Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CONTENTS

Wednesday 10 September 1997

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Hon Dianne Cunningham, minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

CHAIR / PRÉSIDENT

MR GERARD KENNEDY (YORK SOUTH / -SUD L)

VICE-CHAIR / VICE-PRÉSIDENT

MR RICK BARTOLUCCI (SUDBURY L)

MR RICK BARTOLUCCI (SUDBURY L)

MR MARCEL BEAUBIEN (LAMBTON PC)

MR GILLES BISSON (COCHRANE SOUTH / -SUD ND)

MR MICHAEL A. BROWN (ALGOMA-MANITOULIN L)

MR JOHN C. CLEARY (CORNWALL L)

MR ED DOYLE (WENTWORTH EAST / -EST PC)

MR BILL GRIMMETT (MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY / MUSKOKA-BAIE-GEORGIENNE PC)

MR MORLEY KELLS (ETOBICOKE-LAKESHORE PC)

MR GERARD KENNEDY (YORK SOUTH / -SUD L)

MS FRANCES LANKIN (BEACHES-WOODBINE ND)

MR TREVOR PETTIT (HAMILTON MOUNTAIN PC)

MR FRANK SHEEHAN (LINCOLN PC)

MR BILL VANKOUGHNET (FRONTENAC-ADDINGTON PC)

MR WAYNE WETTLAUFER (KITCHENER PC)

SUBSTITUTIONS / MEMBRES REMPLAÇANTS

MR BUD WILDMAN (ALGOMA ND)

MR PETER L. PRESTON (BRANT-HALDIMAND PC)

ALSO TAKING PART / AUTRES PARTICIPANTS ET PARTICIPANTES

MR JEAN-MARC LALONDE (PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL / PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL L)

CLERK / GREFFIÈRE

MS ROSEMARIE SINGH

STAFF / PERSONNEL

MS ANNE MARZALIK, RESEARCH OFFICER, LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE

The committee met at 1541 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): We will commence. I ask the members to allow the meeting to come to order. I'd like to welcome the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to the estimates committee. It's good to see you. We will commence with a 30-minute period for the minister to make her statement, followed by statements from each of the opposition parties, first from the Liberal party, followed by the New Democratic Party, and then 30 minutes for the minister to respond to the wisdom she has heard or otherwise. I would ask the minister to commence.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Isn't there somewhere you'd rather be?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think you and I would both rather be here today than where maybe you ought to have been, or whatever. It's good to see some of my colleagues here.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Excuse me. Do we have copies of what you are going to present?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Would it be appropriate if we hand them out after I make the address? What is the usual approach?

The Chair: I think that's at your discretion, Minister. We'll leave that up to you.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's fine. Would you like one now?

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Normally they're handed out before.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I was just trying to capture everyone's attention.

We've handed out the remarks, so that might make it more efficient. It's a pleasure to be here before the standing committee to present the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. I've held this portfolio since June 1995, and prior to my appointment it would have been the last two premiers who held this portfolio. But because of the importance our government places on intergovernmental issues, the Premier chose to appoint a minister to the position. It has allowed both the Premier and myself to devote considerable effort to the extensive files throughout our government.

I intend to use this opportunity to provide an overview of the ministry's vision, key strategies and core businesses. I also want to discuss Ontario's objectives and goals in the conduct of its relations with the federal government and other provinces and territories. I want to explain how Ontario has gone about achieving those objectives as well.

The vision of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is that Ontario will continue to play a leading role in preserving national unity and advancing the federation within the context of promoting a strong and prosperous Ontario. This has been the objective of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs throughout this province for a very long period of time.

Our mission is to ensure that the government of Ontario is equipped to contribute constructively and effectively to strengthening the Canadian federation. We assist the government in the conduct of its intergovernmental and federal-provincial relations to advance the government's priorities and protect the interests of Ontarians. Moreover, strategic advice from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs supports and advances the government's priorities of encouraging economic growth and improving the efficiency and accountability of government. This includes ensuring that the federal government, in its dealings with Ontario, provides the same equitable treatment to Ontarians as to other Canadians.

The ministry is collaborating with federal and other provincial and territorial governments to rebalance and renew the federation by clarifying which order of government is best suited to deliver programs. We are identifying ways to create a more efficient and effective federation. Our goal is to identify and develop new ways to strengthen the Canadian federation through practical, commonsense changes that benefit Ontarians in their everyday lives.

The ministry's core business is to provide strategic policy advice to the Premier, the minister, the cabinet and our caucus colleagues on national unity, on other major intergovernmental issues and federal-provincial relations.

Our principal functions are as follows: developing corporate strategies, providing advice and gathering information to help the government effectively conduct Ontario's relations with the federal government and improve partnerships among provinces and territories; working with other governments to create a more efficient and effective federation while maintaining high-quality service to Ontarians; providing strategic policy advice to the Premier, the minister and the cabinet on maintaining a strong, united Canada; and organizing and coordinating Ontario's participation in first ministers' meetings, annual premiers' conferences and other major intergovernmental meetings.

The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs' role and its budget: Before I go on to discuss how the ministry uses its resources to further the government of Ontario's intergovernmental objectives, I would like to talk briefly about the organization and budget of the ministry. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is a small ministry in terms of staffing. The entire complement is 40 people.

Like other ministries in government, MIA has experienced reductions in its allocations over the last two years. Staffing is down 39% from 1995-96. In 1996-97, savings were found by cutting administrative costs and transfer payments and by closing our Ottawa office. We still maintain a small operation and office in Quebec City.

As I stated earlier, we are concentrating on our core business of providing strategic advice to the Premier and cabinet on national unity and other intergovernmental issues. We are accomplishing that role by concentrating our resources in the Office of Constitutional Affairs and Federal-Provincial Relations.

The 1997-98 total budget is $4.6 million, and this represents a 3%, or $134,797, increase over the 1996-97 budget. There have been both cuts and additions to the ministry budget which combine to result in this increase. First, on the reduction side, there has been an operating reduction of $851,000. The ministry has eliminated its internal administration functions and transferred these responsibilities to MEDTT. This reduced staffing by five.

We've also reduced our transfer payments by 75%, eliminating our annual payment to the Fathers of Confederation Building Trust in Prince Edward Island and placing the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat on a user-pay basis across the Ontario government.

Meanwhile, on the additions side, there is a new allocation of $436,000 to the ministry to cover payments for the government-owned space it is occupying effective April 1, 1997. Previously the ministry was not asked to pay for space or provided with funds to do so.

There has also been a small reinvestment of $265,000 for needed policy research, consulting and communications, and a pension adjustment of $281,800 in funding previously withheld during the three-year pension holiday which ended on March 31, 1997.

The cumulative increase in the ministry budget is largely due to the one-time allocation of rental funds. Without such an allocation, the budget would have further decreased by a total of $301,203, or about 7% -- a small budget.

The ministry does not have programs that serve the public directly. Instead, our clients are really other ministries. It is our job to provide information and strategic advice to the Premier and cabinet on what Ontario's intergovernmental priorities should be and how we should go about achieving them. In addition, we work with opposition leaders when appropriate and keep caucus informed of intergovernmental developments.

1550

The ministry also provides support to me and to the Premier when we attend intergovernmental meetings, such as working sessions of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal, sessions on non-social policy issues, annual premiers' conferences and first ministers' conferences.

We also provide advice and support to all ministers when they attend interprovincial or federal-provincial meetings. Through strong analysis and coordination of government-wide activities, we ensure that Ontario speaks with a strong and consistent voice in all intergovernmental forums.

With regard to Ontario's objectives, I think I can say without oversimplifying that Ontario has had three overriding objectives in the conduct of its federal-provincial relations over the last two years: They are to ensure that Canadian federalism is efficient and effective; to see that Ontario residents are treated equitably by the federal government; and to strengthen national unity. These three objectives have inspired much of what we have worked for, and accomplished, I might add, since 1995.

These objectives are not unique to this government. To a large extent they are the natural objectives that Ontario would pursue at any time in the context of Canada and its federal system of government. These same objectives have inspired governments in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But by clearly defining these objectives and focusing our efforts on achieving them, I think we have enabled Ontario to have a greater impact on policies and events in Canada.

Ontario has been active on the intergovernmental file. We've provided the leadership expected. We've looked closely at the need for change in our federation and we have acted, in partnership with other governments, to prepare a roadmap and fix the destinations of a better Canada.

I would like to examine Ontario's intergovernmental objectives in turn and outline for you the actions we have taken to achieve these objectives.

First of all, strengthening the federation: The first intergovernmental objective I'd like to examine is the effort to shape a more efficient and effective Canadian federation. Our work on this question is the key to Ontario's actions in the intergovernmental field over the last two years.

We have worked closely with our colleagues in other provinces and territories to outline how Canada can be changed for the better. We believe that by making practical, step-by-step changes to current arrangements, we can build a stronger and more united country for the future.

One of the main differences between our approach and approaches of the past is that the emphasis has been on non-constitutional rather than constitutional efforts. This has allowed us to tackle issues one at a time, as opposed to getting bogged down in overarching unanimous efforts.

