MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 7 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
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel
Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1535 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): Could we come to order? I thank everyone for their attendance at the meeting on time. I guess we have unanimous consent that the estimates committee meeting vote will take place at 5 o'clock this evening; that we will divide the remaining time among the three parties; that each party will get 37 minutes, beginning with the government members.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Minister, thank you very much for attending today to answer our questions. I wanted to ask you about the throne speech on September 24, where the federal government has announced the millennium scholarship endowment fund, the Canadian millennium endowment fund. I wonder if you could perhaps give us an update on details of this fund. I'm sorry, Minister. Did you hear my question?
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Yes, I did. I was just thinking throne speech, but I heard in the end, the millennium fund.
Mr Doyle: Yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We don't really have the details, but we're looking forward to seeing them. He said that more information about the millennium scholarship will be announced after the federal finance minister's fiscal update in mid-October.
We know and we're pleased that the Prime Minister indicated that the federal government will work closely with appropriate partners to assist in the design of the scholarship, and I'd like to point out that Ontario has already led the way by creating a permanent endowment of $500 million through the Ontario student opportunity trust fund that will assist 166,000 students over the next decade. That was our own effort to make a very strong statement about the importance of post-secondary education in this regard.
However, our main student assistance priority with the federal government is to develop a federal-provincial income-contingent loan repayment program by September 1998. This is extremely important to us. We hope that the Prime Minister's commitment yesterday to make changes to the Canada student loans program, in concert with the provinces, to address the debt burden on students, is a step in that direction. When I say "yesterday," I think it was two weeks ago.
Mr Doyle: Yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: "We will," he said, on September 24, I believe, "establish, at arm's-length from government, a Canada Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund." He went on to say that the income from the fund will reward academic excellence and will provide thousands of scholarships each year, beginning in the year 2000 for low- and moderate-income Canadians to help them attend universities and colleges. "We will be working closely with appropriate partners to help in the actual design of the fund." Hopefully, that's us.
"In addition to this one-time endowment, the government will make further changes to the Canada student loans program and will increase assistance for students with dependants." We certainly agree with both of those statements.
"With these and other measures to be developed over the next few months in concert with the provinces, we will build on the progress made in the last budget to address the increasing cost of post-secondary education and the resulting debt burden on students."
No specific value for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund was provided in the Prime Minister's speech, which I've already stated, but he did indicate that it would be larger than the $800-million Canada Foundation for Innovation announced in the last federal budget. Some of the media actually reported that this would top over $1 billion. We don't know whether it's going to be a permanent endowment or a sinking fund, depending on the way that it's organized, or how many years, a defined number of years that it may be over. But they did say they would let us know with regard to their fiscal statement, which I've already stated.
We saw in the media that Rob Prichard, the University of Toronto president, and Lorna Marsden from York University did respond; also William Leggett from Queen's. They praised the announcement in the media. Brad Lavigne, the national chairman of the Canadian Federation of Students, denounced the scholarship plan and said the federal government should be investing in needs-based grants, not merit-based scholarships.
For most of us who have worked in this field, we're always looking for a balance. Our only criticism may have been that we might have wanted to be in on the beginning of the discussion, but I think we're satisfied that we will be asked, and appropriately so, with regard to the design and the delivery of the program. I think that's important, because all the provinces and territories want anything that's designed in this area by the federal government to support the priorities of the provinces and students in those provinces.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Minister, I understand that the ministers of social services are meeting in St John's, Newfoundland, today, all the ministers from across the country, and one of the items on their agenda is the national child benefit. I'd ask you to give us an update, if you would, on the status of the national child benefit.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're correct. In fact, Minister Ecker is working with the other social services ministers in Newfoundland. They began their discussions last evening and they're working today. My understanding is that actually it will be not just a meeting of the provincial ministers but that Minister Pettigrew will be meeting with them as well. This, in our view, is probably one of the success stories of how provinces and territories and the federal government can work together.
It would probably have been in the summer of 1995 that the premiers decided they wanted their social services ministers to look into a national child benefit, and the social services ministers across the provinces and Canada worked on this issue for a number of years. Ontario has been a key player in the federal-provincial discussions on developing the national child benefit and will continue to play that role. The finance ministers are involved as well, with the exception that there's no representation here from Quebec.
The national child benefit is intended to reduce overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments. It's a good example of how we can work together to renew social policy. The federal role is to provide basic income support for all low-income Canadian children through the Canadian child tax benefit. In doing so, the federal government is beginning to assume some of the costs of provincial social assistance for children.
The complementary provincial role is to reinvest social assistance funds that the province will no longer be paying for children on welfare programs in programs and services for low-income families and their children. This concept is interesting because it's being worked across Canada right now with governments of different partisan interests. I think it's great that we can focus on kids. The strategy is scheduled for implementation -- obviously there's more work to be done -- by July 1998.
Ontario is committed to work towards solutions that address the specific needs of children, and ultimately the province will have a reinvestment fund of approximately $150 million. The 1997 budget announced that $100 million of the $150 million will be directed to the new Ontario child care tax credit.
I think that Minister Ecker today takes over the chairmanship of the social services ministers for Canada, the provinces and territories.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Who was the previous one?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: The previous one would have been the minister from Newfoundland, Joan Marie Aylward. I might say that just from seeing her in action, she was superb. She was the president, I think, of the Newfoundland nurses' union at one time and now the Minister of Health, having been the Minister of Social and Community Services, or vice versa. I'm right. We were with her yesterday actually. She represents Newfoundland on the social policy council. I think that what we've got is a group of people who are willing to work out the financial implications. Hopefully, with Mr Pettigrew, there will have been some gains today.
