opposition and the third party.

Having said that, the estimates that are before us I have full knowledge of, and I would be prepared to answer any question pertaining to the Premier's office estimates.

Mr Gerretsen has asked a question pertaining to the Ministry of Health, I'm assuming with respect to estimates. This estimates committee has dealt with that matter. I suggest that Mr Gerretsen refer to the Hansard dealing with the health estimates, as I'm sure that he will find the answer to that question. I do not have the details of those estimates.

Mr Gerretsen: Will you admit then that what you were spouting here earlier about the excellence of our health care system and how much money we're spending in that health care system is just pure rhetoric on your part, because you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know anything about that particular budget? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Parker: That's not what she said.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm asking her.

Ms Mushinski: That is not what I said. My response to the question stands.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Gerretsen, with all due respect to both of you, if there are particular questions that address questions of the budget, this is estimates so we allow latitude. Everyone in this room knows there is latitude allowed in estimates because we're dealing with offices, but the reality is we try to tie it in somehow to the estimates.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect to you, Mr Chair, Ms Mushinski made a speech here that lasted over half an hour and not one -- I should rephrase that -- for about one minute she referred to the actual estimates and how their estimates were less than they were during Bob Rae's time. During the other 28 or 29 minutes, she made a general speech about all the so-called wonderful things this government has done, in her opinion. I'm asking her about some of those opinions. Is she then saying to me that she is not prepared to elaborate or give a clarification about anything she said in her speech, other than the minute or minute and a half she actually spent in comparing the Premier's budget to the budget of the previous Premier?

Is that what you're saying, Madam?

Ms Mushinski: I don't know how many ways one can describe a box, Mr Chairman. You mentioned latitude, and I agree with you. I believe that you have, with respect, allowed significant latitude for all three parties represented here today. However, that latitude does not extend to the detail of other ministries' budgets. We are here today, I thought, to consider the Premier's estimates and I'm perfectly prepared to answer questions pertaining to those details. I'm not equipped to answer questions pertaining to the details of the other ministries' estimates.

Mr Parker: Mr Chairman, if I can assist. You weren't the Chair, and I don't think you were present last week, when Ms Pupatello, on behalf of the opposition party, embarked on a rant touching on every last aspect and allegation as to the performance of this government over the past three-plus years.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, Mr Parker is taking my time.

Mr Parker: There was no stone left unturned after Ms Pupatello had delivered her remarks. Mrs Mushinski, in her reply period, has responded to some of the remarks that Ms Pupatello made.

Mr Gerretsen: Right, Mr Parker, and I'm trying to elicit some clarification of some of the remarks that she made here today.

Mr Parker: I suggest that we close that discussion now and confine future discussion before this committee to the estimates that are before us. It was not Mrs Mushinski who opened up the discussion to those other subjects.

Mr Gerretsen: She gave some responses to presumably some allegations that Mrs Pupatello made. Those responses she gave today --

The Vice-Chair: Just a second.

Mr Parker: It's okay, John, I don't mind being interrupted.

1650

The Vice-Chair: Mr Parker, the reality is this is accomplishing absolutely nothing. It's wasting an abundant amount of time. I suggest your clarification is well noted. Mrs Mushinski said it. Mr Gerretsen has the floor to ask questions, so would you ask questions, Mr Gerretsen.

Mr Gerretsen: I maintain, Mr Chair --

The Vice-Chair: I knew you were going to maintain it.

Mr Gerretsen: -- that for 18 minutes or so, Mrs Mushinski has talked about everything but the actual budget items as contained in the Premier's budget. I'm asking for clarification of some of the statements that she made. If it is the position of the members of the government that I'm not entitled to ask those questions, then I think they are just trying to muzzle this committee, which is just another --

Mr Parker: I would never try to muzzle you, John.

Mr Wettlaufer: It's just a matter of fact that you can't ask an intelligent question dealing with the Premier's office.

Mr Gerretsen: The next question I have is -- this also comes off the Premier's office's own Web site -- he says that we have created a healthier Ontario and it included the recruiting of 40 physicians to practise in underserviced areas in 1997-98. Could you tell me how much money has actually been set aside in the budget of the province to recruit those 40 physicians?

Ms Mushinski: I hark back, if I may, to my previous response. Again, this is a very detailed question. It pertains to another ministry's budget. The estimates of that particular ministry were completed on June 28 this year, I believe I said. I do not have those details. I would suggest that Mr Gerretsen perhaps -- is it Gerretsen or Jerretsen?

Mr Gerretsen: You call me whatever you like as long as you don't abuse me in one way or another.

Ms Mushinski: I don't want to mispronounce your name.

Mr Gerretsen: I don't care. Madam, you made a speech here for 18 minutes, based on complete generalities. I'm asking you about some of those generalities. You didn't have the courtesy to give us a copy of your speech so I could quote you back verbatim. I am just testing you on some of the general statements you made, and you refuse to respond to them.

Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, again I would suggest that they were not generalities. They were specific details that were being requested to a specific estimates budget.

Mr Gerretsen: So I ask you once again --

Ms Mushinski: I would suggest, with respect, Mr Chairman, that I do not have the details pertaining to those particular budgets.