In taking on these non-constitutional efforts, the need to rethink the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial orders of government has been critical. It has been one of the centrepieces of the Ontario government's intergovernmental priorities over the past two years.

Rethinking federalism flows out of Ontario's central concern with increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of government. Government needs to work smarter and better. We can reduce costly overlap and duplication and restore accountability so that it is clear what each order of government is responsible for. This can be done in areas such as training, children's benefits, developing a health vision and providing services for persons with disabilities.

Provinces should be able to manage programs in their areas of jurisdiction without unwanted and inefficient intervention by the federal government. Responsibility for a particular service should be assigned to the order of government that is best able to deliver it efficiently and effectively.

The national child benefit is a very good example. It could be a model for how governments can do a better job of working together in partnership. Provinces saw a need in an area they were responsible for and promoted the idea with the Prime Minister. At the provinces' insistence, a national child benefit was taken up by the federal government as a priority for the 1996 first ministers' conference. This is how the federation should work in areas of provincial responsibility.

This issue of reshaping which order of government should have responsibility for providing services has a national unity dimension. Many federalists in Quebec see it as part of the solution to the unity problem. Changes to current arrangements would give the Quebec government greater autonomy in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Full responsibility for social policy has been a key demand of Quebec federalists for many years.

The next issue is equitable treatment. Respect for the fundamental values underlying Canada prompts me to take note of unwelcome developments in our federal system. These recent practices appear to diverge from fundamental principles of fairness. These are new problems that can and should be corrected.

The problem is that the federal government does not treat all provinces equitably when it spends on some key federal programs, and despite the presence of a large Ontario caucus in the federal government, Ontarians too often get shortchanged. This is not new. This was new when I was down here when Mr Peterson was Premier and then Mr Rae, both of whom worked very hard in this regard. Mr Wildman is here today and I'm sure he'll be able to give us some insight into his own priorities in that regard.

We'll look at two examples. The first one is the federal funds for job training in the provinces. The second is federal moneys flowed to provinces under the Canada health and social transfer to help pay for social programs such as health care, social assistance and post-secondary education.

Job training: The federal government has offered to transfer the responsibility and money for training workers to the provinces. They did that in their last budget. This is a logical development that will help individuals get better access to training and jobs. We want to strengthen the training system and make it more responsive to the needs of individuals and specific communities. These changes will also reduce wasteful overlap and duplication between provincial and federal training programs.

Ottawa has negotiated training agreements with all provinces except Saskatchewan and Ontario. While Saskatchewan is currently negotiating with the federal government, this province is not engaged in such negotiations. The obstacle for Ontario is the federal government's decision to allocate only 27% of total funding for job training to Ontario in 1997-98. Ontario accounts for 39% of the national labour force and for 36% of the unemployed in Canada. At 27%, the federal government is not offering nearly enough funding to meet training needs in Ontario.

Federal spending on training now comes mostly out of the federal government's employment insurance fund. Since 1995, Ontario's premium contributions have exceeded the benefits paid to Ontarians by about $4 billion annually. These are employer and employee contributions.

The federal government is deliberately building up a huge surplus in the fund by maintaining high premium rates for both employers and workers, and each year about 80% of this annual surplus is contributed by workers and employers in Ontario.

According to a federal study cited in the Financial Post earlier this month, the cumulative surplus in the fund will soon amount to nearly $13 billion. That's a lot of money. Ottawa is using these surplus funds to help balance its books. We think this is wrong. An equitable share of this money should be used to provide job training for Ontarians who need it.

People in Ontario should have the same opportunity to train for jobs that people in other provinces and territories have. After all, an unemployed person in Thunder Bay, Ontario, is just as unemployed as someone in another province. We ask ourselves, why should a resident of New Brunswick in exactly the same situation receive up to four times more training funds and therefore more opportunities for being trained?

The second example of inequitable treatment is federal funding to the provinces for health, social services and post-secondary education. Ontario does not receive a fair allocation of federal funds under the Canada health and social transfer. This transfer helps to pay for health and post-secondary education programs delivered by provinces. In the current fiscal year, Ontario will receive $365 million less than it would have if CHST funding was distributed on an equal per capita basis. That's $1 million a day. We need it for health care. Last fiscal year our CHST transfers were $420 million less. That's a big loss to us. Residents of Ontario are simply out of pocket for this amount and the Ontario government is hard-pressed to make up the shortfall.

The amounts of federal money denied to Ontarians in funding for the CHST and job training are considerable. But just as important as the money is the principle of fairness in this country. If the principles underlying our sharing arrangements are undermined, we ask ourselves: Don't we risk undermining public support for the system itself and for the country?

We support the principle of equalization -- the traditional means for helping the poorer provinces. The federal government's equalization program provides funds to seven of the provinces to allow them to offer services "reasonably comparable" -- those are words from the Constitution -- to those enjoyed by people in a wealthier province like Ontario. Our point is that federal programs outside of the equalization program should treat all provinces equitably. Let me be very clear on this point: Ontario's support for the principle of equalization is not in question. But let's also preserve the principle of equity in other federal programs.

1600

By being scrupulously open about our financial arrangements, fair in our dealings with all Canadians and generous in our willingness to help each other we can strengthen our country and ensure our future together.

Rebalancing the social union: Efforts over the past two years to rethink federal and provincial roles and responsibilities in the area of social policy have been led by premiers. I'll give you a little history here.

At the 1995 annual premiers' conference, premiers agreed on the need to improve federal-provincial cooperation in managing social policy programs, and also agreed on the need for provinces to take a leadership role with respect to national matters within areas of provincial jurisdiction. To this end, they established the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal and directed it to explore ways to reform social policy. In December 1995, this ministerial council issued a consensus report representing nine provincial governments. Quebec did not participate on the council.

Premiers discussed the report at the first ministers' conference in June 1996. Progress was made on one proposal in the report: the establishment of a national child benefit, an idea which originated at the provincial level. Aside from this, however, the federal government did not actively engage the proposals made in the report.

At the 1996 annual premiers' conference, premiers continued their discussion of these issues and released an issues paper entitled Social Policy Reform and Renewal: Next Steps. From Ontario's perspective, the most important recommendations were as follows:

The need to develop mechanisms to reform the management of the social union in Canada, including a federal-provincial review of new approaches to the use of the federal spending power; the need to develop a joint federal-provincial administrative mechanism for interpreting the Canada Health Act; and a reform of fiscal federalism.

Ontario's focus, coming out of the 1996 APC, was to lead the development of a joint provincial paper on options for reforming and strengthening the social union. In a moment I will come back to look more closely at this paper, which was endorsed and released by premiers at their meeting last month in St Andrews, New Brunswick.

Outcomes of the 1997 APC: Ontario's commitment to engaging in a process of discussion and negotiation with the federal government is absolutely solid. Over the past two years, Premier Harris has played a leadership role in the area of rethinking how the federation operates, with a special emphasis on social policy.

At the 1997 annual premiers' conference in St Andrews, New Brunswick, all premiers agreed that we need to negotiate a framework agreement with the federal government on how social policy responsibilities could be clarified. The objective is to get the federal government and the provinces working together cooperatively on these important questions.

As a result of our leadership in the development of the options paper on the new social union:

(1) Premiers agreed that the Council on Social Policy Renewal and Reform should negotiate with the federal government a broad framework agreement on the social union to address issues such as common principles, the use of federal spending power and new ways to manage and resolve disagreements.

(2) Premiers agreed that interprovincial/-territorial cooperation and leadership in social policy renewal should be continued by developing a broad provincial/territorial framework agreement to guide national social policy renewal. Areas to be examined are mobility, portability, comparability, common principles, outcome goals and processes for resolving disagreements, with specific agreements in priority areas within sectors such as education or health.

(3) Premiers also agreed that finance ministers should negotiate ways in which provinces and the federal government can work more cooperatively on how Ottawa spends on social policy. Finance ministers have been directed to begin early negotiations with the federal government on renewing Canada's existing financial arrangements in parallel with federal-provincial discussions on the social union.

(4) Premiers recognized that coordinating the redesign of financial arrangements with social policy renewal will require addressing provincial differences in the ability to raise revenues and ensure that individuals are treated as fairly as possible no matter where they reside in Canada.

(5) Finally, premiers decided that the interprovincial Council on Social Policy Renewal and Reform should provide a status report on progress in this work by January 1998, and that negotiations with the federal government should be completed by August 1998.

Another major outcome of the APC was progress on internal trade issues. Breaking down internal trade barriers is another priority of this government.

Premiers agreed to work on expanding the existing agreement on internal trade. Ministers are to finish the chapter on energy and bring the non-provincial public sector, known as MASH, into the provisions governing open tendering on procurement. They also directed ministers to clarify and improve the agreement's code of conduct on incentives. We hope this will lead to the end of location incentives and "job poaching." I see Mr Wildman smiling and saying, "Good luck." We can talk about this as well.

Overall, the 1997 premiers' conference was a major success for Ontario because we achieved a solid provincial consensus on practical steps to create a more efficient and effective federation. The work first undertaken in 1995 has been successfully advanced.

Of course, further progress now depends on the federal government's willingness to engage in meaningful discussions and negotiations with provinces on social policy renewal and the financial arrangements that underpin social programs.