But it's extremely rewarding. This is the one issue where we have been in what I would refer to as a partnership with the right balance, the idea coming from the provinces and then working with the federal government, especially in this instance, around tax policies. We've got a long way to go, but since we've got a good example of what can happen when the provinces, territories and federal government work together, I think it's a good model for other programs.
Of course all governments are complaining that there were programs, and especially in the more recent throne speech, that are clearly the responsibility of the provinces, both for the design and the delivery, that were thought up and in fact should have been discussed with the sectoral ministers involved. That will obviously be brought to the attention of Mr Pettigrew, and hopefully we can still continue to work with the federal government on those areas of priorities that they delineated in their more recent throne speech.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Minister, I know all members of the committee have been following your trip to Newfoundland in the media with great interest, and I'm certainly one of those. I noticed in the media some mention of a meeting of social council ministers. Are those the same ministers as the ministers of social services?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That is such a good question. We had this question from the media yesterday and we had this question of ourselves. More than half of the ministers on the social policy council, which is the overall umbrella group that the premiers have established, happened to be the social ministers for their provinces. Others are ministers of intergovernmental affairs, they may be ministers of health, they may be ministers of finance. There are different ministers who have been assigned to do the overarching work of the social policy council. We decided to have our meetings so that six of them would not have to travel twice over a period of two weeks. That's being more efficient with the use of the taxpayers' dollars. The media in Newfoundland, and definitely our own members back home in all provinces and territories, absolutely could not distinguish between those two meetings. We really understand that.
Once you get into, I think in a country like Canada, trying to sort out what other countries would envy our efforts -- in spite of criticism from time to time, there's a sincere desire on behalf of all governments to get rid of the overlap and duplication and provide more efficient and effective programs where we either share responsibility with the federal government or where the federal government has clearly gotten into our jurisdiction. This is not a matter of more power for the provinces; in fact I would say it isn't more power for the provinces. It's the provinces accepting the responsibility for their own areas of jurisdiction.
We did meet yesterday on into the late afternoon, the social policy council. Today and tomorrow, the social policy ministers are meeting. I'm wondering if you want to hear the results of that meeting.
1550
Mr Grimmett: Yes, that was going to be my follow-up once I figured out the difference, if you could report to us on what your social policy council discussed. We're going to be hanging on that answer, I'm sure.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Actually, what I'm going to do -- I think I heard that little innuendo. I get so serious about my work some days I forget that there's a sense of humour that should be part of this.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Minister, in your defence, I was shocked by the innuendo.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Thank you. There we go. What we've put out is the press release, and I'll stay with the press release because there may be some areas there that I can probably expand upon. At least it names the council, so we all know what the name is here. We're the council that's been directed by the premiers in Newfoundland for the last three years. This is a new mechanism that was created by the premiers in August 1995. As you'll see by this, the premiers gave us our marching orders with regard to negotiations. We are to negotiate a new federal-provincial-territorial framework agreement on roles and responsibilities in social policy.
Although it says federal-provincial, we also must negotiate among the provinces and territories ourselves a provincial-territorial framework agreement. There's a real reason for using the word "negotiation." In the last couple of years this policy council has basically gathered information. It has been responsible for the coordination of efforts between the sectoral ministers in different provinces. At least that's been my responsibility in Ontario, to make sure that we're working together as ministers, that we each know what the other person is doing and assisting as appropriate. In huge governments, it isn't always easy, and it isn't always something they want to do.
Mr Grimmett: Could I ask you specifically what legislation you're talking about. Are you talking about welfare-type legislation?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There would be a number of social policy issues that would be of interest, obviously any social issues, whether we're talking about a national child benefit or child care or social assistance; any education and training, which has become very difficult to manage, because different governments have different ministers. They may have a minister of post-secondary; the may have a minister of education; they may have a minister responsible for training and retraining; they may have labour ministers responsible for labour mobility. That has been the most difficult one for us to get a handle on because the provinces treat it in a very different manner.
The ministers who have been equally successful to the social service ministers in working together within their own jurisdictions are the ministers of health. Both the provincial and territorial ministers of health and the federal Minister of Health have developed their own vision papers. I have my own personal view on this, and that is that they like to do work in their own jurisdictions but they're now being forced to work together by the premiers, with the support, at least at the last first ministers' meeting, of the Prime Minister. Mr Pettigrew has been very helpful in this regard.
The reason for this framework that we have to negotiate, as opposed to just coordinate, is because we're getting down to serious business talking about two things. This new partnership includes cooperative approaches to the federal government's use of its spending power. Every government for the past 20 years at least, maybe longer in Ontario, but especially more recently, in the last decade, has known that Ontario has not received its fair share of transfer payments from the federal government. There have been perhaps reasons for that.
But now, when we're all looking very carefully at every tax dollar that we spend, we in Ontario, who have the second-largest debt per capita, second to Quebec, who have not made the same kinds of gains in balancing our budget, must be responsible and look towards the federal government to provide our citizens with their fair share, for a good example, of training opportunities. A citizen in Ontario right now would have one half the opportunities to be retrained as a citizen in New Brunswick. That's not fair.
Those are employment insurance dollars. We've discussed in this committee that our employers and our employees send the federal government $8 billion and we get back $4 billion in wage replacement and training programs. We're really serious about negotiating the federal government's use of its spending power in areas of provincial-territorial responsibility. We're looking to alternatives to managing and resolving disputes. We have no say now. We might even have a phone call. It shocks me, and I think it would shock anybody from all levels of government, that these kinds of issues are often really solved by a minister in some provincial government receiving a letter. We want some common principals to guide the social policy.
