CONTENTS
Tuesday 16 September 1997
Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs
Hon Dianne Cunningham, minister
Ms Judith Wolfson, deputy 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
MRS LILLIAN ROSS (HAMILTON WEST / -OUEST PC)
MR BUD WILDMAN (ALGOMA ND)
MR BOB WOOD (LONDON SOUTH / -SUD 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 1609 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): Okay, folks, I think we can begin now. We'd like to welcome the minister. We'll start the 20-minute rotations with the government side.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): So they have to spin for 20 minutes?
The Vice-Chair: You got it.
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): You did.
The Vice-Chair: You got it.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: You were more alive than I was, Wildman.
The Vice-Chair: Who's going? Mr Pettit?
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Are we ready, Minister?
The Vice-Chair: We're waiting and the minister's ready, yes.
Mr Pettit: We'll have to sort of reflect back a little bit to last week. The minister indicated last week how we're facing a number of intergovernmental challenges. It would seem to me that there's solid progress that needs to be made in areas like internal trade, fiscal reform and the employment insurance industry. So with that in mind, do you give social policy reform a higher priority than the three I mentioned? Why does the social policy seem to be at the top of the list for the ministry?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think that in order to answer that question I would have to say that for the provinces across the country social policy has been very high on the agenda with regard to renewal. I'd speak about that in two ways: The first focus for the premiers in the provinces, and territories I might add, has been to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of our programs. We've all decided that in Canada, like in other levels of government -- provincial and municipal, school boards -- there's a huge amount of room where we can improve the overlap and duplication and where we can come to a clear understanding on which level of government should be delivering which program.
Having said that, we in Ontario have decided to do that with our own municipalities and school boards, but it was interesting for the Premier and me in our very first annual premiers' conference in St John's, in the summer of 1995, to note that this was also a concern of former governments, which I said last time. Of course, we inherited on that agenda the focus of Mr Rae's government where they were having some real challenges in reaching some kind of an understanding with the federal government as to who delivers what services. They worked along with Newfoundland at that time in delivering a very expensive and complete social policy paper for renewal of social programs across the country.
At that time, our Premier and other premiers decided that since we hadn't had success on working with the federal government with regard to revitalization of the country around the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation and the unilateral spending power, that there weren't the kind of negotiations that seemed to please many of the premiers, they had defined a different way of doing business with the federal government.
So at that time in the summer of 1995 the premiers established what they called a social policy council and they entrusted them with exploring some ways of working more effectively with the federal government. They came out with what they called a social policy report, which was delivered to the premiers in January 1996. There was subsequently a meeting with the Prime Minister and first ministers to talk about social policy reform.
Since that date, over the past year progress on social policy renewal has been hailed as an example of how governments working together can achieve policies and programs for the wellbeing of our own citizens. Everybody's worried about health care, education, training and social services. This provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal, when it was established, did have that agenda, which was reaffirmed in the summer of 1996 in Calgary, to work with the federal government on a number of priorities.
I represent Ontario on that council. I was also asked to coordinate an approach to the overarching social policy issues of national importance based on the framework for reform and renewal set out in that 1995 document that I have already mentioned to you. They identified their priorities again, in an issues paper.
I could go into more detail around the two areas where the discussions are taking place. There's a provincial-territorial forum and there's also federal-provincial-territorial forum, and that's unprecedented. Otherwise the federal government from time to time meets with the provinces and the territories in this particular forum. We met in October and November 1996 and again in January and June 1997. Then we met at the end of November 1996 and in January 1997.
The federal-provincial-territorial council is looking at ways to improve the efficiency of our social programs. You asked me why that would be a priority. I think it's a representation of what the citizens of this country are most concerned about.
Mr Pettit: In your statement to us last week you mention that, "Since 1995, Ontario's premium contributions" -- this is to the EI fund -- "have exceeded the benefits by about $4 billion annually." If my math is correct, that's about $11 million per day. Also, you went on to say, "Ontario will receive $365 million less than it would have if CHST funding was distributed on an equal per capita basis." That's another $1 million a day. Tally that up, you've got about $12 million per day. If we go back about six months, when we used to talk about how the province had about $1 million an hour more going out than it had coming in -- and that's probably down now to, let's say for the sake of debate, $750,000 dollars per hour, that's roughly two thirds. If we look at it, at $18 million a day going out more than coming in, how do we justify to the people of Ontario those types of contributions and that we're not getting equal treatment in terms of dollars? Furthermore, what is the government doing to try and counter that?
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Let the minister answer, please.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: This has been an ongoing challenge within the federation. It's not new. A lot of the complaints have been augmented, as Mr Wildman is quick to point out, but it's our responsibility to actually make sure that the citizens in Ontario receive fair treatment from the federal government, and this is what we've tried to do. We've certainly had some very serious discussions with the federal government with regard to the CHST and the federal offloading, and although the CHST formula locks in allocations until the years 2002 and 2003 -- and this we inherited; it wasn't something that happened during our time -- the Prime Minister did announce, I think in April 1997, that the CHST cash floor would be increased from $11 billion to $12.5 billion starting in 1998-99.
It was a small step in the right direction, but it won't help us to the extent that we think we need to be assisted to achieve our goal of fair treatment. We'll have a lot of assistance here in our work, and have always had with the members of our opposition parties who have suffered the same treatment by federal governments in the past. But despite this change, provinces' CHST entitlements have been reduced by $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98 compared to what would have been paid under EPF and CAP, which were the old programs.
This is something on which I think we should perhaps all decide how we can be more effective and work together. I certainly did send the messages out, I think in a very gentle way, but we would like the help of our Liberal federal members in this regard. I know that many of us are talking to the Liberal members. There's no point in getting political about it because what we want here is exactly what other provinces of all political stripes are asking for. Finance has told us that the cash payments to Ontario will decline by about $2.1 billion between 1995-96 and 1997-98. So the points you have made, Mr Pettit, are the basis for our own negotiations.
1620
The other one that I'd like to emphasize again has to do with the labour market training. You mentioned the EI account. I think we're at the table, but we may not be right now, because we will probably be the last province to sign on to a labour market training agreement. We're prepared to sign an agreement with Ottawa, and a deal would be a major opportunity to improve training and to cut the overlap and duplication.
In May 1996, a year ago, the federal government offered to transfer employment-insurance-funded labour market training to the provinces. We've already discussed that. That was part of the throne speech. The federal funding offer to Ontario is worth about $500 million annually for training programs. That sounds pretty good, but while Ontario has 36% of Canada's unemployed, the federal government plans to allocate only 27% of the national EI funding for training to unemployed Ontarians. This means that, on average, unemployed persons in Ontario will receive 30% less federal funding for job training than unemployed persons in the rest of Canada.
