Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

CONTENTS

Thursday 17 September 1997

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Hon Dianne Cunningham, minister

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 Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Clerk / Greffière Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1549 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): Thank you for being here today. Thank you to the minister for attending.. We will resume the questions from the New Democratic Party. Welcome, Mr Bisson. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to be at the estimates committee, a committee that's been close to my heart in all the years I've been a member.

Let's get into it, because I've only got 10 minutes in this rotation: a quick statement about what happened at the Calgary conference in regard to the constitutional dilemma we find ourselves in, and then a couple of questions.

I would repeat to the minister what I said in French earlier in the House, that I caution the minister and this government that the road to finding a solution to the constitutional problem is a really bumpy one. There hasn't been a lot of success since 1981, since the Constitution was repatriated without Quebec signing it. I have always taken the position that it should never have been done without all the provinces signing it, or else you were just asking to have happen what's happening now.

We find ourselves in a situation where because of those decisions, we have to try to find a solution. As a Canadian, I really want this process to work. It's about making sure this country stays whole for my children and their children. Like you and all the members of this committee, I believe this is a great country.

The difficulty, however, is that what is seen to be provincial responsibilities and power and what is in our Constitution are very different depending on which part of the nation you come from. I was fortunate, in the past Parliament, to have sat on what we called at the time the Silipo commission, which I vice-chaired. We travelled throughout this province and across this country to listen to what people had to say about the Constitution and what some of the solutions are.

That's where I'm leading with this. We need to have a consultation process that's meaningful and gives people the opportunity to express themselves to their provincial government so that whatever we decide to do here in Ontario resonates to the people of this province and they can take some ownership. On the other hand, I don't think -- that's the question I have of the minister -- that you're prepared for an undertaking such as ours under the Bob Rae government, where we had a full constitutional committee travel this province with a fairly significant budget to canvass people. Can you give us an idea of where you want to go as far as the consultation process is concerned?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): First of all, since I've been down here a couple of major commissions have travelled. During the Meech Lake discussions I represented our caucus, along with others, on that, and from time to time joined you on Mr Silipo's commission under the former two premiers.

It has been suggested by a few that perhaps we should consider that again. However, because many have told me they don't want to be associated with what were perceived to be the failures of the past -- it might have meant not here in Ontario; we did very well -- it is a time for change. We also know a little about what the public would like to be able to do with regard to talking to us, meaning all of us in this Legislative Assembly, because as the Premier said today in his statement, he's counting on all members of the assembly and certainly the two opposition leaders to help us decide what kind of process. I think members of this committee would be more than welcome. As I said at the last two sessions of estimates, we have been spending a lot of time talking about this issue in here.

There are lots of ideas. If we wanted a select committee process, that would be our recommendation to the Premier. From what I've heard so far, there will probably be many ideas. I was quite surprised to hear about the use of technology. We've chatted about it. People are talking about using the telephone, using the Internet, using their newsletters. Perhaps we would decide to have a questionnaire around the principles common across the province. There are lots of good ideas coming to our ministry, both from the public and within the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Bisson: One thing I learned during our constitutional committee, the Silipo commission, was that as much as people say, "I'm tired of listening about constitutional debate," and the wrangling, as Preston Manning would put it, I was quite struck that Ontarians in huge numbers participated in that process. It didn't matter if we were in Sioux Lookout or in Toronto; people wanted to have an opportunity to have their say.

The advice I give to the minister and to the Premier is that there would be, I understand, a reluctance to have a huge committee process to undertake this consultation, but you've got to try to figure out -- maybe we can help -- how you can do this so that in the end people feel it was a legitimate process. If this is to succeed, it has to be non-partisan. I think all of us are committed to that. We've demonstrated that a lot of times in this Legislature.

More important, in this day and age, where the public is a lot more aware and a lot more astute about what this constitutional issue is all about, we need to find a way so that people can say, "Yes, this was our Ontario process, we found our voice in this process," and that what happens in the end reflects to a certain degree what Ontarians wanted to have undertaken.

But as you mentioned before we started this hearing, people have to understand that this is not a constitutional amendment being proposed here. I am a little troubled by some of the reports I've been reading in the paper. I read Dalton Camp's editorial, as you will have done yourself, Minister, and I had some phone discussions last night with people and yesterday in my constituency about various issues, and this issue crops up. I'm hearing people talking about constitutional amendments. I think we need to be clear that this is not what it is all about. We're trying to send a signal to the province of Quebec that Canada welcomes them.

But there's a problem with that. How do we go through this process? I'm trying to figure out how to get into this without getting too controversial or partisan, but that's the problem with this debate, isn't it? The problem is that I wonder what kind of legitimacy the province of Quebec is going to see in this whole process. I'm not sure that just resolutions from all the provincial legislatures and the federal government are going to cut it. There are some real constitutional issues that need to be dealt with both inside and outside of Quebec. Skirting around this issue I'm not sure is going to solve it.

I look forward to get into this a little deeper in my next rotation, but we want to try to find a way together to work our way through this. I'm a little concerned about the tack the premiers took here, because I don't think that especially Quebec sovereigntists are going to come in droves to understand what we're trying to do here.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm not sure, Gilles, if you've seen the three-page press release: Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity and Guidelines for the Process of Public Consultation.

The Chair: Is that something you'd like the committee to have?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We passed it out last time, but we have different members today.

Mr Bisson: Could I have another copy?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Does the clerk have more copies for anyone? We'll make some for anyone who would like a copy.

I very much appreciated your views, which I share, with regard to sending a positive message to Quebec. You're right: It is going to be a challenge, but there are a number of approaches we can consider. We know that the Ontario public has always expected their political leaders to act as a catalyst. I share your observations about the committee travelling, but there has to be a balance in whatever we decide to do with regard to public input.

The only thing that's different this time is that they don't want us to prejudge the outcome of these hearings. They are really interested in talking to us. We've all heard about people in a room making decisions with no input. Whether we like it or not, that seems to be the perception. I was shocked to see that the majority of Ontarians didn't think there had been consultation around Charlottetown. It's really surprising to those of us who were involved.

Mr Bisson: It was the most open process we could have had.

The Chair: I turn now to the members of the Conservative caucus.

1600

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Minister, I'll follow along the same line as mon ami de Timmins, M. Bisson, because I think he has touched on a nerve, that unity is a very important issue. Canada is not just a good country; it's a great country. He also referred to the Silipo constitutional committee that went around the province a number of years ago. We've got to remember that Ontario is only one part of the puzzle. There are other provinces. No doubt we are the largest. I don't know how the other provinces are going to deal with the issue. Ontario can speak for itself, but we certainly cannot speak for the rest of the country.

I was looking at a speech you delivered, Minister, on June 2 at the Canadian Club of Toronto. On page 3 it says, "Let me begin with our first guiding principle." Then you talk about rebalancing the federation, and then further on, "We must bring government closer to the people." Then: "I am not talking about devolution of power, of handing over all responsibility to the provinces. I am simply saying provinces can and should have more responsibility for the design and delivery of programs that are either provincial, or share federal-provincial jurisdiction." Then: "The dialogue must take place in the spirit of consultation.... The new federal government must come to the table...." Then you talk about specifics. You were talking about the national child benefit.

I think there's a parallel when you talk about the new federal government. I look at the leadership and at the process that has been going on at the federal government over the past couple of years and at the present time. If we look at the referendum that occurred in 1995, I think the Prime Minister of Canada had his head buried in the sand when he said in his own riding that there was no difficulty with regard to the separatists carrying the vote. As I recall, I think the separatists did win it.

Mr Bisson: They didn't win it.

Mr Beaubien: Well, in his own riding. It was very close province-wide, but the separatists won Chrétien's riding. How do you propose to proceed? I think it's a very difficult, sensitive issue that we're dealing with. I'm certainly not a constitutional expert. I'm from Quebec originally. How do you propose to proceed, from Ontario's point of view, to deal with the issue, to try to sell, as the Prime Minister would say, the little people of Shawinigan or wherever else? Have you got a process in mind?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll go back to the beginning and a story I've often shared with my colleagues about the very first meeting I attended, the annual premiers' conference, a few weeks after becoming minister, in St John's in the summer of 1995. It was clear to me at that time that there was a group of premiers and territorial leaders, I would add, in that room who seemed to be very unhappy about the way the federation worked. Although there were different issues, one issue permeated most of the conversation informally and definitely the agenda of the meeting: that as premiers and territorial leaders they were truly focused on providing good social programs during times of tremendous, unprecedented change across the country.

What intrigued me at that time was that here was a group of people of all political stripes who had the same agenda: how they could provide programs more effectively and efficiently to their citizens. Their frustration at that time was put out in the form of a consultation document, which was quite inclusive, by the province of Newfoundland. It was called Social Policy Reform and Renewal. I said to our Premier: "Do we just walk away from these meetings and nothing ever happens; it's kind of a bit of a show where everybody gets together and there's no action? If that's the case, we shouldn't really be very interested in participating in this kind of a process."