These initiatives and negotiations are vitally important, in Ontario's view, because their successful outcome could have lasting effects on national unity. At the premiers' conference, Premier Harris said that 80% of the solution to national unity is in this work to renew the federation. This government has always believed that the best way to solve the unity problem is to make practical, step-by-step changes to improve the way the federation works.

The national unity meeting, which we're all reading so much about in the media: The other 20% of the solution is also being tackled by premiers. I'd like to talk a little bit about national unity and the meeting that premiers and territorial leaders will hold in Calgary on September 14 and 15. At the annual premiers' conference in August it was agreed that premiers would meet again at some time in the fall to take stock of the national unity issue and explore how we might move forward from here.

As Premier McKenna noted at that time, the purpose of the meeting was not to talk about substantive initiatives and proposals for change. Rather, the meeting is intended as an opportunity to exchange information and look at ways that Canadians might be engaged in a discussion of Canada's future.

Ontario's ultimate goal is for Canada to remain united. The government is pursuing some constructive ways to work with Ontarians and other governments in achieving this goal. We are open to hearing the views of others about how best to consult with Ontarians. Indeed, we have been consulting with the offices of the leaders of the opposition parties about how best to proceed in this matter. I believe the Premier is meeting with his colleagues at this very moment.

The Ontario government is committed to ensuring that discussion on these issues is open and inclusive. We will continue to invite input from Ontarians on this and other important issues.

Our priority at this time is to find ways to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments. We believe that achieving some successes in this area is an important first step in strengthening the federation.

In conclusion, I am personally optimistic about Canada's future. My experience with colleagues from across the country in the past, over the last two years and at the present time has bolstered my optimism. I think Ontario is fulfilling its role in Canada in providing leadership by working with other governments to make practical improvements to our federation and to ensure that all Canadians are treated equitably. If we tackle these challenges together, I am convinced that Canada will be in the forefront of successful nations in the 21st century. Thank you.

Mr Chairman, I neglected to introduce our deputy minister, Judith Wolfson, and my EA, Paul-Emile Cloutier, who is dropping cups and serving coffee.

Mr Wildman: He's in his cups.

1610

The Chair: I think we'll take this opportunity in the next segment to introduce the members of the committee. We have with us today some substitutions but we'll go around the table: Mr John Cleary from Cornwall; Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde from Prescott and Russell; Mr Bud Wildman from Algoma substituting; Mr Wayne Wettlaufer from Kitchener; Mr Bill Vankoughnet from Frontenac-Addington; I believe we have Mr Peter Preston from Brant-Haldimand; we have Mr Ed Doyle from Wentworth East; Mr Trevor Pettit from Hamilton Mountain; and Mr Frank Sheehan from Lincoln.

We have supporting the committees activity today Rosemarie Singh as the clerk; Maureen Murphy from Hansard; and Anne Marzalik as researcher to the committee. Ministers, you're aware that this is an opportunity to hear from the other parties in response to your views. First Mr Lalonde for the Liberal Party.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am delighted to be here this afternoon to come up with some questions to the minister, because part of her mandate or responsibility falls right in my sector, which I have worked so hard on: the mobility of construction workers. Most of the period of the time I have worked with Minister Witmer, who has done a super job on this project. But ever since the agreement was signed, I believe it was December 5 or 6 -- just prior to my going to some of the questions, you mentioned in your statement that you have an office in Quebec. Whereabouts in Quebec is it?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's in Quebec City, downtown, a very small office.

Mr Lalonde: How many people do you have?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: One person or two. One and a half or two.

Interjection.

Mr Lalonde: Two. They must have been very busy for a while. I know we have been dealing with Quebec for over 25 years on some issues, especially the construction issue, which has been a problem for probably the last 25 to 30 years. I don't think it has been resolved as yet, even though on page 14 of your statement you mention, "Premiers agreed to work on expanding the existing agreement on internal trade," and then on the fourth line you say, "...open tendering on procurement."

Just before I go to all my other questions, I wonder if the Quebec government has amended the standard procedure that an architect has to use whenever they design or prepare the plans and specs, if they are still using the same document. In this document it's spelled out very clearly that you have to have an office in Quebec. This was given to me just last week. Is it there or has it been amended to open up the tendering to Ontario contractors?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: As you mentioned in your opening remarks, this is the Minister of Labour's responsibility, but I can certainly get the answer to that question. I simply don't have it at this time, but I would be happy to talk to Minister Witmer. I thank you for your compliments. I'll extend those to her as well.

Mr Lalonde: I always feel that compliments should be given to wherever it is needed.

If this document is not amended we will not go anywhere, because at the present time we face an awful lot of problems. Contractors have decided not even to apply for work in Quebec ever since the last signing of the agreement. On February 14, 1997, we had a meeting in Quebec City. The Speaker of the House was there and also two other members from the PCs, two Liberals and one from the NDP, Floyd Laughren. Because the discussion had gone on on February 12, to which I was not invited, and I really have this dossier at heart, I asked that the ADM come back on Friday 14. I asked the ADM, Mr Jacques Henrie, if construction workers from Ontario will be allowed to go and work in Quebec. He was clear -- there were probably 20 of us in there with six Parti québécois members and four Liberal members of the Quebec government -- and he said, "Yes, without any problem, as long as they don't work on a site that is unionized."

To our surprise, in June they came back to the Hull area and the statement was completely the reverse: "We are not allowed to go into Quebec unless we join a union." It is clear. We are not allowed to go and work in Quebec if we don't join a union. Second, we are not allowed to work in Quebec if we don't have a competency card. In Ontario, only 10% of construction workers hold a competency card. So at that time, on February 14, the ADM Jacques Henrie said, "With a letter from the employer, that will be sufficient to be recognized to work in Quebec." It is not any more.

It's true the agreement states that an Ontario construction worker could work anywhere in Quebec. Resident Quebec construction workers are not allowed to work anywhere in Quebec, because they have regions to work in. If they don't have any work there, they just can't go and work. This is why there are 13,000 construction workers from Quebec working in Ontario, vis-à-vis 700 Ontarians working in Quebec.

The minister always came back with figures of 4,000 construction workers. After a lot of research we found out why she has 4,000 and I had 13,000. The survey was completed by the NCC in Ottawa, which has all the figures. My figures were even low. It's because the answer the Ontario Ministry of Labour got only got the figures of unionized construction workers from Quebec working in Ontario. Those ununionized were not counted, and I want to tell you, of those 13,000 employees who work in Ontario, I would say probably 80% to 85% cannot even work in Quebec.

I have pity for them. As you remember, we did block the bridges in Ottawa and twice in the last month they tried to block the Perley Bridge in Hawkesbury and I've been asking them not to do it. But it is just on the verge of exploding.

At the present time it's quiet. Ever since we got the agreement, which I have to get printed myself -- we have only received four copies and I've got to distribute over 100 copies to different contractors in Ontario and in Quebec. Mind you, contractors in Quebec are not happy about the Quebec government and the restrictions they have because they see that the day we are going to prevent them from coming to Ontario, those people will be out of work. I keep telling them, "You will have 13,000 people only from the Outaouais area knocking on Premier Bouchard's door."

At this meeting we had in Hull in June there was a lawyer who owns a construction company -- they are carpet layers -- who states that there aren't any available in the Outaouais area on the Quebec side, so they were using the Ontario ones. They got caught immediately because our Ontario people were moving. To go a little further, now the truckers are getting stopped. They've been stopping them for years, but now they're really tough on Ontario truckers. First of all they're asking them where they bought their gas. They have to have a receipt that they bought the gas in Quebec and they have to fill out -- first of all they have to get a permit to go into Quebec -- a monthly report.

In Montreal in July there was a construction site of 50 workers. Four of them were from Ontario and had their competency cards to work there. They closed the site because we had four Ontario workers on that site. I don't think it is fair. I think the Ontario government has to deal with this matter and it is probably your ministry that would have to deal with this.

I dealt quite a few times with Mary Holdcroft in Ottawa. She's with the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Education. She wears two hats. We've asked them to have our construction workers recognized so they could work in Quebec. So three brothers, the Loiselle brothers from Hawkesbury, decided to take a course in Ontario as plasterers. The three of them, on November 8, passed the exam and received their Ontario cards. They go across on November 9. They apply. They deposit $100 each, because until the signing of the agreement, everybody had to pay $100 each to be able to get a card in Quebec. A couple of months after, they received a letter in the mail. Their money was returned because, they said, according to the new agreement they didn't have to pay that.

1620

They worked in Quebec. On April 14, they received a letter in the mail, a $250 fine each, the three of them, because they got caught working in Quebec on January 8, 1997, and didn't have their cards with them. They received their cards, which they applied for on November 9, on January 9, but they got caught working on the site on January 8 so they were fined $250 each. We are negotiating with Quebec at the present time to remove that fine, but it took quite a while, until April 14, to get this letter in the mail, and I don't know how far we are going to go.