Mr Gerretsen: All right. But then I'm not even interested in the details. Tell me in a general way. You said that this government believes in excellence in health care and is spending more money than any other government. I'm asking you very specifically how you are putting patients first or how you can say that you're making the health care system better when you're closing 36 hospitals. Can you answer that or not?

Ms Mushinski: Let me tell you what spending has taken place in the Premier's office.

Mr Parker: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I suppose I'm looking for a ruling from you. I appreciate your comment earlier that some latitude is to be expected in this committee. I understand that and I agree. But we have here before us the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, briefed and prepared to discuss the estimates of the Premier's office. Mrs Pupatello last week embarked on a discussion on other matters. Today the parliamentary assistant responded to the points made by Mrs Pupatello last week. Now Mr Gerretsen is trying to turn this into a further inquiry into the estimates of the health ministry. We've done the health ministry. We've closed the book on the health ministry. The health ministry estimates have been approved, they've been passed, they're done, it's history. We are here to discuss the estimates of the Premier's --

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Chair, Mr Parker is taking my time.

Mr Parker: You can have some of my time.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you.

Mr Parker: We are here to discuss the estimates of the Premier's office. I'm looking for a ruling from you, Mr Chairman, as to whether detailed questions on estimates from the health ministry have any place before this committee right now.

The Vice-Chair: Can you, Mr Gerretsen -- I think there is latitude to ask those types of questions -- try to tie it or frame it into the budget of the Premier's office?

Mr Gerretsen: The Premier is responsible for everything that happens in this operation, I assumed. Certainly it sounded that way from what Mrs Mushinski was saying. For 18 minutes she was singing the praises of this government and everything that this government and Premier have done. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why she cannot give me one specific reason as to why and how the closing of 36 hospitals is going to improve the health care in this province.

The Vice-Chair: The reality is I think she's answered it the way she's going to answer it. Is there another question?

Mr Gerretsen: Which unfortunately was a non-answer, a total non-answer.

The other question that I have, then, which I just asked a few minutes ago, is this: The Premier talks about recruiting 40 physicians to practise in underserviced areas in 1997 and 1998. It's a statement that the Premier makes on his Web site. Can you tell me how much money you have budgeted for these 40 recruitments that you're seeking in the underserviced areas? How much money have you budgeted for that?

The Vice-Chair: The reality is she has answered that question. She doesn't have that information. That's exactly --

Mr Gerretsen: Will you get me that information?

Ms Mushinski: I'd be perfectly willing to describe what our Web site is. It's a tool that was designed to communicate --

Mr Gerretsen: I use it frequently.

Ms Mushinski: -- and to dialogue with Ontarians. The Premier's office is there to assist the Premier in engaging in dialogue with Ontarians. As I said, if you would like me to repeat what I said last week, many people have already joined in that dialogue about Ontario's future. I'm sure that Mr Gerretsen, like many members within this room, will avail himself of the tools of technology to communicate with his constituents. That's the full purpose of the Web site.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Gerretsen, your time is up.

Mr Gerretsen: My time is up? I didn't get one answer.

The Vice-Chair: Your time is up, and we'll move to the third party.

Mr Parker: You can have 30 seconds of my time.

Mr Bisson: I'm doing a little bit of addition here on the sly as we move along. First of all, I have 20 minutes. I want to take a few minutes to respond to a couple of things said by the parliamentary assistant. I agree with the critic from the Liberal Party from Kingston that we've been subjected to one of the most political responses I've heard from a Premier's office in the time that I've been here. I'm not saying there haven't been other political responses by parliamentary assistants or ministers here before, but this was extremely political. I've got to tell you, it takes a lot of gall for the parliamentary assistant to come in and utilize some of the examples that she used or stories that she tried to tell us here at committee.

She talked about property tax reform and how we, as members, "would be extremely pleased, I'm sure," as she said, that the Minister of Finance announced last week that he's going to be freezing property taxes at a rate of 10% this year and 5% in each of the years thereafter. Well, I'm sorry. There's something you forgot to mention: The freeze is to protect businesses from the Tory government. It's your assessment system that created this problem. You are, by way of legislation, nullifying the job that you did in changing the assessment system in the province. If you hadn't mucked around with it in the first place, we wouldn't have ended up with this problem.

We all know what happened: Your government went out and imposed on the rest of Ontario this new assessment system because of your problem in trying to deal politically with the assessment system here in the city of Toronto.

I think of the conversations that I've had with the business community in the city of Timmins and in Kapuskasing and Hearst. I can tell you I've not had one, I've not have five, I've not had 10, I've had close to probably about 50 inquiries from local businesses throughout my riding and Len Wood's riding about how upset they were at what their property tax increases were going to be because of the actions of this government, not because of what municipalities did, but what you did when you changed the assessment system.

I welcome what the minister did on Friday to freeze the taxes by way of legislation, because what that legislation does is protect the business community from the Tory government. Anything you guys can do to protect us from you, I'm in favour of. I think that was a very interesting spin on what was a very bad initiative from this government.

How many pieces of legislation has this government brought in over the last three years to fix a problem that they created in the assessment system? This government is totally incompetent when it comes to the question of how to deal with assessment here in Ontario. They didn't bring in one bill. How many bills are we into? We're up to seven. This is the seventh bill that the government brought in to fix the fiasco that your Premier caused when it comes to assessment in this province. You come here and tout that as something that's positive? You guys can't even shoot straight. But thank God you protected us from you, which I think is a good idea.

