MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 1 October 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 Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell L)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel
Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1548 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): I call the meeting to order. Mr Grimmett.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Madam Minister, in my work at the finance ministry I hear that there's a lot of interest in the community about the efforts to establish a national securities commission. I wonder if you could update us on the discussion between the provinces and the federal government on trying to bring in one securities regulatory regime or trying to integrate the provincial regulators.
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): As you correctly stated, the Minister of Finance and you have the lead for Ontario on matters relating to this securities regulation. The update basically is that the federal government has proposed establishing a national securities commission. We've had some discussion of this in this committee. The Minister of Finance has stated that there have not been any negotiations on this issue in 1997 at all.
We continue to support the establishment of a national securities commission. In Ontario's 1996 budget statement, Minister Eves announced that Ontario would pursue an agreement with the federal government and other interested provinces to delegate securities regulation to a Canadian securities commission. However, in the 1997 budget he announced that Ontario would restructure the Ontario Securities Commission in the meantime and reduce the regulatory cost to businesses and investors to address this issue in light of the fact that we haven't had discussions in this year.
Quebec, British Columbia, more recently Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Manitoba have voiced strong objections to aspects of the federal proposal for the commission. Several provinces are concerned about the potential loss of regional representation. That would be the big issue. Both Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have stated that they will not participate in this commission unless these concerns are addressed. Quebec and British Columbia stated at the outset that they will not participate in the federal model at all. That's the status at this point.
Mr Grimmett: So we've got a long way to go.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Basically, as the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, it's up to us. We're expected to be, as part of our mandate, a coordinating body, where we check different policy statements we've made commitments to or questions we've received from other parties. On this issue, probably as a result of the questions we've had here and in fact as a result of the questions we've had in these hearings, we'll check with each of the ministers to see if these issues are a priority where we can be helpful or if they are not at the top of the priority list for the work of the ministry and the government.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Tell us a little bit about the status of Ontario's activities relative to international trade, treaties and agreements.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: In a global fashion, since we've become the government, we're obviously working on different aspects of international trade, treaties and agreements from time to time. The premiers in Newfoundland in 1995, which would have been the first APC that our Premier attended as a new Premier, certainly made a strong statement about our focus to work both with other provinces and with the federal government and, as a province, internationally.
The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism has the lead in international trade matters for Ontario. We know and we've certainly been extremely supportive of the fact that economic growth in Ontario is directly related to our success in this regard. We promote international trade through its Market Ontario initiatives and targeted trade missions. All of the members of the Legislative Assembly were invited to participate in Market Ontario about a year ago now.
Ontario also strongly supports the federal-provincial international trade efforts such as the Team Canada trips to Asia in 1996 and 1997 and the upcoming Team Canada trip to South America in early 1998. More recently, in New Brunswick premiers noted the importance of international treaties and the fact that they can have impacts upon provincial areas of jurisdiction and reaffirmed their objective of obtaining a federal-provincial territorial agreement on their role in the negotiation and implementation of trade agreements. They also called for the committee of ministers of international trade to be reactivated as soon as possible.
I think it's interesting to note with most of our work -- at least since we have been in government -- there has been a new mechanism set up, for want of a better word. There were two committees set up by the premiers at that meeting in 1995. Our Premier Harris should take a lot of the credit for that. That's because there hasn't been a lot of work in two areas with regard to our cooperation and work either together as provinces and/or with the federal government. We set up a social policy council, and we set up a non-social-policy council. The non-social-policy council has not been as active. I actually represent Ontario on that council and confer with all of the ministers who have portfolios that would fit into the non-social-policy context. This year the premiers were somewhat discouraged to know that we haven't made the kind of headway that we should have made as provinces and as a country in this work of international trade.
Mr Pettit: I'd like to go on to something else right now. There is going to be a meeting of first ministers this fall, as you know. What, in your view, is the purpose of the first ministers' meeting? What will be the objectives of the province of Ontario at that meeting?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: At the conference of premiers -- and that's not a good word -- at the meeting of premiers, because it was an informal meeting, in Calgary, the nine premiers did contact the Prime Minister to suggest that all first ministers meet this fall to discuss social policy renewal. The Prime Minister did agree.
Special attention at that time will be given to health care and youth unemployment, issues that are certainly top priority for premiers and territorial leaders across this country as we are challenged, all of us, in our delivery of health care programs and utilization of our facilities such as hospitals. Youth unemployment has certainly been at the top of the agenda for all families across Canada. Those are two areas that the premiers have focused on this year; last year it was the national child benefit.
Ontario welcomes the fact that the first ministers will meet to tackle the social policy questions that have preoccupied premiers and the council of ministers for the last two years, and we look forward to the kind of work and cooperation we can have with the government of Canada and the Prime Minister, because a lot of the questions have been around the whole issue of unity. The more that our citizens recognize that governments are working together, the more satisfied they're going to be with regard to supporting a united Canada.
Social policy renewal does depend on everybody's cooperation. We're looking forward to that. Premier Frank McKenna is the chair this year of the premiers' conference; they rotate every year. The first year we were involved it was Newfoundland, last year it was Alberta and now we have, obviously, New Brunswick. He did meet the Prime Minister in Ottawa just yesterday to begin discussions on the agenda for the meeting. The message from both sides was that we must work together, and that's a great start.
The meeting should lay the groundwork for the important federal-provincial negotiations on social policy renewal and federal-provincial financial arrangements, both of which we've been discussing in this particular committee, both of which are challenging for us as a country, especially with the difference, it appears, in commitment to solving some of the rebalancing issues and the issue of the unilateral decision-making of the federal government around spending power. But these are both issues the premiers called for at their meeting in Saint Andrews in August, and they will be on that agenda.
We expect to negotiate the development of common principles to govern the Canadian social union. I think it's interesting also that we'll talk about the use of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction and new ways to resolve disputes between the federal and provincial governments over standards in social programs. These are questions that are at the very heart of our shared experiences as Canadians, and they affect health care and social services all Canadians receive and the taxes they pay.
To put it succinctly, all of us are looking forward to a revitalization of the Canadian federation so that we can have efficiency and effectiveness in our programs. We've worked very hard to define the issues, meaning the provinces, not just Ontario, and the territories, over the last two years, and now we're looking forward to hearing about just how precisely -- and I use that word carefully -- the federal government will respond.
1600
I think what Canadians are looking for is for all governments to work together. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction around the lack of cooperation with regard to improving the efficiency and effectiveness across all provinces and territories with regard to governments of all political stripes. It's not new here in Ontario. It's certainly an issue that was negotiated strongly with Premier David Peterson and then with Premier Rae.
We do, as a province, look forward to these negotiations with the federal government, and we're somewhat encouraged, I might add, by the response. We've had extremely good working relationships with the federal representative, Mr Pettigrew, and certainly the more recent throne speech I think mentioned on many occasions the desire to work with the provinces. I think the premiers and territorial leaders will be moving forward with some degree of enthusiasm to that meeting.
Mr Pettit: Thank you. I'll defer to Mr Preston.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Good afternoon. There are many agencies, levels of government, asking that employment insurance premiums be decreased. Some people say, "Well, it's not a lot of money." Can you tell me why it's so important that the levies be decreased?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can certainly begin to talk. There are many ways I can answer this question, but I'll try to put it in perspective. The bottom line is that in Ontario our employers and our employees pay to the federal government, in the form of employment insurance premiums, probably twice as much money as what is used either in wage replacement when they're unemployed or training programs if they need training programs in order to find new employment -- twice as much. I'll try to explain just what that means. I might add that the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Finance are the lead ministries in this regard. What does this mean? What it really means is that the cumulative surplus in the EI account is estimated to reach over $11 billion by the end of 1997, so that means its purpose -- wage replacement, training programs -- basically this money is not being used for that purpose.
It's a massive surplus, and it's used for deficit reduction by the federal government. This is money that belongs to employees and employers. This is a very clear issue. There is no deviation at all around what I've just stated, because our numbers are discussed, obviously, with finance and certainly they are numbers that we would have to work on with regard to our cooperative work between the finance ministers and ministries with the federal government.
We believe that lowering payroll taxes, in this instance employment insurance premiums, does spur job creation. It has been estimated that a reduction in the EI premium rate to $2.20 from $2.90 would give Ottawa the opportunity to create an additional 200,000 jobs across Canada. We have also proposed a substantial reduction in EI premiums as a way of lessening the impact of potential CPP premium increases.
As members of the Legislative Assembly, I would say, whether we be Liberal, NDP or Conservative, this will be a question that will become more obvious to all of us as people who are working hard and entrusting money to governments for good programs, in this instance either wage replacement or training programs, will be demanding those kinds of services, and we know already that they will be demanding reductions.