We know that construction is controlled by the union in Quebec. I knew when I introduced my Bill 60 that all the unions were on my side because they could see at that time that I said any Quebec construction workers who want to work in Ontario have to meet the same criteria as Ontario workers have to meet when they go and work in Quebec. The reason they jumped on it immediately was they said in Quebec they have to join the union, so when they work in Ontario, they have to join the union. By doing this, they thought that all Ontario construction workers would have to join the union. Now, today we probably don't get the support from the union because the majority of Ontario construction contractors don't want the union, especially residential. Commercial construction is a little different. But it is just to tell you, Madam Minister, that at the present time it's far, far from clear.

We are facing problems. I have a backhoe operator who has a company in Ottawa, 25 years in business. He got a call to go and work in Hull for two weeks. He got over there; he had to apply for a card, a permit. They told him he had to pay. Also, the fact that he didn't have his card meant he could not operate the backhoe himself. He had to hire a Quebec employee and just sat next to the backhoe operator. As you know, the backhoe operator only has one spot on the backhoe. But he had to get a company because he did not have his card, and he's been in business for 25 years. This is the construction site.

We are facing a lot of problems. I know there's a meeting coming up. We are sending out at the present time -- we started last week -- around 400 and some letters of complaint that we received from contractors from Windsor, all over. As you know, Quebec construction people have moved into Windsor lately because there's a construction boom. I happened to find that out on television because they had a program on CBC interviewing the people in Windsor who came from Quebec. They'll go and work anywhere. I don't blame them, because they're not allowed to work in Quebec. They have to feed their children, they have to feed their families, so they come to Ontario. I wouldn't like to have the Ontario construction regulated like they have in Quebec.

Anyway, we are facing a lot of problems. I'll be sending this to the ministry and I think probably it should be sent both to your ministry and to the Minister of Labour.

We've asked that there could be probably three nights' training or exams given to our Ontario construction workers so they could become competency cardholders in Ontario, because there's no way the construction workers who have reached 50 or 60 years old are going to Quebec for a year or two to get their competency cards. They have been working at it for many years and I think the grandfather clause should be recognized in this case.

Now, my last point is the bus deregulation. I remember that I did oppose that. Again, this is an intergovernmental responsibility to a point. If you were to check here at Toronto, you would find out -- I believe at that time there were probably four Ontario companies with 40 Quebec companies picking up passengers at the Pearson airport. We cannot get that at Mirabel airport, but they are able to come over here and pick up anybody they want. We have a lot of small bus operating businesses in Cornwall, in Hawkesbury, in the area. The Quebec buses have started to move into Ontario ever since we passed the deregulation. The federal government is trying to pressure Quebec into accepting that Ontario buses be enabled to pick up passengers in Quebec, but we can't yet. We have the door wide open in Ontario for the Quebec people, but the door is closed for Ontario people going to Quebec.

That would be my last point.

Just coming back, I think it's very important that those standards and procedures have to be revised, because the architects, when they prepare plans to go for tenders, those laws are always in there. Just don't try to put a quote on any hospital in Quebec at the present time because you are eliminated immediately. They cannot accept any tenders from Ontario when it comes time to replace drapes, carpets or doing renovations in hospitals and schools.

I'd just like to point out that one of the fellows who worked in Quebec got 24 days in jail. I don't know if you heard about it; I should have brought it over. I'll just explain how this thing happened. The guy was working for a cabinetmaker. He went to deliver the cabinet to the school that was under construction in Gatineau, Quebec. When he got in there, it was full of insulation on the floor, dirt, so he took a broom and swept this off to drop the cabinet. The guy did not have a competency card to use a broom.

This was a full page in the Ottawa Citizen at one time, and we got the court case and everything. He want back home and after a while he decided to go and work in Vancouver. He was living at his aunt's place. His aunt received a summons delivered by hand. She signed for it. She didn't open it because it was addressed to him. So three months after, he comes back to Orléans, Ontario. The police were at his door one morning. They picked him up. He had to spend 24 days in jail because he used a broom on a construction site in Quebec without having a competency card. We have all the documentation on that.

So I think we, the Ontario government, would have to deal a little better with the Quebec government and tell them if they don't open the door to Ontario construction workers, we will one day -- the only way we could do it probably now is by coming down with a quota. We have 700 people working over there? We'll allow 700 to come and work in Ontario. It would be too bad for the family members who have to work to bring back the money to their families to make a living.

The Chair: Mr Cleary, do you have any additional comments to make?

Mr Cleary: Not at the moment.

The Chair: Okay, then we'll pass over to the New Democratic Party.

Mr Wildman: I understand the importance particularly to eastern Ontario, but also to the whole province, of the issues raised by my friend from Prescott and Russell. I won't be raising those issues, but I want to deal seriously with the presentation made by the minister and to raise a number of questions.

I want to preface this by saying that I appreciate the short discussions I've had with the minister and the offers of briefings. Unfortunately, when you have a small caucus, you wear a lot of hats, and we're rather busy. So I haven't been able to avail myself as yet of the detailed briefing, but I know that my leader was briefed and, as the minister indicated, along with the leader of the Liberal Party, he is meeting right now with the Premier. I appreciate that.

1630

I will make a couple of comments going through the minister's remarks and then I would like to deal specifically with the situation we face, as I see it, in this country. First, with all due respect to the minister, whom I've known for a long time, and we're good friends, you could look at the suggestions she makes in her second paragraph two ways. She suggests that prior to her appointment, premiers usually held this portfolio, and because of its importance, this government has chosen to appoint a separate minister. I understand the position Ms Cunningham is taking in that regard, but one could argue that perhaps if it were really as important as the Premier thinks, he might have retained the portfolio for himself and given Ms Cunningham one other senior portfolio in the cabinet.

I want to emphasize that we think this is a very important portfolio, and I know the minister believes that. It's a somewhat unique position in that around this place most of what we do is highly partisan. That's understandable and the way it should be. But in this particular portfolio we are dealing with not just the immediate political questions of the day in Ontario but indeed in some ways the very future of our country, which is not in a real sense a partisan issue but is something that we as Canadians are all concerned about. We may have differences among ourselves about how we should proceed to ensure the preservation of Confederation and the strengthening of the unity of the country, but we all agree that we must work together in a non-partisan way to present Ontario's position on the very important questions of the future of the country.

I note that on page 2 of the minister's remarks, one of the principle functions of the ministry is "providing strategic policy advice to the Premier, the minister and cabinet on maintaining a strong, united Canada," and the minister said in her remarks that she wanted to expand on how the ministry had been successful in doing that.

With respect, it's my view that we are at a very serious crossroads in the history of this country, that we are perhaps more disunited at this stage in this country than we have been for a long time. I sincerely regret that, and I'm certainly not blaming this minister or this government for that, but while it is true that the percentage who answer the pollsters in favour of sovereignty when questioned in Quebec has dropped in recent months, the fact is that we almost lost the referendum. The vote was won by the federalist side by about 50,000 votes in the whole province. We have a very committed government in Quebec that is determined to hold an election leading into another referendum, and they are determined to win the referendum.

So this is a very serious and important issue and situation that we face, and all of the issues that the minister has raised in her opening remarks, as she said, impinge on the overall question of Canadian unity. But I'm concerned that the approach taken, practical steps to improving the working of the country, while I agree it is a good approach, may not be enough, that we may find ourselves again -- frankly, I'm sure that we will find ourselves again in what some people regard as a constitutional quagmire. I don't see how we can avoid dealing with constitutional issues. I'm not suggesting the government is arguing that we should avoid it, but I'm not sure that it's only the 20% as opposed to the 80%, to use the minister's division.

I think that was borne out in the Premier's scrum today, because as far as I'm aware, in the scrum today the Premier indicated to members of the media and the press that there were going to be deadlines that the premiers, all of the provinces, and I guess the federal government -- I'm not certain he said that, but that the premiers would have to meet. He pointed to the coming provincial general election in Quebec, which is likely to be in the spring of 1998, as the deadline for a framework to be worked out and presented to the Canadian public generally and the people of Quebec. I don't think I'm misinterpreting what the Premier said in his scrum prior to his meeting with the two opposition leaders today. That raises all sorts of questions.

The Premier indicated that he was seeking advice, as I know the minister has done, from the opposition parties about how we might consult in Ontario about Ontario's position vis-à-vis Quebec and vis-à-vis the federal government and the rest of the provinces. I understand that will be the subject of discussion among the three leaders this afternoon, as well as discussion about what is going to happen at the meeting in Calgary this weekend. But if I understand the Premier correctly that there are some deadlines, then we are into a constitutional process over the next few months. That raises all sorts of questions. It raises questions about Ontario's position.

As the minister knows, historically this province, as the largest province, the province that has 40% of the economy of the country and about a third of the population, has taken a leading role in questions around unity. Unfortunately that effort, important and significant as it has been, has not led to closure on this thought. There are some historians who would argue that there will never be closure, that the very essence of the history of Canada is this issue: the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country, the relationship among the provinces vis-à-vis the federal system and their relationship with the federal government. I suppose it could indeed be argued that that is what political history in this province is about -- and not just in this province but in this country -- and that unless one accepts those few historians who in the last 20 years have said that history is finished, if this country is not finished, it will be the continuing history of Canada, I suppose.

I know that is very frustrating for many people. Many people would like to say: "Okay, what are we going to do? Once and for all, let's settle this matter." I'm not sure that's possible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive.