The chair of the social policy council -- that's Dr Russell King from New Brunswick -- put an urgent call out and said that we've had some good cooperation, there has been some consensus on the national child benefit, which we've already discussed today, and we want new partnerships to make the federation work better. Our discussion with the public of Ontario in the next few months is about making the federation work better as we move into the next millennium.
I think you can read the rest of this press release, this communiqué, but to add to it, the second part of our meeting had to do with the premiers' meeting in Calgary and the fact that the premiers will be meeting the Prime Minister later this year, early December, to discuss social policy renewal, youth employment and health care. Those three issues were established as priorities by the premiers in St Andrews. We did ask that this whole issue of negotiations around a new partnership to manage and resolve disputes, to look at the federal government's unilateral use of its spending power and to look at a new cooperative approach through a framework agreement, should also be on that agenda.
It's unusual in Canada -- and we're becoming a more modern nation -- that prime ministers of the past would maybe even accept agenda items. But if we're going to move forward as a modern democracy, it takes good communication. The priorities of the provinces and the premiers and territorial leaders are extremely important with regard to communicating, understanding, discussing needs, wants, differences, solutions with the Prime Minister.
It was a good meeting that I participated in representing Ontario yesterday. There were some significant gains. It's not always easy to get representatives of nine provinces and two territories to agree, but there was a very positive consensus at the meeting yesterday.
Ms Castrilli: It's been almost a month since the Calgary accord and it's been some time since the Premier made his announcement in the House as to what happened at Calgary. He had indicated that there was a time line within which he was operating. I wonder if you might update us one month after the fact as to where we are and where you think we're going.
1600
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I was hoping I had a note that I had read earlier today in this regard, because I actually wasn't at a couple of meetings that took place last Friday, I believe. The Premier has met with the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr McGuinty, and my understanding is, in Mr Hampton's absence, with Mr Silipo from the NDP. They now are discussing how all of us can work together, to put it very clearly.
There's a lot that has been learned in the last couple of weeks about what other provinces are doing. We ourselves in Ontario have had a lot of consultations outside of government. Individual members will certainly be part of where we go next. On the time frame, we're waiting to hear back from the caucuses with regard to some ideas the Premier shared with the two leaders and with our caucus as well. We're counting on the input from our citizens around the seven principles the premiers agreed were important to be discussed by the citizens of Canada.
There will be a committee struck and I will be coordinating that committee. The members who will be appointed by their caucuses, at least this is my understanding at this point -- when we hear back from your leader and from the leader of the NDP perhaps we'll have a better idea about what we want this to look like. I will say that we want it to be different from the past and that we haven't had a lot of success in committees of the Legislative Assembly that have travelled the province, so it will be interesting to see what kinds of ideas my colleagues from both the Liberal and New Democratic parties have.
We know that in other provinces there has been some indication that the MPPs should be involved and want to be involved, but they're not always going to be, I would say, the leaders of discussion of any process. There will be many ways the public can have some input. They talked about technology being available: a 1-800 line, e-mail, a Web site -- I think I missed something here -- the Internet and the fax line.
We also talked about getting some information to the public. From my point of view, this is going to be the most important piece that the committee has to decide. We'll have lots of good advice and we'll have lots of information, but we have to choose how best to get that information to the constituents of Ontario. I think there's a lot of important information they would probably find extremely interesting, but we also have a responsibility, if we're going to be asking them some questions, to also give them opportunities to give us some appropriate answers. That will be the responsibility of the committee, however the committee is formed.
The deadline the Premier discussed with the two leaders is that he would like to have at least some initial information, some initial ideas to share with his colleagues in early January when they get together for Team Canada. That means we would have to have our work done in the middle of December. We can also make a decision as to where we go from there. All of this, of course, must be discussed with our caucuses.
Ms Castrilli: Minister, I am well aware of the meeting that took place on Friday. I was asking for your views as to how you think this will play out. Do you envision, for instance, that the seven principles that were agreed to in Calgary would be sent out to the public for consultation, for questions? How do you envision that process?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are different ways we can deal with it, but the fact is that is what the premiers decided. Those were the principles the premiers decided they would have some discussion around. We may have to expand upon what they mean, but remember, we're looking for the public's ideas around what they would interpret those principles to mean and how they would see us perhaps responding to any one of them. They may have two or three areas where there's a huge discussion, as opposed to all seven.
Ms Castrilli: Forgive me if I seem a little surprised at your response. I'm looking at seven principles that range from what appears to be very clear language -- number 3, for instance: "Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world"; that's pretty much straightforward -- to numbers 5 and 7, which really talk about reshaping the federation.
I am wondering how you think the public can interpret these particular principles. Sending it out and saying "Tell us what you think it means" does not seem to me to be a very responsible way of going about it. If you want a specific question on the table, then I think there should be a specific question on the table.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Maybe it wouldn't be a very responsible way to go about it. Some people may have some different ideas. But those were the principles. There is consultation planning in other provinces and there are different ways to go about it. I thought I did see something specific around those principles, as was set up in Newfoundland.
Ms Castrilli: Do you think the language is sufficiently clear to send out to people and just ask for their views and comments? This is an area where we have been plagued by the interpretation of legal language. This doesn't even come close to legal language. I am wondering what it is that you expect at the end of the process when people are just presented with seven principles and it says, "Comment."
