Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

CONTENTS

Tuesday 30 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 Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall PC)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

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

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1536 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): I would like to call the meeting to order. When we left off a little while back, the third party had eight minutes left. Then we will continue the regular rotation.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to pick up where I left off, which I guess would have been two meetings ago, because our House leader, Mr Wildman, was here as our intergovernmental affairs critic.

I want to go back to what we had talked about the better part of two weeks ago, which is trying to figure out what the position of the province of Ontario is vis-à-vis distinct society in Quebec. I'm wondering if the minister, now that she's had an opportunity to reflect for the last two weeks, and I'm sure had numerous discussions with her cabinet colleagues and with the Premier, and hopefully with some of the other first ministers or her peers in other provinces -- I would really like to know what the position is. As I explained earlier, I understand what the first ministers tried to do by way of this agreement by saying that Quebec is no longer distinct; they are unique. It was a bit of a play on words. It's quite an interesting concept and if it works, fine.

What we need to understand is, what does "unique" mean vis-à-vis the province of Quebec? Will they still have paramountcy when it comes to language issues and other issues they've always claimed they want and have had for these past number of years? That's my question.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): If I may, I think you're probably asking the question in the context of the Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity.

Mr Bisson: Yes, I am.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We actually had a very interesting discussion at lunchtime today on this. Everyone within this particular group that's trying to give us some good advice on this consultation process, as your caucus will be involved and the Liberal caucus will be involved -- basically the message to us was that the wording the premiers agreed to was a step in the right direction. But what we want and what I would say all provinces are looking for, and the territories as well, is what the public feel about those words.

We have been on record as a government, and certainly the two former governments were on record, in supporting both Meech and Charlottetown. The public of Ontario, when they were given the opportunity to make a statement, did make a statement. Now we have a very real challenge in moving forward and talking to the public of Ontario around that particular piece, which basically says:

"In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the wellbeing of Canada."

The only point I'd like to leave you with is that this is the beginning of a discussion. We in Ontario will probably agree that if the public want to talk to us beyond that or be more specific about it, that's what they'll do.

The Vice-Chair: Minister, could we have a copy of that framework? Is that a possibility?

Mr Bisson: They have provided some.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's fine. There are different members on the committee. We've been handing this one out at most meetings, and I think it's an important document that most of us should have a copy of anyway.

Mr Bisson: I have a copy in my office, but unfortunately I don't have it with me. I want to get to that. I can understand very well what the premiers were trying to do in that meeting in Calgary. Point 5 says, "In Canada's federal system," etc, "Consequently...have a role to protect," is the key word here. The last part of point 5 reads, "Consequently, the Legislature and government of Quebec have a role..." There's a difference between role and responsibility.

What concerns me is that whatever process we undertake here outside of Quebec has to ring with some legitimacy within the province of Quebec. Unless Ontario, which is one of the senior partners in Confederation and a partner that has always supported the issue of Quebec having paramountcy when it comes to these issues -- I think they want a signal that what we're really talking about here is that Quebec would have paramountcy. When I see "role to protect," that is something quite different. I'd like you to speak to us on what "role to protect" means. Does it have the same weight as actually having the responsibility?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, we've always had the question, are we supportive of recognizing Quebec's unique characteristics? This document was the closest the premiers could come with regard to at least putting that issue out for public discussions. It's not a legal text, so we're not getting into the legal wording. We will obviously be consulting, as I've already stated. We'll have to ask you and other members of the Legislature down the road to be playing a fairly formal role in that discussion. I will tell you what we have said as a government. That is that we do recognize Quebec in terms of its language, culture, civil law tradition --

Mr Bisson: But do you agree with the Quebec position and the position that Ontario previously took that Quebec has paramountcy in that area?

Then I have a follow-up question to your legal staff. Let me try it simply this way: The two previous governments, both the government of Mr Peterson and the government of Mr Rae, had taken a very strong position when it came to that. Is the position of the Mike Harris government the same as the position of the previous premiers when it comes to the issue of paramountcy over language and cultural issues in Quebec?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're going to have to bear with me. The two previous governments were looking at constitutional change. Right now we are looking at non-constitutional change. You're getting into the legal language. It would really not be responsible for me as a minister to come out and put words into people's mouths. The purpose of this is for consultation.

Mr Bisson: Can I try this --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, we're going to have to move on. The eight minutes is up. Maybe you can keep that line of questioning for later. We'll move over to the Liberal Party, and then we can do the rotation. If you remember, last time there was some juggling of times. We'll go to the Liberal Party.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): How long do we have?

The Vice-Chair: Twenty minutes.