1640

This raises serious questions. What is Ontario's position? What is Ontario going to consult with the people of this province about? What is the Premier going to be saying to the other premiers in Calgary? I understand the question of a framework is being developed, but that framework is going to have to deal with particular matters. They're going to have to deal with questions around the distinctiveness or uniqueness of Quebec and its culture, its system of law and its language.

I understand the political minefield that can be in other parts of this country. Considering the position taken by many Canadians and many Canadian political leaders about the equality of provinces, ignoring questions about whether PEI should be equal to Ontario in our Confederation -- or Quebec or BC or Alberta -- it raises a question about the long-standing demand of Quebec, of governments in Quebec of all political stripes, about a Constitutional veto when it comes to questions around the preservation of their language, culture and unique system of law.

If we argue the equality of all provinces, are we then saying all provinces should have a Constitutional veto if we accept that Quebec might? If we do that, are we putting the Constitution in a straitjacket to make it impossible for us ever to amend our Constitution, the fundamental law of the country? These are fundamental questions.

I am concerned that it appears the minister of justice in Ontario, the Attorney General, does not appear to be prepared at this point to intervene in the impending court case, the referral to the Supreme Court that the federal government has made. M. Dion and his federal colleagues have put basic questions before the court which are very serious questions about what might happen if there were a majority vote in a referendum in Quebec. To my knowledge this is the first time the largest province in this country, the province with the closest ties to Quebec socially and economically, has not intervened in such case to express its views to the court, to be of assistance to the court, in making fundamental decisions.

Surely this province has something to say about the questions that have been put before the court by the federal government, because they do not just affect Quebec and Quebec's relationship with the federal government, they affect the very future of Canada.

Are we intervening? If so, can you give us some indication of what our position might be on these fundamental questions? What constitutes a majority vote, either way? What kinds of negotiation would accrue if there were a solid majority in favour of sovereignty in Quebec? What is Ontario's role in that? What is Ontario's view on the basic legal questions around the right to separate, the right to break up the country, not just in Canadian law, our Constitution, but in international law? That's a very serious question, and I put it forward seriously.

There's one other question I have. This weekend, going into Calgary, and frankly I say this with some considerable trepidation, it appears to me we're into a Meech process, or we perhaps run the risk of being into a Meech process again. Maybe that can't be avoided. But if it is, I hope we've learned something from the last one and from the Charlottetown process.

In that context I would like to know whether or not this is seen as a framework for dealing with these fundamental questions, whether this is seen as a Quebec round we are headed into, à la Meech, and then we are going to deal with other questions subsequently at some future point, because it is significant, I think, that aboriginal leaders have not been invited to participate in this discussion, if we're talking about a framework for constitutional renewal and something that might be presented to Quebec that frankly will give the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec and his party some response to the issues they've put before the country. Mr Johnson, I believe, thinks he must have something to say about what the rest of Canada is prepared to offer Quebec to have a chance of beating Mr Bouchard and the Parti québécois in the next provincial election campaign.

I know that sticks in the craw of some people: How on earth can one provincial general election have so much importance when the rest of us, as Canadians, don't have a vote? Well, that's the way it is. The question is, can we move beyond that so that we are having a true dialogue about the future of the country throughout Canada?

Having said that, I'd like to move to some of the other issues the minister has raised in her opening remarks. I would say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, or in more colourful terms perhaps I should refer to Yogi Berra and say, "Déjà vu all over again." This is very familiar stuff. As the minister knows, a lot of what she says in her remarks could have been said by a minister in our government or, for that matter, a minister in the Peterson government. The issues are there and have been there for some time.

Questions the minister raises about equalization and fair treatment, equitable treatment by the federal government are significant, and I agree with her position, as I know she would say she agrees with the position our government took in the same area. As she said, these are issues that have been long-standing and have plagued governments for some time in Ontario.

The significant problems began under the Mulroney regime in terms of the cuts in percentage, beyond equalization. I agree with the minister that we support equalization, true equalization, so that provinces that are not as well off as the three that are called the have provinces, Ontario, Alberta and BC, can provide services that are in some way comparable to the services provided in those more well-off provinces.

1650

The problem with the way the federal government is doing it, and it started particularly under Mulroney and has continued under the present government in Ottawa, is that they have decided to use other programs beyond equalization as a way of increasing support to have-not provinces, to the detriment of those have provinces. I again underline that I agree with the minister that we are in favour of equalization. That's one of the strengths of this country and has been. But as she says, by extending this to other programs such as UI and other social programs, the federal government runs the risk of undermining the support of those very programs here in Ontario and, I suppose, in Alberta and British Columbia.

I want to raise a particular problem I have with what I understand to be this government's approach with regard to developing a consensus among all the provinces around the future administration of social programs, health programs, transfer payments. I want to deal with it particularly as it relates to medicare. While we agree with the government's position that there must be a consensus reached among all of the provinces, and I think this will help with regard to Quebec, as the minister has said, if it is achievable, we must understand that we cannot be saying that provinces will deal with issues that are within their own jurisdiction without interference from the federal government if that means we are racing to the bottom in terms of those services.

If it's just going to make it easier for provincial governments to cut services, if it's going to mean we end and we risk national standards, then we don't support you. We must, in relation to medicare and other social programs, agree as Canadians on certain levels of service, certain levels of programs, certain funding, certain standards, which cannot be violated by changes at the provincial level.

I recognize and I accept the argument that if the federal government continues to cut transfer payments, they shouldn't have as much say, or it's going to be harder for them to have as much say, with regard to national standards, because he who pays the piper calls the tune, but we believe we must maintain national standards.

I will be raising, as we go through the estimates, questions around the child program that has been talked about by the premiers and other questions related to how we deal with matters such as those raised by my friend the member for Prescott and Russell, and questions around equalization. But I hope the minister will understand the reasons for my putting forward these questions on these issues. You can count on our support as members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, as representatives of our constituents in Ontario and as political leaders in this province and this country if your government intends to continue to take the kind of role Ontario has historically taken in this very difficult and complex process.

I believe Ontario has a unique position in terms of its relationships with Quebec, the federal government and other provinces, and we can use that for the benefit of all of us as Canadians to help to deal with serious questions, questions of interpretation, particularly between the western provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and others in the west, and the federal government and Quebec. But if we don't see that kind of leadership being taken, we will be doing everything we can to encourage the government to take that kind of approach.

There are fundamental questions that have to be answered. I don't anticipate or expect that the Premier at this stage of this process will have all the answers, but I do believe the Premier must, as the leader of Ontario and speaking for Ontario on these matters, take a leadership role. I don't think we can leave it to others, but I also believe that others will play an important role, whether it be Premier Klein of Alberta, Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan, Premier McKenna of New Brunswick and all the other premiers.

I think Ontario has an important role to play, both behind the scenes, which I anticipate the Premier is playing, and in public in terms of leading to some sort of consensus, if possible, within Ontario and then in dealing with the rest of the leaders of the country.

Sometimes this involves political risk. Some people might look at the recent history of Ontario politically in this province and say: "Maybe it's not a good idea to get too involved in some of these things. Look what happened to Mr Peterson. Look what happened to Mr Rae."

For all of their differences -- I knew those two individuals quite well -- I have tremendous respect for them and their predecessors, Messrs Davis and Robarts, for their efforts to try and develop a stronger Confederation and to bring all the diverse elements within this country together. I believe that the Premier, Mr Harris, would do well to learn from their mistakes but to take a similar leadership role.

The Chair: It is now time for the minister to give a response. Minister, you have up to 30 minutes for that response.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: First of all, to Mr Lalonde with regard to the agreement we have with Quebec that had been worked on for some amount of time by the former government, I'd just like to say I know that if Minister Witmer were here, she would say she appreciated the work of especially the members from Ottawa who were so concerned about their own constituents, but about the province at the same time. We were pleased to get that agreement. I will deliver the Hansard today, as you have said you will also, to Minister Witmer so that she can take some of your examples to her ministry and work in a timely way to be of some assistance.

1700

In that regard, we are monitoring the agreement and how it works. She and I actually had some discussions a couple of weeks ago, because one of your colleagues brought to her attention one of the challenges, and I think you've been most helpful in bringing more forward today. I was not aware specifically of the particular document you're concerned about and I'll advise her that you talked at length today. If you could make sure she gets the Hansard, it's a good example of how this committee can probably push some of the agendas we're all interested in finding some conclusion to.

It will be an ongoing challenge. We're happy we made the progress we did, but you're right; we'll take a look at it.

Interjection.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Lalonde, it's not yet time for questions.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Boy, this is different than I remember it. I used to butt in and do other things.

The Chair: Tough Chair.

Mr Wildman: This is a tough Chair.

The Chair: Please continue.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's in response at least to the Liberal piece.

To Mr Wildman, who has in the past played and will in the future play, I'm sure, an important role in this challenge of national unity, and just to speak a little bit and with some sense of humour with regard to his first comments, I didn't want to be misleading in the use of our words, an "important portfolio." I suppose we knew when we became the government, and certainly the Premier advised us, that we were going to be have to focus on our own priorities and we knew that the public across the country was fed up with the constitutional failures of the past, and is at this very moment not excited about getting into any discussions of constitutional change, so we focused on an area that you yourself and the Liberals had focused on, and that's to make some changes in the way the federation works, to make it work better, rebalancing so that we can get it right.