In 1997 the Ontario budget clearly indicated that Ontario wants a training deal with Ottawa. We've tried the regular route and now we've put it into our budget. We've also said that unemployed workers in Ontario should have the same federal support for training as Quebec or other provinces, so we've made it a very public statement that would be read by the citizens across the country and the province, but also by people who work in finance and the finance minister federally. We now know that, based on the figures in our own 1997 Ontario budget, Ottawa would have to provide us with an additional $100 million a year to give our unemployed Ontarians, our citizens who are unemployed, the same level of funding provided in agreements with other provinces.
This is all part of not only our concern but other provinces' concerns, although Ontario in this regard has the greatest deficit with regard to fairness of treatment; the other two provinces would be British Columbia and Alberta. We've made this all a part of our discussions with regard to the renewal of the federation. It was one of the seven principles -- this is called the 80% -- that came out of the discussions in Calgary. There is a meeting with the Prime Minister and the first ministers some time, hopefully, in November, and I'm sure that we'll have to make our point again. The fact is our start position is equitable treatment and we plan on representing our citizens. I don't think anybody here would want less than that.
I think that many of us have had an opportunity to talk to our own federal counterparts and I know that those of you that have talked to me about it have had some fairly frank and good meetings where they've actually been asking for information. I would pursue that if I were anyone who had the opportunity to read these Hansards with regard to what we are about in this committee.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Thank you, Chair. How much time do I have left?
The Vice-Chair: You have three minutes left.
Mr Wettlaufer: Okay. The one question I had is going to take considerably more time, so I'll ask another short one first. Minister, given that your ministry is involved in dealing with federal and interprovincial relations, I notice that salaries and wages within the ministry have dropped down considerably from 1995-96 actuals to 1996-97 interim actuals, about $140,000. It's on page 25 of the estimates book. I was just wondering if there was some action that you had taken within the ministry that might explain that.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It would be the number of staff. Although everybody gets kind of excited, we didn't give them any more money that I know of. We just asked them to work harder and longer. The salaries and wages and employee benefits make up some 63% of the budget. With regards to numbers, 35 within the ministry itself, that's a reduction of five just over the year before. It's a decrease in the number of staff.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's a significant decrease.
Mr Wildman: That was on page 5 of the Minister's opening remarks --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: What did I say? Yes, we did have two peak budget years in this ministry, which was one of the most exciting places to work -- and still is -- as Mr Wildman would always like to remind us.
Mr Wettlaufer: He's just having fun.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Oh, I know. He always has a good time in this meeting, which I am happy about. They did have some good times during Meech and again during Charlottetown, and the ministry did have increased numbers. We're considerably lower than in those two peak years. We have a chart somewhere. If you're interested in looking at it, I'd be happy to get it for you.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Thank you, Minister, for coming in again. Last week, I focused mainly on labour mobility. I'd just like to bring up some of the information I've gathered since; also to clarify some of the positions we have taken concerning labour mobility.
I'd just like to say that we have from Quebec working in Ontario in the Outaouais area alone -- Gatineau, Hull and Aylmer -- 41,500 people crossing the bridge every day, vis-à-vis 18,936. The reason I bring that to your attention is that I was at the AIPLF conference this morning and the Quebec people were saying 35,000 Ontarians were working on the other side, that if they were to buy a house on the other side, it would create jobs on the Quebec side, but they thought they only had 15,000 coming in on the Ontario side. I have the figure that I just got from the National Capital Commission at noon today. Out of this, I'd like to say that 21.6% of the total labour force of Quebec is working in Ontario; that is, in the Outaouais area.
Today I would like to ask a few questions to the minister. Minister, a couple of weeks ago, did you inform the House that your ministry had sat down with the Quebec government -- or you mentioned something about the goods and services exchange or agreement --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you talking about procurement?
Mr Lalonde: Procurement, yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That chapter is a priority of the completion of the internal trade agreement. We could give you more information on that. Would you like an update with regard to your question on the labour mobility piece? Because I did a little work on that.
Mr Lalonde: I would appreciate that very much.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Would you also like us to talk about the procurement piece with regard to the direction of the premiers from the annual premiers' conference in New Brunswick?
Mr Lalonde: That too I would appreciate.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are two chapters that we should be doing more work on. The premiers decided to direct their ministers responsible for trade to have a progress report to them by January. I can talk about that, but why don't I update you at least with regard to the Ontario-Quebec agreement on the construction industry. Actually, the Minister of Education and Training has taken over this file and responsibility for the agreement from the Minister of Labour. They have overall responsibility across the government for the labour mobility issue, so we'll be doing business in a little bit different way here.
1630
The free movement of labour, as you've described, in getting access to the Quebec construction market for Ontario workers is the objective of the agreement. You brought us some very interesting concerns last week, which we analyzed by the way, that are extremely frustrating.
Now education and training is responsible. They're also responsible for the apprenticeship in trade. That's probably why we've linked them together. The construction industry requires, as you know, that the well-trained workers in many of the different trades and their qualifications are regulated. We've got some work to do here considering what you told us last week.
The important part of the ongoing work with Quebec is to identify the equivalencies in construction trades in our two provinces. To ensure mobility for the Ontario workers, we've agreed that training for them is similar in both Ontario and Quebec. So we need to know any information anybody can bring to us where that part of the training agreement is not being honoured.
I know, in talking to the ministry, that they are working with Quebec right now to broaden the recognized equivalency so we can have a larger scope for people who want to be trained and to work in both provinces.
Also, to permit greater access for us to the Quebec market for our Ontario workers. That's what I was able to know. That's a very active file right now. There's ongoing work happening.
The Minister of Labour and her staff last spring negotiated this improved access. Now it is the Minister of Education and Training who is going to have to do the work to make sure the agreement works, to the advantage of Ontario residents and that they get access to Quebec and to that market.
There will have to be expanded further negotiations. There's actually a person in the eastern regional office and this is her responsibility. I wanted to update for you what's happening there. You can bring more issues to my attention, because I can tell you it's extremely helpful.
Mr Lalonde: Yes, Minister, it will be very important that I get the copy because I think you're aware they are to meet once a year to look over all the complaints they have received. In Ottawa you were very limited in the number of people you had there. Mary Holdcroft is responsible. Mary is all over the place. We are sending out 425 form letters to the contractors who have either called us or sent us letters complaining about the problem they have to access construction projects in the province of Quebec.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you doing that yourself?
Mr Lalonde: We're doing it ourselves because we want to make sure the ministry is fully aware. As you know, construction people or contractors during the summer period are so busy they don't have time to do research or write letters, so we designed the form ourselves. We will be getting those answers back. We have started to go around the province at the present time, hearing the complaints from the people. That we have already started to do.
I have a letter here that was addressed to me by Mr Bob Hyndman, BLR Safety and First Aid. I would like to read two paragraphs of this letter. It's addressed to me from BLR Safety and First Aid in Gloucester.
"For many years, BLR had an annual sale of $40,000 to supply Hydro-Quebec with their first-aid and safety supplies. BLR also averaged additional sales of $30,000 to the cities and municipalities of Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer. The province of Quebec has 'somehow severed' our sales to all levels of government-related agencies because BLR is based in Ontario.