That thought must have gone through the minds of others, because they focused on that social policy change and renewal. It was interesting to note that the Premier of Quebec at that time, Mr Parizeau, was keenly interested in that discussion. That's an area where the province of Quebec has made significant headway in their discussions with the federal government, and that is the whole issue of rebalancing, trying to decide which level of government should deliver what program, obviously according to not only the Constitution but to the traditional patterns that had taken place over the years in the whole area of social services, which of course is the jurisdiction of the provinces. Everyone was complaining about overlap and duplication, about not a very timely response from the federal government, not just that year but in many years past.

This is not new. This is probably a 30-year problem. Over the years, different levels of government have gotten into the business of doing the work of another government, much to the chagrin of the citizens, who have a hard time figuring it out anyway.

Certainly we were challenged as elected representatives to do something. Sometime during the meeting, the premiers decided that would be their focus. They had to find a different way of working together, because when they didn't work together, the federal government had managed to divide and conquer and cherrypick whom they were going to deal with for whatever reason they needed to do it. I'm not being disrespectful. This is something that has evolved over a long period of time and it's something that we as a country want to see work in a better way.

In response to your question, therefore, as you look at the seven principles which some of you will have in front of you, you will notice that the rebalancing initiative is there as part of the Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity. It shows up in item 7, where we talk about a federal system where we actually respect each other's jurisdictions: "Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation." That's what rebalancing is all about. "Canadians want their governments to work together particularly in the delivery of their social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to work in partnership with the government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians."

My observation on the work we have done over the past few years -- the past two years, to be exact -- is that I think there are many times when the province of Quebec would love to be at the table with us. In fact this year, at my third meeting, Mr Bouchard did sit in on the session on social policy, because they are extremely interested, which was I think somewhat encouraging. I'm not overly optimistic, obviously, in that regard, but he does represent all of the citizens in Quebec and they too want effective and efficient programs.

That is one of the principles we will have some discussions about during whatever process we all decide on together. It's an opportunity for the citizens to talk to us about their concerns and ask us questions about how we can work better together and with the federal government.

The other piece is the piece with regard to Quebec. Again, we're looking at the fifth principle with regard to the framework. It's interesting because I'm always asked about the unique character and it describes it here: "In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the wellbeing of Canada."

I think it was Mr Romanow this year at the annual premiers' conference in New Brunswick who stated, "The time has come when we as premiers and territorial leaders have to give leadership to the constituents that we represent in sending a message to the people of Quebec that we want them to be part of Canada and that we want to work with them." Basically that, I think, is what they decided to do, and thus the meeting in Calgary and thus these principles.

1610

I think it's a two-sided approach, but the rebalancing and making the country work better and more effectively and efficiently has definitely been the priority for the past two years. The time has come, because we see the opportunity in Quebec. I too have difficulty in being anything but respectful of a choice that people make, but the truth of the matter is that we will have opportunity to influence a different government perhaps, or influence the government of the day with regard to hoping they will focus on working with the other premiers and territorial leaders for a united Canada.

Mr Beaubien: I'd like to follow up on that. I think Mr Bisson alluded to the fact that a couple of years ago the Constitution committee travelled across the province to get feedback from Ontarians.

No one can argue with the framework. I think the framework is excellent. I think it recognizes an awful lot of things that should have been recognized a long time ago, or at least put on paper.

But what I'm afraid of is that we seem to be talking about government or opposition, but the power of the ballot: How are we going to get to the person who puts the tick? How are we going to convince that person who has been taught in school for the past 15 years, 20 years, five years that separatism is the order of the day, that Quebec has received a bad deal? Let me tell you, it's not only in the schools, but it's been entrenched in the Quebec community, in the social fabric for a number of years. How are we going to turn that around? How can we go on? Basically you almost have to fight it one on one in order to make sure that we're successful at the end of the day.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The guidelines for the process of public consultation took into consideration the huge challenge that we all have and, as individual elected representatives, we have an equal challenge in this regard.

A government member has no more of a responsibility here than anyone else, but we collectively have to find a way to get the message out. That's why we basically understood -- it isn't that we didn't do some discussions in the last two years. You were at one of the speeches where we had huge numbers of feedback, and that was: "We want to be involved this time. We want to be part of the solution."

So they decided that the consultation is going to be open to the general citizenry, that efforts should be made to find creative ways of engaging Canadians in each provincial consultation process, and each of us has to think about that. We've had some discussion here today. By the way, these meetings are extremely helpful to me just in listening. Our time is so valuable, but the members are giving us some good ideas.

"Governments should act as catalyst for the process of consultation," so we do have responsibility; we cannot shy away from it.

"It is acknowledged that provinces and territories may wish to have processes of consultation in stages but the advantage of a coordinated time frame is recognized." The premiers all knew they had to have some time frame. The time frame for us at this point is that the premiers have decided to make a progress report to each other around January 10. That doesn't mean to say that we in Ontario have to finish our work, but we do have to have some kind of report for the premiers in January.

"Each province and territory is free to decide on the range or scope of consultation as well as the appropriate mechanism for consultation." I think that's why we have to consider here how we can carefully approach a topic that is extremely complicated. The whole issue of rebalancing itself is complicated.

Someone already mentioned devolution of power. We would be the first -- I would especially be the first -- to say that we're not looking for more power at all. We're looking to exercise our responsibility in program delivery; not to take away anything, but to be responsible in providing programs that work and do not waste the taxpayers' money.

As we talk about that, clarifying the roles and responsibilities is a practical solution to our unity problem. It's been one of the centrepieces of certainly the Ontario government's priorities over the past two years. I might add, as long as I've been at Queen's Park, which has been almost 10 years -- I can't believe it -- it has been the priority of other governments as well. This is not new. It flows out of our central concern with increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

You're correct; how do you get the message out? When we speak about this, people are quite surprised that the Ontario people are not as well served in some regards with our resources that we get from the federal government. The government needs to work smarter and better and we need to eliminate the costly overlap and duplication. Then we'd be able to manage our areas of jurisdiction without unwanted intervention from the federal government.

I'll only close by saying that one of the most confusing pieces that all of us will have to face during our discussions, and we should also talk about how we can educate each other, is the whole idea of national standards. All governments want national standards, but there's a difference between national standards and federal standards. We want to be there as they are interpreted, and that's our responsibility.

You're right. These are very difficult messages, but I think somehow we have to decide how to give the public information they can respond to.

Mr Beaubien: Just a last comment: Good luck. And to Mr Bisson, I appreciate the fact that you pointed out that you're looking for a way to help in a non-partisan way, because I think this issue is beyond politics. I commend you for that.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): How much time do we have, Chair?

The Chair: You have two and a half minutes.

Mr Wettlaufer: I'm a man of few words, but I don't know if I can get them in that quickly.

I'd like to go back to the question raised by M. Lalonde yesterday and the day before, namely, the situation with the Quebec border construction workers and transport workers. Maybe Mr Sheehan will want to participate in this as well because I know Mr Sheehan was the president of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, which had a similar problem.

I don't necessarily advocate taking a tough stance with Quebec. Nevertheless, about 16 or 17 months ago I participated in the Partnership of Parliament discussion with M. Lalonde and M. Grandmaître in Hull, Quebec, and this was the hot topic of discussion. At that time, the Parti québécois members were asking what position we should take, and I expressed to them that I thought the ball was clearly in their court.

They have not taken any action whatever in the past 16 months or thereabouts. I was wondering if we have considered taking a tougher stand with the province of Quebec. Maybe Mr Sheehan would like to add something.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Maybe Mr Sheehan can do that now and then when I get an opportunity, when the Chair tells me I can talk, I'll try to -- if there's anything you can add to that.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): No, the insurance brokers had a problem along Ottawa-Hull. The Quebec brokers, how they were governed, had a requirement that the Ontario brokers doing business in the Gatineau Hills and what have you had to be licensed, had to maintain premises, had to maintain trust accounts. They had to set it up full blown, even though they would be insuring a cottage as a secondary residence on a homeowner's policy, the homeowner being based in Ontario. They also had various and sundry fees that amounted to close to $300 or $400, whereas our licensing fee was $100 and you got an out-of-province licence and no big deal.

The thing just kept getting worse and worse and the dollars kept going up and the requirements getting tighter and tighter. We'd written to them and they said, "Oh, yes, we're going to do something." Finally, what happened was we sent the manager down to Quebec and said: "Here's the word. You'll fix it within the next six weeks or six months," whatever the time frame was, "or whatever you're doing to the Ontario brokerage we're going to do it to you times two." Suddenly, it was fixed.

1620

The Chair: I'll leave you with that thought for the next round with the Conservative caucus. By mutual arrangement we have the New Democratic caucus and then we'll come back to the Liberals.