In the end, what that really means is that our programs work better and that there's some accountability. If something isn't working in the area of training, if there are some programs at some community colleges funded by the federal government, we want to know what the objectives of the program are and specifically how many students were enrolled, how many completed the course and how many got jobs, those kinds of questions which I think we've been very negligent in asking over the years. There's always been lots for governments to do, but the timing for us in this portfolio was to focus on the day-to-day stuff and to make some progress.

The other piece was to ensure that the use of the federal spending power is not unilateral, to put it bluntly, but is consultative. This was going to take some trust, I think, with the federal government. We knew that all the provinces, and especially Quebec, were concerned about the rebalancing so that our social policies will be more effective and efficient, and that the federal spending power is one that can be used in the way it was intended, and that is that the provinces shouldn't be receiving phone calls -- I know that's an exaggeration but I'm told by some ministers that's exactly what happened in the past -- "This is how much money you're getting," as opposed to: "Let's have a very serious discussion on how well programs are working, how we can improve the implementation together. Let's talk about whether the province can deliver them more effectively and efficiently, and more importantly, we understand you're concerned about the level of funding, or we think it could be funded in a different way and let's have some serious consultation."

That hasn't happened in the past. In fact, it was quite shocking to me, but in consultation with other ministers, meaning former premiers and some ministers who were involved in portfolios such as education and training, health and social services, I'm advised that this is not new, that this has been going on for some period of time, as Mr Wildman pointed out. So for the right mechanisms to be in place it's not an easy thing to talk words and then to move into the arena of provincial discussions so that we can support each other as provinces, because obviously many provinces had these kinds of complaints and were looking for some solutions. But none of them, as individual provinces and/or territories, had been particularly successful.

That was what was pointed out to us at our first premiers' meeting and at the annual premiers' conference. We decided at that conference to show the kind of leadership that was expected of Ontario. As a result of some 12 months of consultation with other ministers and the implementation of the social policy council, on which I represent Ontario, we were at least, at the end of the year, able to provide to the premiers a social policy document.

This year, and I'm very proud of this, we did have the lead; that doesn't mean to say that we had the leadership. But it was our responsibility to complete in a timely way, in time for this year's premiers' conference, a mechanism paper which provides some ideas about how we can work better together with the federal government, and for the first time to include, as a result of the premiers accepting that paper, the finance ministers as part of our consultations as we looked together for solutions.

I think the area of intergovernmental relations is extremely complicated and requires focused attention. I know I'll talk to this later, but Mr Wildman rightly pointed out that the Premier of Ontario in the past has shown tremendous leadership. I can assure you it's his intent not only to do so, as he has over the past two years, but not in a visible way, because mainly the premiers have been looking to make the federation work better. That's not always something that draws the attention of the media because it's hard work and it's day-to-day consultation with ministers with different sectoral responsibilities, health, social services and education and training, who have to make recommendations to this committee as to how we can work better across the country and therefore work in a united way with the federal government so that we're not being cherry-picked with regard to unfair treatment and we're getting some support here in Ontario from the other governments.

On the national unity front -- we haven't addressed this one until this point; it is a matter of timeliness, Mr Wildman -- in the last two years there has been a shyness, for want of a better word, to get into these kinds of discussions because everybody, all governments of all political stripes across the country, but more important, individual members of legislative assemblies, knows the mood of the public. Their timidness about getting involved is because really we are so uncertain as to how best to send the message to Quebec that we are very proud to be a united Canada and we want them to remain in Canada.

You're correct when you say that we almost lost our country in October 1996. The one word that I never use, and I noticed you didn't want to use it either, was the word "blame," because in the past people did try their best across the country. It simply didn't work. This time we probably could have been more involved as other provinces and territories could be, but individual Canadians made their statements, and certainly leaders across the country, both political leaders and groups of business people and union leaders and groups in communities that are vocal in this regard, made very strong statements to the province of Quebec and to Quebeckers. We were, I think, fortunate by a very small margin that we have this opportunity today. I think we should cherish it and be more careful in how we can move forward.

1710

We know one thing and that is the public doesn't like, in intergovernmental affairs language, executive federalism. They're not looking towards people making decisions for them about their country and their provinces behind closed doors. They don't want to be excluded and they don't want to wake up and be surprised. In both of the constitutional rounds of the past many of us, although we work together in a non-partisan way in our provinces, were surprised because we did entrust our premiers in those very sensitive negotiations to represent us as well as they could.

Mr Wildman: To be fair, Ontario did vote for the Charlottetown accord.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Mr Wildman reminds me, and I am very proud to remind others, that Ontario did vote for Charlottetown.

Mr Wildman: It was close though.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It was very close. We all sat in our television studios, behind those microphones that night, predicting what might happen, but not with a lot of confidence. We know that finding a process now is vital. Therefore, it has to be a process that everyone understands, a process that the people have had input to. It has to be open, it has to be non-partisan, it has to be consultative.

The focus of this meeting is intended in Calgary on the 14th and 15th to be a meeting to discuss processes. This is very difficult for ordinary Canadians to distinguish in talking about how you consult. To put it bluntly, the media won't be very happy about that because they have raised the expectations of these meetings, but so in my view have some of the people that will be attending. But the bottom line for them, I think the clear intention was that we had to get on with some discussions about the unity of the country and we have to work together, the premiers, and all of us as elected officials and the public, to provide alternatives to Quebeckers.

I was trying to write down some of Mr Wildman's words. He talked about time frames. I think that if most Ontarians had a choice on time frames, they probably wouldn't want to be discussing national unity now. We do have an opportunity with the upcoming Quebec election, which you mentioned, Bud, and we also therefore have a responsibility. That is, we would like, I think the premiers across this country would like and I think I can assure you that the federal government would like, to be talking to an elected government in Quebec that is interested in talking about the unity of the country and about what we're talking about, that is, how we can make federation work better; how we can talk about the federal spending power being more consultative and not unilateral; how we can discuss together mechanisms so we can have more successful discussions with the federal government, and therefore, more efficient and effective programs, real programs in health care and education for our constituents, for our citizens; and how at some time we can recognize the uniqueness of Quebec.

I think that Quebeckers are very interested in the efficiency of the country. I'll just pass a personal observation, which may not be appropriate, but I'll take my chances. I think during both premiers' conferences, the representatives of the government in Quebec, Mr Parizeau but especially Mr Bouchard, had a very difficult time leaving those meetings. They themselves were keenly interested in the premiers talking about rebalancing and about the use of the federal spending power and about the fact that national standards in health care do not have to be federal standards made up by the federal government on their own and changed when they feel like it.

We've got so much to be proud of as Canadians, but the reason there's such tension, in my view, not only in Quebec but sometimes in other provinces, is because we're crying out for our country to work more effectively and efficiently, and the provinces, individually and collectively, and the territories and the aboriginal groups are saying to the federal government: "There's got to be a better way. We need to be heard and we want to work with you."

I very much appreciate the comments that you have made today. I wouldn't even say it's a relief, because I'm not a bit surprised to know that you'll be there working with us. The answers are not easy, the solutions are not easy, and we won't pretend to have them.

You will see a somewhat humbled group of premiers embarking on a path, a journey that hasn't been successful in the past. At this point it's non-constitutional, but very shortly, after a few meetings, I would say this first meeting should be talking about process. I guess, like the rest of you, we'll all wake up some time on Monday and find out what they really did talk about, because we haven't trusted the premiers with that responsibility.

With regard to fair treatment, I'll take a look at what I tried to say as I was making my presentation today, because we actually need the support of our opposition parties in this regard. I would throw a challenge to our Liberal representatives -- and I'll look at you, Mr Chair, because I think you could be helpful. You ask a lot of questions with regard to health care. I'm going to say this very carefully, because I actually think this is a very difficult area to understand some days.

It's not something we read about in the newspapers. Even though former governments, both Liberal and NDP, were concerned about where we fit with regard to getting our fair share, we have to be able to do a better job in influencing the federal government. This is a serious matter for the public of Ontario. As we struggle to make sure Ontarians get their fair share and they're not shortchanged, we can talk about two areas. Job training is obvious. I will say that in the last budget -- I think I'm right in this regard -- the EI premiums were reduced by 10 cents. That's just the very beginning of what we expect from the federal government. If you think about us paying $8 billion and getting $4 billion back, we have a long way to go. I personally think our Liberal representatives here would probably be interested in getting a thorough briefing in this regard to see if they could be helpful.

1720

I know the Premier, after the last federal election, asked all of us as elected members to work with our federal counterparts to see if we could get some success here. I look at the unfortunate Chair of the committee sitting to the right of me here and say he's here to listen to me now. He's the Chair of the committee, and this is a committee that in the past has worked together to make change in a non-partisan way and we've sometimes had some good times doing it. But on this I think we would really like to work with whoever we can but especially here in this Legislative Assembly to see some fairness with regard to the job training, and obviously more on the CHST.