1700

Then the parliamentary assistant comes in here, again with great fanfare, and talks to us about emergency room expenditures, about how the Premier did his job the other week and he brought a cheque to a hospital. I'm telling you, it is absolutely amazing. Why did the Premier go out? Because the opposition parties, the New Democrats and Liberals, raised this issue for a period of six to seven months. Finally, the media decided to put you under a little bit of fire when it came to some nasty stories that appeared in the Toronto Star and the Sun and the Globe and Mail over a particular weekend. Then your Premier finally woke up to his incompetence and finally whipped some people into shape, into cutting a cheque and trying to get some of that money you had announced previously into the hospitals.

Don't talk to me about how great you are. You guys are incompetent. You made those announcements a long time ago and you haven't spent any of the money. Long-term care -- the chutzpah. She comes in here and talks about long-term care, about what a great thing your government has done. There have been reforms of the long-term-care system dating back to the Peterson government. In fact, the reforms in long-term care, in credit to the Liberal Party, started under the Liberal government under David Peterson, because even he understood that what the Tories had set up in Ontario when it came to long-term-care services was a fragmented system of charity homes, municipal homes, private homes and homes run by the province.

We started recognizing that was not an efficient way of doing it. The Liberals started the process under David Peterson. It was accelerated under the Bob Rae government. There was a whole change and redirection in long-term care that was introduced in 1992 by then-Minister Lankin. Then, further to that, there was also a huge investment and huge change when it came to investment in long-term-care services in the community.

You talk about a lot of chutzpah -- coming in here talking about emergency room expenditures, this from a government that's shut down over 30 hospitals in the province over its term of government. They come in here and try to tell me they're concerned about health care. I'm telling you, this is a bit hard to take.

Then, the best one was the comment about how the Tories are really the party of the middle class. What crap. The middle class has taken a hit from you on all sides. The middle class is about making sure that we have rules and laws that allow us to participate in this economy. One of the first things your government did after coming into power was to gut the Labour Relations Act, the very act that is there to give workers some ability to negotiate fair collective agreements with their employers and the ability to organize into unions so that they're able to go in and negotiate those collective agreements, so don't come in here and start telling me about how you are the party of the middle class.

We have seen in reports tabled last week in this province that the standard of living within the middle class has actually decreased over the time of the Tory government, so I find the comments of the parliamentary assistant somewhat interesting, to say the least.

How much time do I have, Chair? I want to give her an opportunity to put her foot in her mouth -- I mean respond to what I have said.

The Vice-Chair: You have another 12 minutes.

Mr Bisson: Would you like to respond?

Ms Mushinski: I think I need to repeat that my submission this afternoon should really be put within the context of responding to many of the allegations that came out of my submission on estimates last week. I can certainly talk about the property tax system as being one that is a fair tax system, one that applies to all Ontarians across this great province of ours, and one that the Premier has spoken to in response to listening to Ontarians, in response to providing better government, a more clear and accountable government, and one that ensures the deliverance of quality service.

In terms of the long-term care, i realize that the member perhaps wants to ask me some more questions, but I really do have to go back to the core context of my speech, Mr Chair.

It was necessary to invest in the expansion of the long-term-care system because the Liberal government froze any long-term beds in 1988. The fact is, it was the David Peterson government that did not add one long-term-care bed to the needs of our aging population in 1988.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your answer, Madam Parliamentary Assistant. That was most enlightening.

I have a question for you and it's a very simple one. If you wouldn't mind taking out your estimates book and looking at page 5 under Office of the Premier, we look at a little line there that says, "Premier's salary, $61,860." We know that $61,860 is not --

Mr Gerretsen: He should make more. That's not enough. That's less than a member.

Mr Bisson: Let's follow this very closely. I want to make sure I understand this. Do you have the page, page 5?

Ms Mushinski: I do.

Mr Bisson: We note that it says on that particular line that the salary of the Premier is $61,860. We know that's in addition to the $87,000-whatever that all members of this assembly --

Mr Gerretsen: It's $78,000.

Mr Bisson: How much is it? It's $78,000. I'm just looking at my --

Ms Mushinski: He thinks it's $87,000.

Mr Bisson: I've got to tell you something. It feels like more money than I have ever made before, so I'm very happy to be here.

Ms Mushinski: All those tax cuts have put more money in your pocket. That's why.

Mr Bisson: I want to make a point about the tax cut later, but I just want to look at this number. We know that the Premier, according to the estimates, is asking for an additional salary of $61,860. Am I correct?

Ms Mushinski: Would you repeat the question, please?

Mr Bisson: We know that the Premier, as all members of the assembly here, makes about $78,000 base salary as a member, and we look at the Premier's salary and it says $61,860. I take it that's the Premier's stipend in addition to his regular salary.

Ms Mushinski: That's the Premier's salary as determined by legislation.

Mr Bisson: That's right. So he makes the $78,000 plus the $61,860, for a total of $139,860. Am I correct? If you can add that up really quickly, it's $139,860, right? I want you to take out a pen and add up these numbers with me. I want to compare what the salary of David Peterson was and what the salary of Bob Rae was. Members at that time enjoyed a top salary of -- write this down -- $42,752. In addition to this --

Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman --

Mr Bisson: These are questions related to the estimates. They're very much directed --

The Vice-Chair: You're in order.