At the 1997 annual premiers' conference, our Premier referred the issue of a reduction in EI premiums to finance ministers, and I will say, unprecedented, the premiers also directed the finance ministers to meet on their own and have a clear discussion on this issue and other financially related matters in preparation for discussions, I believe, with their federal colleague, whom they will be meeting with in early December.
Mr Preston: How much in excess do Ontario people pay?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I believe the number is $4 billion. If somebody can give me those numbers? The surplus in the EI account, 1996, last audited --
Mr Preston: The Ontario surplus is what I'm concerned about.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Ontario Ministry of Finance. Are you ready? It's $4.9 billion.
Mr Preston: That's $4.9 billion; that's a whole lot of zeroes. We're paying a lot of money towards the federal deficit from the citizens of Ontario that could be going into a pension plan.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Or job creation.
Mr Preston: Or job creation.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're anticipating at the end of 1997, $11 billion.
The Chair: Further questions, Mr Preston?
Mr Preston: That's $1.25 billion a day. No, it's not. It's $1 million-plus a day; $4.9 billion divided by 365 -- whatever way you cut it, it's a whole batch of dough that we're giving to the federal government to pay down its deficit and take credit for what Ontario is putting in.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's a clear issue. It's something that's going to have to be seriously considered by the federal finance minister. My inclination is that many of the intergovernmental affairs issues are non-partisan. There was an effort by the former government to have EI premiums reduced, and my guess is that we'll have a lot of support in the House in this regard.
But it hasn't been challenged to the extent that it could be, and so it is our first priority, because in Ontario we're very concerned about, in spite of this surplus, the lack of opportunity for our young people and for unemployed persons to get job training.
In its September 6-8, 1997, issue -- and I refer you to this and I'll put it on the record -- the Financial Post reported that according to a leaked federal report on the status of the EI account, the cumulative EI balance by the end of 1997 will actually be $12.8 billion. Those are the federal numbers that were leaked, but we're staying with our own as far as we can work through with the federal department of finance.
But unless the 1998 EI premium rates are reduced substantially -- and by the way, this is a decision that --
The Chair: Minister, your last few seconds.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I've only got a few seconds. I'll finish my sentence, and then we can carry on with maybe other questions from other members.
If they're not reduced substantially, the EI annual surpluses of $5 billion per year will continue, if we don't have substantive reductions in the EI premium rates. It happens to be our favourite file because it's the one where there's no arguing the numbers.
The Chair: We'll come back to it. We'll start, once we have done that, with Mr Wettlaufer. We now turn to the members of the Liberal caucus.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have to apologize for being late. I was tied up with another group.
I just heard the minister mention that there will be an intergovernmental affairs ministers' conference coming up pretty soon?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We have ongoing meetings, and I'll actually be at one next Monday. But the one I was referring to was the one that the premiers will be having with the Prime Minister. Have we got a date on that? It's some time in early December.
1610
Mr Lalonde: You will be included in this meeting?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Not usually.
Mr Lalonde: Not usually?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: No. The premiers do have -- it depends on what they decide with regard to whom they want to accompany them, but often for the first ministers' meetings the Premier may choose to take another minister. I will certainly be attending, but sometimes the premiers, depending on what the agenda is, may substitute their deputies or their EIs. I'll be there under any circumstances to give the best advice I can.
Mr Lalonde: Minister, I was at the federal meeting yesterday with 12 members of the federal government and some members of the Quebec government. As a matter of fact, I was the only one from Ontario. I don't know why I was invited and others from the area were not invited. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Ottawa River. The Ottawa River is the longest river in Canada. It is over 1,000 kilometres long. It is a heritage river, I would call it, and it is also one of the largest rivers that hasn't got a conservation authority. The river starts out from Timiskaming right down to lac des Deux-Montagnes, Quebec. It borders Quebec and Ontario. That's probably why there isn't a conservation authority that looks after this river: because it is a federal issue. The Ottawa River is a federal authority.
I wonder if you could bring to their attention that there should be a program to develop this river. I remember when they opened up the St Lawrence Seaway. At the time, Prime Minister Pearson had said that after the St Lawrence Seaway the next step was to open up the Ottawa River right up to Timiskaming.
A group from the upper Ottawa has been working on that river for many years to develop the tourism sector, and now they're in the Fitzroy Harbour right down to Parliament Hill in Ottawa. They approached the federal government for some financial support to do a study.
Another group, of which I am still the chair, from the lower Ottawa, from Parliament Hill to the Quebec border, which is the Carillon Dam, had hired up to 47 people to clean up the Ottawa River so it could be navigable. Now we have boats coming up from Kingston that go around through Montreal and come up the Ottawa River.
The thing is that at the present time the federal government had planned to remove all the lighted buoys on the Ottawa River from lac des Deux-Montagnes to Parliament Hill. I mentioned to them yesterday that if the federal government removes those buoys -- the Ottawa River in that area is a dangerous river, ever since they built the Carillon Dam. It is very wide now and very shallow in some areas. Without the buoys, the tourists won't be coming up the Ottawa River. At the present time a study showed yesterday that there are 10,000 boats from Hawkesbury to Gatineau on that stretch of river, which is only 110 kilometres long. This is according to a Quebec government study.
If we remove those buoys, the number of boats will definitely be going down for the first time since 1989, since we have taken over the cleanup of the Ottawa River. We have large cruise boats that come up, like I said, from Gananoque, from Kingston and from way up in Quebec and Three Rivers. They spend days in the area. The only problem we have on the Ontario side is that there was not a single place for those boats to dock. They all had to dock on the Quebec side. For example, the Jacques Cartier from Three Rivers carries over 3,000 people in 10 days every year in May from Montebello, Quebec, not the Chateau Montebello but Montebello village, to the Hull docks. This year, the NCC has given the rights to the new dock on the Hull side to a boat operator, Paul's Boat Lines. I feel at this time that we, the provincial government, should discuss with the federal government having a place on the Ontario side to dock those boats so we could load and unload the passengers.
All this is to say that yesterday people were saying that the federal government should put a program in place to develop this river a little further. To tell you the truth, I just finished meeting with those people before I came here. I decided to take over the buoys myself -- because they were going to remove the buoys and not reinstall them -- as long as the federal government repaints all the buoys and puts solar lights on the buoys. Probably, Madam Minister, you could bring that to their attention for the development of a tourist area in eastern Ontario. It's going to go right up to Leo Jordan's riding. Nipissing is a little higher than that.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Could I offer a suggestion? Everything you've talked about today with regard to the development of the Ottawa River has been a long-standing goal of many people who live in the environs of the river itself and in many parts of Ontario; to assist with tourism, really, which is quality of life and jobs. Your issue with regard to working with the federal government, which I think is good -- I'm glad you were there at that meeting representing Ontario, because I think it's discouraging that they're going to remove these buoys which of course means that, what did you say, 10,000 boats?
Mr Lalonde: Yes, 10,000 boats.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's a big problem, so I'm happy you were there. The waterways are a federal responsibility. However, tourism is a joint responsibility but basically a provincial one. What I would suggest, in spite of some of the success you've talked about with your new dock in Hull and what not, is that you put your notes in some form of a letter with issues. You've already given us seven issues today. I would send your note to all of the federal MPs, because if you don't tell them, they won't know about it. Then I would certainly let your colleague, as Chair of this committee, perhaps assist you in informing your own caucus, because obviously you've got probably better access than I do to some of the federal MPs, and let them know how you feel, from Ontario's point of view. Then my responsibility, of course, is to work on your behalf and on behalf of others in making our own ministers accessible.
There are two ministers, I think, who would want to get this note from you, as well as myself, so that makes three. That would be the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Hodgson, who should know about this because he has the conservation authorities, which may in fact have some jurisdiction in this regard; and then obviously Mr Saunderson, who is responsible for tourism. Then we can move forward together. If they don't get something official -- and I would suggest if any of your constituents or those people at that meeting, if there were any notes, that you should get them to support you as well. Between myself, with regard to the two ministers, and the Chair here helping with your colleagues and your caucus and somehow with your federal members, maybe this at least can begin to be an issue on which we can maybe help you get some action. Also, you mentioned Mr Jordan?
Mr Lalonde: Yes. The Premier's riding, I guess, is right along there too at one point.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but Mr Jordan is a parliamentary assistant to Mr Saunderson, and with regard to tourism maybe he can help you push this agenda. I find these meetings here very interesting. You never cease to learn something when you're doing estimates, but I was not aware of this, and I'm very much aware of the National Capital Commission and the good work they do. I think you should have a meeting with the chair of that commission, and I'm trying to think of her name.
Who is the chair of the National Capital Commission?
Mr Lalonde: Marcel Beaudry. It used to be Jean Pigott.