We don't get our fair share on the CHST. I said before that we got $365 million less than we would have if the CHST funding was distributed on an equal per capita basis. I was very pleased to put forward my speaking points today so that you would have them in front of you when you are talking to your federal colleagues on this very non-partisan issue of equitable treatment, because this is an issue that was real for former governments. We just expect some serious consultation and any assistance we could get in having some success in this regard. Last year we were short some $420 million and it's a big loss. I think it is the principle of fairness, and right now, on the CHST, there are only two other governments that are receiving less than their fair share, British Columbia and Alberta, but Ontario is by far the largest per capita loser in this regard.

I will say something else that may give you some clout in talking to your federal colleagues. We have had great success with the federal minister as we at the social policy council invited him to talk to us on the issue of a national child benefit. He was extremely helpful -- that's Minister Pettigrew -- and I'm hopeful that the new Minister of Health could do the same in this regard.

There are some more examples here. The ministerial council was charged with an important task, and I think that might be a difficult concept for those of you who haven't been involved. Usually the ministers of health get together with their federal colleague and they try to discuss issues that are important to them, and ministers of all of our ministries discuss with the federal ministers of the day what the issues are, whether it be policy or whether it be financial. Some of course are more successful than others, and we read about it from time to time.

The premiers at the 1995 APC decided that on the social policy area -- actually non-social too, but we focused more on social policy -- we weren't having success as provinces in getting equitable treatment, and that's why they said to each other -- and at that time the chair of the premiers' conference was the Premier of Newfoundland. He basically came out and said, "We will appoint a minister to represent each province and work on the area of social policy renewal, looking at both efficiency and effectiveness."

Only four intergovernmental affairs ministers -- Mr Wildman, if your analogy was true, there are only four intergovernmental affairs ministers, you and I are going to have to discuss what that means in the country and have some statements to make about that -- and other ministers, it could be the health, social services or education and training minister, would represent different provinces and territories on this council. We wanted to speak with a common voice on essential elements with regard to the national debate on social policy reform. I think that probably will give you an idea of the importance of making some change.

I'm not sure if I should continue on in this regard, if it's helpful to Mr Wildman's concerns in answering some of his questions.

Mr Wildman: Specifically, I asked about the court case.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: With regard to the court case, I think the Attorney General is the person you could have some discussions with, but we've always stated that we're looking for some positive change. I'm trying to find something so I say to you exactly what I said to the media earlier today.

With regard to the intervention in the Supreme Court reference, we've always said we support changes to the federation that will make the country more effective and efficient and that are more responsible to the needs of our citizens and to the aspirations of all Canadians. We've focused on the practical changes to clarifying the federal-provincial roles and responsibilities, and it's an important first step.

We have agreed and decided not to get involved in the Supreme Court reference, and I underline, at this time. We can basically attribute that to our own strategy of being positive and I think, as I said in the very beginning, optimistic about our chances if we work well together with the other provinces in having some success in the rebalancing of the federation and sending that message to Quebec, that Canada, the premiers, are trying to work together to make the federation work better. I think that basically is the reason that we stayed on our own strategy.

In closing, I would say that plan B, which we can get into further during these discussions and I'll leave it at this because I know Mr Wildman will be helpful in this regard, is basically the federal government strategy. We're proceeding with looking at mechanisms to make the country work better.

I think that would suffice, Mr Chairman, and thank you for warning me of the time.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. You have been very precise in your time usage. We now have, as you realize, the balance of the time available for questions. We will proceed in the customary fashion, allowing 20 minutes to the representatives of each party to pose questions and receive responses. We'll begin with the representatives of the official opposition who have 20 minutes, commencing now. Mr Cleary, do you wish to start?

Mr Cleary: I want to thank Mr Lalonde and Mr Wildman for their comments. I know on many occasions I've had to talk to Mr Lalonde because he's one of the members of the Legislature who, being in a border community, shares our concerns.

In the past few years I've been in some very uncomfortable spots at construction sites where Quebec contractors moved in. Anyway, I had to end up there, not that I was in a position to assist them in many ways but at least I had to listen.

The other thing that was a big issue was the Quebec steamfitters and bricklayers who had moved in on many occasions and caused lots of problems for our local contractors and others. The other thing is that many of our contractors go to Quebec for their supplies. This fuel fill-up was a big issue and they were very upset. They were trying to do the job for the community as cheaply as possible and then had to have a receipt from another province, especially when the fuel was up to a dime a litre more expensive in that province.

Those are just some of the comments I wanted to make. It's a big issue for all parties of this House, and I think it's one where you have to put your political differences aside and work together, because it's a big problem to solve this along with the federal government. From there I'll pass to Mr Lalonde.

1730

Mr Lalonde: Minister, I don't know if you're aware, and probably you're not, of the way they operate when they come into Ontario. The Ontario government, through WCB, has paid over a period of time -- I forget if it is two or three years; I have this in my office -- for 5,017 cases of WCB claims, over $50 million, to Quebec-address injured workers. What I'm getting at is that at the present time the Ontario government for the last I don't know how many years hasn't had the health and safety people onsite to supervise that.

In November 1995, the Ontario government came up with the regulation that any Quebec contractor coming into Ontario has to register with the Ontario ministry of revenue and they have to pay 4% of the total value of the contract when they come and work in Ontario. Very few are doing it.

What we are doing is telling people all over Ontario, "If you see a contractor with a Quebec address, give us the name, and we will follow up." I could say the ministry of revenue has done some investigation, and they caught some of the people.

What they are doing at the present time is that when Ontario contracts have gone for tender, school boards especially in eastern Ontario, most of the contracts were given to Quebec contractors. We advised them that they have to register, then deposit 4% of the total value of the contract. This scared them in a way, because they don't want to pay. Most of the time they were not paying the taxes to Ontario.

"Contourner," we say in French. Instead of paying the taxes, they were ordering the material for a roof, for example, from Burlington, having it delivered to Quebec and then shipped back into Ontario. But now they don't even do that. They order the material from Burlington and deliver it directly to the Ontario site with a Quebec address, and they are excluded from the taxes. I think the Ontario government is losing a lot of money on this the way they operate, but the law is there, that they have to deposit the 4%, which does help the Ontario construction workers.

I encourage you, Madam Minister, to continue negotiating with the Quebec government. There is one clause that I would like to have in there. If the Quebec government is not ready to remove that clause on the first page, that the material has to be bought in the province of Quebec when you do some work in Quebec or you do some construction in Quebec, we should have the same clause for Ontario construction sites, that material has to be bought in Ontario to build in Ontario.

I was up in Cornwall, and there were three major construction sites in Cornwall. The contractors were all from Quebec. The material was coming in from Quebec. There was an industry right in Cornwall that could manufacture the materials that were going in for Canadian Tire and Domtar, but they were transported from Quebec into Ontario. They didn't want to buy in Ontario. Why? Because they were not paying the tax. I don't think it's fair. We are losing a great sum of money. It would pay the Ontario government to have health and safety inspectors, at which time they could report the people who are doing this.

The last point that I would have -- well, I have a few. When this was issued last year, we were supposed to get the pocket-sized booklet. If you give this to anyone, I'm telling you it won't fit in their pocket. This is the English version, and the French version is the same size. It's not bilingual. Very few Ontario construction workers have it. I know the ministry was rushing to get that out. I forget the date that it came out. The Ministry of Labour staff had to work the whole weekend to put this out, but we are still waiting, since last December, to get a printed pocket-size copy of this Quebec-Ontario agreement.

I notice that you have a staff of 40 employees with a budget of $4.5 million. On page 4, there was a one-time allocation for rental funds. What was this?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Page 4?

Mr Lalonde: The fourth paragraph.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Oh, yes. I see, the new allocation of $436,000.

Mr Lalonde: It's a one-time allocation; I don't know if it's a new allocation.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Do you want me to answer that?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Okay. This is new across the government. The rent of the buildings and the space has now been -- we have all as ministries been asked --

Mr Lalonde: Paid by every ministry?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We each pay. This is ongoing. It's a matter of accountability. It's a matter of us knowing exactly how much money it takes to run our ministries. At the same time, Mr Lalonde, you have to have some sympathy for me because, with a very small budget, this is almost like a 10% addition to the cost. I moaned graciously, to put it mildly, but it is a responsibility that we all have to accept and we now know what our responsibilities are. That will be part of our base in the years to come.

Mr Lalonde: I have no more questions. I don't know, John, if you do.

Mr Cleary: No.

Mr Lalonde: Just keep on negotiating with Quebec before it's too late.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I should put on record that obviously we're going to have your comments and we will be taking them to Minister Witmer. I'm not sure if it wouldn't be helpful if you could give us a copy of that agreement or make sure that she gets it, perhaps in the next couple of days when you see her.

Mr Lalonde: Which agreement?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The one that you had in your hand when you talked about changing the first page.

Mr Lalonde: I only have the French copy of it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's helpful as well.

Mr Lalonde: It was sent by an architect from Quebec. Up to last week, they were still using this. There was a clause that in every request for tendering they had to have an office in Quebec and also that the material has to be made in Quebec unless there was a difference in cost of 10%, and for this they have to get government approval to buy it outside of Quebec.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm now familiar with what you're talking about and we do have a copy of that document. We'll make sure that we draw this to the attention of the minister, but I think it would be more appropriate for you to do it as well.