Mr Gerretsen: We can split this up any way we want?

The Vice-Chair: Any way you want to do it.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I want to go back to the consultation process, because I think it's very important. We in the Liberal caucus formed some kind of a committee to address this question, but we haven't received any mandate; I don't know about the third party --

Interjection.

Mr Grandmaître: You haven't? I'm just wondering, how should we conduct ourselves in this committee? We're asking all kinds of questions to our critic, Annamarie Castrilli. She doesn't have all the answers, for the simple reason that the government doesn't have all the answers. How do you plan, or is the government planning, to consult not only the three caucuses, but the population of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I have had some discussion with my critics about the obvious intent, as they have had in the past, of all of us working together and the caucuses working together, and basically each MPP in the other provinces, where we know they have made some headway in discussing a process, including the elected members of their legislative assemblies, because this is a very non-partisan issue where we hope the end result will be our contribution to the ongoing unity of our country.

Here, at this point, the Premier will be talking and has already discussed initially with the leaders of the parties, and the next step will be left to the Premier to make some kind of statement, along with the leaders. That's where it's at right now.

In the meantime, we are considering ways -- I, as the minister, will be trying to give my colleagues all across the House some considerations, do some groundwork, keep in touch with what the other provinces are doing. A couple of them are much further ahead than we are, but we have done some work in the last couple of weeks for the consideration of our colleagues. The goal is to take this open, non-partisan approach that contributes to the consensus-building around a genuine sense of involvement by the public of Ontario.

I would be less than straightforward if I didn't say that this is a very sensitive process and many of us are very concerned about it. We have to find ways, and we're looking for the best ideas we can get. We'll get something more formal once the leaders and the Premier have made some kind of statement together. We have to find ways of engaging our fellow citizens so they can work through what I consider to be very difficult but complex issues facing the public of Ontario and their governments. In the end we need to reach some solid and very responsible conclusions.

I don't think we can direct people about what they should decide. That's why I've been very cautious in giving my description of the former questioner's interest. But we can give them the opportunity, and perhaps the tools and ideas, around how they can decide intelligently for themselves.

Two things have come to my attention with regard to the advice I get. People basically say we have to focus on educating our public. Many of us are working in a day-to-day way around the roles and responsibilities of our governments and have some understanding about where we've made some gains and where we haven't, but this ministry is obviously stepping up our interest in looking at those roles and responsibilities with the federal government. We call it rebalancing. It's not new. I think it started with a focus with Mr Peterson, and then Mr Rae tried to make some efforts, and now we're carrying on with the same level of expertise within our own ministry.

We don't at this time have the same kind of consultations as others did around constitutional change, with a lot of resources going into first of all Meech and then Charlottetown, but we are revving up now for a different kind of discussion, one that we think, because of the timing, is going to be critical to the country. The way we do it is basically consensus-building. We'll have to have some new ideas. Maybe you could take this opportunity to let me know how you feel about what you've been hearing from your constituents as well.

Mr Grandmaître: I wasn't part of Team Canada, but last night I read the statement the Premier gave in the House as a result of his visit to Edmonton. I couldn't find anything in the Premier's statement that stood out and said: "Here's where Ontario stands on this question. We've agreed on these seven points, but now here's where we stand as Ontarians."

I realize it'll be part of the consultation process. I'm a little concerned about this consultation process, because I don't know how you're going to do this. I realize you're not going to lock us up for seven days without seeing the sun.

1550

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You mean suits behind closed doors.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mr Gerretsen: Or skirts.

Mr Grandmaître: Or skirts.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: There haven't been skirts in the past, that I'm aware of. Maybe Mr Wildman goes far enough back to tell us whether that would be the case or not, but not in my lifetime.

The Vice-Chair: When he gets an opportunity, Minister, he may.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That woke him up.

Mr Grandmaître: The evening of the long knives -- I've just finished reading Mr Bouchard's book. Have you read it, John? It's a great book; I'll pass it on. I think if you're trying to get everybody to sing from the same hymn book, we will need more directives from the government. We want to be part of this consensus. I'm sure the NDP feels the same way as I do; we all do. I think we will need more guidelines from the government in order for us to succeed.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Just to make it very clear, and I've said at these estimates before that it's obvious we want to proceed very carefully, because people are somewhat apprehensive. The Premier has already consulted with the two opposition leaders, and we'll have another meeting with them, because they will obviously be bringing back some of their ideas. They've had a couple of weeks to think about it. As I said before, we are working on a daily basis getting ideas and suggestions, not only from the elected members of this Legislative Assembly but from members of the community who think this is an extremely important issue to the future of our country; so in an ongoing way.