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I am just looking at the Alberta one. The five guidelines went out to all the citizens with regard to how the process itself should take place, how it's open and what not, because I think the premiers wanted the citizens to know what they felt the consultation should be all about.
"The framework for discussions on national unity: The following principles were discussed by nine of Canada's premiers and both territorial leaders at a recent meeting in Calgary, Alberta. Among other things, Albertans will be asked for their views on the following framework," and all seven are listed.
But they say "among other things," so they themselves have made up their minds. Their committee made up their minds with regard to the dialogue on unity. They basically say: "We want to know where Albertans stand on national unity. There will be a non-partisan debate on unity issues in the Legislature." They've gone that far. "Your opinions will guide our discussion on how best to express what Albertans value within Canada." This is just one of a number.
They have sent out the seven principles. They talk about which groups can get involved, "when we need your input." They talk about getting their ideas around the seven principles. They actually ask them if they support the framework. "What are the elements in the framework that you particularly like? Are there any elements in the framework that concern you? Why?"
I think the challenge for us as legislators is going to be, how do we disseminate this information? What kind of message do we put forward to the premiers? That will be a bit of a challenge. But no one said that, talking to the constituents, there was going to be one good way to do it, but we do know we are going to be asking everybody for their ideas and there will be lots of flexibility within everyone's ridings.
Certainly, that's been discussed with me by many members of the House who have come forward and said, "I hope I am going to have an opportunity to participate or show some leadership or just be helpful in our riding." Those are the kinds of questions I think the committee is going to have to talk about. The challenge for the committee is that we're going to have to come up with our plan and our information and our process very quickly, because the Premier said he wants us ready to go after the municipal elections and after Remembrance Day.
1610
Ms Castrilli: I'll deal with the issue of process at this time, but I'm really interested in the issue of content. What I hear you describe is a series of open-ended questions that would be open to all kinds of interpretation. Am I getting the correct impression, Minister?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Pardon?
Ms Castrilli: Am I getting a correct impression that we're talking about an open-ended process where people could comment on just about anything as long as it was under the heading of --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm just telling you what I know about what has happened, and certainly if I've been asked to do this job, I don't want to preclude whether its open-ended or more specific, or we give them lots of information or whatever, because we have a choice in Ontario to do whatever the committee wants and thinks is appropriate in consultation with all our colleagues.
Ms Castrilli: Let me be more specific, maybe this --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: If you've got some ideas, why don't you put them on the table now and then we can think about them.
Ms Castrilli: We'll certainly get to that as well. Your statement to this committee seems like months ago now. We've been at this for a long time.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It seems years ago to me.
Ms Castrilli: On page 2, for instance, you said, "The ministry is collaborating with federal and other provincial governments to rebalance...the federation...to deliver programs." You repeat that in another guise on page 12 where you talk about the Ontario perspective with respect to the social policy council you were referring to before and the reform and renewal steps you envision, including "the need to develop mechanisms to reform the management of the social union...including a federal-provincial review of new approaches to the use of the federal spending power...a reform of fiscal federalism." Is that all on the table in this?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, in my view it is. I think it's point 7, isn't it?
Ms Castrilli: Yes, that's where I was leading to.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that's part of the discussion. To put it bluntly, we're all interested in improving the way the country works. We're all interested in the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. We all know we can do a better job. We also know there are some provinces that are very much concerned about the lack of response from the federal government with regard to making this a priority issue for them. That doesn't mean to say that will be their approach in the future.
I think the federal government is extremely interested in this consultation. I think if they see, from every day, citizens who live in communities in parts of Canada who may feel they don't have the same opportunity to programs and resources for their children and that there could be a better way of reaching them, they're going to tell us about it. That means we do have to be more effective and efficient. I know in my job, especially with regard to my women's issues portfolio, I have spent much more time talking to people in more remote areas of Ontario than I ever do in Toronto, because they do not have the same access to programs.
Ms Castrilli: There's the rub. That's what is missing in the piece. You've got a seven principles for discussion, a framework which is -- seven is a good point; it's one that's ambiguous. I think some people might read it exactly as you said. Others might view this as preserving the current distribution of powers. Putting that question out open-ended, as you said, I understand you want to do something new, but those kinds of issues have been exactly the ones that have plagued us in the past and have caused the kind of controversies we've had around Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
Do you not worry, Minister, that leaving it so open-ended and leaving the language so vague may be counterproductive, particularly when you say you're not sure how you're going to tally all the information you get because you've left it so wide open? Let me add another question to that: Do you not worry that the misinterpretation that may occur will fuel passions more than we really want to do at this stage?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think we have to go back to the beginning and why nine premiers and two territorial leaders decided at the annual premiers' conference to have that meeting in Calgary, because your question, with regard to timing, is important. This was not an area that our government decided to get into, but sometimes there's a cry for leadership. We know that in Canada today our national unity is fragile and that there has been, since we were all elected in 1995, a time in the fall of that year when we almost lost one of our partners in federation, and that was Quebec.
Now the premiers and territorial leaders of all political stripes, because we all have agreed the unity issue is a non-partisan issue, have decided that the time is right, that we have an opportunity to send a message to the people of Quebec, and that we not only have an opportunity, as we did in October 1995, we have a responsibility to do so. That would be at least part of the reason for looking at what we can do as a country to send that message.