Mr Bisson: I apologize, but I actually have to go and do an interview on this whole issue, along with two other of my legislative colleagues, with the CBC.

I have to ask this question because it needs to be clarified for me. That is in point 5 of the framework discussion, when you're saying, "Consequently, the legislature and government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada." How much of a role?

Let me be specific, because I don't have time to play around this one. Under such language, whatever this language would lead to, would it allow, for example, if we were to turn the clock back to the days of René Lévesque, for the introduction of the French language law in Quebec? Would the National Assembly have that right?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's an interesting question. I think the way you could probably express it best if you're asked that question is to let the public of Ontario know, because that's who you're going to be talking to, that this is a framework and however they want to interpret -- as I had this morning lots of questions around the unique character -- you and I are there to listen. This is what the premiers want to hear about. You might have your view which you could express, but others may have a different view.

Mr Bisson: But what I need to know desperately, is it still the position of Ontario that Quebec has paramountcy when it comes to the issue of language rights in the province of Quebec? The question I have to you is, would this be interpreted to mean that the government of Quebec at the National Assembly of Quebec would have paramountcy over issues of language in their own province?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: First of all, it isn't up to you and me to interpret what this means, but it was never intended to take away anything from Quebec, but to recognize -- and I think you have to be careful -- their diversity.

Mr Bisson: I've got do this quickly because I've got to leave in a couple of minutes. But the problem is, just to put it clearly, Quebec will not sign on to the Constitution because if they sign under the present arrangements that we have, they would not have paramountcy in this area.

You're suggesting -- and this is a very intriguing approach that the Premier has taken, which I support to a certain extent -- that they're trying to find some way of saying that Quebec has a distinct society without really saying that. I'm trying to be as non-controversial as I can here.

If Quebeckers are to sign in, obviously one of the things they demand -- it has always been the cornerstone of their demands -- is to have paramountcy over French-language issues in the province of Quebec. Is it the position of Ontario that Quebec would still have that paramountcy? In other words, it would be recognized in the Constitution that they have paramountcy in that area.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It would be interpreted within the Charter of Rights. It was never intended during the discussions to add or take away the rights of Quebeckers. I cannot talk about or cannot tell you anything more than that with regard to the former government's or our government's interpretation in that regard.

Mr Bisson: That's the problem, and you understand where I'm going with this. We need to be working at this together, but I need to understand what the Ontario position is. That's where I'm a little bit at a loss right now, because it's been since the Peterson government and the Rae government that Quebec does have that right, and if they were a signatory on to the Constitution, they would keep the right. In other words, it would be entrenched in the Constitution, where it is not now. So what is Ontario's position?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think I've explained our position now, but after this consultation we may have an opportunity down the road at some time, which you and I can only guess at, to take a look at changes to the Constitution. I think that's what you're getting at.

Mr Bisson: What I'm getting at is, what's Ontario's position?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's not to take away or to add rights.

Mr Bisson: But it would be to give rights. If Quebec were to sign on to the Constitution and we were to accept their demands around distinct society under Meech Lake, it would mean that Quebec would have paramountcy in that area. Is it still the position of Ontario that they have paramountcy? That's the problem.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would answer the question in this way: One of the great controversies of the words "distinct society" was the perception that Quebec would have more rights than other provinces.

Mr Bisson: I understand that. The problem is that if you're saying, "While all provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status," "distinct society" doesn't necessarily mean that.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's true. But if you go a little further down, to number 6 -- you've looked at that too, haven't you?

Mr Bisson: I have.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: "If any future constitutional amendment confers power on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces."

Mr Bisson: It may not necessarily be the right thing for Ontario. I'm trying to understand what the position is.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I cannot speak for the province right now, because this whole purpose --

Mr Bisson: But you're the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I don't want to be combative, but I have to go out and do media interviews around this whole issue and I certainly want to make sure we speak in a unified voice. To do so, I need to know what the Ontario position is when it comes to what used to be called "distinct society."

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Ontario would not have a position, given what you've just said to me. That's why we're out talking to the public. I would actually take a position --

Mr Bisson: Then that's a weakening of the position as it was prior to 1995.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're talking about Meech, you're talking about Charlottetown? The public of Ontario then, you can say that, did sign on to Meech and did sign on to Charlottetown.

Mr Bisson: And it is still the position of Ontario that Quebec has paramountcy in those areas.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You don't know that. Two former governments signed on.

Mr Bisson: All right. I've got to run for another debate. I'll be back a little bit later.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Thank you. But I think you could make that point, that it has been our tradition.

Mr Bisson: Hopefully it is still the position.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think it would be fair, but be careful not to speculate too much.

Mr Bisson: I'll try not to.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's not easy.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): This is a unique situation.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It is.

Ms Castrilli: The minister in one government is giving advice which is being taken by a member of the opposition party. Wonderful.

The Chair: Continue, Ms Castrilli.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you. I'm very happy to be here. I was detained in the first two sessions, but of course this is an issue which is very much one that I care about.

One of the things that many forget is that there has historically been a tension among the provinces and the federal government, even before there was a federal government, since Canada began. It has been sometimes an easy tension to bear and sometimes an uneasy tension to bear, but this is by no means new. It is new that in the latter end of the 20th century we've become much more anxious about trying to find the final solution. The problem with final solutions is there's never a final solution, so we will do our best to muddle through this in the hope it advances the country, it evolves the country and unites the country.

I am reminded of a whole lot of efforts we've had in the last little while. The Meech Lake accord certainly was one of the first big ones that I was involved in. It may interest the committee members to know that the Conservative members on the select committee -- there was a Liberal government at the time -- were Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. They wrote a minority report which I would commend to you. You should read it. It's very interesting.

We then went on to Charlottetown, and prior to Charlottetown had both a select committee that travelled the country under Mr Silipo of the NDP, and an Ontario in Confederation conference at Hart House which was supposed to be a kind of model constituent assembly. It sought to bring representative individuals -- there were about 300 people, I think, who came here for three days -- to discuss a whole host of issues and some very, very good work was done. A report was prepared.

Each time we've gone through these very significant exercises, the result has been lots of energy, lots of time, lots of effort, lots of paper, all of it shelved. I can personally feel the frustrations of Ontarians who are saying, "Here we go again." The first time it was hopeful, the second time not so, and the third time -- I hope it's not greeted with cynicism. That's the concern I have.

I say that because I believe it's incumbent on us as legislators to make sure we don't feed that kind of cynicism that may inevitably come about.

1630

I'm fascinated by this Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity. I think it's being interpreted in many different ways. It's quite a fortuitous circumstance that we have estimates and we're able to speak directly to the minister for so many hours on this issue. There are people who will look at this and say, "This looks pretty substantive to me."

Where would you put this in the Constitution? Are we looking towards a constitutional amendment? Is it just part of an interpretative clause that we would add to the charter, for instance? Is it something more? Is it just principles upon which we will then build language, which has to be negotiated and accepted and voted on and the whole process it takes for Constitution making? That's what I'm truly trying to understand here. As principles go, there are things I like and things I don't like. I don't doubt for a moment the good faith that was put into this document and the real urgency some of the premiers feel in trying to resolve this issue again.

I said in my statement in the House, and I believe this to be the case, that we've got to be really careful we do this in an appropriate fashion, without creating any hysteria or cynicism out there. There's no constitutional crisis. This is the time to get it right, and the way we get it right is not to rush it through but to do it thoughtfully and to bring people on board and engage them bit by bit.

One of the problems we already have is that virtually every government, except for Bouchard, and all political parties endorse these principles. Forgive me for saying that this was precisely the problem with Charlottetown. It was viewed as élitist government that therefore couldn't find any resonance with the people. I say that because I suspect that if we try and rush through this process, we will be saddled with some of the same deficiencies we had in Charlottetown. We won in Ontario but we won by the very slightest of margins. How you can call that a victory -- I called it a victory. I was in the room when the votes were announced. We had worked very hard and we wanted it to be a victory, but realistically even in Ontario it was not a significant win.

Because what I see in here is a fairly lengthy process and because what I see here is a process that's open to all kinds of interpretation, I'd like to get a sense from you, Minister -- you've said, for instance, that there's going to be a progress report to the premiers by January 10. I don't know what "progress report" means. I thought I heard the Premier say earlier that he wanted this whole resolution passed by the House by December 31. I'm having some difficulty understanding how we do that. I'd like to have some clarification on that. I'd also like to have clarification as to what you think are the steps we now follow.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Obviously it's a stage-by-stage process, and we've begun the stage this week, all of us. Our expectation is that we'll consult with the public and we'll all decide what that consultation process should be, probably within the next couple of weeks, and the Premier will decide what kind of committee -- it may not even be a committee, but it's going to be something with the three parties.