Mr Bisson: I'd like you to add up these numbers with me. There was $42,752, which was the base salary of all members, plus all members of the assembly got a tax-free allowance of $14,431. The stipend for the Premier back then was $44,675, and on top of that the Premier got tax-free $8,431, for a total of $110,299.

I want to know from the parliamentary assistant if she feels this is fair.

Mr Gerretsen: Is the Premier getting enough money?

Mr Bisson: Is he getting enough money?

Ms Mushinski: I think again this needs to be put within the context of the MPPs' total compensation package, because we have to go back to what the reforms were that occurred.

Mr Bisson: That's not what I asked. I asked, do you think this is fair? That's all I wanted to know.

The Vice-Chair: Please allow her to answer, Mr Bisson.

1710

Ms Mushinski: The reforms eliminated MPPs' tax-free allowances, which Mr Bisson referred to. The reforms eliminated perks and the gold-plated pension plan, and reduced MPPs' salaries by 5%. Effective the next election, the size of the Legislature will be smaller as the number of MPPs will drop from 130 to 103. MPPs are now paying taxes and contributing to education, health care and infrastructure, just like all other Ontarians. The reason Mr Bisson felt that he's actually earning more is probably because he got a tax cut too. Taxpayers now know what MPPs make, because the reforms made MPPs' salaries clear and understandable, just as our accounting systems and reporting procedures for the estimates are clear and understandable.

Prior to the reforms, and I think this is important, MPPs' total compensation before the social contract was valued at $98,739. MPPs were paid a sessional indemnity of $44,675 and received a tax-free allowance of $14,984 and an average tax-free committee allowance of $2,000, as well as per diem payments for committee work. In addition, MPPs received other taxable benefits, including life and group insurance and severance benefits.

Post-reform total compensation, which includes cash compensation, RRSP-type contributions, as well as severance allowance, group insurance and life insurance, is now $88,865 per annum. The annual cash salary now received is $78,007, which is fully taxable. MPPs are now paid a straight salary just like ordinary Ontarians, and that includes the Premier, of course. Taken together, all of these reforms not only ensure that the government is more accountable to the people of Ontario but they also save taxpayers' money. So in response to your question with respect to the Premier, he's exactly the same as everyone else in terms of the compensation package.

Mr Bisson: I'm afraid I don't agree, because all I know is, when I look at my total paycheque now as compared to my total paycheque before you did this scam, I make more money. I have a bit of a hard time trying to square off how the people of the province should have to pay the Premier more money than I think he's worth.

The second question I would ask you is, can you tell us how much the cash payout was to Mike Harris when his pension was wound up from a gold-plated to a platinum-plated pension? Can you tell me that? I'd like to know how much it is.

Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, that is not a matter that is contained within the estimates and I do not have that information.

Mr Bisson: I believe that it is, Mr Chair, and I'll tell you why. The pensions, as you know, under the old system were based on total amount of money you made as a member, so if you made a base of $44,000 and you got a stipend on top of that for being the Premier in the past of $44,000, that money was factored into what your pension would be once you retired from this place. Taxpayers' dollars went to winding down the gold-plated pensions, as you put it, here in the province, and I'm just curious in knowing how much money the Premier got when he wound up his pension.

Ms Mushinski: Again, Mr Chairman, as I said, my understanding is that the pension payout was never a part of the estimates under the Premier's office. I do not have that information.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, I would differ strongly, because as I just explained, the then $44,000 that went to the Premier, in the former case under Bob Rae and partly to Mike Harris when he first got here, was part of what you calculated for a member's pension. I think it's a fair question. We know that Mike Harris touted scrapping the gold-plated pension, and I would assume that being a member of long standing in the Legislature he would have done well. I'm just curious, as a member who did not serve in here very long vis-à-vis the pension, what his payout would be. I'd like to compare it to my particular windup of the pension plan.

Interjection: About $850,000.

Mr Bisson: About $850,000, you figure?

Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, again I don't have the particular details. I can talk a little bit about the overall pension plan. I don't have the details pertaining to any particular or individual member.

Mr Bisson: Can I ask this question --

Ms Mushinski: I can say that the annual cost --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, your time is up. You may want to revisit it a little later on.

Mr Bisson: I'm just curious if he's going to announce that in the next election.

The Chair: Mr Pettit.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, Mrs Mushinski. I want to assure you that I'm going to try as hard as I can not to be as harsh on you as the opposition members were. I'm going to try and discuss some more substantive issues that I know will be of interest to my constituents in Hamilton Mountain.

As you know from your previous post, we had many long discussions about voluntarism. Voluntarism plays a large role certainly in Hamilton Mountain and adds to the vitality of the community, which arguably makes it not only the most panoramic place in Ontario but the best place to live.

You mentioned earlier, I think last week, about the Premier hosting the round table meeting on voluntary action earlier this month. Can you tell us in a little more detail what that initiative is all about?