"However, Quebec-based safety supply companies are free to come and sell in Ontario to municipal, provincial and federal agencies, taking sales from us." This is a true one.
We have other letters, people who went to Sacre-Coeur Hospital in Hull, for example, after the contractor, Eastview Draperies, had lost the contract to the Montfort Hospital to change the draperies. He lost the contract to a Quebec-based firm. He went to Quebec, because there was a request for a bid there, and immediately when they saw he was from Ontario he was disqualified; he cannot submit a quotation to Quebec.
Since I focused an awful lot on labour mobility last week, those are the two points concerning construction, but I have other concerns at the present time that probably your ministry could take a hard look at.
As you know, we border the province of Quebec all the way through our riding. But it's not only in our riding; it's also in Ottawa-Carleton and the New Liskeard area up to the Lake Timiskaming area.
I just got this this afternoon at 2:25. It's so recent. At the Hawkesbury hospital, 28% of the patients come from Quebec. The MLA from Quebec, Louise Bourdeau, advised Quebeckers not to get health services in Ontario. She wants to gather everyone in Lachute, Quebec. You've probably been in Hawkesbury. It's the furthest hospital in Ontario in the east end. It services Ste-Anne-de-Prescott, St-Eugène, and 28% of that comes from the Quebec side, servicing Montebello, Pointe-au-Chêne and Brownsburg and all those places. I really feel at this time that under your ministry an agreement could be reached with the Quebec government. There could be an exchange of services. Lachute is about the same size as Hawkesbury, even smaller, and from Lachute the next hospital they could go to is either in Saint-Jérôme or Montreal.
When we look at health we don't care where it comes from as long as we get the services. In this case I think your ministry could play a key role. If it is to continue, it's going to be very tough for eastern Ontario people. If they decide to apply those restrictions in eastern Ontario, it is going to go on up to northern Ontario also.
I wonder, Minister, on this one, before I go to the next one, if it is possible for you to try and sit down -- either yourself or some of your ministry staff -- with your colleague the Honourable Mr Brassard from Quebec. It might not be easy because I watched him on television last night, and I'm telling you, everything they did in Calgary was wrong, according to him. Anyway, I think it would be worthwhile to sit down with him and discuss those matters for the eastern Ontario region.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I also saw the remarks, but I must say that when we have had to have discussions on this issue we're talking about, I think he would be most receptive to making some progress.
We did talk about the area of mobility, especially in the area of social policy, and this is hospitals, and it was a priority for the premiers. To that end, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism -- I guess this one would be -- what would it be?
Ms Judith Wolfson: This would be part of the agenda of the council --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's right, yes. I think we will be able to keep this one within our own ministry, working on the mobility piece, because it was one of the topics for discussion under the social policy renewal. This is right from the annual premiers' conference. Thanks, Bill, for your speedy finding of this piece.
1640
I'm going to read it to you so you know exactly what the priorities are. This is part of the communiqué, "National Mobility Initiative." Mr Brassard was there for this, not in the room but he knows it happened. In fact, he was probably in the room but I know that Mr Bouchard came back. We had a chat at the APC, so I can remind him that the premiers noted that, "Canadians should be able to move freely throughout Canada without barriers based on residency," which is what you're talking about. We can hand you this but you'll have it in the Hansard as well.
"Premiers agreed that the federal government's unilateral cuts to the Canada health and social transfer have, however, reduced the funds necessary to help support the mobility of Canadians.
"In discussing social policy renewal, premiers observed that a defining principle of Canada's social union should be that social programs do not create barriers to mobility. Premiers noted the federal government has expressed interest in addressing questions of mobility in social programs, and currently enforces mobility provisions on a unilateral basis through the CHST prohibition on residency requirements for social assistance and the portability principle of the Canada Health Act."
That's just one part of this, but I think what you're drawing to our attention will also fit this discussion.
They "indicated that they are prepared to discuss this matter within the context of discussions on managing the social union," so we could possibly raise this. "They directed the provincial/territorial council on social policy renewal to review questions of mobility issues in federal, provincial and territorial social programs, with a view to reducing or eliminating unreasonable restrictions to mobility," and here we're talking about citizens, "and better defining the commitments of governments to protecting mobility."
This is part of the work plan of our council, so you've given us a very good specific example here to work with, but we won't wait. We can have further discussions about this in the next few days, if you want.
"Premiers also asked the council to consider alternative means of enforcing current federal mobility requirements that would eliminate the unilateral aspects of these provisions."
It was of great concern to make this part of the work plan and also a specific area to draw to the attention of Canadians through their own communiqué coming out of the conference. If you can give us something tomorrow, perhaps, we can put that on our agenda for our discussions with Mr Brassard.
Mr Lalonde: If this is happening at present in Hawkesbury, it's going to happen in the Pembroke-Shawville area and right up even in the Premier's riding, which is only about three quarters of an hour's drive before you get to the Quebec border. I'm sure the people up there on the Quebec side use the health services of Ontario in that area too.
The next question that I have, Minister: I have quite a file on another case. In a municipality along the border we tend to use specialists in Quebec often. One of the reasons in the Hawkesbury area -- I would say the same thing up in the Lake Timiskaming area -- is it takes a while before you get to an appointment in Ottawa. Hawkesbury to Ottawa is an hour's drive and you could get to Montreal in 45 minutes from Hawkesbury, so the people are going to Montreal.
In this case a patient, Mr Michalchuk, went to the Royal Victoria Hospital. Apparently there are 400 cases that are going to the Quebec ministry at the present time. They are refusing the health card from the Ontario resident. They have to pay cash.
According to the Ontario-Quebec health agreement, doctors are supposed to be accepting the Ontario health card, which they are not. They are saying the reason they are not accepting it is it takes eight to 12 months to get reimbursed. It is against the law at the present time for a patient to recover the cost of that doctor's fee directly. It's got to go through the hospital or the physician's office.
I was looking at this whole file. There are probably 30, 35 phone calls that have been done and we have all the names of the people. At one point the Ontario ministry people said, "Why don't they come to Ontario instead of going to Quebec to see a specialist?" I even have the name of the person who said that here.
It's not our fault really that they go to Quebec. It's because it's closer and also because of the length of time they have to wait going to Ontario compared to the Quebec hospitals.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: In ongoing discussions with regard to the kinds of concerns you bring to our attention, we don't wait until estimates. We try to deal with this in an ongoing way. We're certainly aware and the Minister of Health is aware that there are some concerns in this area, to the extent that when our Premier met with Mr Bouchard -- obviously the ministers give him some advice as to where the priorities for discussion are, and this was one of the areas he brought to the attention of the Quebec Premier.
But it's also an area of concern for ministers of health across the country, because after all we always talk about our national standards and mobility within Canada, one of the most successful health care programs probably in the world, even though we don't believe that national standards have to be federal standards. But it is a problem and it was brought to the Premier of Quebec's attention and is one that I will again bring to the attention of Mr Wilson.