1620
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. I was watching something on CPaC last weekend and Jean Pigott was on, and I was surprised to see that she was still doing that job. I'm sure she is still in many ways involved but I think you should let the chair of the National Capital Commission know what you're pleased about and where you expect some assistance.
Mr Lalonde: I'm just trying to remember the name of the former Minister of Environment under the Mulroney government. She launched a program with us on the Ottawa River.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Bouchard.
Mr Lalonde: It was a lady from BC, from the west.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I only remember Mr Bouchard.
Mr Lalonde: I forgot that.
The Chair: Pat Carney. Mr Lalonde, you're referring to Pat Carney?
Mr Lalonde: No.
The Chair: She was a minister.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Oh, I know that, but I'm not sure.
Interjection.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Well, no. Sheila Copps was.
The Chair: Not in the Mulroney government, though.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, although who knows?
Mr Lalonde: Anyway, I'll get all this information to you.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. I think it's extremely important.
Mr Lalonde: And you would see that this Ottawa River is very important for the future of tourism in eastern Ontario. That goes right up, as I said, to Lake Timiskaming. They're working very hard on it.
I had a few more questions, Mr Chair. I don't know how much time I have?
The Chair: You have approximately seven more minutes, Mr Lalonde.
Mr Lalonde: I don't know what could be done on this issue. As you have probably heard, there will be a major development in Mont Tremblant, Quebec. This has to do with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We have been trying to convince your government that Highway 17 should be left to the responsibility of the provincial government. Just this past Monday, the Bape commission of Quebec recommended to the government of Quebec that they not continue the construction of the four lanes of Highway 50. This will increase the traffic on the Ontario side, because the majority of tourists who come from the States, from Ottawa or from Toronto, if they go by to Ottawa, come down on Highway 17; they don't take 417.
The government of Ontario, the government of Quebec, and the federal government are building a new bridge in Hawkesbury which is the Perley Bridge, a four-lane bridge. We expect the increase of volumes, but at the present time I don't know what can be done to convince your government that Highway 17 is not for local traffic only. Over 18,000 cars go on that road every day. Because of the fact that the Quebec government has cancelled the extension of the four-lane on the Quebec side, which is Highway 50, the traffic will continue to increase on the Ontario side. I just thought of bringing that to your attention.
The other section that really falls under your jurisdiction is the mutual agreement. I spoke briefly once about the business entrepreneur or business people in wholesale or retail also from the Ontario side. Speaking to the MTQ official last February 12, 13 and 14, 1997, in Quebec City when we had the Quebec-Ontario meeting, the person representing the Ministry of Transport of Quebec said that in Quebec they have mutual agreement between the municipalities for the truckers, not the trucking industry, but the retail people who use their trucks to deliver material from one side to the other, or doing construction.
I wonder if you could discuss with your counterparts on the other side having a mutual agreement and having a buffer zone, they call it, Ontario-Quebec agreement for the trucks from retail and wholesale enterprises.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Again, there are a couple of agreements that we have been discussing with our Quebec counterpart, but I don't think this is one of them. One is the intercity buses. There was another one too. No, it was the train, which we have basically put a stop to for the moment -- whatever "for the moment" means. But I think this one is not one that I'm aware of, so I would again ask you to write me and let me know the details of this issue. I was not aware that it had even been raised at the meeting of February 12. I must say that the Minister of Transportation in Quebec is M. Brassard and, in fact, Mr Palladini has been having discussions with him around the intercity buses.
Mr Lalonde: Brassard is intergovernmental.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: He is also intergovernmental. Because we did meet this August in New Brunswick, I was asked at that time to have a special meeting with him around issues of transportation. Although this issue about the wholesale-retail may not fit into that ministry -- I'm not sure -- I'm going to need some very specific information before I can ask one of the other ministers to have some discussions. Mr Chair, I don't know how much time I've got?
The Chair: About two minutes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm very disappointed to hear that Highway 50 will not be developed as we anticipated. I'm not sure Mr Palladini knows that. I hope you will go and tell him, perhaps tomorrow when you're in the House let him know, and we certainly will pass that on. My ministry perhaps knows already, but I didn't know that.
With regard to your concerns around Highway 17, if you are concerned about the designation of responsibility for Highway 17, again, I'm sure you've put that in writing to Mr Palladini.
Mr Lalonde: I did.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Good. I will remind him that you discussed it with us in these estimates hearings today.
Mr Lalonde: The reason I don't refer to the trucking industry is the trucking industry has different regulations, but I refer to the truck that delivers material from one business to the other, because it doesn't require any additional licence for the weight or anything. The trucking industry has a special licence for the axle and everything. This is why the MTQ has said, "We do have mutual agreement between municipalities in Quebec; we probably would be able to have one within the Ottawa-eastern Ontario region."
The Chair: Minister, you have one more minute if you'd like to respond.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll just take your observations under advisement, and if you could follow through on some of the documentation that we've discussed, it makes it a lot easier for me to move forward on these issues.
The Chair: We now turn to Mr Wildman from the New Democratic Party.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Thank you very much. Is there any place you'd rather be?
The Chair: No.
Mr Wildman: I raised a number of questions yesterday regarding specifics, and the minister did respond briefly on a number of them. I'd like to refer again to the 1996 annual premiers' conference report. One of the recommendations on overarching issues, as they were referred to, was that they move forward to develop strategies to prevent or minimize federal reductions in services and support to aboriginal peoples. I would like to know what update there was at the recent premiers' conference in St Andrews, New Brunswick, in that regard.
1630
I should perhaps preface this by saying I am a little bit concerned about the wording of that recommendation from 1996 because, while I support any strategy to minimize federal reductions in services and support to aboriginal peoples, I see two things that are worrisome about it. Number one, the federal government should be not only minimizing reductions; it should be going the opposite direction, particularly if one considers the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the recommendations that were made by that very important commission, which indicated that there would have to be a great deal more invested in programs to combat the disadvantages of aboriginal peoples in this province and country. The other concern I have is that it at least gives the inference that only the federal government has responsibility for services and support for aboriginal peoples.
I certainly recognize that there is a special relationship between the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the federal crown. But I also recognize that the courts have found, particularly since the 1980s, in a number of cases, that the fiduciary responsibility of the crown for aboriginal peoples is not necessarily only the crown in right of Canada but in many cases is the crown in right of provincial jurisdictions as well -- in our case, Ontario. I am quite alarmed by the Ontario government's apparent minimization of their involvement in issues related to services aimed at combating the disadvantages that aboriginal peoples have suffered for so long in this country.
I want to add one other thing. One of my colleagues, the member for Sault Ste Marie, was in another committee of this assembly and there was an issue raised with regard to aboriginal people. One of the Conservative members of the committee, I understand -- I think it may have been Mr Gilchrist of Scarborough East, who is well known for his expertise in so many areas -- commented that aboriginal peoples were conquered peoples historically, and therefore they should just put up with the situation, I guess.
That's a misunderstanding of history, of course. In Canada, aboriginal peoples are not conquered peoples. As a matter of fact, they served very important roles as allies to the colonists. In the American Revolution, the Iroquoian people, under the leadership of Joseph Brant, were major allies. That's why they are now located in the Grand River valley and in other parts of Ontario. They were given land grants because they were, frankly, among the United Empire Loyalists who left what is now New York state after the American War of Independence. The Ojibway and Cree peoples were allies of the British, and that is true of many other nations that are among the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Previous to that, many of the aboriginal peoples, the Huron and Algonquin peoples, were allies of the French. They were not conquered, unlike the United States experience where many of the aboriginal nations were indeed conquered. That wasn't the historical experience in Canada. These were situations where agreements were made between sovereign peoples and the crown of Britain. If it was Mr Gilchrist who made that comment, I bow to his expertise in most areas but not in this one.
I would like to know, in terms of the two issues I raised, what has happened with this strategy to minimize federal reductions in services? What does it mean? Where are we at? What is Ontario's view? What is Ontario's role itself in providing services and support for aboriginal peoples in this province?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: The word "minimize," I'm not aware of that, but I'm sure it's there. I just forgot it.
Mr Wildman: Yes, I'm quoting it.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Is it from a communiqué itself?
Mr Wildman: Let me find the first page.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's a 1996 communiqué, correct?
Mr Wildman: Actually, this is a synopsis of the 1996 meeting, which was provided to the premiers at the 1997 meeting.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps what I can do is take a look at that down the road in a little while. But in the meantime, I certainly can speak for our government and for our own minister of aboriginal affairs, who would not like to think for one minute that we would minimize our involvement with our aboriginal constituents. I will say that one of the first issues I had as a new minister was whether we would proceed with the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy, which was something that was negotiated in the last few months of your government. We've carried on with that strategy.