Ms Mushinski: I'd be happy to. As some of my colleagues I'm sure are aware, there was extensive consultation across the province. The advisory board on the voluntary sector that was established by the Premier's first parliamentary assistant, my colleague and good friend Julia Munro, recommended a number of initiatives, and one of those was that there be a place at the table for the voluntary sector along with the private sector, business and government.

In response to this recommendation, the Premier invited leaders from a wide section of the voluntary sector and from the business sector to join with representatives of our government, including myself, to come together to develop a plan of action which we wanted to see actually strengthen community development, and especially to strengthen voluntarism in Ontario's communities.

The theme of the first round table meeting was strengthening communities, as I've suggested. We believe the round table was particularly successful in bringing together a diverse group of Ontarians from all across Ontario, leaders in their communities, and they are people who really care deeply about the communities we live in. The agenda at the meeting included three topics of discussion: strengthening the volunteer spirit, developing new partnerships between the sectors, and learning through volunteering. That really was the overall round table meeting discussion several week ago.

Mr Pettit: What is it, though, that you hope to achieve with the round table? Where do we go from here with it? In particular, what will your role be?

Ms Mushinski: My role as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier responsible for voluntary action in Ontario is really to bring together, to coordinate --

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't see any reference to the round table in the Office of the Premier's estimates, so I'm wondering why we're dealing with this matter in light of the earlier questions.

The Vice-Chair: The reality is, Mr Gerretsen, it's very much in order, that question.

Mr Gerretsen: But there's absolutely no reference to this.

Mr Pettit: No, it was in her statement.

The Vice-Chair: Continue.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, Chair. That's very understanding.

The Vice-Chair: Go ahead, Mrs Mushinski.

1720

Ms Mushinski: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

As I mentioned earlier, the round table is intended to bring together representatives from the voluntary sector, the private sector and the government to create a plan of action to strengthen voluntarism. The Premier has given me the lead on those particular responsibilities. The work of the round table will continue throughout the year until its next annual meeting, because the round table will be meeting annually.

We're currently in the process of establishing an executive committee -- "leadership group" is probably a better term -- and we anticipate that there will be representatives from the three or four sectors that I've mentioned, all of whom are members of the steering committee of the round table. I, as I had suggested, as the parliamentary assistant will act as the government representative on this committee. The leadership group we see as really driving the work of the round table, participating in community conferences, regional conferences, that we'll be setting up later this year and early next year around the province, and ensuring that the round table is accountable by doing such things as creating an annual report.

Mr Pettit: You mentioned community conferences. I know that's something that would probably be of interest to a lot of people certainly in Hamilton Mountain, and I'm sure Mr Maves would attest in Niagara Falls too, because I know they're big on voluntarism there, as an example.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Huge.

Mr Parker: And in East York.

Mr Pettit: And in East York too, and I'm sure in Wentworth East.

Mr Wettlaufer: And Kitchener.

Mr Pettit: And Kitchener.

Could you tell us a little bit more about these conferences?

Interjection.

Mr Maves: Kingston's not bad.

Ms Mushinski: I was in Kingston, actually, at one of the volunteer recognition events. Very nice community.

Mr Gerretsen: I hope you enjoyed yourself there.

Ms Mushinski: I did, very much.

Mr Pettit: How much time do we have, Chair?

Ms Mushinski: You wanted me to expand, I take it, a little further on the community conferences. It's worth explaining because, while it hasn't actually been determined how many or where these conferences will take place at this time, I think it's important that we continue to receive the advice from all of the three sectors on how we can better work in partnership to strengthen voluntary action in Ontario. I'm sure there isn't a person in this room who would disagree with that.

The conferences are being planned around the volunteer service awards, so yes, we'll probably be in Kingston next year. I'll be participating in this process, in the tour, during the late winter and early spring of the coming year.

While the advisory board on the voluntary sector mentioned earlier did conduct a consultation to identify the major issues facing volunteers and voluntary organizations, what we really need to do is to now work together to identify solutions. Given the enormity and the diversity of the voluntary sector -- because it takes in every sector, health and education and sports and recreation; in fact, there are 64,000 not-for-profit or non-profit organizations in Ontario, and one in three Ontarians actually volunteers -- I think it's important that we do obtain advice from the many Ontarians who volunteer and who care about these issues.

Mr Pettit: That's good. I'd like to get away from that for a moment and go to the Ontario public service awards. You made some comments earlier regarding the Ontario public service awards. What can you tell us about those awards?

Ms Mushinski: On September 10, 1998, Premier Harris announced the Ontario public service had won the top honour among Commonwealth nations at a major public administration and management conference in Malaysia.

Mr Gerretsen: I think that's great. I'm all for public service.

Ms Mushinski: I take it that's what you're referring to. Actually, the award comes from the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management, which is CAPAM for short. It's a non-profit organization with 53 member countries. CAPAM's aim is to enhance Commonwealth co-operation, improve management in governments and promote best practices in public services. The 1998 theme of the award was service to the public, emphasizing the need for governments and other public agencies to provide quality services at reasonable cost. Out of the 21 submissions, the jury of internationally recognized experts in public services selected Ontario for the gold award in the category of innovation and public administration and management. Ontario was competing against national-level public service organizations from countries including Australia, the United Kingdom and our own federal government. I should say as an aside to the committee that the federal government won a bronze prize.