Mr Wildman: Just to follow through with what my colleague, the owner of the Hull Olympiques, had to say in that regard, I think it's also Ontario Ministry of Health policy that's a problem here in that the Ministry of Health takes the position that if there's a specialist in Ontario you can go to, then they try to direct the patient to the specialist in Ontario, even if it's more convenient for the patient to go to another jurisdiction such as Quebec.
Having said that, I'd like to move to the communiqué that came out of the discussions in Calgary. Despite the fact the Premier said that the nine premiers were not saying anything specific to Quebec other than, "We love you," it does seem to me that when you look at the communiqué and the so-called framework for discussion, it is more than just process. There are in fact some substantive issues raised and I'll just look at a couple of those. Number 2: "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equal status."
Obviously that's a substantive position as part of this framework. It's clear from that that the provinces have rejected the concept that has been talked about and argued about for some years in Canada, and that is asymmetrical federalism.
This obviously is a rejection of the kind of process that is happening in the United Kingdom right now, where as a result of the referendum in Scotland, Scotland will have its own assembly, and I suppose in a couple of weeks if Wales votes for an assembly, they will have an assembly, but England will not. In a sense, while I wouldn't call what is being proposed in the United Kingdom federalism, it is asymmetrical, or will be. Having said that, that seems substantive to me, more than just process.
1650
Then on number 5: In Canada's federal system, there is a recognition of "the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law," and this "is fundamental to the wellbeing of Canada."
Then it further says, "...the Legislature and government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada." That is quite substantive. Frankly, I welcome it, but it doesn't look like just process to me.
Number 6: "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." Again, a substantive statement, a rejection of asymmetrical federalism and I think that obviously there has been more than just process discussed in Calgary.
While this may mean to Premier Harris that these seven principles are just a complicated way of saying "We love you" to Quebec, I think it says a little more than that, not just to Quebec but to all Canadians.
I'd like to move, though, to process because in the communiqué the Premier said, "Each province and territory will determine the scope of consultation and the most appropriate mechanisms," and then attached to the communiqué are guidelines for the process of public consultation:
"(1) Will be open to the general citizenry.
"(2) Efforts should be made to find creative ways of engaging Canadians in each provincial consultation process.
"(3) Governments should act as catalyst for the process of consultation.
"(4) It is acknowledged that provinces and territories may wish to have processes of consultation in stages but the advantage of a coordinated time frame is recognized," without having reached that time frame, I guess.
"(5) Each province and territory is free to decide on the range or scope of consultation as well as the most appropriate mechanism for consultation." It's that one I want to concentrate on.
Looking at those guidelines, particularly number 5, could the minister indicate to us the range or scope of consultation in Ontario and the appropriate mechanism?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think we're considering ways, with the help of our opposition leaders, of moving forward on these consultations. I think the goal is to take an open, non-partisan approach that contributes to consensus building and to a genuine sense and reality of involvement for Ontarians. This will be a process for the people, unlike what the perception -- I underline that word -- was in the past. Because it's interesting. I know our Premier described to us the fact that the public actually don't think they were consulted around Charlottetown. When you take a look at --
Mr Wildman: I went to an awful lot of meetings, as I recall.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I know.
Mr Wildman: And I debated a lot of times with people who called themselves "reformers."
Hon Mrs Cunningham: They too didn't feel they'd been consulted, so now we have to find ways of engaging our fellow citizens so they can work through some pretty difficult and complex issues and reach some, perhaps the word should be "responsible," conclusions about them. That is a great challenge.
We can't direct people about what they should decide. We have to give them the opportunity and the information so that they can decide intelligently for themselves. That will be a challenge for the members of our Legislative Assembly.
Mr Wildman: Okay, but if I could respond -- I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely interested, as you know -- there have been some basic principles set down, so in a sense the premiers have already set out some of the things that have to be decided -- those seven principles -- and we're going to consult about those. So I guess what you're saying is that at this point you are unable to tell us. You're going to consult about the consultation to find out how we might develop a mechanism. At this point, you can't tell us that.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I could give you some ideas.
Mr Wildman: Okay, I just wanted to go from that. This morning the Premier was musing in the scrum, I understand -- although he wasn't able to make a statement. Is he going to make a statement tomorrow?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. That's my understanding.
Mr Wildman: On this?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's my understanding.
Mr Wildman: Okay, because he was musing in the scrum this morning, saying that perhaps they could use MPPs' newsletters and maybe the Internet as appropriate mechanisms. I certainly don't have anything against those things being used; I think they probably should be. But if that's the sum total, all Ontarians don't have access to the Internet, and thanks to Canada Post, it looks like not all Ontarians are going to have access to our newsletters either.
I hope there is going to be more to it than that, because number 1 is, "Will be open to the general citizenry." That is what is stated here.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: If I can just tell you what the underlying basic principle of this consultation will be with regard to the Premier, when we take a look at just how we can go about it in Ontario, the expectation is that we'll do it with your help from the NDP and the Liberals. So if you're wondering, you can start writing it all down because --
Mr Wildman: In a sense, it's being written down in Hansard.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but as in the past, I think it is the responsibility of the whole Legislative Assembly to decide in Ontario how we speak to the constituents. There will be many different ways of doing that, but in the meantime, you're an experienced member of this process, more experienced than any one of us elected representatives in this room. So actually whether you like it or not, we're going to be counting on you, because you can probably show us some of the areas where we may have some difficulties.
Mr Wildman: Don't misunderstand me, and I don't think I misunderstand you --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, we don't --
Mr Wildman: In both of our leadoffs to the discussion on these estimates, I think we indicated there was a role for all of us in the assembly, and I agree with that.
It's just that it seems to me also that the Premier, though, because he's Premier, the leader of the government, the person who speaks for Ontario in these kinds of discussions, has an obligation to put some ideas out, at least some proposals for consultation, to then get the responses or the reaction of other members of the assembly, from all sides, and to move from that to a process which is acceptable to the people of Ontario. I hope he'll do that tomorrow.
How much time do I have left?
The Vice-Chair: You have eight minutes left.
Mr Wildman: Thanks. If I could raise a couple of other things coming out of the communiqué, it says: "The premiers and territorial leaders remain committed to meeting with aboriginal leaders to follow up on the recent annual premiers' conference held in St Andrews," to which the aboriginal leaders were not invited. It doesn't say that, I added that. "This meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Winnipeg, Manitoba, on November 18, 1997."
1700
I think that's a good thing. I would just ask you -- and this is certainly not self-pleading because I probably wouldn't be able to attend since my other responsibilities are around here -- but in the past, under three governments, representatives of the opposition parties were invited to attend as observers at these meetings. As I recall in the Charlottetown process, at various times -- well, Mr Beer from the Liberal party participated, but so did Mr Eves and Mr Sterling. They sort of alternated from the third party. They had various levels of participation, and that has also depended on the government and the government's style and the government's approach.