Then we'll talk, I think, to the public, but we're going to have to bring them along with us and we're going to have to do that very thoughtfully and carefully, because all of us are very nervous about, as you say, cynicism. We're nervous about not having a successful conclusion. The conclusion may be, depending on how the process goes, stage by stage, and I believe some committee of some type will be struck, and the three parties will decide at what point we report to the Premier and in which way. I didn't hear him say that there was a resolution, but he could have, because that would be one of the processes we could work on. In the end we will probably have to work towards some kind of resolution in the House.

I'm not sure of the timing. The result of all our work, of course -- we're focused on making a statement, not only here in Ontario but across the country, to the people of Quebec. I would say that as constitutional change goes, I wouldn't quite call it a crisis, but we do not want to be accused, any of the premiers or provinces or territories, of sleepwalking into the next referendum. The timing of the election in Quebec hasn't been decided but it could be this spring; it could be next fall. If we can influence the government, no matter who's elected, we would truly like to avoid a referendum, because many of us were very surprised at how close we came to not having a united Canada in October in Quebec. It was a very close call.

I know the premiers have said over and over again that their constituents are looking for leadership, that basically the constituents of the provinces and territories want a united Canada. How we get our message to Quebec that we're sincere and that we're serious, that they've been part of our country, our history, an exciting part of Canada -- we in Ontario can especially attest to that because our own children visit back and forth as part of their school trips and exchanges. They have enriched our province and our country with their culture and their diversity, as we hope we have done with them.

I see this as a step-by-step process culminating eventually in influencing somehow -- the premiers want to do that -- the citizens of Quebec to stay in Canada. As far as the time goes, I don't feel particularly pressed and I don't think the Premier does either. We're going to have to allow the citizens to take the time they need to speak to us.

Ms Castrilli: Could you talk a bit about what you think the status of this framework for discussion is? At the moment it's just an agreement on some principles between the premiers. By the way, I have looked at these principles in the light of things we've drafted before. It may interest you to know that the first five have some bearing to the Canada clause in Charlottetown, and the last two you could potentially call new. I remember the discussions around the Canada clause that eventually became part of the Charlottetown document at the conference of Ontario in Confederation. People desperately wanted these issues in, and then ultimately we went to Charlottetown and it failed for other reasons.

At the moment it's just an agreement. You envision a process of consultation, I take it, and then some sort of ratification by the Legislature. You wouldn't foresee some legislation, for instance, after that. Following that, what happens? Does this then become the interpretative document or is this the document that is actually going to be part of the constitutional change?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This was the framework for discussion that the premiers have set out for us to decide and design a process around. As minister I have to be very careful not to preclude the results of those discussions. I've tried to talk to you about how I feel the process may evolve, but I'm sure we'll be giving some kind of an idea to the Premier in the next little while with regard to the process itself. I think we'll have to take stock of where the public seem to be at over a period of time before we decide what we would recommend to the Premier. I know he's particularly open minded and sincerely interested.

1640

I think Mr Beaubien earlier said it's quite the challenge, because this is a very complicated framework with a set of priorities in it. I'm interested to hear from you, as you know. I was interested in hearing your observations around the first five points because I too share your views that there's some similar language in there.

We've got lots of precedents to look at with regard to processes over the past 30 years --

Ms Castrilli: All of those failed.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Well, the very first conference I was involved in, and I date myself here, was the Pepin-Robarts commission.

Ms Castrilli: You were a student at the time.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I hate to tell you, I was a mother at the time with a daughter in secondary school who took advantage of the process. It was a happy process. It was a process where basically the constitution was explained and debated, not for the purpose of change but for the purpose of influence. In the end it was up to the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario to show leadership during a time of crisis at that point.

What's interesting to me is I've taken a look at some of the results of something they didn't have at that time, the polling. The polling has changed significantly in the last 10 years in favour of the separatists. Many of us have access to that through our public newspapers and it worries us that it seems to be so divided in Quebec right now. That's why I think there is a sense of urgency around timing because a few months or a year is not very long to make a difference.

I think you're quite correct, that there isn't a sense of urgency around listening carefully and thoughtfully and getting the message out. That's an advantage we have. Because we're not looking to constitutional change at this time, there isn't the same kind of -- what should I say -- urgency to put so much out there before the people that they become totally confused.

The message here is to influence in any way we can our neighbours in Quebec, and to let them know that here in Ontario -- I'm very optimistic, not even cautiously optimistic, that the message will be a resounding open mind and open heart. We've experienced it in the past. I have no reason to believe we wouldn't again.

In the end we will be in government, all of us together here, in this Legislature, during this challenging time. If we can be thoughtful and can help educate the public as we did during the Pepin-Robarts commission, in our schools, in your own communities -- you'll know best -- and if we as the committee at some time, whoever we are, can ask not only our own officials who have had lots of experience, some of them advising the former two governments, and maybe longer than that, I think we'll do a great service, because we are in public service in this regard to our constituents with regard to some choices we have as a country.

Ms Castrilli: Pepin-Robarts of course had a good process. I think an even more successful one would have been the Spicer commission, but in the end those reports didn't go very far. That's what I mean. In terms of the results, they've not changed the situation. It may have heightened some people's perception of the difficulties.

You've said that you're not looking for a constitutional amendment, and I take that to mean you're not looking for a constitutional amendment through the document, but that eventually, you would be dealing with a constitutional amendment. If that's not the position, I wonder --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll give you a resounding "maybe" there. If we're successful, yes, but it will be with a government in Quebec that's looking to change the Constitution so they can be a full, participating partner. This will be across the country; not just here in Ontario. It's interesting that the territories are so involved as well.

It's a good feeling in Canada right now. We have an interesting, unique group of premiers that have been able to come together in this regard at this early stage. The challenge that they have is to guide this process as leaders, because in this time, across the modern world, the citizens have lost confidence in their politicians, all of us. They've lost confidence in the democratic process. They are tired of being told what to do and they want an opportunity to let us know how they feel about the country. We may have even other good advice, if we listen carefully, with regard to the future of Canada.

These premiers have a huge responsibility at probably the most important time in our history. As I stated before, we came so close to losing our country as we know it, just very recently.

Ms Castrilli: If this is not an offer for a constitutional amendment, I wonder what value you believe a resolution such as this, even passed by all the legislatures outside Quebec, would have for the people of Quebec?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The people of Quebec, we've learned, have the same concerns with regard to the initiative of rebalancing as we do. We could probably learn something from them. They have made some gains with regard to their training agreement, for instance, with the federal government; with regard to their own pension plan; with regard to their immigration agreement. They have some agreements with the federal government that others of us would work towards achieving.

At the same time they are appalled at the interference of the federal government as they not only endeavour to sometimes deliver programs that the government and people of Quebec feel are their responsibility to deliver and therefore be accountable for, but they also share the concern of the other provinces with regard to what I would call the unilateral decision-making around the federal spending power; that is, how much money they may give you and whether they agree with your interpretation of standards.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We now turn to the Conservative round.

Mr Sheehan: Minister, I just have one concern that I think you have to put into the equation when you're talking and carrying on these consultations. English Canada, or non-French-speaking Canada, has a problem with an overabundance of francophones in the federal civil service. There's a host of statistics available, but there's a disproportionate representation there.

Similarly they wonder, and we had a classic example in St Catharines, about the willingness, I'll put it this way, of the Ontario bureaucracy to accede to their requests. There's something about you must provide schooling or something, if the population is 5% above, or something along those lines. They started to put in a high school in St Catharines. They didn't have the population to support it but they gave it to them anyway. Notwithstanding that there was about a 20% or 30% used new school in Welland, they allowed them to create this portable-type school in St Catharines, and then they found they didn't have suitable land so they moved it to the other riding, anyway. They took it right out of the area.

Manifestations like that upset and bother non-French-speaking people, and I think you should put that into your mix. It should be in your considerations because if you don't address it then you're not going to those conversations with a balanced perspective. That's just a comment. You can comment on it or not.

1650

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think you're talking about the French Language Services Act, Bill 8. That's a piece of legislation that was introduced during the government of Bill Davis and was revisited during the government of David Peterson. There are certain criteria that actually relate directly to the population of francophones in communities and there's a designation according to numbers of public services that should be provided in French.

It is not only a charter obligation, so all provinces have responded, but I find that the frustration we get as individual elected representatives across the province has more to do with how the interpretation of that act and some of the actions of different levels of government respond to our commitments under the law. If you and I had some conversation around individual circumstances like the one you've already talked about, that may have been dealt with in a different way in another community, even given the same regulation or the same requirement under any provincial law that is basically responding to the conditions of the charter.

Mr Sheehan: I have to disagree. Attributing it to Mr Davis does not make it any more palatable.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That was only to give us a time frame.

Mr Sheehan: He was not one of my patron saints of Conservatism. It is the disregard for the specifications of the law that caused the aggravation. In the particular one I'm citing it was a matter of spending valuable tax dollars, that we didn't have, to provide something -- they gerrymandered, if you will, the population figures. Just to give you a demonstration, they denuded one of the elementary schools of 7 and 8 to attribute these people -- to get them up to some magic number. They gave about 106.