The other issue is that there are many reasons why the people of Quebec may be unhappy within Canada. We know one of those issues is the issue of rebalancing our federation. They certainly have made a very much stronger case for having more control over some of their social programs; special arrangements around their pension plan; a special arrangement around immigration; and other issues that many of the other provinces are working towards. They also feel that social policy, the delivery of programs, is the sole responsibility of their province, and therefore they don't participate in discussions of social policy. They actually do send an observer, but they will not participate in discussions of social policy with the federal government.
Having said that, your question is, do you think the timing for this is something we want to get into? This country is worth fighting for, and many of my colleagues think this is something for risk-takers. I share your views around dissemination of information, but it is our responsibility to find a way -- and there's no one way to do it. I can only say we're looking for the grass roots and we're looking for open discussions and an opportunity to hear from the people about the renewal of our federation as we move into the next millennium.
1620
Ms Castrilli: I'm going to say that wasn't the question I put; it wasn't about timing. My question really is, given the language, given the open-ended process you're envisioning, knowing as I know that you are a passionate Canadian and that national unity is on your mind as it is on mine, as I think it is on everyone's mind in this Legislature, do you not feel that you'll be misconstrued, that this will not be seen so much as a national unity exercise, how to maintain the partners in federation, how to maintain Quebec's uniqueness, but will be seen more as an issue of dollars and cents, of Ontario finding this way to try and rebalance the federation in other ways, which is what you've talked about here since the beginning? Do you not feel you'll be misconstrued, that your otherwise noble motives will simply become a matter of, "There's Ontario trying to get more power for itself"?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, and with the leadership of the MPPs from all parties, who certainly have had the same opinion over the last 10 years and have tried in their own way to do some rebalancing with the federal government, I expect we would have that kind of support in our communities. I also think we'll have people who can assist us.
I will say that public opinion across all provinces supports the principles of the Calgary framework. It was an extremely well-received exercise. The principles have been well received. The five points around discussion have been well received. I think the leaders and the Premier had that discussion last week. It's a pretty nice feeling to think you're on the right track after having had too many failures with regard to discussions around our Constitution.
So we're moving forward at this time feeling particularly optimistic about these discussions, and I think the public are very optimistic that they have been given this framework and are being asked their opinion. Media reports indicate the federal government is not buying the provinces' cry for more and more powers and is going to play pretty tough with us. I can only respond to that by saying that the unity of our country is non-partisan, nothing's perfect and there is always room for improvement. Our government, indeed the governments of all provinces are working hard to develop a new form of cooperative federalism which will strengthen the country.
Having said that, most of our provinces in Canada have gone through the kind of restructuring we're looking at and are just embarking upon in Ontario now. They've been there and they knew they had to do it to make their own provinces, and territories I will add, more efficient and effective. The federal government has to look at itself as well. Our emphasis has been on finding new ways to make things work better, and in spite of sometimes showing some frustration because we all, no matter what partisan stripe, owe it to that unemployed worker in Sudbury to have the same opportunity for retraining programs as an unemployed worker somewhere in New Brunswick.
Ms Castrilli: Minister, I'm going to run out of time soon, so I'd like to ask you another question and have you comment. I agree with you that the polls are very favourable. The Angus Reid poll, as you know, that came out a week ago clearly demonstrated that people were on side. But you know that the polls are volatile and I think one of the telling figures in that poll is one that indicates 50% of people across the country feel the Calgary accord will make no difference to Quebec staying. I find that a shocking figure, to tell you the truth, but it does show me there's some volatility there that we need to be mindful of.
There's no question the Liberal Party of Ontario is committed to the notion of national unity. We've always been involved in trying to preserve the federation, whether in opposition or in government. There has always been a great deal of input from us.
Let me just ask this question: This is a mammoth undertaking you're considering and bringing to us. We're trying to get at all of Ontario in a very short period of time with questions that have yet to be designed and tabulation that hasn't even been thought about. You're looking to try and get this all done by Christmas, with a report in January. I assume there'll be some action later on in the House.
How do you plan on doing that? Is your ministry gearing up? You have a ministry that's $4 million and 39 or so employees strong. How do you plan to accomplish that? Do you have some budgetary powers, some funds that are coming your way, additional people? Could you enlighten us?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I know you were concerned about staffing the last time you were at the estimates committee and we do have a very efficient group.
Ms Castrilli: Actually, about under the present circumstances --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There will be a budget set aside for this and that's something the committee will set. We'll talk about it. We've certainly done a lot of work, all of us, the three-party committee. That's going to be their responsibility.
Ms Castrilli: The three-party committee will establish the additional budget for the ministry?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We'll get some recommendations and we'll decide on how we spend the money.
Ms Castrilli: Do you have any parameters?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I've just been advised that this was a discussion with the Premier and the two party leaders as to what kind of resources we might need.
Ms Castrilli: I was speaking specifically to the ministry, not --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I don't know because I wasn't there, but I do know that if we don't have the money we'll find the money, because it's an important process. Other governments have had to do the same thing. It wasn't something we put into our estimates, obviously, because we didn't anticipate this. But there will be money from the government to support some outside help. The most important piece that I feel strongly about is that the MPPs have the assistance they need, both in the designing and delivery of information and perhaps in any kind of a public consultation they may have.
With regard to Ontario, our focus is on finding ways to reform the federation and we can't do that by ourselves. It has been a long-standing concern to us that a cost-effective federation with clear roles and responsibilities, so that we don't get overlap and duplication in both delivery and design of programs, is the responsibility of both provincial and federal orders of government, and 80%, as we said before, of the solution with regard to this unity process we're about to embark upon is reforming our federation. It's in everybody's interest, including all of us, the provincial government and the federal government, to find some solutions.