Mr Pettit: I was very pleased to hear the member for Kingston and The Islands applaud the Premier for establishing these awards. That's highly unlike him.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Chair: I do not want to be misquoted. I specifically said I applaud the Ontario public service for receiving a gold metal.

The Vice-Chair: Noted.

Mr Pettit: Ms Mushinski, I think you called it the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management.

Ms Mushinski: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Pettit: What's the history of that organization? What can you tell us about it and the work that they do?

Ms Mushinski: Its aim, as I suggested, is to enhance Commonwealth co-operation, improve management in governments and promote best practices in public services. Unfortunately, I don't know a great deal about the organization or the work that it does. It's a bit of a shame, because my understanding is that we should hear more about these good-news stories. This is a very important award and I don't think we hear enough about these things.

As I understand it, there is a gentleman by the name of Mr Art Daniels, who's the assistant deputy minister of the Ontario Public Service Restructuring Secretariat, and apparently he knows what this award is all about and exactly why we won it.

Mr Pettit: Is it Mr Daniels, you say?

Ms Mushinski: Yes, Mr Art Daniels.

Mr Pettit: I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have him come before the committee and maybe he can answer some questions. Would you be opposed to that?

Ms Mushinski: We'd be happy to arrange that.

Mr Gerretsen: Only if it has something to do with the Premier's office.

Ms Mushinski: It really does; it has everything to do with the Premier.

Mr Pettit: Maybe it would be a good idea to have him come in. Can I make a motion to have him come in?

The Vice-Chair: I don't know that you need a motion. The parliamentary assistant and the deputy minister can bring in whomever they want as part of this.

Mr Pettit: If you could bring Mr Daniels, how soon could he come? Could he come as early as tomorrow maybe?

Ms Mushinski: Yes, we could get him here tomorrow.

Mr Pettit: I think that would be a great idea. He could certainly enlighten us a little bit more on this. Do we still have a bit more time?

The Vice-Chair: You have another three minutes.

Ms Mushinski: If I may, Mr Chairman, I would suggest that he perhaps make a presentation to give you the overall context of CAPAM.

The Vice-Chair: He can give you a presentation during the government's time.

Mr Pettit: Maybe you can tell us a bit about some of the customer service concepts that the Ontario public service has adopted, or at least review them for us.

1730

Ms Mushinski: Is this within the context of the public service award?

Mr Pettit: I guess it could be. If you have any information about some of the concepts they've adopted, we'd be interested in hearing them.

Ms Mushinski: My understanding is that Ontario was actually lauded for its success in offering one-window services to the public. One of those is the Ontario Business Connects and another is the Service Ontario electronic information kiosks.

Service Ontario is the government's one-window shopping. It's a window that is now open to Ontarians seven days a week. Throughout the past decade, people have been asking for easier access to government services such as making address changes to health insurance cards and renewing their automobile licences, and even making parking fine payments. For the past few years, the government has been testing the advantages of self-serve electronic kiosks. They're really like automatic banking machines or bank tellers.

Mr Pettit: They've been very well received.

Ms Mushinski: They have seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day access and easy-to-find locations. Many of them are in high-traffic public areas like shopping malls. A few years ago, the government began to place these kiosks in a few locations really to serve as pilot projects. The projects turned out to be a huge success and the government then decided to partner with IBM -- selected through a competitive tender, I might add -- to develop, finance, deliver and operate an expanded set of service kiosks by January 1996. The first kiosk was successfully launched featuring touch-screen activation, credit card payments and product and receipt dispensing.

There are now Service Ontario kiosks in over 60 locations. Services are available to the public seven days a week, with 24-hour service in some locations. I'm pleased to say that in the near future, birth certificates and health insurance cards with photo identification are some of the services that the public can expect to see from a delivery initiative that offers speed, simplicity and remote accessibility.

Another key public service innovation is especially appropriate to mention today since, as I was saying, this is the second week of the Ontario government's salute to small business. As any of you who have started a small business should know, part of the process of setting up and running a small business involves registering with the government, and this includes taking care of activities like business name searches, retail sales tax registration, workplace safety and insurance board registration. Until recently, unfortunately, Ontario's hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs have had to leap over many hurdles to get these simple tasks done. They've had to unravel red tape -- and we hate that word around here -- and race from government office to government office and incur a variety of significantly steep costs, all just to meet the government's legislative and regulatory requirements. I'm pleased to say that those days are over, thanks to Ontario Business Connects.

The Vice-Chair: We'll move over to the official opposition.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): The parliamentary assistant has been saying it's small business week and how great it is, and protect small business -- 10% this year, 5% the following two years. I was at a meeting the other night with the tax increases where you couldn't even get into the parking lot. Now that it's been limited to 10%, 5% and 5%, where are the municipalities going to get the balance of the money to run their administrations over the next three years?

Mr Parker: You want higher tax increases?

Mr Cleary: I'm asking her the question.

Mr Pettit: That's not what my relatives in Cornwall and Long Sault tell me, John.

Ms Mushinski: Was he talking about this parking lot?

The Vice-Chair: No, he was talking about tax increases. Do you want to repeat the question?

Mr Cleary: You have been saying that for small business it will be 10% this year and 5% each of the following years over a three-year period.