The crowning insult was that this was to be a St Catharines school and they put it in Welland. There was already a very lovely school, one of these classic, early no-brains-spending, architecturally designed institutions. Here this thing continues to be empty and they have this collection of portables. I think that kind of thing does no one any credit. They started out to spend about $150,000. At last count I heard it was close to $2 million and they had some portables.

I think we can have all the high mind we want, but when you continually disregard your own rules and regulations, you just discount the whole process and the rest of the world seems to say, "Let them do what they want."

Hon Mrs Cunningham: To add to what I already said, and I think we're both saying the same thing, all of us have certain guidelines or standards that we want to meet in almost every walk of life. If they were there for that school board, the fact that they did not respond effectively and efficiently doesn't assist when we're looking at what one would call fairness. In fact, it makes the situation worse.

In my experience over a period of time, when we have exceeded what was reasonable, we've offended the public and the taxpayers. We haven't exercised our responsibilities with care, and I think that is one of the reasons the public is so upset. I could give you other circumstances that have nothing to do with some of our French-language schools but other schools that you and I have had opportunities to discuss. I can tell you that as many of us sat on our committee that looked at New Directions for education, we did learn one thing: When we have visitors from around the world to our education system, and we do, because our systems are exemplary, especially compared to where some of our visitors come from, the one thing they say right off the top is that our buildings are magnificent in most instances.

Parents who have their children going to school in portable classrooms would not agree with what I just said, but on some of the buildings we have put our money into -- I'm on public record as saying that -- we could have been more responsible.

Mr Wettlaufer: I wonder if we could have the minister's attention focused to the --

The Chair: The question you raised?

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, that we had earlier.

The Chair: That was the transported labour.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: If you'll bear with me in this regard, we had a short discussion yesterday about labour mobility between ourselves and the province of Quebec. We are also concerned -- we talked a little bit about that on the first day -- about that national mobility initiative. It is a key issue with regard to our provincial/territorial council on social policy. We haven't given it the kind of attention we should have given it. All these examples that are being brought to our attention now are being documented. I'll have to talk to some of you individually.

But the premiers this year -- we would have done more work on this, but we've had our work cut out for us -- stated really strongly to the ministers -- those of us who are responsible, but then other ministers who must take on this responsibility -- that Canadians should be able to move freely throughout the country without the barriers based with residency. One of your examples talked about a residency barrier.

They said that the unilateral cuts to the CHST -- because of health care, people moving back and forth, and we've had some examples in the House recently where people haven't had the services they need or they've been questioned by another government within our country -- have been used, in my view, sometimes as an excuse, but more readily haven't assisted us as we try to support this mobility that we want within our country. The federal government will often enforce mobility provisions -- we saw this in British Columbia around social services -- with a unilateral decision and not a serious discussion with the provinces involved through the CHST residency requirements and the portability of the Canada Health Act. Those are examples we're using right now.

Some that you gave us today, Mr Wettlaufer: We're going to have to think about them and get more information from you and see if that can't be part of the provincial/territorial council's review, because we have been asked to focus on that as part of our deliberations this year.

Mr Wettlaufer: I have one concern when you talk about the federal government taking steps in so far as BC was concerned. The federal government seems to be quite willing to take steps with any province except the province of Quebec. I think it would behoove us not to wait for the federal government to take action.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's why I'd like to add that this has been on the agenda of at least one meeting that I'm aware of, maybe two, between our Premier and Premier Bouchard of Quebec. Examples are of great assistance.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk to you. I was speaking to a group of senior citizens at noon today here in Toronto. After a brief talk of about 15 minutes or so I opened it up to questions and was quite amazed to find that in the time that was left for perhaps six or seven questions, five of the six were on unity, every one of them. I wasn't prepared for that, I was prepared to be answering questions on other issues, but I thought it might be of interest to you in light of what's happening these days. The idea of a consultation at this time is quite timely.

1700

I'd like to mention, in the brief time I have, a couple of the questions they asked or opinions they offered. Since Ontario is the most populous province, it carries some weight. Perhaps we could be a little more forceful in our views as far as unity is concerned. Some of the people who were there felt that Ontario's position should be put forward a little more forcefully and perhaps it could be clarified as well. I wondered if I might have some of your comments on that at this point before I carry on with some of the other comments they had made.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This is very helpful. We are all now able to listen to what the concerns of the public of Ontario are. I'm wondering, when they talk about being forceful, what they were really talking about. Are they talking about the upcoming discussions? Are they talking about the end result in how we express ourselves as elected officials in our message to Quebec? What were they really --

Mr Doyle: I think their feeling was that as people in government, as elected officials, perhaps we could be showing some more leadership. This is the interpretation I placed on it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Then in response to that, the premiers must have been listening to that group some time in August, because it is timely. It wasn't anticipated, when we went to the annual premiers' conference -- and you'll remember the hoopla before it -- that there were different groups trying to influence the premiers with regard to taking a stand on the issue of unity. It wasn't on the agenda, we did not have delegations at the conference, so I think, Ed, that they felt it.

They must have been listening to their own public and they know, all of us know, that Ontario has had to work to get a consensus with the other provinces at the annual premiers' conference -- we've worked together; we didn't take a lead more than anybody else -- or in Calgary to eventually say, "Our focus should be on listening." This is good, and where do we go from here? We also have to have some forceful input in the end with regard to what kind of statement we make. The premiers showed tremendous leadership as they sat together for a day, a few hours. They were obviously well prepared, knew what they wanted to do and had done some informal discussions in advance, which means they put a priority on that meeting.

Those seniors you were talking to, certainly here in Ontario, saw Premier Harris show some significant leadership and enthusiasm for this whole issue of unity and for his tremendous support of a united Canada. As others have pointed out, during the last two rounds of constitutional discussions he has been extremely involved.

Mr Doyle: Another point I'd like to mention here: Yesterday Premier Bouchard responded at a news conference to what had happened on the weekend. I'm not too sure that what had happened in Calgary didn't have some influence on him in some way, judging by his response. I think we have touched a nerve here. I think we have pointed out to Quebeckers that we care, not just in Ontario but across the country. I'm wondering if you have had any behind-the-scenes reactions rather than public reaction. Or am I asking you to say something that you shouldn't be saying?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I absolutely don't mind. I think that all of us will have our own interpretation there. I thought you stated it better than I could ever begin to express it. Yes, there has been a nerve touched. I said it before and I'll say it again: I think sometimes Mr Bouchard would be extremely excited about what the premiers and territorial leaders are attempting to do: to renew the federation, to make it more effective and efficient and to take a look at the rebalancing, which has been a tremendous focus of the government and people of Quebec. They're ahead of us.

He sees us embarking along a road together and united that I think he would like to have been part of. The flexibility piece of how our governments have worked together and number 7 in the Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity would interest him considerably. Canadians want their governments to work together; they want us to work with flexibility to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the federation. Maybe he was feeling envious. That's the optimistic side of me speaking.

On the other side, he has a mandate. His mandate, whether we like it or not, is to separate from Canada. He's a separatist. As much as we work well with the province of Quebec -- although I've learned in these hearings that we could be working better -- his focus is not our focus. Therefore, as I said earlier today in a couple of interviews, we have to focus on the country. We represent, all of us here represent, our constituents, who want a united Canada. We have the responsibility to speak to the citizens of Quebec, many of whom want a united Canada. It is very difficult to want something if you don't get the facts, if you don't hear the message, if you don't understand what the issue is.

The issue for us, at this time in the history of this country, is that all provinces are looking for a better way to work with the federal government -- all of us -- and with each other. Quebec will, and I think it's going to come out. During these discussions there will be some discussion around Ontario and how well we represent the citizens in our own constituencies and the fact that we do not have a fair share of the CHST compared to other provinces -- we have the least amount and not our fair share -- and the fact that we are tremendously disadvantaged with regard to our citizens having equal opportunity for training programs. That will come out during the discussions. We want to work, by the way, with our federal colleagues; we have to find a way to work with our federal colleagues in this regard so that we can all learn from the process. My time is up, but I think I have given you my views on Mr Bouchard.

Ms Castrilli: Are the seven principles in the Framework for Discussion equal?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's going to be up to the public. They are a list and they're what the premiers decided on. We may have more discussion around some than others.

Ms Castrilli: There's been no discussion, that you know of, as to whether one is more important than another?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The role of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the responsibility here of our ministry which has come forward with our estimates and with our focus and responsibility, is basically to advise the Premier. In the end, he hopefully gets our good advice. Sometimes, through working with all the other ministries, we try to coordinate the work of the ministries and their role in working with other ministries across the country, but also working within our own ministries here. In the end, the premiers have the responsibility to make up their minds about issues such as those before us today.