Mr Beer, for instance was quite active and involved in discussions directly with people, with me and the then Premier and with representatives of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and others in that process. I would like to know if that has been considered by the current government as a way of involving all three parties in the Assembly in this process.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are different ways of course of including the aboriginal peoples, but I think the meeting you might be talking about is the meeting that the premiers are going to have with the aboriginal community. That's basically a debriefing of the annual premier's conference.
Mr Wildman: That's all it is?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's all that it's supposed to be at this time. It was a promise as we went into it that they would have that meeting, so that's what that's about.
Getting back to the whole issue of the process here, I think we all have to proceed very carefully and we've got to give a lot of thought to it. I know that the Premier will be consulting with the opposition leaders on that, if he hasn't already called them, to say, "We're going to put our heads together with regard to how we proceed." He does have some ideas about a number of approaches himself, some of which he's already heard from with regard to the opposition leaders.
We know the Ontario public wants us as politicians to take our rightful place with regard to acting as a catalyst, but they don't want us to prejudge the outcome. That's why we have to think so carefully. I guess the question is, how do we do it? We've got all kinds of resources in this province that will assist us. That I think will be the basis of how we can involve our volunteers. Our community organizations and all the different networks that may want to be part of it will be part of the discussions that the Premier has with the two opposition leaders.
You were talking about the technology. There's lots of different kinds. I guess what we should all be thinking about, because we've all been invited to think about it and to give our best advice, would be what you'd want to do in your own community that we should be talking about. I think it's an opportunity to be extremely creative and meet the needs of a community that basically is telling us -- if you ask them, they don't want to go to big public meetings any more. They're busy. That was one of the issues that I heard. We've consulted now for the last 6 months with experts who know how to talk to their communities and they basically said to us, "You better think something up other than public meetings because people want another way of letting you know how they feel." So there are varieties of ways.
I think that's probably what the Premier had in mind when he threw out the idea of the Internet and 1-800 numbers and whatever. I'm sure that we can talk in a more creative fashion than we have in the past where we met with significant failure. We don't want to do that again.
Mr Wildman: I want to remind the minister, as she's aware, in Ontario we voted for the Charlottetown Accord. It was a close vote, but we voted for it.
I want to get to social policy renewal next time, I guess. I'll follow that through when I next have the opportunity.
The Vice-Chair: We move over to the government side. Mr Wettlaufer, you can continue with your longer question this time.
Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, our government was elected with a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs -- economic renewal. There have been some questions as to whether the position of unity, the position we've taken in recent weeks, plays a role in our policy. In some of the questions that I've had back in my riding, I've tried to explain -- and this is only part of the answer -- that while national unity is an emotional issue, nevertheless it also is a jobs issue, it's also an economic issue. That is of course that a strong, united, vibrant Canada is a place that international markets want to invest in and provide jobs. Of course, if we're a divided Canada, then the money flows the other way and we lose the jobs.
Given the leadership role that it's reported the Premier played in Calgary this past weekend -- and I think it's very important that he did play a pivotal role because I'm one of those unemotional Canadians who becomes emotional over this issue -- can you give us a broad update on the weekend's affairs? Even though you weren't there, I know you've played a very active role in what has happened.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I thank you for the question, Mr Wettlaufer. You made a very good introduction there. Economic renewal is jobs, jobs, jobs, and investment, as we all know, is something that governments are basically trying to set the tone for, the climate for, in provinces across the country. It was interesting for me to hear the premiers two years ago, again a year ago, and this last year in New Brunswick state that one of the great challenges we have to attract investment is to reassure our own country and the international markets with regard to the future of our country, the unity of the country. So for many reasons that have already been discussed here in these meetings, the premiers agree that it is time to consult directly on how to strengthen the federation. Some of us refer to unity as the 80%, which is the rebalancing, the roles and responsibility, the unilateral use of the federal spending power, but the other 20% is sending a message, no matter how we want to put that forward, to Quebec.
Jobs and growth were the main part of the St Andrews meetings, where they took a look at the economic and fiscal outlook and set themselves a business plan on how all of them could move forward and get their own fiscal houses in order, which some are doing much better than ourselves. They also noted that the federal deficit targets have been achieved in large measure through reductions and cash transfers to provinces and territories, which we've already talked about. As a result of that, the premiers believe that all provinces and territories should have a role -- and this is interesting -- in determining how any emerging federal fiscal dividend is allocated. They actually have made that statement, that "We'd like to talk to you about what you do with any extra money." That's across all political stripes with regard to premiers. The key priority, they underline, is reinvestment for a modern and sustainable health system.
From there and those meetings, they decided that it is time to start talking about the unity of the country. So last weekend in Calgary they set out a seven-point framework for discussion -- that was the one piece. They stressed that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, even though they had the seven points. I'm sure during some consultations there may be some discussion around that, but it was a starting point for open, grass-roots consultations with Canadians.
1710
Each province and territory will determine how they want to approach the consultations and what the most appropriate mechanisms are, as we have already had discussions here, for each province. We're just beginning that -- maybe even these meetings today. That's okay.
In public statements following the meeting, both Prime Minister Chrétien and Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson stated that the meeting represented a solid beginning, so it's great to have. The objective was to influence the selection of the next government in Quebec. We talked about that last week. The framework for discussion agreed to very clearly recognize that we can only achieve a strong, unified Canada if we have a federation at work, because there is a lot of dissatisfaction across this country right now, from province to province and territory to territory. Governments must work in partnership, particularly in the delivery of social programs, which I described earlier to Mr Pettit.
The provinces and territories renewed their commitment to work towards cooperative arrangements with the federal government, as set out in the statement on social policy renewal, which we talked about at the APC in August, and there will be a meeting of the Prime Minister and the premiers this fall -- they're saying November -- to discuss ways of working cooperatively in the areas of social policy reform to increase, as I refer to it, the effectiveness and efficiency of the federation. This meeting will focus on the administration of the Canada Health Act, because we talked about that at the APC, with regard to jobs and growth and the economic agenda.
The second one, and I think the priority for the ministers of education and training, was the urgent issue of youth unemployment. As an aside, I thought it was very interesting that after the meetings of the premiers in August the federal government should respond with their own program -- again didn't get the message without consultation with us -- and giving federal government jobs to 3,000 young people, when there are so many other good ideas the provinces need some support for as we look at the very serious issue for long-term employment and very focused, specialized training, and sometimes at a very early age.
The framework for the discussion defined at the Calgary meeting also set out some points that help to define our identity as Canadians, which Mr Wildman read into the proceedings today, and it speaks of the equality of citizens and the equal status of the provinces, talks about the diversity that is a fact of Canadian society and our tradition of respect for that diversity as a key element of the unity of Canada. It speaks about our Canadian values of tolerance and compassion and about the goal we have consistently set for ourselves as a society to provide equality of opportunity for all Canadians. In that context, the framework for discussion notes the unique character of Quebec because of its majority language culture and civil law code. The framework also states that if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces, and each province's consultative process will set out to engage the citizens of Canada in an open, non-partisan and inclusive way in discussions to help guide the future of our federation.