Ms Mushinski: Oh, you're talking about assessment.

Mr Cleary: Tax increases. I'm saying tax bills are out. Municipalities know how much it's going to cost to operate their business of running the municipality, which I'm very familiar with because I was there for 15 years before I came here. I'm just wondering where they're going to get the extra revenue to run the municipality.

Ms Mushinski: Again, it's getting into the specifics of the legislation. My understanding is that it's going to be cost-neutral. However, I will take the question under advisement and get a more definitive response for the member the next time.

The Vice-Chair: You will table that with the committee?

Ms Mushinski: Yes.

Mr Parker: He wants them to be able to raise taxes more than 10%.

Mr Cleary: Look, Mr Parker, I have never said I wanted them to do that.

The Vice-Chair: Go ahead, Mr Cleary. She's going to table a report.

Mr Cleary: The other thing I want to know is, you mentioned the health care system and all of the 40 new physicians who are coming. In a particular instance, this lady had worked in a bank all her life; 55 years old probably and never cost the system a nickel. She couldn't get a physician in Ontario to solve the problems that she had. She had to go to the States and asked to go to the States. It was $15,000 over there. She thought that was too much. She went to the province of Quebec and they said they would do the operation for $1,500, yet the health care system in Ontario gave her all kinds of problems about paying for that operation. They finally agreed the night before the operation was to take place. You mentioned about all the good things. I'd just like you to comment on that.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for the question. This is a fairly detailed question pertaining to specific circumstances to which I do not have the information at my fingertips. Certainly I am willing to take the question under advisement and will attempt to get you a response.

Mr Cleary: Another question I have is, where does the money come from to pay for all these signs that have, "Premier Mike Harris: Your tax dollars at work," along the provincial highways? Where does that money come from and how much is that?

Mr Parker: The same place the money came from that paid for the signs that your government put up for highway projects.

Ms Mushinski: That is a question that perhaps should be more readily addressed to the Ministry of Transportation estimates. I believe those estimates are going to be considered by the estimates committee shortly and perhaps that should be asked at that time because it is a Ministry of Transportation estimate.

Mr Cleary: It's got, "Premier Mike Harris" on it. I thought that comes out of the Premier's office.

Ms Mushinski: If I may respond, there is no money within the estimates that are in front of this committee for road signs.

Mr Cleary: What a bunch of crap. I don't know whether I should go on or not.

The Vice-Chair: Please do.

Mr Cleary: The other thing is, we see all these newsletters, all these advertisements, whether they be on TV, whether they be in glossy brochures, and they've all got Mike Harris's name on them. Where does that money come from? What budget does that show up in?

1740

Ms Mushinski: Each ministry, of course, is responsible for its own communications budget. Again, I will tell you that the expenses pertaining to the Premier's office's estimates deal with responding to listening to Ontarians, obviously communicating that we are cost-conscious, that we're moving towards balancing the budget, that we're cutting taxes; we're doing the things that we said we were going to do. Part of that is communicating with Ontarians. There has been a consultation process that has taken place. Clearly, all of these are contained within the estimates of the Premier's budget.

As I have said, though, with respect to each ministry's communications program, they are contained within their estimates. If Mr Cleary has a particular ministry that he's interested in, depending on whether the estimates have been dealt with or not, perhaps that's the time when he should be addressing those questions.

Mr Cleary: We have asked some of the ministries already but we didn't get answers.

Another thing is, you made campaign promises and all this, but there was another campaign promise, "It is not my intention to close hospitals." This is Mike Harris. I want to just mention a few things, what the commission has done in our part of eastern Ontario and what members of that commission have said. They're closing one of the two local hospitals, and one of the commissioners said we'll probably need another new hospital by the year 2005. The hospital that they're closing has got all kinds of land to build a hospital on; the one that they're keeping open has no land. This is Premier Mike Harris. He said he was not going to close any hospitals. We're pretty close to the Premier's office here.

Ms Mushinski: Again, those or similar questions were asked by the member for Kingston and The Islands, I believe. As I suggested in my previous response, they are questions pertaining to the details of a specific budget under the Ministry of Health. My understanding is that those estimates were dealt with on June 29 and perhaps any questions pertaining to those estimates should be referred to that particular Hansard.

Mr Cleary: We have tried, but everything that I've mentioned had Mike Harris's name attached to it.

The other thing that's very upsetting is, when they were making decisions on hospitals, they wouldn't even use the consultants who had built the hospital; they brought in their own consultants to give advice. This has been bothering me and I've been trying to get answers. I can't get any answers. I thought since we're reviewing the Premier's office that maybe we could get answers.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Cleary, are you finished?

Mr Cleary: OK, go ahead. I didn't get an answer.

Mr Gerretsen: Do you have an answer to that?

Ms Mushinski: I think that was a statement more than a question.

Mr Cleary: It is a question about the consultants.

Ms Mushinski: I can certainly repeat what I've been saying. The statement actually did allude to specific details that are not in front of me in terms of the Premier's estimates and I would suggest that they perhaps belong to the Ministry of Health estimates.

Mr Gerretsen: How much time do I have left?

The Vice-Chair: You have seven minutes.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me ask you this. On page 5 of the Office of the Premier it says, "Parliamentary assistant's salary, the Executive Council Act: $11,155." Do you think that's enough money for your parliamentary assistant's duties?