More recently we've had meetings, a number of ministers, with both the on- and off-reserve aboriginal people. I'm going to say right at the very beginning, Mr Wildman, there isn't I don't think another elected member in this assembly who knows as much or understands issues as they relate to our aboriginal peoples.
The premiers did discuss the issue of the federal offloading, which of course they are concerned about, particularly with respect to the federal reduction in services and support for aboriginal peoples. They emphasized their long-standing concern over the federal government's refusal to accept full treaty, historical, constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities for aboriginal Canadians on- and off-reserve. It has been interesting for me to listen with regard to the implications of that decision by the federal government to my colleagues, especially more recently in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. We've learned lots. There is still very much to do. As a result of this position by the federal government, the provinces and territories actually face increasing pressures to make expenditures ourselves to meet the needs of aboriginal peoples. We actually have carried on with your policies.
The premiers did agree that the transitional and implementation costs associated with self-government should be the responsibility of the government of Canada. These are the discussions that they are having. They directed the aboriginal affairs ministers to begin discussions with their new federal counterpart; this is at this year's conference.
Mr Wildman: Who happens to be the daughter of a long-serving member of this assembly.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. You smiled when you said that --
1640
Mr Wildman: I like Mr Nixon and I like his daughter.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- and I think you're probably feeling somewhat optimistic. Get talking to the new minister -- it's an opportunity always -- and national aboriginal leaders on a comprehensive approach to meeting and ensuring that the federal government meets its constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities.
"It must recognize," they stated, "that different provinces and territories have different circumstances with respect to the financing, design and delivery of programs and services for aboriginal Canadians" -- not unlike we do for many Canadians who are not aboriginal peoples. They asked that the provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal continue to monitor the progress made in advancing this critical issue with the federal government.
I'm sure you noticed in the throne speech, as I did, some selective -- for want of a better word -- program areas which I think --
Mr Wildman: There was a commitment to move forward on the recommendations of the royal commission.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Well, there were a couple. It said:
"Some of the most urgent health problems today are found in aboriginal communities. The government will work with other partners in aboriginal communities to
"develop new initiatives to address the rapid increase in tuberculosis and diabetes in aboriginal communities; and
"enhance research and dissemination of health information focused on the needs of aboriginal peoples through a new Aboriginal Health Institute."
You can imagine how our health ministers will be monitoring that.
Mr Wildman: Actually, I appreciate that.
You mentioned the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy. I appreciate your comments. I would say there are a lot of other people in this assembly who have experience with aboriginal peoples and their concerns.
I would also indicate that as far as I was concerned, one of the greatest things we did, of the many things we tried and didn't get too far on, was the diabetes strategy for aboriginal people in northern Ontario. Diabetes is epidemic among aboriginal people. I would hope that the commitment made there, if the federal government moves forward, will be supplementary to what the province is doing; that the province will not simply say, "Okay, the feds can do it."
There is a particular problem with regard to aboriginal people living off reserve. The whole setup now of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs -- perhaps they will go the way of the dodo bird, which would be a good thing, I think -- is to serve people on reserves. They have traditionally taken the position that the provincial governments are responsible for off-reserve people, whether they are treaty Indians, as per the Indian Act, or Metis or non-status people. That has been a long-standing debate between the provincial governments and the federal government. But we cannot allow those people to be lost in the cracks while we have a jurisdictional argument.
I think the Chair is probably familiar with the Anishnawbe health centre and the work they do among homeless people, particularly in downtown Toronto. Those kinds of services must be supported, and I would hope the provincial government is prepared to maintain the assistance that is necessary to allow them to continue. I'm not asking you to comment on direct provision of services, because I know that's not your role, but what I'm really asking is, are these kinds of services going to be continued while the jurisdictional debates go on between the federal and provincial governments?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Obviously your government and former governments have taken on that responsibility, and we certainly have as well. Again, as we take a look at an area that I'm responsible for with regard to the prevention of violence against women, we've moved into both preventative programs, safety programs and service programs with the aboriginal community, and actually focused this time and asked them to send forward grant proposals, and reached out to them to help them. We feel as you did, that in the absence of a federal commitment we must carry on and support our native Canadians who have contributed so much, obviously, to the excitement and enthusiasm and the diversity of our communities.
There was another part of the throne speech, Mr Wildman, that had to do with expanding opportunities in aboriginal communities. Did you pick up on that one? I'm reading it actually for myself as much as yourself. I think we all have to be reminded that monitoring for all of us, whether we're individual MPPs, whether we're in government or out of government, if these are programs that should be established in our communities and these are promises that have been made, we all have the responsibility to help and work with different levels of government to see that they get done.
The federal government is saying here that they are hoping to strengthen the aboriginal communities, "reinforcing the diversity that makes Canada unique." They state that they will:
"develop relationships with aboriginal people based on the principles of partnership, transparency, predictability and accountability" -- something I know you feel very strongly about, Mr Wildman, and showed great leadership in your position here.
"support the building of strong aboriginal communities -- communities that provide their members with better living standards and opportunities; and
"strengthen the capacity for good government in aboriginal communities.
"To contribute, the government of Canada is committed to respond to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as soon as possible."
That was certainly something that the ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs had demanded some time ago. I might say that at the social policy council, where I represent our province and all of us as elected officials, we have this on our agenda in a monitoring fashion at almost every meeting.
Mr Wildman: Could I ask one other question? I don't know if there is time.
The Chair: A minute and a half.
Mr Wildman: Currently in the House we are debating, not this afternoon but right now, Bill 149, the so-called Fair Municipal Finance Act, I think it's called. One of the provisions of that bill removes the exemption from property tax for first-nations-owned, off-reserve land, which has been honoured by governments in Ontario for some time. It's my understanding that this provision of the bill went forward without consultation with first nations. As a matter of fact, they were asked to come to a meeting, and then it was subsequently cancelled. What, if any, role do you have in this kind of issue? How could it happen that what is considered a treaty right by aboriginal peoples that they be tax-exempt would be denied by a statute or a proposed amendment to a statute without talking to them?
The Chair: Do you want to make a brief response?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I just don't know the answer to that question. I wasn't aware of this.
Mr Wildman: I would really encourage you to raise it with your colleagues the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for native affairs.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I will do that.
The Chair: We'll turn now to the Conservative caucus. Perhaps Mr Preston would like to finish up your previous line of inquiry.
Mr Preston: I'd like to get back to this levy that the people of Ontario are being charged for employment insurance. We're paying $500,000-plus per hour into federal coffers that could very well be used to (1) reduce taxes, and (2) create employment, create job training. It could be used to create a number of things that we don't have the finances here to use. Instead, it's being used by the upper level of government to reduce their deficit and make them look good. I'd much rather that made the province look good by creating more jobs. What can we do? Number one -- I'll give your first answer for you -- we should let the people know. I don't think people know to what extent they're paying an overage to the federal government. The first thing we should do is let the people know how much we're being taken for. Do you have any ideas beyond that?
1650
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We had an interesting discussion yesterday in these meetings. At the end, the Chair said we should have been on television, because of the kind of debate around the whole issue of rebalancing roles and responsibilities and communicating. There are two focused areas there. Number one is the efficiency and the effectiveness of our federation, and that means clear discussions around how we actually commit the dollars we collect for programs in an efficient way. That means less overlap and duplication, transparency around what we do with the money, and that means we have a responsibility here in Ontario to let the public know exactly how the money is spent.
The other piece is results of programs. Results of programs are sometimes very difficult to establish, but we have to take that step. It's very easy to dream things up; it's not as easy to say whether they work or not. So this whole effectiveness and efficiency piece is a big issue for us with regard to moving our country forward into the next millennium and Canadians saying: "You know what? We've got a country that really works." That's one piece.
The second piece is the unilateral decision-making around federal spending power. That basically means the federal government does have the responsibility, according to the Constitution of Canada, to disburse funds in responsible ways. What we're saying as a province, with all our colleague provinces and territories, is we think the way money is spent is worthy of serious discussion, not a unilateral decision.
Having mentioned those two pieces, the programs themselves, design and delivery -- which all provinces want to have something to say about; Mr Wildman just mentioned it with regard to the aboriginal peoples -- and the unilateral decision-making, this is going to be about 80% of the discussion. The premiers themselves, with the leadership of the Premier of Saskatchewan, basically stated that the discussion about the renewal of our federation should be about rebalancing.
The issue you raised is so clear. We know, because we have done our work in Ontario, that we have the numbers; we've just talked about it. Basically, since 1995, Ontario's premium contributions -- that's employers and employees; not the government, the people -- have exceeded benefits paid to provincial residents by about $4 billion annually. Unilaterally, I think last November-December -- it might have been January-February -- the federal Minister of Finance announced that there would be a reduction in these premiums. As far as most provinces were concerned, but especially Ontario, the reduction was minimal, and it was a unilateral decision made by the federal finance minister and announced to the media with no discussion with the other finance ministers.