A final couple of points: Premier Harris had already met with the opposition leaders, before he left, to discuss the possible forms the discussions might take in Ontario. He'll be doing that very quickly upon his return, if he hasn't already. As Mr Wildman pointed out, we have always worked together in the past and we have always had confidence in the government, but that's because we were included, so we could have confidence.
We will continue to keep all parties informed and involved. I have already invited the members of this committee to come up with suggestions and ideas, and we have to work out yet -- we'll do this with the opposition leaders -- some kind of process for pulling all this information together. There are lots of ways we could do that, but I'm anxious to hear about those discussions.
With the input and the cooperation of all of us, because we are the elected members who have been given the trust and confidence of our own constituents, if you have a chance to talk to them -- you will probably not have to reach out to them; I think they'll reach out to you. Even in casual conversations that we have, I think sometimes the best advice comes from people who care enough to talk to us. They take the time to pick up the phone or stop us in our work, even during our work here in Toronto when most of us are away from our own constituents. I think all of us are looking for effective ways to engage the citizens and also to look at a creative consensus about the future of the country and Ontario's role -- and I have to put it this way -- in the Canada of tomorrow, because it must be very different. There is a whole generation of young Canadians who are telling us that it must be different. That's about it with regard to an update.
Mr Wettlaufer: Will there be regular discussions between the premiers of the various provinces, or you and your peers, the intergovernmental affairs ministers, to discuss what is going on, to discuss the various methods of consultation that we are doing with the public?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's a good question that most wouldn't think to ask. The premiers have decided to go back to their legislative assemblies with the challenge, so there will probably be an informal discussion among some of the ministers or even the premiers -- "How are you proceeding? Any good ideas?" -- that kind of thing, but nothing has been decided formally. They are going to have a meeting before they go on their Team Canada mission the first week of January and they are also going to have an opportunity to see each other at the first ministers' meeting, so my guess is that there would be some kind of update at that time.
I want to emphasize, because I had this question from the media, "Will you be finished your process for January?" that my instinct is to say that all that the premiers have decided to do in January is report back on their progress. Maybe the progress in some provinces will be that they have finished their consultations, but we, with our opposition leaders and some assistance from you, I think will decide that we will give this the kind of time the public needs to consult with us, so we haven't set any time frame.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Minister, I have a question dealing with the national revenue collection agency. I realize that your ministry is not the lead ministry on this issue, but my colleague Mr Lalonde talked about the border with Quebec a few minutes ago. In my constituency I also have a border, which is about 50 miles long, but it's an international border. It is somewhat frustrating when a lot of my constituents come in and say there's a lot of trade between Canada and the United States, namely Michigan and Ohio, dealing especially in used cars, but in the past couple of years in boats. These boats are not the $500 items; they are $100,000 or $50,000 items, whereby the GST is collected -- I have two crossings on that border -- at the border, but the PST is not collected. I think that is a tremendous loss to Ontario's coffers. I know there has been some discussion between the federal and provincial governments over this issue, but I think it's a difficulty we have encountered in this province for the past number of years. Could you give me an update of where the talks are and what progress we're making on this issue at this point in time?
1720
Hon Mrs Cunningham: You've got a specific issue there. Where you live you've got some great examples of these boats coming back, correct? We know about these boats in Ontario and the competitive edge we should be doing a better job on. That's my view. But this is a Ministry of Finance issue. I certainly haven't got any information, other than what you and I have discussed in the past, as to any progress there, but I will get it. I'll talk to the Minister of Finance about this.
With regard to the national revenue collection agency, there are a couple of points I'd like to make here. That stems from the 1996 federal budget. The federal government is proposing that revenue collection be done by a central agency. That's not new. We'd like to participate and we're certainly willing to listen to the proposals. But we have a strong position with regard to a business case being made showing that such an agency would be more efficient for the taxpayers, as long as it's at arm's length and, I underline, not federally controlled.
We have some prerequisites with regard to this agency and just jumping in. It's not new; this has been discussed in the past. Ontario has a number of concerns about the way the federal government has treated Ontario with respect to our tax arrangements. We want to be constructive, but as we noted in the 1997 Ontario budget, we're very dissatisfied with the inflexibility of the federal government on this issue so far. That would be an up-to-date response to your first point about the national revenue collection agency.
How the boats fit in -- which we're both interested in, because we both had examples brought to us by our own constituents on more than one occasion -- I'll have to get an update.
The current federal-Ontario personal income tax collection agreement has been characterized, to put it bluntly, by a number of limitations imposed by the federal Department of Finance on provincial tax policy ideas. We've been significantly frustrated, as former governments have been when they've made some efforts, and dissatisfied with the personal income tax collection agreement as it regards the development of new policy ideas, which many of us have been party to.
They refuse to make changes we've asked for or requested that affect only Ontario's taxes: the original design, for instance, of the fair share health care levy, a tax credit for gifts to crown foundations, which all of us are interested in, and a checkoff box on page 4 of the return. Those are some areas where we've requested that they consider change, and we have requested that they work with us. Believe it or not, those simple requests -- Mr Wildman again shakes his head, in acknowledgement.
Mr Wildman: No, I was talking to someone.
The Vice-Chair: You know it fits there, though, Bud.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's nice to see an NDP --
Interjections.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's okay. You're safe. But I'm watching everybody. You can afford this one, Bud. You didn't even have to put your sign up. It's nice to see the agreement of my colleague, the long-standing goodwill in this regard. We just don't have the agreement of our federal colleagues to any greater extent than you did, Mr Wildman.
Thank you for that question. We will get back, because there have been specific letters written to the Minister of Finance with regard to that example of the boats.
Mr Beaubien: There is one point I would like to emphasize that Mr Wettlaufer talked about.
The Vice-Chair: A quick point, please, Mr Beaubien. You've got two minutes.
Mr Beaubien: Okay. We talked about jobs. If we look at the impact this trade has between the borders, the suppliers of marine equipment cannot compete on a level playing field with American suppliers because of the tax not being paid. We lose an awful lot of jobs in the area. It's just a point.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's worthy of another letter to the Minister of Finance, with your three examples, and anybody else here who lives on the shoreline, as Mr Beaubien does. We have to do that.
The Vice-Chair: We'll return to the official opposition.
Mr Lalonde: I'm going to education first and then I'll come back to labour mobility. But Mr Beaubien just brought up the point that we have a hard time collecting Ontario taxes at the border with the United States. But we happen to be facing the Quebec border in Canada, and the other sector is the United States. It's pretty hard to collect the taxes, but probably you can do like we do. We report them to the Ministry of Revenue in Ontario whenever we see a Quebec licence plate doing a contract in Ontario, because they have to pay 4% of the total value of the contract when they work in Ontario. But we don't have the inspectors in place to catch them unless we do it ourselves.