1630
Mr Wildman: I want to raise some questions regarding the process coming out of the Calgary meeting. As I understand it, the premiers have another meeting in January, at which time they are supposed to provide some sort of preliminary or interim report on the consultation with the people of the provinces, and then hopefully aim at having a final report of some sort later in the spring.
As the minister indicated yesterday, there was a meeting involving the Leader of the Opposition and our deputy leader with the Premier and there were ideas put out from all three about how the consultation might take place.
The minister has referred to some of the things that are happening in Alberta and we've had some private conversations in which she has indicated she might share some ideas. Is it possible for the minister to give us a sort of thumbnail survey of what's happening in the other eight provinces with regard to the consultation coming out of the Calgary framework so that we know what's happening elsewhere?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. I have to find a note I had in front of me when I was trying to answer your colleague's questions.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chudleigh informs me that was his question. Sorry.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It is here. The reason I have it is because the Premier asked me the same so I thought I'd better find out what was happening. Do you want to hear province by province? Because it is rather interesting. We put this together for the Premier at his meeting last week.
Mr Wildman: I don't want to go lengthily into it all, but I would like to have some idea of what progress has been made by the various jurisdictions. Just one comment, by the way.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes?
Mr Wildman: During your exchange earlier, Minister, you indicated that Alberta was aiming at a non-partisan debate in the Alberta Legislature at some point that would lead, I guess, to an all-party resolution.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I don't know.
Mr Wildman: I think you said that. I may be misquoting.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I was just reading from their literature.
Mr Wildman: I would just indicate that sometimes it's a heroic assumption to assume in advance that a debate in the Legislature is going to be non-partisan.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Except, Mr Wildman, in fairness, you and I have participated in two of them.
Mr Wildman: Yes, we have.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We have kept our speeches because we put so much time into them, both of us.
Mr Wildman: I have it leatherbound at home -- no. But the minister is quite right, we have had similar debates in the past on the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown agreement. Having said that, even in those largely non-partisan exchanges there were some significant differences expressed, particularly around Meech, as I recall, in the Legislature.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Wildman: I think there was a very small number, but there were some who voted against it in our Legislature, for various reasons; they didn't all have the same reasons. I think it was only five or six -- I may be wrong on that -- who voted against.
I would be interested in finding out what's happening in other parts of the country with regard to the follow-up to Calgary.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can't find the part about the Legislative Assembly. I'm just looking through it. You'll find it when you're looking through this.
I really like the way that Alberta, since I'll start with them, responded. They sent a letter to all Albertans and the last paragraph said: "We ask all of you to take the time to think seriously about our future, what you consider important within Canada and what you think it means to be part of this country. We expect and look forward to a wide range of views from Albertans in all parts of the province." That kind of sums up what they're looking for.
They've got an approach that has been used in the past to consult Albertans. They've done this on seniors' benefits and how to allocate the budget surplus. There is a 1-800 number, an Internet, a province-wide householder with a questionnaire. All members of the Legislature are charged with consulting within their own constituency. They are going to be somewhat low-key because in Alberta they have no additional resources assigned for this, so people are doing it within their constituency budgets.
A summary report coordinated through the Ministry of Federal and Intergovermental Affairs will be prepared internally by the end of November. It's going to be based largely on responses to the provincial householder questionnaire, which I think is a fairly open-ended questionnaire, so I think it's always harder to compile responses in that regard.
Mr Wildman: Before you go on to the others --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are four others that have made some progress.
Mr Wildman: Before you go on to those, I think it's sort of standard among marketers that if they get a 10% response to a questionnaire it's considered very high. Most responses are less than 10% -- 2% or 3%. Let's say for the sake of argument, hypothetically, this were done in Ontario and we got a 5% response, which would be good, I don't know the industry or polling well enough to understand whether you can then extrapolate from 5% to the overall population.
It seems to me that when in the past on occasion I've done surveys in my riding, oftentimes I'm under the impression that the people who respond are the people who are angry. The people who are happy often don't respond. Maybe that's anecdotal. That's certainly non-scientific on my side.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I hope you're right.
Mr Wildman: When I only get 2% or 3% back, I figure everybody must be happy. I'm not sure we can treat silence in terms of a response to a questionnaire as acquiescence or agreement, so I'm a little worried about this. Having said that, I would like to hear what's happening with the other three or four.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: My response to that, if you and I were having this discussion anywhere, would be at least we've got the opportunity here to see what we get and how we're going to deal with it, because there are going to be, hopefully, different ways people can respond. On the other hand, you've made a very important point.
Saskatchewan: It has set up an MLA-driven process with each member paired with a citizen co-chair from the riding. Premier Romanow announced these details on October 1. The local consultations will culminate in a televised conference of the politicians and the citizen co-chairs beginning November 28, to hear the reports from the consultations in each of the ridings and to attempt to achieve a consensus position as part of the conference process.
Mr Wildman: Somehow I don't think Glen Clark is doing this. It's an observation. In British Columbia they might not be doing the same thing.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: In BC? Well, I can understand. Wait until I read it to you, though; you might be surprised.
In addition, they are going to use the Internet site, as we've talked about, and that's going up on October 15. They'll have a wide household mailing and the MLAs will hold their consultations. Premier Romanow said he hoped to have a report and a draft resolution ready for the spring session of the Legislature, but no date has been set for the opening of the session.
It will take me a while, but I will certainly share all this with you.