1710

You and I had a good laugh on the weekend when we had that conversation and I basically said we weren't in the room, and I'm particularly proud that our Premier had the kind of, I think, influence he had along with the others in coming to a united decision around deciding on this framework. I think it's a framework that everyone in the province can relate to in some way and we'll probably hear about the pieces of it where we want to either make a strong statement or make further change.

Ms Castrilli: Could we talk a minute about your ministry. In my view it's a critical ministry in the government and sometimes it has more importance than other times. Given the nature of our federal system, there really is no ministry that is as important as the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs in maintaining national unity, in maintaining harmony among the provinces and making sure there is efficiency and effectiveness in the federation.

I'm a little worried, to tell you quite frankly, about whether your ministry has the capacity at the present time to deal with what I think is a very critical issue. I've said there's certainly no constitutional crisis, but we all acknowledge there's an urgency and we all acknowledge that it's important to do everything possible to ensure that we have Canadian unity well planted in our agenda.

I look at your ministry, which has now got about 40 full-time equivalents -- you may correct me on whatever the latest stats are, but roughly that -- that had some significant reductions, I think about $851,000 in operations. You've made some of the money back up because additional money has been allocated to you because of rent, something you didn't have to do before, but that doesn't really add to your ministry in its operations.

Your Quebec office is virtually non-existent. You have one full-time equivalent, I believe. If that's not the case, perhaps you'll correct me. I wondering what serious commitment there is on the part of the government to this issue at this time and about your capacity to influence and effect change and give the kind of advice we all want you to give to the Premier, with the kind of limited resources you have at your disposal.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: When we came into government, we certainly had no choice but to take a look at the core programs of the ministries and put our money, our resources, into programs that serve people first. Then we took a look, ministry by ministry, at how we could contribute to reducing the deficit and ultimately balancing our budget and hopefully tackling the debt in the very near future, because other governments -- and I've learned this more in this job than in any other job I've ever had -- right across Canada are far ahead of this government. They've already balanced their budgets or they're well on their way. We did our fair share in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

There have been times when the ministry has had larger staff and I'd say easily double the budget we have right now. Those would have been when we were working with regard to the amendments to Meech. Meech would have been in 1990-91, when we had our largest budget of almost $10 million. Again, we were working in 1992-93 towards the Charlottetown accord negotiations, when we had a budget of some $8.8 million, and our highest staffing would have been about 89 people. During 1992-93 we had 74 or 75 people.

Yes, we have a lean, and I sometimes call them mean, group, but we're blessed with some people who --

Ms Castrilli: It's time to give the deputy the floor.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We'll ask the deputy to tell us what her needs are here publicly and then we can all march to the Premier, or more importantly, Mr Johnson.

But we do have a task, and from time to time there are different ways of meeting our needs, and we'll be talking about that.

We obviously have more work to do. We ourselves have been doing a lot of work with advisers outside the government who have not required extensive remuneration, basically I think because they care a lot about the ministry and our focus, which is to provide the best advice we can to the Premier. It's something with regard to our vision and our mission that we'll have to take a look at

We started the day by talking about expensive processes that end in negative results. Maybe these are times when we can talk about different kinds of processes, although I've not been given any guidelines. That's something we can talk about together across all our parties and decide just how we can ensure we're equipped to contribute constructively and effectively to safeguarding and promoting the unity of our country and achieving the practical changes that are necessary to strengthen the federation.

Ms Castrilli: But to kind of put things in context, I look at the Quebec government that has more people in Ontario than you have in your entire ministry. I think we agree it's not necessary to have a large bureaucracy if it's not needed, but it's obvious as well that the Premier wants to see some real action in this area and he wants to see it quickly. The concern for me is, how effective can you be? What commitment can that really be, given that your total budget is somewhere around $4 million; your staff complement, even with last year, has been down 39%, and you're being asked to gear up for what is a very significant moment in the history of Ontario and of Canada?

I understand that there are some efficiencies that you can create and that your administrative functions have been merged with other ministries and that you can do some of those creative things, but, ultimately you're going to need the expertise, you're going to need the bodies, you're going to need the capacity to be able to give that very good advice and to win this one.

This is about getting it right. I understand as a minister you're required to say certain things, but I will voice my concern that I do not believe Ontario at this point in time is equipped to deal with the aftermath of the Calgary document.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I've always felt that more people doesn't always get the job done either, so I really don't think it's as simple as that. I also feel we've been very fortunate in getting the best minds with regard to our universities, people who have published and continue to publish through other institutions, think tanks, public bodies that make the constitutional changes and the unity of the country their business.

We're very fortunate here in Ontario and across the country to have people on the phones all the time, willing to come and talk to us. So we feel somewhat appreciative of the support we've had in the past. Certainly those people gave the premiers, and our Premier here in Ontario in particular, the advice they felt was necessary to reach this unanimous decision on behalf of the premiers and territorial leaders.

You're right: We received a different response from different elements, but pretty well predictable, I might say, by journalist by journalist by journalist. We have to influence the public of Quebec somehow. I'm fairly confident we're going to get the resources that we decide we need. As I said before, we haven't been asked to restrict ourselves in any way, nor have we decided what we need and want, because I myself have had only a few days to know what the premiers in fact will want us to deliberate with. Now that we have our direction, our work cut out for us, I think that if we need resources, we'll have to ask for them, because the country is a priority.

1720

I have to say at the same time, and I think it was your response today that said, although national unity is extremely important, so are the services we provide to the public. You can restate that if you wish, because I listened very carefully and you're correct. If we have a responsibility here, it is first of all to make sure that the programs in health care, education and social services reach those people who need them.

It's not been easy for governments across the country to prioritize, but our priorities would still be meeting people's needs and creating the environment for investment so that people can work and pay taxes and be healthy. At the same time this has now become, as we know, throughout the tenure of any government an area of focus for the Premier and for all of us. We'll have to decide how to deal with it.

Ms Castrilli: I obviously believe that there are lots of important issues that government has to be involved with. The ones that affect people most deeply are the ones you should be dealing more urgently with, and certainly education and health care and how we deliver justice in this province, whether people feel safe in their homes, the environment, are all important issues that can't be ignored because we're dealing with a constitutional issue. If it were a crisis situation and we had to suspend everything, then perhaps, but I don't believe that to be the case here.

Having said that, though, intergovernmental affairs in the last two years really has not been a ministry that's required a high profile. We've not had any major initiatives on the go. I'm sure you'll tell us; in your speech you indicate the areas where you have been working to try to reach a consensus between your colleagues and convey that to the federal government. Some of it has resulted in programs and some hasn't. I understand that.

My experience with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs has always been in a time where national unity was an important and compelling issue and it dominated the agenda of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. It effectively took 80% to 90% of the staff at any one time. I don't see that same kind of momentum here. I'm not suggesting you should go up to as high as 125, which we've had in this province, but you've had steady decreases all across the board at a time when you are being asked to give a great deal more. It's not the situation where your ministry is one that has a regular flow of work all the time so you have a steady budget, and it may decrease a little but generally steady.

In your case, I think and will tell you, there's been a huge cut from our perspective since you took office as a government, and I don't know how you can give up. Having said that, I guess the question really is, is the effort going to come from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs or is it located somewhere else?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's an interesting question for two reasons, but I'd like to go back to the work of the ministry. In the last two years it's been focused on the social policy committee that the premiers established, and that's working, in our view, across nine ministries and trying to bring forward the best advice we can to the premiers at the end of a year of work.

I suppose there was a time when people would have got on airplanes and travelled the country and had lots of conferences and lots of meetings. Not so in the last two years. When we have a meeting it's for a significant reason. I would say we might have two meetings, maybe three, a year, and this is ongoing work. The culmination of the work of the social service ministries through the social policy renewal committee on the national child benefit took a lot of work, but technology has helped us with conference calls. That's what we do. We pick up the phone and we work in a different way. We work smarter, more effectively, more efficiently.

We also have been compelled to reach out to the expertise in our communities. They actually have been extremely pleased because governments have often worked very much separate and therefore, in my personal view, have not been as aware as they should be of the good research, the good work, not only in our colleges and universities where people profess to be experts and we expect they would be, not when it comes just to constitutional advice, but when it comes to advice around changes and policies around how one serves children, the national child benefit, economic advice, financial advice, so that we can make good decisions.

It's interesting and I think it's almost indicative of the changing times that one has to have people who happen to be the experts who could never always work in government, although there are many in government who remain experts and whom we rely on. But within our own ministry, and our deputy could probably speak more eloquently than I could in this regard, I see a huge amount of work with the private sector. In the private sector I would have meetings every week, maybe two or three, meeting with small breakfast groups, people in corporations who have shown leadership in the past, but also with people within non-government organizations, communities, as my colleague Mr Doyle did today. Their views are just as important as experts'. We've gleaned a lot of good advice that is what I would call grass roots, where you sometimes get the best advice of all. We'll continue in that manner and we'll now count on more of the members and more of their communities.