Ms Mushinski: My understanding is that that's been determined by legislation.

Mr Gerretsen: I realize that, but do you think that's enough, or do you think you ought to be paid more? You've got a very responsible job, from what you've just been telling us here this afternoon.

Ms Mushinski: Again, I believe that we're a cost-conscious government that listens to Ontarians.

Mr Gerretsen: I didn't ask you that. Do you think that's enough money for your job or do you think you should be paid more?

Ms Mushinski: We're doing far more with less and we're a better government because of that. Hopefully that, Mr Chairman, will answer his question.

Mr Gerretsen: So you're not going to answer as to whether or not you, Marilyn Mushinski, member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, think that's enough money or maybe too much money.

Ms Mushinski: We, as a government, have established policy procedures, including MPP compensation, based upon our responses to listening to Ontarians. Ontarians have told us repeatedly that they want their government to be cost-conscious. They want their government to act responsibly, to balance the budget, to cut taxes and to deliver quality services with smaller government. In answer to Mr Gerretsen's question, absolutely, I believe everything that my government is doing reflects responsibility and accountability.

Mr Gerretsen: It's very interesting that you won't answer any questions from any of the members of the opposition, to a very direct question, and yet you will answer everything that the government has asked.

I'm referring to one other item in your speech today, and I think I wrote this down correctly. You somehow seem to blame the federal government for cutting $2 billion from the health and social services grant.

Ms Mushinski: It's not blame, it's a fact.

Mr Gerretsen: I agree it's a fact. Are you saying, then, that if they had not cut it and you had the $2 billion, you would be spending that on more health care services? Why are you making that statement other than the fact that the feds have cut the province off by $2 billion in that area? Are you saying you would be spending that money in health care because we're not spending enough there? Why are you making that statement over and over again?

Ms Mushinski: I think that's obviously a very hypothetical question. Now that the federal government has balanced its budget, it will be interesting to see where any surpluses might go, perhaps restoring the money that's been lost to health care.

Mr Gerretsen: Are you saying that if you got this money you would put it into health care? Is that what you're saying?

Ms Mushinski: It would be interesting to know what the finance minister of the federal government will be doing with any surplus in the future.

Mr Gerretsen: My question to you, Ms Mushinski, is this: If you got the $2 billion from the government that you say they've cut you off from -- and it's a fact, they've lowered that amount of money -- are you saying your government's going to spend it in health care? Remember, you're in a powerful position. You're the parliamentary assistant to the Premier. Are you going to spend it on health care? Yes or no?

Ms Mushinski: As I suggested, that is a very hypothetical question.

Mr Parker: It was an impossible question.

Ms Mushinski: Since fiscal policy is clearly under the purview of the Minister of Finance, I think it's perhaps one that should be referred to him.

Mr Gerretsen: But it was in your statement earlier today that you mentioned it. Are you saying that there should be $2 billion more spent in health care right now than there actually is? Is that what you're saying?

Ms Mushinski: In my submission I spoke to the facts. I did not speak to hypothetical questions.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Gerretsen, you have about a minute and a half.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm assuming now from what you've said, and you're not the only person who said this, that if the province had had the $2 billion you would have spent it on health care. Since you didn't have that money, could you answer why the government gave a $5-billion tax cut, which is what it is right now at 30%, if, in effect, $2 billion of that money was required for health care? Why wouldn't you give people just a $3-billion tax cut instead of the $5-billion tax cut if you needed that money for health care?

Ms Mushinski: Mr Chairman, the member has alluded to the fact that I made certain statements in my submission. What I said was in direct response to what Ms Pupatello said.

Mr Gerretsen: Poor Ms Pupatello gets blamed for so much when she isn't here to defend herself. I feel sorry for her.

Ms Mushinski: Ms Pupatello clearly stated that our government has cut the budget in health care, and I said we have not cut the budget in health care. The only government that has cut money in health care is the federal Liberal government.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm asking you what you would have done with the money if you had gotten it. We could have paid the debt off quicker. We're still in debt in this province of $115 billion.

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: Wait a minute now.

The Vice-Chair: You asked a question; allow her to answer it.

Ms Mushinski: As I have suggested to you, Mr Chairman, that is a matter of fiscal policy and should be referred to the Minister of Finance.

Mr Gerretsen: But you spoke about the fiscal policy in your speech.

The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately, Mr Gerretsen, your time is up.

Mr Gerretsen: You're doing this to me every time, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: I apologize. Mrs Mushinski, I thank you for appearing before us today. We will see you tomorrow.

Mr Pettit: Mr Chair, if I may, I just want to clarify. Are we going to try and have Mr Daniels here for tomorrow?

Ms Mushinski: Yes, we'll have him here.

The Vice-Chair: Just for purposes of information for the staff here, who is this gentleman?

Mr Pettit: He's assistant deputy minister of the Ontario Public Service Restructuring Secretariat.

Mr Gerretsen: Could he maybe give us a handout on these gold-medal awards? The civil service ought to be applauded for that. I'm a great believer in applauding staff when they've done an excellent job. If we're number one in the world, we should be shouting that out.

The Vice-Chair: What a positive way to end a meeting. Meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1752.