Manitoba has appointed a legislative task force chaired by a prominent Manitoban, Professor Wally Fox-Decent, who also chaired similar --
Mr Wildman: Many discussions on this issue.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. He chaired committees during Meech and Charlottetown and he was fairly successful.
In the previous two consultation exercises the emphasis was on legislative hearings. It's expected that this time the focus will be more on town hall discussions, use of an Internet site, questionnaires and a 1-800 number. The committee will be staffed, as in the past, by a small externally recruited secretariat. The committee will have three government members, two from the NDP and one from the Liberals. The NDP has appointed two aboriginal persons to the committee and it is understood their goal is to raise the profile of aboriginal issues. The government has requested an interim report by the end of December, in time for the Team Canada trip.
New Brunswick: They've got a special all-party legislative committee, co-chaired by the Minister of the Environment, Joan Kingston, and opposition leader Bernard Valcourt. Committee members include the current and former ministers of intergovernmental affairs and the leader of the NDP. The special committee will hold its hearings at the Legislature in October. They've got support staff from the Legislative Assembly in that case. Procedures for the hearings have not yet been announced. They want to finish by Christmas. They've got a 1-800 number and the Internet that will also be used to obtain input from the public.
Newfoundland: Premier Tobin and the opposition leader Loyola Sullivan jointly announced the plan for consultations which began running on October 1. NDP leader Jack Harris was running for mayor of St John's at the time --
Interjection.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: So there we go. Citizens are going to be directly consulted. They're using electronic means: Internet, dedicated fax.
1640
Mr Wildman: In Newfoundland, you're allowed to hold two different offices at once.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I know.
Mr Wildman: You used to be able to in Ontario.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: They did, didn't they, a long time ago? It wasn't that long. It must have been --
Mr Wildman: Sir John A. Macdonald was a member of this Legislature at the same time as he was the Prime Minister of Canada.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's right.
So they're going to have the 1-800 phone line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The members of the House of Assembly will organize meetings in their ridings, and the process is being coordinated by the government and opposition House leaders, with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs providing background materials and advice as requested. They're expecting the process will run for the next six weeks, and then they expect to develop a resolution to put before the House of Assembly based on the Calgary framework.
There are a few others here. Just to go back to your initial comment, and you may want to respond further on what I just wanted to pass on to the committee members, this whole process in my view is in the hands of the premiers. They've thought about what they're going to do, at least given us a lot of freedom across the country to do something about getting input from the public. Their framework for the discussions or the five points gave us some direction.
I think the reason for looking at all of this in January is to see what they have. Maybe they'll have a better idea then about the timing with regard to Quebec. We don't know that. But we in Ontario have left the doors open for what our committee would like to do both up to December and after. We haven't said that's the end of the process.
Some of the criticism by the media where provinces did appear to -- and I don't think they have; I think they simply said, "This is what we're going to get done until December, and then the premiers will talk about it." It was critical in that there would be a huge void from January to May. I think it's so difficult for most of us, even as we look at that kind of criticism aimed at other provinces, to really believe that would be so, that people would just sit back in some province and do nothing. I don't think so. But the point is, we ourselves have left the doors open so that we can decide what's appropriate for Ontario.
Mr Wildman: Well, I thank you. I'm concerned, and maybe it's not the right word to use -- I was going to say I was concerned about the lack of exactitude.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: What was that word?
Mr Wildman: I don't know whether it's a word. I think it's a word.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Can you spell it?
Mr Wildman: Exactitude. Clarity.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think you got it wrong.
Mr Wildman: Or exactness, I guess.
Ms Castrilli: I think you were right the first time.
The Vice-Chair: You were right the first time. That is a word.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Mr Forward, the assistant deputy minister, said that, not me.
Mr Wildman: I know that may be due to the fact that the government and the Premier are searching for a way to try and have a consultation that is appropriate and to involve all players who are interested. I also recognize what the Minister has said previously in these discussions in that it probably doesn't make sense to get actually into questions of principle until we know what the political landscape is of Quebec in the future, whether there's a federalist government or a continuation of the sovereignists holding sway in that province. But our caucus has yet to discuss in detail what our response might be to the suggestions made by the Premier at the meeting yesterday, so I can't be any more clear. I'm not being critical necessarily in a partisan way. I just don't think any of us at this point are really at a point where we know exactly how to proceed and what's the best approach in terms of recognizing the concerns of Ontarians and the concerns of Canadians and at the same time being open to Quebec and to change that would benefit all of the provinces and the federal government.
Can I ask what the deadlines are? As I said, the premiers are having another meeting in January. If you can't give me a definitive response, that's fine. I'm certainly not trying to be unhelpful here, but I would like to know what kinds of deadlines there may be, or may not be, for that matter, in this process. What if other provinces that you haven't mentioned -- I won't mention any, but what if other provinces haven't proceeded, coming out of Calgary, by the time of the premiers' meeting in January? Where are we? If you think that's hypothetical and you don't want to respond to a hypothetical question, fine, but I'm just trying to get some idea here of what the thinking is of the government with regard to these matters.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We actually haven't done a lot of consulting with our own caucus members either, Bud, and they did ask for that today. They said, you know, when are we going to have an opportunity to discuss some of the --
Mr Wildman: We had exactly the same discussion in our caucus.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think this is something the committee has to talk about. Quite frankly, I didn't want to get into any discussion with my caucus colleagues without having this committee formed because I don't want to preclude any decisions that we might make. The only deadlines that we've got, I think, are ones that the Premier has made a decision on that he discussed with the leaders, and that is that we should get out just after the 11th, and that he needs something to take to those meetings, because all the premiers did agree. I can't imagine some province not getting something done when their premiers and territorial leaders have agreed to have some kind of an interim report in time for Team Canada, which I think he said was January 10 or something.