Those are the kinds of actions -- with respect to my colleagues, I don't care who's wrong; whether it be our problem as a province or someone else's problem as a government, discussion is extremely important to the success of Canada. Our citizens want all levels of government to work together even as we decide roles and responsibilities both provincially and municipally, and provincially and federally. All provinces are in the midst of restructuring around these lines.
I can sense your frustration. This is a clear indication of a very important area of extreme concern for the people of Ontario. Your question about getting the message out is a very good one. As a new government, we wanted to approach this issue with respect. In a new government, one is quite surprised how some ministries can work very closely together -- I myself think it depends a lot on the people -- and others don't.
Mr Wildman: Name names.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Why don't you and I talk about our experiences? We do just fine together. I introduce my critic here in this regard.
Mr Wildman said, "Name names," but generally we have to think about where this country is going. We got into some discussion yesterday about Quebec. They're very concerned about roles and responsibilities. Some people use the words "devolution of power." For some of us who have had some opportunities to work through different periods in the history of this great nation -- I look at Meech, I look at Charlottetown people, myself, Robarts, Pepin. This is an ongoing argument in Canada, but times are different now. The reason it's so important, Mr Preston, is exactly what you said: This is an impediment to job creation at a time when people are unemployed to a greater extent than they should be, at this time in the history of our country.
Mr Preston: If you use terms like a $2.20 reduction, it doesn't sound like an awful lot. What's $2.20 going to get you? But if you use terms like $500,000 a day, I think it's going to shock the public out of their lethargy. So what are they asking for? About $500,000 a day I think is going to draw people's attention.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): It's $500,000 an hour.
Mr Preston: Wow; $500,000 a day is still too much.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can only add to that. Where we have done some very good work is in opportunities for retraining. If you've got young people in your office or older people who are looking for retraining here in Ontario -- all of us as MPPs within the Legislative Assembly can clearly be concerned that here in Ontario our unemployed people have one half of the opportunity for access to training programs as those residents of one of our closest neighbouring provinces, and that is New Brunswick.
Obviously, this kind of data has to be collected and carefully analysed with agreement from the levels of government or provinces that are concerned. This takes a lot of careful analysis. We do have a good analysis with regard to opportunities for retraining and we know that we, as we represent our citizens, are not doing our citizens who need our help more than some others, those who are seeking jobs and retraining, a responsible service.
Mr Preston: Mr Chairman, just 10 seconds to correct Hansard.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Preston: It's roughly $13.3 million a day, which does work out to well over $500,000 an hour. I thank you for the correction.
Mr Lalonde: It's $1.3 million, Minister. I counted.
The Chair: We won't spend a lot of debate on the figures. We'll turn to Mr Wettlaufer for his questions.
1700
Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, the population of Kitchener is around 185,000; Metro Kitchener is around 385,000; regional Waterloo and surrounding area are about 440,000; 29% of the population still claims to speak German as its mother tongue; more than 45% are of German descent or speak German as the mother tongue; something in the area of 2% or 3% speak French as the mother tongue or are --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: What was that last number, please?
Mr Wettlaufer: About 2% or 3% are of French descent or speak French as the mother tongue.
In Kitchener we have fiercely loyal people, loyal to the country. I notice in this morning's news clippings in the Globe and Mail that 74% of the people of Ontario and 70% of the people of Canada think the premiers' unity package is a step in the right direction.
Judging by the phone calls I get in my riding, I would say that 85%, 90% or 95% of the people in that riding think it's a step in the right direction. They are willing to make sacrifices in order that this country stay together. I receive the odd comment from them that they feel French programming and French education cost too much, but generally speaking they're willing to accept it. There's the odd one who doesn't want to accept it, but we don't pay too much attention to them; they're rogues.
What is concerning to me and the members of my community, the members of my riding, is that just when we make a step in the right direction in so far as Quebec is concerned -- and I'm not talking about appeasement, I'm talking about a good, positive solution -- we have a Conservative senator from British Columbia open up her mouth and start talking about British Columbian secession. We were all shocked at Pat Carney's words, although any of us who have travelled the country recognize that there is a minority of people in BC who would be just as happy to go on their own or go with the United States.
What I was wondering was --
Mr Wildman: Eleven per cent.
Mr Wettlaufer: Is that what it is, 11% of the population in British Columbia? Okay. Thank you very much, Bud.
I was wondering whether or not you or your staff or someone within the government has talked about this outburst to (a) the federal government, (b) Jean Charest's staff or himself, (c) Pat Carney or her staff, or (d) the British Columbia government?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's always a temptation to make comments, but Ontario has always wanted to deal with issues that are not hypothetical. That has been our position with regard to a lot of the statements, comments, directions and policy decisions of the government of Quebec and questions concerning some of the statements that come out of our sister province, in a sense.
We've focused very much on working hard to achieve the kind of reforms that will make Canada more efficient and effective, where we can be proud at all levels of government and work together so that the public will vote the way they did with regard to the observation you have just made.
You're the first -- well, not the first, obviously; my staff were quite excited about this. Deciding how to move forward with regard to making a statement to the people of Quebec in August, when the premiers first had their lunch, was something we had to think very carefully about, because we're not interested in failures. We're sorry about the failures of the past and we know we have a huge responsibility, all of us as elected officials, to do the best job we can in making certain we contribute towards a united Canada. So we try to rise above the opportunities which sometimes can be fun. You would be interested to know that I've received some phone calls. One of my colleagues in British Columbia made one of those phone calls to say everything's okay -- but it's not helpful.
I was interested -- you mentioned a couple of the numbers -- to know with regard to Canada's overall reaction to the premiers' unity initiative, a positive step in the right direction, that even 62% of the people of Quebec thought that was a good step. That's helpful, because we're obviously trying to send Quebec a message from the rest of the people in Canada, the other provinces and territories. Everyone is still a little concerned.
We talked about this yesterday with regard to opening up what we call this unity file, but the time has come when we have to talk about our country and the time has come when we have to send a message to the people of Quebec. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
The Chair: Further questions?
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It's always a pleasure to take part in the questions and answers of committee, particularly this committee, because I find that the questions asked by this party and also the opposition parties are much more constructive. They're perhaps more inquiring than the more traditional questions we get in other committees. So it's always a pleasure to take part in the discussions that centre around this.
I was interested in the member for Prescott-Russell's comments. I'm not sure if it was ever pointed out in the House what a successful hockey season the member had last year. We offer congratulations.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: This is a good committee. You learn all kinds of things. You should stand up and bow right now.
Mr Chudleigh: It may be somewhat late, but congratulations. It's a marvellous feat to take home a national championship in any sport, certainly in competitive hockey.
Interjection.
Mr Chudleigh: Is your team tied for last this year?
Mr Lalonde: Halfway.
Mr Chudleigh: About halfway. We'll look for a repeat on that. I hope we can get communications between Ontario and Quebec so the fans can get over there and watch that hockey.
The first ministers and ministers of intergovernmental affairs have a fall meeting scheduled, as I understand it. Obviously, the future of our very country is at stake, the financial health of the country, and we've had a number of questions concerning the financial aspects of the federal government. As a province, with our tax cuts we have shown definitively that the tax cuts are self-funding in that our increased revenues have been higher than the cost of the tax cut that we put in place.
I wonder what subjects the first ministers' conference would have on the agenda and what Ontario would see as the objectives that it would hope to attain coming out of that --
The Chair: Mr Chudleigh, I want to thank you for your contribution to the constructive tone of the discussions. I'm going to ask the minister to remember and hold on to that question for the next round, if that's all right, because the time has expired for the government caucus.
Mr Chudleigh: I was being so nice and you cut me off.
The Chair: I hate to do that. We won't call it rare, but we'll ask you to sustain that outlook and we'll come back to it. We'll now turn to Mr Lalonde from the Liberal caucus.
Mr Lalonde: I'm going to go back to some difficulties that we people in eastern Ontario and right up to Timiskaming are faced with every day on a regular basis. It's the construction issue again.
We made some improvement when Minister Witmer and Minister Rioux from Quebec signed the agreement last December 6, 1996. The ADM who attended the meetings on February 12, 13 and 14 -- as a matter of fact, we got him back on the 14th to repeat what he had said at one time -- said that construction workers or contractors who wanted to go on the Quebec side to take part in the construction activity wouldn't have to join a union.
During your discussion with your counterpart from Quebec, I wonder if you could ask if they would consider that any contractor with less than maybe 10 employees could be exempt from joining the union. They have five unions over there, which are controlled by CCQ -- CCQ is Commission de la construction du Québec. They are controlling the whole construction industry.