That's not to say that at some time we won't have to perhaps add some staff, but maybe we would add it as advisers and work with contracts, as we have with Queen's University on some of the work we've done, and the University of Western Ontario and the University of Toronto, just to name three. Their professors, writers, historians, economists and constitutional experts have advised governments of the past and they do it now, and I have to say they do it free of charge. We have a lot of resources here in this province

I appreciate your support. I appreciate your vision around where we probably will need to have some kind of a structure in place to assist us as we get out there and consult, and that may be a separate structure and it may require resources we have to pay for. I thank you for your observations. How we do it will be the question.

1730

The Chair: Ms Castrilli, you're out of time. We move to the Conservative caucus; Mr Doyle.

Mr Doyle: Back to me again. I feel I'm dominating, and I don't want to do that. This is such an important issue.

If I can get into a rather touchy subject here that so often comes up, one of the questions that was put to me today by one of the gentlemen at the church where I spoke was a question of why it is that we appear not to be discussing publicly the dangers of what will happen should Quebec ever separate.

It's a difficult question. If you point out some of the difficulties that will result if such a thing happened, you're accused of fearmongering, and if you don't, you're accused of hiding the truth. I'm wondering if this is an issue that you have come across in your many discussions, Minister. It was one that was put to me quite forcefully today. Nobody of course wants to leave the impression with the people of Quebec that we're trying to keep them in simply by threatening them, by telling them all the evil things that may happen. I wonder if you could help us with that one.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We had to make a choice, as a government, at one time, initially, when I first became the minister, whether we would focus on what has become known as plan B or whether we would focus on a different approach. We chose a different approach. We chose to be realistic and we have not focused on hypothetical issues.

Others outside of government are preparing information, documents, which they're also putting their energy into and paying for, I might add, that will give us advice that we're going to have to consider, there is no doubt, but we have focused, as I've said before, on concrete reforms that will make the federation work better. I might add that other governments attempted to do the same thing. We're moving forward with a focus of the former NDP government and before them the Liberals, because what we're facing now is not new with regard to how well we represent the citizens of Ontario and whether they are getting their fair share within the government of Canada and within the way we work together.

Our emphasis as we have tried to talk about renewing the federation -- which was a new kind of message. A couple of years ago, when I was making speeches, they'd say, "What do you mean by that?" We're looking for a way to make the country work better, not just for all Canadians but for all Canadians including Quebeckers. That's probably the strongest message we can take.

It's been referred to -- I always blame Roy Romanow for this -- as the 80% solution. We say 80% because when we're chatting about the work of this ministry it's been tough to get people to focus attention. I don't really think some believed we would have the kind of success we've had in working together on this 80%, and I think it's in everybody's interest to achieve progress. Some would say Ontario hasn't done as well as some of the other provinces, but we're patient because we're working in the right direction.

I think some of the federal members are not aware of the urgency with regard to fairness. In fact when I first started talking to my colleagues in London a couple of years ago, it just wasn't part of that agenda. But I think the time is right and I can't emphasize more that we have to work together. Our view in Ontario, and it's extremely important to the people you were talking to, in spite of their question, is to let them know that we want to find common ground with Quebec and other provinces so that we can have some concrete reforms to our federal system.

At the same time it isn't that we don't think information around plan B isn't important. We do. But we have had to focus and make priorities on where we wanted to put our energies and we put it into renewal of the federation.

Mr Doyle: Canadians have sometimes been falsely accused of not acting quickly enough or being a little too laid-back. I can't agree. Anytime there's a crisis we seem to pull together quite well. That was quite evident at the time of the referendum in Quebec. Most people are convinced that if there hadn't been that public display in the city of Montreal, we would have lost the referendum.

There have been other times when people in this country pulled together. I think back to the days of 1972 and the Canada Cup, when many people travelled to the Soviet Union to watch the final games of the Canada Cup. I can recall many Quebeckers went over to see that series, and they were confirmed Quebeckers and non-Canadians in their minds at the time, but when they came back they stepped off the aircraft in Montreal and some were seen to kiss the ground and say: "This is Canada, not just Quebec. I was a separatist and I no longer am."

I think people can be convinced that this is indeed the greatest country in the world. I also think back to the time when Mr Bouchard himself had some great difficulties, when he lost his leg and was in danger of losing his life, how there was an outpouring from the rest of the country wishing him well. I don't know whether he'd get that kind of outpouring today, but it showed that Canadians are feeling and compassionate people.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Mr McKenna said that in this country we talk a lot, and if that's the worst we do, it's a good thing. If families could talk together more, I think the unity of families and countries -- in this instance we're referred to as one big family. If talking helps, let's talk.

Mr Beaubien: I have a question that does not deal with the unity issue. I know your ministry is not the lead ministry with regard to the harmonization of GST-PST, but this is part of being Canadian and part of being Ontarian. Where do we stand in negotiations with the federal government at this point? It may not be fair to ask.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, it is a fair question. I should just try to answer it off the top. I do have some notes that are probably more updated than my head. Let me just try, and then somebody can show me what I probably should say instead.

As you recall, all parties were asked what we would do, if we were elected, with regard to the GST-PST. We always feel that if we can get rid of a level of bureaucracy and make any issue more transparent to the public, then we should do whatever we can do.

Many provinces across the country talk about the harmonization of the GST and PST. The Ministry of Finance is the lead on this issue. We're open to harmonization, but I think you'll remember that we said it has to reduce taxation for the people of Ontario. If we're going to put things together, we expect that the cost be less. We rejected the proposal from Ottawa because harmonizing with the GST would shift an estimated $2 billion in taxes from businesses to the public of Ontario. That was the analysis finance came up with with regard to the proposal.

It wasn't just us that showed our discontent. Other provinces did the same thing with regard to the federal-Atlantic sales tax, harmonization and compensation -- for want of a better word -- deal. As a result of that deal, the taxpayers across Canada are subsidizing a cut in the sales tax rates of three provinces: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, because PEI decided not to be part of it. The federal government is paying about $961 million to those three provinces for them to harmonize their sales tax with the GST, and we're footing about $400 million of this cost.

If it's going to be more expensive for our citizens, then we're not in the business of talking about harmonization, which is supposed to be less expensive. At the 1997 premiers' conference, the one we've just come through, the premiers agreed that there should be a review of federal tax policies, so the ministers of finance will put this on the table right across the country, to take a look at tax policies by federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers to ensure consistency, non-discrimination, fairness and trans-parency. That's the status of it now. The premiers are very frustrated.

I might say that when we agreed to do something like this, you won't be a bit surprised to know that the Premiers of Atlantic Canada agreed. I think they have met with some resistance from their own constituents, and I certainly know that was true of my conversation with Mr Savage of Nova Scotia.

1740

Mr Beaubien: Let's go on to the labour market training. We can talk about unity, and I know the Minister of Education will be coming with a new plan with regard to training, but I think you've had discussions with the federal government with regard to training. How do you see this coming out in the near future, especially keeping in mind that the province, through the Minister of Education and Training, will be embarking on a new course of action?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The Ministry of Education and Training is the lead on this issue.

Mr Beaubien: But that's a federal-provincial issue. Mr Lalonde yesterday touched on that nerve in a different matter, but it really impacts on this area.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: What did he say?

Mr Beaubien: This is about the border crossing, workers coming in --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Oh, yes, but we're now looking at opportunities for training. That's your question, is it?

Mr Beaubien: Yes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's an important one for all members of the Legislative Assembly. This is one where we would all agree. It's a position we've taken over a number of years as a province. I would say it has got worse. All provinces now, except Ontario and Saskatchewan, although that may have changed sometime today, have signed agreements with the federal government to devolve some federal labour market training responsibilities to the provinces. That came about as a result of the federal throne speech where they said they were going to move in that direction.

Some people, including Mr McKenna today in the Star, stated that this is just great, that the Premiers are extremely happy about this and that the devolution, as he called it -- I don't call it devolution. I would say that the transfer of responsibility has taken place. I have a different opinion because it's constitutionally our responsibility, so I don't call something we should have in the first place a devolution.

Having said that, we actually don't have an agreement; they do, and we agree with them. This is a very big issue for the Premiers. When it comes to labour market training, the current Ontario share of the national unemployment level is that we have 36% of the unemployed in Ontario. These are just numbers, if you want to write them down for your discussion with your federal colleagues. Our share of the national labour force is 39%. Our share of the EI revenues contributed by Ontario employers and workers, because that was never intended to be anything but a separate fund, is 40%, of the whole EI.

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We've been accused of that, but I've never found a transcript where we did. I think there might have been some shouting, but I can tell you that I have never found this in the minutes.

Mr Bisson: We used to: "Stop your whining. Stop picking on the federal government."