Mr Lalonde: Because you made the announcement a couple of weeks ago, last week or the week before, that we had agreed on the purchasing and also that our people could sell material to institutions in Quebec, like hospitals and education. But if this is not changed, no one will follow the agreement that you have agreed upon.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The Premier is extremely interested in the principle of reciprocity -- I can't even say it right now. It's a long day. We're keen on this as a government, so this is something we'll monitor and make sure we have the support of both the province of Quebec and ourselves, because this was a very important agreement and one that set some precedent to provinces across the country. It's extremely important that it works and that it's there.

Mr Lalonde: I have another question that just came into my mind. Do you know when this dossier, this construction problem or file will be transferred to the Ministry of Education?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can't answer that question, but I can say "reciprocity."

1740

Mr Lalonde: It is definitely going there, I hope.

The Chair: It was with all confidence that you could say "reciprocity." It was an important term to bring up. It was I think the subject of an election in 1911, so it helps us understand the consequence of what we're talking about.

Mr Lalonde: At the present time we have to deal with the ministries of labour, education and intergovernmental affairs. We never know which one to go to.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It is definitely the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. We coordinate a lot of ministries and I think we're helpful in making sure that we follow through on some of the issues that are brought to our attention. We give advice and assistance as required, but the end responsibility lies with the Minister of Labour in this regard.

Mr Lalonde: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lalonde. We now turn to Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: Later on in the estimates I'll be, as I said earlier, raising questions along the lines of Mr Lalonde's concerns, but on page 3 of your prepared remarks you point out that staffing is down 39% from 1995-96. I wondered if that was because of what you say on page 5: "These three objectives," one of them being to strengthen national unity, "have inspired much of what we have worked for and accomplished since 1995." That is, if you've accomplished national unity, you don't need as much staffing?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I just knew I'd get a question like that. It certainly adds a little bit of challenge and humour to the discussion. What I'm going to hand out, if this is appropriate, or at least show you right now, is the graph since 1987, Bud. There are two peaks here. One is Meech and the other is Charlottetown. Actually, since 1992 the budget and the number of staff have come down. But I appreciate your comments and I know where you're coming from.

Mr Wildman: Could you tell us what the actual dollar figure was of the budget in 1995-96?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In 1995-96? Yes, I can if I can find the page. It's five something. It's $5.7 million; $5,758,408 exactly.

Mr Wildman: You've gone from $5.7 million in 1995-96 to $4.6 million in the current year.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. That's about a 19% decrease over two years.

Mr Wildman: I want to ask a couple of follow-up questions in relation to our exchange earlier. As you said, you expect what's likely to come out of the Calgary meeting is mainly going to deal with process. You stated that often people have difficulty in differentiating what is substance. You didn't use the word "substance," but I think that's what you meant, substance and process. I would like if you could for us differentiate what you mean. What do you mean by process or processes as opposed to substantive questions, whether they be constitutional or otherwise? What do you mean when you talk about process as something that is going to be the main subject in Calgary and what we will likely see come out of that discussion?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, I'll speak for myself. I think one of the great challenges we've had is just how we do talk with our constituents about an issue that they don't really want to talk to us about. We may talk, and I think the premiers are interested in looking at maybe some kind of, I hate to use this word because it's used so extensively, framework or principles or guidelines, those kinds of words, for having some discussions. Actually, maybe you can talk to us a little about it in your next question because we now know that the public is interested in talking to politicians about a lot of issues but in different ways than in the past.

For instance, they don't mind these phone calls or the opportunity to talk to us by telephone. They like and use more technology, like the Internet. I'm sure all of you can tell me how you can talk to your constituents about things they don't like to talk about some days, in different ways across the province.

We may look at guidelines saying such things as we've said today, and you said yourself in your remarks to me that this traditionally has been a non-partisan process. That might be one of the first principles or guidelines. When you think of the premiers, they are of different political stripes, but they are putting the country first and working I think desperately to find some solutions.

They might say we have a time frame. You raised that, Bud. They have to be realistic about it. This is an opportunity, so they might say of the time frame, "We should try to finish our consultations." Some premiers will probably say, "Very quickly, because it's so painful," and others might say, "No matter what we do, we've got to have something to say to Quebec in the early new year or spring." They can take those choices. That's up to them as a group to make that decision.

They might say that if we're really interested in influencing the electorate in Quebec as to who they could choose, we know there is at least one person who will probably be in the running who isn't interested in the future of the country, meaning Quebec being part of the country, and that is Mr Bouchard. Let's not beat around the bush.

Mr Wildman: He has said that even Canada is not a country.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Exactly. So how do we talk to everybody else? Maybe they'll say that part of the consultations should include how all provinces are treated in Canada. They might just say, "Some of us do well here, but Quebec has done well there." I don't know. Actually, if anybody here has any ideas for the Premier, he doesn't leave until the weekend, so make sure you get them to him, with regard to the discussions. You can probably provide me with some other ideas, but that's my idea of guidelines around discussions.

I'll make it very clear that the purpose of the meeting, as the premiers discussed in New Brunswick, was not to discuss the substantive issues or proposals for change that you yourself referred to, some of those ideas and how you distinguish. It takes people who have been involved in the past to understand the small differences, that those kinds of differences can add to the success or the failure, of what we're trying to achieve.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate your comments. To be fair, I don't claim to be an expert in these areas. I've been involved in these discussions substantially over the years. I participated as an observer, at the request of Premier Davis, in meetings that were chaired by Prime Minister Trudeau, so it goes back for me, just as, for that matter Mr Eves and Mr Sterling participated along with Mr Beer of the Liberal Party as observers and gave their opinions and views during the most recent process.

I am keenly interested in this. I would say in the few minutes we have left that I really think it's important the Premier make a statement, preferably two statements, one before the meeting in Calgary and one after to report to the House and to the people of this province what he anticipates, perhaps to bring down some of those expectations you talk about, and what then happens. I really think that's important, because if we are going to build a consensus in the province, it's important people start to come to grips with some of the things you've talked about so that they can understand what's going on. I really do think it's important that he bring forward what he anticipates is going to happen and then give us some idea of what indeed did occur afterwards, what his views are and what processes he's interested in proceeding with in Ontario.

1750

Perhaps it would be useful if I could put on the record a couple of things I'm concerned about, and then at another time after my colleagues in the Conservative Party have raised their questions, the minister could come back to some of these things.

I understand the problem with starting a sentence with "if" in these matters, but if we do end up at some point in the next couple of years where there has been some accommodation around questions that are constitutional, as well as questions that are practical operational questions for the federation, is it the position of this government that any constitutional matters must be subject to a referendum in Ontario?

I have participated in another committee of this House where we discussed the white paper from the Premier about referenda, in which he posited the view that all questions constitutional, as well as questions related to taxation, should be subject to referendum. That of course is very significant considering the results of the last go-round, and we do know that as a matter of law British Columbia and Alberta must hold referenda on any constitutional matter. So I raise that question.

I also want to put forward a concern I have about perceptions within this province and of this province in Quebec. I think one of the strengths we've had in these discussions, particularly with péquiste governments but certainly also with Liberal governments in Quebec, is the fact that we do indeed have Bill 8 in this province, that we are committed to providing services to francophones in this province as a matter of law -- when one considers the sign law in Quebec, for instance.

I am concerned when we run into things that appear to be quite small here, but which are inevitably blown up in the Montreal press, in the Quebec press, things like the failure to translate the rules of the House, and other issues like a possibility that the only French hospital would close in this province at a time when there are arguments about whether the many English hospitals in Montreal might face questions of closure, and questions around the desire on the part of our party, for instance, that we pass an amendment to the Provincial Offences Act bill, which is before the House, to ensure that if those court services are to be downloaded to municipalities which are not subject to Bill 8, despite what people in Sault Ste Marie and other communities thought a few years ago, an amendment be passed to ensure those services will be available to francophones in the designated areas, that is, with 10% francophone population, that they will be able to get their court services in their own native language, in their native tongue.

If we make the mistake of dealing with issues like those in this province and in this Legislature as if they are simply matters for Ontario politics, we harm our position in dealing with Quebec because inevitably the Quebec press latches on to these issues, and as we saw with regard to Montfort Hospital, political leaders in Quebec also do, and the Premier of Quebec lectured Ontario, I think is the best way to describe it.

I know there are people in Ontario who will say, "That's the pot calling the kettle black," but when one looks at the number of hospitals and educational institutions that are available to anglophones in Quebec, considering of course that they are a larger portion of the population in that province, there are a lot more than there are similar institutions for francophones in this province. I think it's important that we as an assembly, and the Conservative government, commit to ensuring that those services are preserved for the franco-Ontarien minority in this province.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. We are about a minute away from the conclusion of the day, so I think we will wrap up and we will resume again next Tuesday here at 3:30. For the interest of the members, we have approximately 12 hours and 45 minutes of consideration. I would like to thank all the members who have spoken so far for their thoughtful contribution and I'm sure there will be much more ahead of us.

The committee adjourned at 1757.