1710
Three months ago, the president of ADAT -- that's Association du droit des travailleurs de l'Ontario et Québec -- Jocelyn Dumais, brought this to court. The reason it was brought to court was the fact that the people have to join a union in Quebec. According to all the research we have done, it is unconstitutional -- it's better for me to say it in French: non constitutionnel. We haven't heard the verdict yet. The court lasted two days. We hope to get the verdict that our people will not have to join a union. If we don't win this case, they are going to go to -- I think it's Vienna, the international tribunal; this is where it's going. There were some workshops given at Fraser University. We have the Fraser University people involved in this case.
In the meantime, I would ask if it is possible for the minister -- because we get calls just about every day from small contractors, self-employed people who want to go to Quebec. If they get the chance to go and work in Quebec, in the painting business or people who are putting up siding on residential property, they cannot go over there unless they join the union. It's probably easy to join the union as long as you meet all the requirements.
It's true we won some cases: Contractors who meet the criteria don't have to take the exam they used to take to go through; construction workers don't have to pay the $100 fee. But still the small contractor just can't go to the other side because it becomes too expensive and all their people have to join the union. After they have joined the union on the other side, if they come back to this side they have to join the union on this side too.
As you are probably aware, at the present time in the residential construction industry, especially in eastern Ontario and parts of northern Ontario, only 10% of the construction workers are unionized. I don't know if there's something that could be done on that, Minister, if a discussion could take place that a contractor with less than maybe 10 employees wouldn't have to join a union.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: If it's in the courts, I won't be talking about that. I think what we should do right now is share with our colleagues on this committee the gains we did make, because it took eight months, didn't it?
Mr Lalonde: Yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It probably took years before that.
Mr Lalonde: I agree.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We just did the signing last December. You might be interested to know just what is in that agreement, so that if you're asked or if you're interested -- it's precedent-setting. It's something we didn't send balloons up on, but other provinces are very interested in this precedent. In fact, some of them are interested but wish we had been able to do it across the country. But we didn't wait. Really, this agreement eliminates the need for experienced Ontario contractors to take the Quebec competency exams. That's -- what do we call it, red tape?
Mr Lalonde: That was said to be that way, but it is not.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Okay, you tell us about it. We're then in Hansard, so you might not have to write a letter. Be careful of your words, because I'll give this to the Minister of Labour and let her know how it's working. Why don't you tell us how it's working.
Mr Lalonde: There are two criteria for contractors. They have to either have been with HUDAC -- the name has changed; it was insurance, where they had to pay so much per home they built, that went towards this association in Ontario. I forget what the other one was. But if they don't meet those criteria, even though the contractor has been in business for 25 years he cannot go over there. They have to belong to two different associations in Ontario to be eligible to go.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: But they don't have to take the exams.
Mr Lalonde: If they meet the criteria, no, they don't have to. That wasn't clear.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: So the criteria may be a challenge, but if they're experienced -- we're talking experienced here -- they don't have to take the exams.
Mr Lalonde: I'm talking experienced. Even if they have the experience, if they don't belong to those two associations, they will not be accepted.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Okay, that's a clarification.
Mr Lalonde: The other point that is very clear now is that even though, as I said before, only 10% belong to a union in residential construction, very few construction workers in Ontario have what they call their competency card. Even if they have worked for 40 years in construction, if they don't have their card, they cannot go to Quebec.
What we are doing at the present time with Marie Holdcroft in Ottawa is we're trying to get the Ministry of Education to run some courses, maybe three nights a week for a certain time, so they would probably come under a grandfather clause and they wouldn't have to follow a course for a couple of years.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: With what we're talking about here, I'm getting some good information. By the way, I said, "Minister of Labour." I should have said, "Minister of Education," because that's who's doing this now.
Are you pleased? Is it working with regard to the trades? There are some 22 trades and eight construction jobs. They matched these 22 trades and the eight construction jobs to those in Quebec, the matching piece, right?
Mr Lalonde: As long as our people have a competency card, there's no problem, but very few have it. If you're talking about electricians, they have it; if you're talking about plumbers, they have it; if you're talking about steamfitters, they have it. But in construction, framers, cabinetmakers, they don't have their cards.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: So it's the construction industry that you're most concerned about?
Mr Lalonde: Yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: What have you done about this? I know this time last year we were all very active in trying to get this agreement, which we finally accomplished in December. Now we're finding that there are pieces that should be revisited, correct?
Mr Lalonde: That's right, yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Last year we met with both of the associations, and they advised us as to what still had to be done. Is that happening now?
Mr Lalonde: There are two associations now especially, the Ottawa Construction Association and the Ottawa homebuilders' association. One of them is unionized. They are supporting the agreement because they all have to join a union to work in Quebec. So the Ottawa Construction Association is supporting it because it has all unionized people, but the Ottawa homebuilders' association, whose majority is non-unionized, is not supporting the agreement.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: What does it mean to you when I read that one of the agreements stated that there are certain provisions for Quebec to recognize more Ontario construction jobs and trades in the future? What does that mean?
Mr Lalonde: It did look very good at the beginning. The media were after me: "You should be saying, 'Victory.'" I said, when the minister was down in October of last year, that I couldn't say victory because I could not read this on paper and I knew that the union was not in favour of what we were trying to get going.
1720
At the present time, the interpretation of the Quebec government differs from one day to the other. On February 12, 13 and 14, we were in Quebec. In June they came back in Hull. The ADM was there, M. Jacques Henrie. The room was full of contractors. They were so upset when they came out of this room at the Chaudière Hotel in Hull because we had two different stories. The ADM was there and at that time their researcher was there, a person who works with the ADM who said that the Ontario construction workers were 12 years behind the Quebec construction workers in the trade -- exactly 12 years behind them. The room was full of construction workers and contractors from both sides, because we were told to be there, that they would explain the agreement. The agreement that we received and the agreement that was signed, the interpretation is different.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're going to take these concerns, I hope, to Mr Snobelen.
Mr Lalonde: We have.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: What about the dispute resolution mechanism? Is that not helpful? Are there some disputes that have been settled in a positive manner?
Mr Lalonde: There was a committee formed previously in 1994 when the NDP government tried to resolve this problem but the committee never met. So the report we were getting and the report we got in 1996, no problem at all, because they haven't received any complaints. I don't know if the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Education, who has taken over this issue, have staff to take those complaints, but if you happen to call Marie Holdcroft in Ottawa, she just cannot handle all the calls.
A heavy equipment operator cannot go into Hull to operate their own equipment when they're asked to take over a contract on the Hull side because they don't have their competency card. People who have been working as heavy equipment operators cannot go over there. They become an apprentice. To work on a backhoe, they have to hire a backhoe operator from Hull. They sit beside the backhoe operator, and in the backhoe there's only one seat. That's the way it is.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Who is Marie Holdcroft taking these issues to? Who is she working with?
Mr Lalonde: The ministers of labour and education. It's right in the back, the agreement. That is her name in the book.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you planning to meet with Mr Snobelen about this?
Mr Lalonde: It's the first time I hear that I should meet with Mr Snobelen. Knowing for a long time that it is to go to the Ministry of Education, it was never officially announced that Mr Snobelen would be handling this. At the present time, with Bill 160, he's probably tied up. I should probably be with the ADM or the DM.
We have registered all the complaints, and that comes from both sides of the river. If we were to turn down the 13,000 construction workers who cross the river -- there are 41,500 people crossing the river in Ottawa to work in Ontario, that is, civil servants, retail and construction. We have the breakdown of it. If we were to turn them down, those people wouldn't have any money to feed their families. This is why we don't want to block the bridge any more.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think these complaints have to be brought to the attention of the minister. There's no doubt, in my view. The Hansards will help, because you've got a running commentary of some of the actual concerns that you've got. You might want to get the Hansards as they're available, make a covering letter, send it to Mr Snobelen and ask for a meeting with him and/or his officials who are responsible for this construction industry agreement between Ontario and Quebec.
Mr Lalonde: But in the meantime, when you meet with those people, with your counterpart, Mr Brassard, in Quebec, probably you could bring that to their attention.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Absolutely.
Mr Lalonde: That self-employed people and also contractors with less than a certain number of employees should be exempt from joining the union.
The Chair: We'll now turn to the New Democratic caucus.
Mr Wildman: In relation to one of the issues I raised yesterday, which was student debt, the Prime Minister of Canada has announced a new scholarship program for university students, which I guess goes into effect in the year 2000. Basically I'm raising this to ask if you would correct me if I'm wrong. As I understand it, this is not going to be a shared-cost program between the provinces and the federal government; it's going to be delivered solely by the federal government. There will be an endowment established, at this point no one knows how large, and the interest on the endowment will pay for the scholarships to assist students.
As I understand it, the Prime Minister's statement said at one point that this would be a scholarship that would reward excellence, but at another point in his statement he said that it would be a program that would assist low-income students and their families to ensure that low-income students would be able to attend university.