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but I think it might have been in fun. I think you may have been part of it. I can still see where you sat, as a matter of fact, possibly in my seat.

Mr Bisson: Actually, we sat in the same seat.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Having said that, now you know how I feel.

The Ontario share of federal training funding in 1996-97 was 29%, in 1997-98 it will be 27%, and 1998-99 is 27%, and you can see that's not getting our fair share. That's a huge file. That's where we're talking about the surplus in the EI account. According to the Ontario Ministry of Finance, 1996 surplus, $4.9 billion. The cumulative EI account surplus at the end of 1996 will be $5 billion. The cumulative account surplus at the end of 1997, that's this year, will be $11 billion. This is a deduction at payroll. It's a big problem. Unless the 1998 EI premium rates are reduced substantially, the EI annual surpluses of $5 billion per year will continue. Since 1995 Ontario's premium contributions have exceeded benefits paid to provincial residents by about $4 million annually.

Mr Doyle: What was that number again?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's $4 million annually. This overcontribution represents about 80% of the annual surplus in the EI.

Mr Bisson: Is it $4 million or $4 billion?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It should be $4 billion. Do you know what I'm going to call that for want of a stronger word? A typo. I'm being so kind right now. I thought I knew those numbers. I'm always telling the Chair the numbers right across the House every day. Typos can be expensive, can't they?

The Chair: That variance would be particularly expensive.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Exactly.

We did get a small reduction, last spring as I remember it. It's been estimated that a reduction in the EI premium rate to $2.20 would give Ottawa the opportunity to create an additional 200,000 jobs. This is a lot of money.

Mr Sheehan: Did you say Ottawa create? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I said it would give Ottawa the opportunity to create an additional 200,000 jobs across the country, but I should have said it would have contributed to what I think all governments are trying to create, and that's an opportunity for investment. That money that is being taken off of us as workers, and away from businesses, including small businesses that are struggling, the greatest creators of jobs in the country today, many led by women, I might add, takes money away from all of us that we could be putting back into the economy. As long as we're buying goods and services, there will be more jobs.

Most provinces have signed a training agreement. We're not dragging our feet. We believe that unemployed workers seeking training in the province should be treated in the same manner as unemployed workers seeking training elsewhere. We did do a little research on this and we know that the opportunity for a worker in Ontario is one-half the opportunity for training of a worker who is seeking training in the province of New Brunswick.

I think the offer we have been given is unacceptable. We have started our discussions. To be fair, I think it's fair to say discussions, as opposed to the old way of doing things, always negotiating. Why not just talk? We've been accused of it, so why don't we do it? Equitable funding is a precondition for the province of Ontario to those kinds of discussions in a bilateral agreement with the federal government.

The Chair: We now move, by consent, to Mr Bisson, representing the New Democratic Party.

Mr Bisson: I have 10 minutes. I'm going to try to go through this as succinctly as I can, specifically to the constitutional problems that we have in this country.

Primarily what we've got as a problem is simply this -- well, it's not simple of course; if it was simple we'd solve it. But to put it in a succinct way, the only way in my view that we're going to be able to solve the constitutional problems we have in this country is one of three ways.

One is that the rest of Canada accepts that Quebec is distinct and be prepared to give them the powers necessary to be distinct. That would mean, quite frankly, that as we see it now, some of those rights we would give them would be in contravention to what now our constitution and Charter of Rights say about whatever the provinces have to do. The problem with that is that there are very few provinces, and I would argue a number of people -- I'm not so sure but it probably is a majority -- who don't want to do that, who are not prepared to say that Quebec is distinct and give them the power to be able to do so.

1750

The other way you can solve the constitutional problem is that the federal government can take a hard-line position and say all provinces are equal and Quebec will be treated no differently, and basically stare Quebec down and hope to heck that you're able to win over enough Quebec individuals who would vote with the federal government on that particular principle, which is that all Canadians are equal once it comes to the law and no province has any more power than any other when it comes to any issue, being either an administrative function or when it comes to questions of language. My guess is that ain't going to fly in Quebec.

I'm probably not saying things out of turn. That's the problem we find ourselves in. They are two very different views of what this country is all about. Quebec has a view. The rest, English Canada, has another. How the heck do you try to find a way to resolve that?

The third way you can try to solve this problem is possibly by what the first ministers have agreed to at the conference in Calgary. It's an intriguing approach, which is to kind of say that Quebec is distinct, but not go quite as far as saying it is distinct, and try to send a message to Quebeckers that we need, together, to find a way, as Canadians outside of Quebec, to say Quebec is important to us, that, "You're part of our Canadian family; we respect that you're different and we want you to remain as part of Canada," and all of us pass resolutions in our Legislature and the federal House, hopefully to send a positive signal to Quebec so that after the next provincial election in Quebec the sovereigntists will not have the power they need to win a referendum. That's what's intriguing about what you're doing.

I need to point out that the problem with this is that it's fraught with a lot of danger. Probably not going to lose a lot; I don't think it's a question where we're going to lose a whole bunch by this approach. But it's going to take a lot of pulling of rabbits out of hats, to put it simply, to make this approach work.

I come back to the point I made earlier, which is that when I read the seven points of this framework document, there is some really good language that was very well crafted on behalf of all the premiers to say to Canadians outside Quebec, "Nobody is treated differently under the law and the Constitution of this land; all provinces are equal and we're not going to treat anybody differently," but at the same time, in the same breath, say that Quebec is different. Instead of calling them distinct, we call them unique, and we say they have a role to play when it comes to practising that uniqueness. It's really going to come down to those last two lines in point 5.

I need to understand, because to get into this debate, and for us as legislators and leaders in our communities to go out and consult and talk to people, we need to understand what the position of the Ontario government is vis-à-vis the role of Quebec in practising that uniqueness.

I come back to the question, what is the position of the province of Ontario and the government when it comes to the whole issue of distinct society? Is he for it or is he against it?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Let's talk about what the Premier did with regard to his position as the Premier of Ontario. He signed on to a framework for discussion. That's all he's done. The premiers have said, and I agree, that we must have the support of Canadians and we must not prejudge their process. It cannot be closed-door, men in suits, which is maybe what was voted against. Who knows?

Mr Bisson: Or women in suits.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We wish. Men in suits.

Mr Bisson: The point is, there are women at the table.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are, but the former premiers were men in suits, period.

It must be, and I think it has to be seen to be, an open process. That's what's different. It's got to be creative and it's got to be consensus-building among all Canadians working together and ultimately our goal is to have Quebec sign on to the Constitution.

You're right, but we couldn't solve it by dictating the rules and the words in the past. Now we know, based on those discussions around Meech and Charlottetown, that we have to bring people with us. We have to bring them somehow. As Premier Harris has said, it is their Constitution.

Mr Bisson: It is their Constitution, but in the end governments that are elected by the people, and provinces and the federal government, have a responsibility to be able to deal with how that Constitution is amended. It is a very legislative process. In the end it will be the premiers of the provinces and the federal Prime Minister who will decide, by acts of their own legislatures and Parliament, how we come to this solution. I'm trying not to be provocative --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're not, because you have to be part of the solution with us. What we agree to do can be partly your responsibility.

Mr Bisson: This debate will ensue in Ontario, because there are two very different views, even in this province, when it comes to the question of Quebec's distinctness or non-distinctness when it comes to their powers as a province. I come back to the point that it almost seems to me that what we're trying to do is we're trying to say two things at the same time here. I'm not sure, unless we're pretty well clear what our position is as a province, how we're going to be able to sell this to people or get people to buy into the concept that's in this document.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It is a framework for discussion. There is a balance in it. If people thought the distinctiveness of Quebec gave them powers, then on this same framework the premiers have decided that whatever powers are gleaned through constitutional change will be equal to all provinces.

Mr Bisson: Can I ask what your position is, personally, when it comes to the issue of Quebec having the ability to promote its distinctness within its own province?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think Quebec has now got the ability to promote its distinctiveness.

Mr Bisson: But not if they sign on to the Constitution. That's the problem.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's not what you asked me, though.

Mr Bisson: Should they have the right under the Constitution?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Under the Constitution, the premiers have said here, as one of the principles, that that's open for discussion. If I were to give my judgement in that regard and prejudge what the public said, what kind of leadership would I be showing?

Mr Bisson: That's the point, though. There is a certain amount of leadership needed here.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's right, but we have to listen first.

The Chair: With that, we conclude. When we return, we'll have approximately 12 minutes for the New Democratic Party to finish, followed by the Liberal Party, by arrangement.

Ms Castrilli: We'll be quite happy to defer the five minutes I gave to Mr Bisson and tack them on to the end of one of my other interventions. It will probably be the easiest thing, rather than to go back and forth. Is that all right with you?

Mr Bisson: That sounds good.

The Chair: Okay, then we'll start with the Liberal Party.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

The committee adjourned at 1758.