Here is another difficulty or problem that exists all along the border, which is at the education level. I was wondering if it is possible for your ministry to discuss this with your colleague Mr Snobelen, the Minister of Education. Last year, 150 students at our elementary schools were sent back to Quebec schools. They've been attending schools in Ontario ever since they started elementary school, and apparently it's happening in secondary schools.
An inspector just happened to be walking in the school and she noticed a student sitting there and said, "Are you still living in Papineauville?" The student said yes. We started to investigate immediately and 150 of them were coming to Ontario for elementary school. Immediately, the Quebec Minister of Education was advised that we would not accept those students any more because it cost the province of Ontario between $5,000 and $6,000 a year per student.
I recognize that those students came from the Rigaud area, the Ste-Anne-de-Prescott area. Instead of travelling 15 or 20 minutes to school, now they have to travel two and a half to five hours a day because there was no school close by on the Quebec side. But it is happening to Ontario people in the same way.
I was wondering if this was ever done in secondary and elementary schools; I know we do it in the post-secondary schools. Is it possible to come up with an agreement with Quebec that for anybody who comes from Quebec to attend our schools, our school boards could bill the school board from Quebec to accept those students, and probably also come up with a quota, "We will allow so many kids from Quebec to attend Ontario schools as long as you allow so many kids from Ontario to attend Quebec schools"?
1730
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you suggesting that these are secondary school students? Is that correct?
Mr Lalonde: Elementary school.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: They're elementary school students.
Mr Lalonde: Yes.
Mr Wildman: They can do that now. They can pay tuition now. What's probably the case is that the board of education in Quebec doesn't want to pay the tuition.
The Vice-Chair: That's what he's asking.
Mr Lalonde: Exactly.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There probably has been an effort to get tuition, because most of us know people in our own communities who may be residing outside of the boundaries of their own school district.
Mr Lalonde: Within Ontario.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, within Ontario, or from outside, out-of-country tuition. Why don't we refer this question to Mr Snobelen and see what's happening? It would be very helpful if you could give me a letter that I could show him with regard to the area and the numbers, because then we can pursue it.
Mr Lalonde: I have the numbers from my area.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: And the school boards involved. There must be two school boards, one in Quebec, one in Ontario. If you could provide us with that information then we'll get Mr Snobelen to see you through. Did you write to Snobelen already on this?
Mr Lalonde: No.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: You should do that.
Mr Lalonde: Okay. I'm going to go back to labour mobility. I was wondering, when you deal with the federal people, regarding any federal buildings or bridges that belong to the federal government, whether Ontario unionized or non-unionized people could be allowed to work on Quebec federal buildings. At the present time it's not permissible for Ontario construction workers to work in the federal buildings in Quebec. The first question that is asked of any contractor when they go out for tenders is, are you allowed to work in Quebec? If they say, "We are not," they are disqualified immediately, on bridges and federal buildings.
First of all, to work in Quebec you have to be unionized, and 90% of eastern Ontario construction workers are not unionized, so this immediately eliminates all our people. Second, if it is a federal building, I don't see why they should be members of the CCQ. The CCQ is the five-union group leading construction in Quebec.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think we've got the same issue, whether it be bridges or federal buildings, when we're talking about the public sector here.
Mr Lalonde: It's a little different, because they don't belong to Quebec, they belong to the federal government, all of us.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: They've got their own legislation, don't they, with regard to --
Mr Lalonde: Construction.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, construction. It has more to do with construction. As to whether the buildings belong to the federal or provincial government, it's a matter of their public buildings and they have their laws. It's Quebec legislation.
If you've got something specific you want me to talk to my counterpart there --
Mr Lalonde: I think so. We have letters, yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Again, you're going to have to document it in the form of some kind of briefing note. We're going to have to meet about it and make sure that either myself or the Premier has this discussion at the appropriate time. As my deputy points out, this is probably something that should be going to Minister Snobelen.
Mr Lalonde: That also?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Lalonde: I really feel that it could be discussed. It's a federal issue, which is controlled at the present time by the Quebec government and the CCQ.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's the point, though. We're talking about federal buildings but we're talking about Quebec government. Since Mr Snobelen is responsible for the labour mobility issue -- workers -- then we should be talking to Mr Snobelen.
Mr Lalonde: It's only in the last probably five or six years that the federal buildings are included in their union agreement. Before that, Ontario residents were allowed to go and work on any federal building in the construction trade.
My last one, Mr Chair, that I would have to the minister, and you don't happen to be getting the problem here, is the trucking industry. The last time we met in Quebec City on February 12, 13 and 14 of this year, I had asked that there be an official from the MTQ, Ministry of Transport of Quebec, who would come in on Friday, which he did, on the 14th. He mentioned that in Quebec they have mutual agreement among municipalities about the trucking industry. He said he would look at the matter to see if there was a possibility to have a mutual agreement with Ontario bordering municipalities. I wonder if you could look into this.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We certainly did have some discussions, as has Mr Palladini, with regard to transportation issues, specifically bridges, and we can add this. But again, you're going to have to document this one and make certain that Mr Palladini has it and copy us. In our ministry, our responsibility is to coordinate the work of the other ministries, and obviously if there's going to be a meeting with either my counterpart in Quebec, Mr Brassard, or with the Premier, Mr Bouchard, we can deal with it in that way. I don't think we have to wait for meetings. We've talked about four issues today where --
Mr Lalonde: We don't have to wait for meetings.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: No. We've talked about four issues today where the ministers actually have not been informed. If the ministers responsible haven't been informed, it would be very difficult for me to step in. I usually move agendas along and coordinate and make sure that any intergovernmental issues are dealt with by the appropriate ministry. I obviously have opportunities to talk to my counterpart, but basically I talk about agenda items that other ministers want me to put on that agenda. Not being a line minister, I have to be very careful that I don't get into the work of other people. But this is an intergovernmental affairs responsibility when it comes to coordinating the work of the different ministries, and we'd be happy to do that.
That one, I know I can say, and I think Mr Palladini would approve of me bringing forth the information to the group, that he and Mr Brassard have a very good working relationship and they speak on a regular basis.
Mr Lalonde: I don't know if you're aware, at the present time business people refuse to sell at times to Quebec residents because they cannot deliver the material. We have a marine salesman as a good case who was able to sell boats to Quebec. The fact that he had to deliver them in Quebec, he's not allowed to cross the river. If he does, he has to apply for a permit and then have a monthly report sent to Quebec, even if he doesn't cross the river.
In Hawkesbury, for example, a good percentage of the businesses belong to Quebec residents. What the people in Hawkesbury did, they got a business truck with a Quebec licence. Their business is in Hawkesbury because it is easy for them to cross to come into Ontario. If they were to have an Ontario licence plate on their truck, for example, for delivery, they would not be able to deliver material in Quebec. They would not be able to go back and forth, not even go to their home in Quebec. It is a major problem in all Ottawa, and I would say it's the same thing in the Rouyn-Noranda area.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I just want to be very clear on this. All of us have listened to some problems that are very discouraging with regard to achieving some progress with regard to our labour mobility agreements and, ultimately, sections of the internal trade agreement across the country. Often people don't come forward with examples so you can't do much about it.