On the face of it, those two statements could be seen as contradictory. You have a university program which is aimed at rewarding excellence on the one hand and on the other a program that would assist low-income people in ensuring that they have access to post-secondary education.
It's been suggested that those two things aren't necessarily contradictory. You could have a program that rewarded excellence -- for instance, there might be a $2,000 scholarship for someone who had high achievement -- but if that individual were also someone in need, the award could be higher. In other words, it might be $5,000, for the sake of argument, to someone who not only had achieved well but also had financial need. But as I understand it, nobody in Ottawa really knows the answers to these questions, including members of the PMO staff, much less the Minister of Finance. Is it Mr Pettigrew who's also responsible at the federal level?
I would like to know, first, if you understand that this is going to be solely delivered by the federal government and is not going to be a shared-cost program between provinces and the federal government. Parenthetically, I would say that the Quebec minister has indicated that the Quebec government would like to opt out of any such program and would like to get the money, but if it's not a shared-cost program I'm not sure how they would do that, if it's delivered directly from the federal government to the students. So first, I'd like to know, as you understand it, whether it is to be delivered directly from the federal government to the students and thus no involvement of the provincial level of government, and second, if you know what the details are with regard to the rewarding of excellence plus the assistance of people in need.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll try to answer that in many ways. I'll be extremely up front about it. Here's where all governments are so frustrated, because when we talk about the whole issue of roles and responsibilities, education is clearly the responsibility of the provinces in design and delivery of programs.
1730
Mr Wildman: That's why the Quebec minister made the comments.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Exactly. As a matter of fact, Quebec is observing our social policy council meetings. I stated yesterday that Mr Bouchard actually stayed for the discussion on social policy because I believe they're very interested in the issue of rebalancing. They absolutely, unequivocally will not have anything to do with the federal government when it comes to the funding of social programs other than to receive the money, because they want to design and deliver their own programs.
It's very difficult politically in spite of that. I'll certainly be taking Ontario's point of view to our next meeting of our social policy committee, which will be next Monday; our next meeting meaning the social policy council of ministers in Newfoundland, where all ministers representing their provinces and territories will talk about social policy. In this instance, I'm sure this will be put on to the agenda from the throne speech. You can imagine our position, even initially -- you've been there, done that -- of responding to something that on the surface looks so fabulous, creating opportunity for young Canadians. None of us want to be moaners, because our constituents want us to get along.
Having said that, they say: "The government welcomes the action being taken by the private sector, through initiatives such as Career Edge and the Corporate Council on Youth in the Economy, and encourages the private sector to do more. The government is committed to work with other governments, the private sector, communities and individual Canadians to help equip young people for the future." Obviously, we're probably part of this.
"The federal, provincial and territorial governments will act to address this problem" -- meaning unemployed young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 25 -- "and first ministers and territorial leaders will be working on this issue when they meet this fall."
"The government will continue to reduce barriers to post-secondary education through further changes to the Canada student loans program, increased assistance for students with dependants, and new scholarships" -- which you're referring to -- "to encourage excellence and to help low- and moderate-income Canadians attend university or college."
I go on to read this and I say, "But who's talked to us about it?" So the answer to your questions is, we don't have the details. We know that throne speeches are vague in their nature. Perhaps this is something that we could have had more discussion about in advance, as we did the national child benefit. We had made some gain in talking to Mr Pettigrew with regard to that initiative, even though all the details are still being worked out, but there is a commitment.
In this instance, I can tell you that this goes back a long way with regard to student loans and debt, which is part of your concern. You'll know about this because the Council of Ministers of Education forwards its 1993 joint declaration on future directions to the provincial-territorial council as their vision for education in Canada. The Council of Ministers of Education also wrote the federal government to initiate discussions on the need for adequate levels of student aid -- you might not like that word, but that was their word -- and concerns about the increasing debt load of students.
Mr Wildman: What's adequate to one might not be adequate to another.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: One argues the word all the time, but perhaps its a safe word. At least it's recognized as a real need.
The next steps are that, "The federal government has begun multilateral discussions on the increasing debt load of students, but has not yet taken action on the provincial-territorial concerns about adequate Canada student loan program levels. In its 1997 budget," which most of us here will know about, "the federal government announced improved tax assistance for students and its interest in exploring an income-contingent repayment program for student loans." Are we not extremely familiar with this language?
It actually began to be discussed in great detail -- and I would say congratulations. I think it was the students at Queen's University who first got involved in this. However, again, it did not address the outstanding issue of student debt and loans, which is your question.
I can say that the intergovernmental consultative committee on student financial assistance is conducting an analysis with regard to students who are in the greatest need of assistance. This group operates under the auspices of the Council of Ministers of Education. It's a mechanism through which the federal, provincial and territorial governments deal with student financial assistance. Provinces are providing information to the federal government as part of this exercise, so at least they're trying to get some information.
What is the status of efforts to deal with the problem of student loans and debt? The Ministry of Education and Training is the lead ministry. We made a commitment in our more recent budget to put in place an income-contingent repayment program for student loans by September 1998. Given the progress made at this point, we've got a real challenge. We're going to have to make this a real priority. We've been working with the federal government to develop a joint program in this area.
I will say we were somewhat surprised with this particular announcement more recently. At the annual premiers' conference a couple of months ago, the premiers examined student indebtedness and increased loan levels. They called on the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to expedite the current review that I've just described -- we're now talking about loan limits here -- noting the concern that exists around debt, which all of us are concerned about. We hear from our constituents in this regard. People are already planning for their future, because they take it seriously.
The premiers asked that the federal government pay its proportional share of debt reduction or management programs. Right now they do. They are responsible for 60% of the student aid debt. Having said all of that, this will be an issue, I believe, at the first ministers' meeting. It will be on the agenda. We're talking about youth unemployment. We're looking at that significant number of young people and we're looking at accessibility to excellent education and opportunities for good jobs.
We're very much committed here in Ontario. I know the Minister of Education would be much more articulate in this regard, but we are looking at our loan programs. We are looking at the whole issue of accessibility to programs where students in our universities get well-paying jobs. We're looking at the accessibility to what many of us would call professional programs, where students are more able to pay back their loans. We're also looking at accessibility for single parents and individuals who perhaps won't be as able to pay back certain levels of loans. We're considering all of those issues as we look at this loan plan and repayment plan.
But we need two partners. We need partnerships with the private sector, ie, the banks, one very important partner, and we need partnerships with our federal government. I know there have been active discussions in this regard. I know everybody here is extremely pleased with regard to the way that Canadian universities -- but we can only speak of Ontario universities here -- have responded in raising funds for students, to increase accessibility in their own universities, and bursaries for those who wouldn't have that kind of accessibility in many instances. When given the opportunity, through some incentive in the last budget where we were matching these contributions -- I forget the total number, but I think it was something like $400 million across our university system. All I can say about that is that it's important that our alumni recognize those opportunities they had, and we do not do this nearly as well here in Ontario as some of our other provincial counterparts and definitely not to the great extent our American neighbours do.
1740
This is an opportunity to thank -- Mr Wildman, you can take this opportunity to respond to this, but I think it was your government. It certainly started with the Liberal government, which finally recognized endowments to universities for purposes of tax credits here in Ontario. It was started by the Liberals. I remember Mr Sweeney, and I'm trying to think of the education minister who would have been responsible at that time. I just can't remember. Can you, Mr Wildman? It might have been Chris Ward. It wasn't Conway; it was somebody after that. It may even have been Lyn McLeod. I was excited as a school board chair at that time and then later as the critic. We finally got it through with your minister at that time, who may have been David Cooke, but it may have been Mr Silipo.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate your detailed answer, but I guess the bottom line is that you don't know. You don't know because the federal government hasn't contacted us about the specifics at this point.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: The education ministers had met the week before. I know they'll be corresponding with the federal government. But more importantly, if you remember my response to the question about the first ministers' meeting with the Prime Minister, this was an issue, youth unemployment, which does involve education, which does involve loans and does now involve debts and repayments. This will be on that agenda along with health.
Mr Wildman: At the risk of being accused of being politically partisan --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Be careful now. I was just so gracious, was I not?
Mr Wildman: No, I'm not going to attack you.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Well, I did hurry it along as the critic, I remember.
Mr Wildman: I was going to attack the federal government, actually.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Oh, all right.
Mr Wildman: It might be argued that one of the ways to improve accessibility at the university level is for the federal government -- which is anticipating, we'll see, surpluses financially -- to restore its transfer payments to post-secondary education, which it cut substantially, beginning under Mulroney and then continued by the Chrétien government. If those transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education were to be raised to the levels they were prior to the cutbacks, universities might be able to finance a lot of the programs students need without increases in tuition fees. But then I might sound as if I'm being too critical of the federal government, so perhaps I shouldn't say that. We are here, after all, in sort of a non-partisan seminar in these estimates.