So for us personally, I think all of us want to get something done by the middle of December, because we don't want to be doing this over the holidays and compiling things and what not. But I thought after, the sooner we can get a little committee together, the better we can decide on even what kind of information we disseminate with our colleagues. I mean, I could give them all the information I've got, but that's not going to help them. I think I have to tell them what the other provinces are doing, give them some good data around whatever we decide would be important for them to make a decision, maybe ask them questions about what they'd like to be of assistance to them, give them some ideas on what kind of things they could be doing in the riding with a committee. There are going to be a lot of people with some good ideas.
We haven't been told at least that we can't have any money to help us. We've also been strongly advised as a government from people who have been involved in these kinds of consultations that we need to give some very good assistance to any member of the Legislative Assembly who may require or request a trained person to help them with some kind of consultation that they themselves may want to put on. That's not what we're all trained to do. Most of us don't want to -- I take a look at my friend and colleague. Welcome.
Mr Wildman: Well, could I return to one other thing, Chair, before I give up the floor, as opposed to the ghost? I raised a question earlier on in this debate about the coming referral to the Supreme Court by the federal government. I expressed at that time some surprise and concern over the fact that the province of Ontario apparently has decided not to intervene in that case. It seems to me that the largest province in the country, with a third of the population and with perhaps the closest ties to Quebec, a province that has long been strongly supportive of the federalist system, would have something useful to say to the justices in this kind of case. It seems to me that in just about every other case that I know of of this type, Ontario has intervened, as have other provinces, to express an opinion about the referral, to try to be a friend of the court. I find it somewhat passing strange, to say the least, that we would intervene in a case related to gun control, which is very important and very topical, but not in a case with relation to the future of the country.
I'm just wondering if you can explain -- perhaps you did before -- what the thinking is of the government. Is it simply that you don't want to get involved in what the federal government has referred to as plan B because you're concerned that this may harm the usefulness of Ontario's intervention or leverage with Quebec? Is that the view? In other words, is the decision not to get involved in the legal discussion because of the effects it may have on your political leverage with Quebec?
1650
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Actually, those are very good ideas. They are. Your observations are extremely useful. I'm sure a lot of thought did go into it, but we decided, because there was so much negative when we were first elected, at least from my point of view, that we wanted to put our energy into changing the federation so that it would work better.
We also certainly during the election campaign said that we were not going to get involved in constitutional change, or if we did, we would ask the public; we would have a huge discussion with the public about that. As you know, whether we like it or not, we were in this Legislative Assembly together, you and I, and the public, in spite of all of our efforts, didn't feel they were appropriately consulted.
There was never a better consultation, I can't imagine, than what went on through Charlottetown, and yet they actually truly in the polling afterwards just said: "You never asked us. Those big, bad guys in those suits" -- I love saying this whenever I get a chance, of course -- "didn't ask us." For those of us who were involved even in Meech, it was really hard to take at that time, to think that they had been left out.
We know that part of what we learned from those processes was that people did want change, but that a lot of the change could be effected through non-constitutional change, so we made a very focused effort to do just that. We wanted the practical changes that would clarify, first of all, the federal and provincial roles. There was a lot of discussion around those roles during both Meech and Charlottetown, and certainly by the former government here. They were getting extremely good advice, we felt, from within the ministry at the time, which works, I might add, in an extremely non-partisan way, because we're talking about the unity of the country. If we want to strengthen the federation, that was a very good first step. The premiers, subsequent to that, in the last two years, have decided themselves, and certainly with the leadership of Mr Romanow, that this actually would be 80% of the solution to solving the unity challenges in this country, the other 20% being Quebec.
So I think your observations at the beginning, Bud, were good ones and were considered. On the other hand, I have to be honest and say we wanted to focus on practical changes to the federation.
I want to say hello to Mr Charlton. I haven't seen him for a while.
Also, could I say that Mr McKenna did resign today, just a few hours or minutes ago or whatever. He resigned as Premier of the province of New Brunswick effective October 13. Many in this room have had the opportunity of meeting him. If you haven't met him personally, you've certainly seen his ads in newspapers, as he has been extremely aggressive and a very effective leader in New Brunswick for a number of years. Is it 10 or 12 years?
Interjection: Twelve years.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: He just finished as chair of the Premiers' conference this year and he did an amazing job of making people feel welcome in New Brunswick. I'm sure he'll go down as one of our more successful leaders and I'm totally convinced, given his passion for the country, that somehow he's going to remain involved. I just wanted to share that with you, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. It has come time to vote.
Shall votes 1501 and 1502 carry? All in favour? All right.
Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs carry and be reported to the House? Carried.
Just a few housekeeping matters. There will be a subcommittee meeting tomorrow. There will be no committee meeting tomorrow, though.
Again, I would like to always thank the legislative staff -- Rosemarie Singh, the committee clerk; Alison Drummond, the research officer; and of course Karen and Mike from Hansard -- as well as thank the minister and her staff for a very lengthy but meaningful debate.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, I'd like to also add my thanks to the staff, who I miss. I used to sit on committees a lot for eight years, and they were probably, believe it or not, one of the highlights of the work I did. I learned lots. And I'd like to especially thank my colleagues of all parties in this House and especially you, Mr Chair, who I thought did a very fair job and used a little bit of humour in this whole process, so thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much.
The committee adjourned at 1656.