It would be very important for you to document this information, because it's very clear, I think for most us listening, this is very discouraging, especially on the eve of premiers discussing not only how we can make our country work better so that our young people across all provinces and territories are enthusiastic about Canada moving into the next millennium, but also to send that message out to Quebec. I think this could be problematic if we don't have some discussions.
It's going to take some careful documentation -- certainly the pieces with regard to any intergovernmental issues are my own with Mr Brassard -- but the trucking pieces that you've given me, having to get a licence plate to sort of sneak the delivery of goods across our borders, which are Canadian borders, is very discouraging and we would be very pleased to have this discussion. Perhaps you could help us in that regard.
1740
Mr Lalonde: I think it's very important that you are made aware of this. The last example I'm going to give you: The Perley bridge in Hawkesbury is under construction. Dufferin Construction from Oakville got the contract. The subcontractor, Chamberlain, with a boom truck, was working on the Ontario side. He was asked by Dufferin to unload a flatbed on the other side. He got two tickets of $400 each because he crossed the middle of the bridge, and the bridge is not any wider than this building.
The Vice-Chair: We have 16 minutes left, and that will be the time for the third party.
Mr Wildman: If I could just follow up on what my friend from Prescott-Russell was questioning, and he knows far more about this than I do, surely one of the things we have to consider about this difficulty between Quebec and Ontario, and frankly between Quebec and New Brunswick as well, is that there isn't really easy mobility within Quebec. I think my friend from Prescott-Russell raised this last day. Everything is organized regionally within Quebec, and if you are a tradesman and you live in one region, you can work in that region if you have a licence to work in that region, but you can't move to another region within Quebec. Of course you can go and work elsewhere in Canada because they're not organized in the same way, but if you live in Ontario, you can't go and work in any of those regions in Quebec unless you're licensed in a particular region within Quebec.
Mr Lalonde: If you're Ontarian, you could go get a licence in Quebec and you could go anyplace in Quebec.
Mr Wildman: That's a really serious problem and that's also a problem with trucking. With regard to reciprocal agreements between municipalities and so on, it's quite different. This has been something that has plagued us for so long, and I know the member for Prescott-Russell has raised it a number of times on a continuing basis.
Just one thing I want to point out here before I go to the issue I said I would raise this time. If you look at the framework for discussion, it says that all provinces have equal status, which I characterize as a rejection of asymmetrical federalism, and then number 6 says, "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces."
I think there is a potential for latitude in interpretation, shall we say, because if you look at number 5, it says, "The Legislature and government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada," and the premiers have touted this as a message to Mr Johnson and the Liberal party in Quebec as something they can talk to Quebeckers about, going into the next provincial election there.
Mr Johnson interprets that, I think, somewhat differently from what I've heard the Premier of Ontario's interpretation to be. Mr Johnson has stated yesterday, I believe I read in the press, that he believes this will mean that courts will interpret that this confers some powers and responsibilities on the National Assembly and the government of Quebec. I don't know whether the minister wants to comment or whether she thinks it's better left unsaid. I think federalists in Quebec will have a tendency to read that to mean this is conferring some powers and responsibilities on the National Assembly and the government of Quebec which may in fact be somewhat contradictory to number 2 and number 6 on the same page.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: My initial response is one of relief. These are points for discussion, so there's going to be a lot said about that. I'd like to underline the fact that we know for sure that Canadians want us, the government that is, to work cooperatively, and I'm going to underline "with flexibility," to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. But, Mr Wildman, if you have any other observations, I'd be interested in listening to yours in that regard.
Mr Wildman: It seems to me that anything that is going to result in a final resolution -- and I've already questioned whether anything could be final -- of this long-standing, historical difficulty is going to have to be flexible and in my view will have to be worded in such a way that people with different political views across Canada will be able to interpret in ways which are acceptable to themselves. That can only work of course if there is goodwill and people across the country, political leaders and all Canadians, are willing to allow for some variations of interpretation. Of course, the courts will eventually probably have to decide if and when we finalize some constitutional accommodation.
The reason I raise that is it seems to me that those Canadians and those political leaders who say we're all the same, we're all equal, sometimes interpret that principle that all Canadians accept -- well, let me put it this way: interpret the word "equality" to mean sameness. You can't talk about the diversity of Canada without recognizing that there are variations that are important and frankly, in my view, should be celebrated.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: These are going to be interesting discussions. I think that one thing we will learn, if people don't already know it, is that Canadian federalism is really flexible. An example would be the CPP and the Quebec pension plan and how different provinces have been able to have different agreements with the federal government. The flexibility is there.
One thing I know the premiers were stressing is that we're not talking about constitutional amendments here. I would ask Mr Wildman to perhaps give us his reflections on our Premier's statement and certainly the others as they lead up to the next election, talking about not changing the Constitution until they've got someone at the table who's interested in the unity of Canada. Just tell me what you think about that.
Mr Wildman: Frankly, I think that's axiomatic. Anything that is proposed at this point will be rejected by the current government of Quebec. There's no question about that. Unless you have a government in Quebec that is interested in federalism, you're not going to reach an accommodation with regard to constitutional matters. On some matters, such as the ones being raised by Mr Lalonde, it is possible you may be able to reach some accommodation on those kinds of things.
As Mr Romanow has said, and your leader has repeated, the 80% making Canada work and 20% constitutional. Iif you accept that formulation by Mr Romanow, that's fine, but I think that at some point we do have to deal with the 20%. But I agree that is not going to happen until you have a government in Quebec that is interested in actually coming to a constitutional table in a serious way. They may not even be able to satisfy and resolve it then, but you certainly can't now.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: That at that time will be even a different challenge, won't it?
Mr Wildman: It certainly will be. I had some negotiations with a Liberal government in Quebec. A very ill but committed Premier took a leap of faith, over the objections of his colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It's unfortunate that did not lead to an accommodation which is acceptable across Canada, because Mr Bourassa at the time took a tremendous political risk. I'm not sure that was appreciated in other parts of the country. It was a challenge for him and for the premiers dealing with him at the time.
I think maybe I should leave this other matter until next time round.
The Vice-Chair: That's fine. You have 10 minutes, starting off tomorrow with 10 minutes.
Mr Wildman: I may have a problem in that the Board of Internal Economy or, as we call it, "infernal economy," is meeting tomorrow at 4 o'clock.
The Vice-Chair: We can accommodate you. There's no problem, Mr Wildman.
We're going to adjourn because there will be a vote. Just before we do, though, I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for their attendance. I'd also like to thank Rosemarie Singh, the committee clerk, our new research officer, Anne Marzalik, and the people from Hansard, Maureen Murphy and Greg Didiano. Thanks very much for your hard work. It's always appreciated.
The committee adjourned at 1753.