I am very concerned, as you know, about the levels of student debt. Even when you raise the issue of income-contingent repayment plans that have been debated back and forth between the provinces and the federal government for some time, the current proposal that's on the table from Ontario to the federal government will just increase debt. Right now the average debt for students in Ontario is about $25,000, graduating now, whereas it used to be, a few years ago, about $7,000. The current proposal to allow debt to continue for 25 years and to accumulate interest would mean that student debt might rise to levels unheard of, $60,000 or $80,000, which is the equivalent of having a mortgage without a house. Anyway, I leave it at that.
The Chair: You only have a few seconds.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I just have a few seconds. I certainly share your observations. With regard to equitable treatment, the education piece is part of the CHST, and you might be interested to know that there is a shortfall between Ontario's actual entitlement versus what we would receive if we were allocated to our province the CHST on an equal, per capita basis. I certainly share your observations about when it started and applaud your efforts in this regard when you were in government.
In 1996-97, our shortfall -- and I can see my colleague listening very carefully, because he's going to write this down too -- was $420 million that we should receive on an equal, per capita basis. These are the kinds of decisions we, and some of you if you're representing your caucuses -- this is the kind of information that will be distributed, I'm sure, during our discussions, because this is one of the grievances that all governments in Ontario have had, evolving to a greater extent in the last 10 years and certainly since the changes to the transfer payments. But in 1997-98, it'll be $365 million. You just add that up over two years, and you're looking at $800 million, almost $1 billion.
The Chair: Madam Minister, I have an idea that this interest may be shared by the members of your caucus, and in the interest of fairness to them, maybe I could interrupt you at that juncture and ask them for their pleasure in terms of the questions they'd like to see considered. Is there someone who would like to lead off?
Mr Chudleigh: Yes. I was really hoping I might get an answer to my previous question.
The Chair: Yes, of course, to do with the premiers' conference.
Mr Chudleigh: I know the Chair felt very guilty about interrupting.
The Chair: If it had to do with the premiers' conference -- and I did feel that with that elaborate and well-spoken introduction we should ensure it comes back.
Mr Chudleigh: There are an awful lot of issues that face all of Canada and of course national unity is one, along with youth. I think the two issues that deal with youth are the very important one of education, where hopefully there will come a day when everybody who qualifies for university can have the financial resources available to them to go on to higher learning, not only at university but also at colleges; and of course youth employment, which is a big problem across Canada and also in Ontario. In the last four months we've seen continuing increases in youth employment, which is encouraging, to say the least. It would be interesting to have your perspective on trying to prioritize these issues as to where they are going to be on the first ministers' conference and the objectives that we as Ontarians would like to see come out of that meeting.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm sorry, I tried to find something I thought everybody would find some interest in. I think we should be rather proud of the fact that people are focusing on solutions but rather ashamed of the fact that we've allowed all of this to happen. My personal viewpoint has been that we haven't worked as hard as we could in the last 10 years to create relevant and interesting training opportunities for our young people -- there have been opportunities missed -- and to make some demands on our private sector employers to be creative in providing opportunities for training. It has met with, I think, some degree of interest but also emphasis to the extent that many of the provinces, their leaders, know that there are better ways of dealing with this whole issue.
1750
First of all, our young people won't be employed, no one is going to be employed, unless we all create a climate for investment. That's a given, across all political stripes in all provinces. The second piece is that you have to really be committed to economic independence. It was very interesting for us to hear from the Atlantic premiers on the whole issue of economic independence.
I'm sure the western premiers will bring forward to the Prime Minister what they brought to their colleague premiers, a paper, Western Best Practices Report on Youth Employment. It's always good to take a look at best practices, because that usually means that young people have an opportunity to be in training programs that are not only relevant, meaning they are being trained for the jobs of tomorrow, but where we measure the fact that they get good jobs. This paper, Western Best Practices Report on Youth Employment, was tabled at the premiers' conference. It was dated August 7.
They talk about so many areas that we here in Ontario have been looking at but haven't actually put into action. They take a look at issues such as the numbers around unemployment and changing job prospects. Any government is going to have some difficulty and cannot work on their own with regard to taking a look at the distribution of employment within the different sectors, whether we talk about the service sector or whether we talk about finance, business, health, education, food, retail -- the whole bit.
Then they went on to talk about employment and education. We all know that the higher the level of education, the better chance a young person has of being employed, and they go on to talk about that. Then they went on to talk about the best practices, which all premiers found to be quite interesting. They started in British Columbia by saying that a guarantee for youth is a key component of the premier's youth strategy. Obviously now the different provinces are going to come together and get a youth strategy for Canada.
They talked about environment youth teams. We have this in Ontario. They had 1,400 young people. Their numbers are so much lower than ours because we're such a big province. They had work experience. They had young people who were not returning to school having those opportunities, which we're considering as well: their summer works, which we have; their first job in science and technology; their youth business and entrepreneurship; crown youth employment initiatives -- the federal government picked up on that one not too long ago -- and then of course the youth works, with an employability program that replaces social assistance for young people aged 19 to 24. These are best practice models.
We have a lot of controversy around this in Ontario, but we should know that other provinces are way ahead of us in regard to offering unemployed youth opportunities for jobs that replace social assistance.
The registered apprenticeship program in Alberta: We are having serious discussions. We probably will have some announcements around the revitalization of our apprenticeship programs, which are so different now than what they would have been 10 years ago. This is long overdue.
Again, I want to say to Mr Wildman that this is not a partisan discussion. All of us have been looking for better ways. The report we have been looking at is one that was started by Mr Peterson and concluded his discussions in 1989 with regard to the Premier's Council report and apprenticeship rejuvenation changes.
Careers, the Next Generation: "The private sector here in Alberta supports the preparation of high school students for the world of work through meaningful work experience, particularly in trades and technology." Youth Connections: That's the high school leavers. Youth career programs: Opportunity to take career-related programming closely linked to the needs of employers through post-secondary institutions. So even our colleges have a more important role to play. We in Ontario have been looking at that for a few years, and I think we'll come up with it.
I won't go on any further except to say -- and it goes across Saskatchewan, Manitoba etc -- these are the kinds of specific best-practice models that I think the premiers will be sharing with the Prime Minister. Again, the great weakness of governments has been that we haven't measured how successful our training programs have been. This is one small piece, but we as Canadians have to work together and our constituents demand that we do.
This would be one of the roles I would play with regard to the information I get at the social policy meetings, bringing back to my colleagues, over and above what they're able to share themselves in their sectoral meetings, experiences across the country that will offer our youth more opportunities for employment, which is our responsibility.
Mr Chudleigh: So a major objective is obviously going to be centred on youth, whether it be youth opportunities for employment or youth opportunities for further education or, indeed, education itself.
I feel that the first ministers made tremendous strides in their meeting this past summer on national unity. Obviously, national unity would be a topic on that agenda as a follow-up to this summer's successful meetings. I know there's a frustration in the country, including Ontario, that the national unity debate is still going on. I think people want to put it behind us and want to move on.
Do you see an opportunity in the upcoming meetings that this subject will continue to be discussed and continue to move forward, that there may be developing a path to a decision, a critical path towards a decision in the national unity debate? Do you see this as a major issue in the upcoming meeting?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are two parts to our discussions. Again, we had some fruitful observations and helpful suggestions made actually yesterday. Rebalancing is one of the key issues. I don't want to make light of the reason for talking about youth employment and health. The premiers absolutely want to lay the groundwork for the important federal-provincial negotiations on social policy renewal and federal-provincial financial arrangements that the premiers have called for in their meeting from Saint Andrews.
The bottom line is that this meeting will be an important test, because the premiers are very serious, of the federal government's commitment -- and everyone will be watching -- to national unity in the larger sense and its commitment to cooperation with the provinces and territories with regard to a renewal of the effectiveness and the efficiency of our federation and the whole issue of rebalancing the use of the federal spending power.
I can only underline that yesterday our discussion was around levels of power. We all agreed that we're not only talking about the provinces taking on their rightful responsibility for the design and delivery of programs close to their constituents but also that some of the programs can evolve in a different direction, where the federal government feels that it would like more responsibility.
I obviously thank you for the question. We're at the end of the meeting -- I can tell by the nod of the Chair here -- and I think it's a good note to end on. We're extremely optimistic. This group of premiers, in the last couple of years, with the challenge of looking at a different way to ensure the unity of Canada, is looking at non-constitutional challenges and solutions.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister. Thank you to all the members for your contribution today.
We stand adjourned until next Tuesday.
The committee adjourned at 1759.