The other piece that is interesting to us is, some of the other provinces are almost ready to make their launch. They're further along than we are. We have a huge, diverse province. We have 12 million people. We have a lot more to think about on some issues, because we also happen to be the province that feels more than any other that we don't get what we would call our fair share when it comes to resources from the federal government.

Mr Grandmaître: Madam Minister, I'm going to stop you right there. Are we talking about trying to find a solution to Quebec, or are we trying to find a solution to the disenchantment of 10 premiers? Is this what we're looking for? Are we using Quebec as a tool?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The end result for all of us is our focus on a united Canada.

Mr Gerretsen: I just wonder if I could ask some questions. Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this thing. I think one of the reasons why Meech and Charlottetown didn't succeed -- and I was very ambivalent on it and quite frankly I can't even remember whether I was on the Yes or the No side, because I changed my mind so often during that debate. I dealt with the fact that it was a top-down process. I take it what the premiers are basically talking about and the consultation that's being talked about here in Ontario will be a bottom-up kind of approach: "Let's hear what the people have to say first."

I don't have any problem with that at all. However, when the premiers adopt a set of principles, most of which are motherhood -- because everybody can agree to it -- but some of them have some underlying inferences in those principles, then you are mixing the process part with the substantive part. I think your answer to Mr Grandmaître indicated that, because you seem to mix this notion that maybe the resources ought to be divided up differently, maybe the powers between the federal government and the provinces should be done differently than they are now, with the notion of, "Let's find out what the people want about that."

I just remind you of the very last sentence in point 5, which says, "Consequently, the legislature and government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of society within Canada." Then take 6 on top of that, which says that, "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces."

I'm suggesting to you that you are no longer just talking about process; you are no longer just talking about motherhood statements to the extent that all Canadians are equal and they have rights protected by law and that we're all diverse and that we're a country of diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality, and all that stuff that everybody can agree to.

I'm not a very cynical person, but I would almost think from my reading of this that the provinces have added another ingredient under the guise of, "We are now going to consult with the public at large." They've also added in the notion of, maybe it would be nice to confer some of those powers that the federal government has right now on to the different provinces. I'm not so sure, quite frankly, whether you're going to get the same answer from people as if you were to ask them, "Are you in favour of a united Canada? Would you like Quebec to stay in Confederation?" and those things, as to the question of, "Are you in favour of more powers being devolved from the federal government to the provinces?" They are two completely different sets of questions. These principles have that sort of underlying theory in that.

I don't think you can have it both ways. If you want to get all parties on side, then you cannot within your sets of principles contain some implicit notions of transferring power from the federal government to the provinces.

I wonder if you could react to that, because I am very concerned about that. We either make it a completely open ballgame and consult with the people out there without any preconceived ideas, other than the fact that we want to stay together, or we are trying to in effect insert something in what we want to consult with the people on. There are already some presumptions or suppositions in there.

I can tell you, I am a strong believer in having a good, strong federal government with federal powers. If that's the ultimate tradeoff somewhere down the line, you may get a totally different result from the people of Ontario than you might think.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: What we've been talking about and certainly what the premiers decided is to take a look at a solution to take Canada into the next millennium so we can remain united. The person who probably showed the leadership on the rebalancing piece and made a significant contribution to the debate over the last two years -- because this isn't new -- was Mr Romanow, who said that 80% of the solution is to take a look at the efficiency and the effectiveness of the federation with regard to two things: rebalancing, what level of government should be delivering what programs, where is there now overlap and duplication that could be avoided and how can we have meaningful discussions with our federal colleagues, who actually, through the Constitution, do have the federal spending power?

1600

There are ways of talking to provinces, as we have seen in this last year, how the ministers of community and social services and the Minister of Human Resources Development, Pierre Pettigrew, worked out the child tax benefit. I think that was, at least processwise, programwise, a success story, where the provinces worked with the federal government to work out a program that would be helpful, in this case through the tax system, to our citizens who have children and who are really needing some extra support.

That was a good example of what has happened in the last two years. It wasn't a unilateral decision; it was something that was worked through. Although they haven't finished with regard to the financial implications, they're still talking together. That would be a good example of what we mean around rebalancing.

There is a reason for looking at rebalancing. You can imagine, from your former position, that there's always frustration among all levels of government as to who's delivering what program and what's best for your residents, your constituents. We certainly have our own challenge here in this province, as other provinces do, with the municipalities and school boards. But we also have a responsibility with the federal government.

I would certainly not use the words "devolution of power." Having taken a look at the Constitution and who's responsible for what, those who have studied the Constitution will know that since the Second World War the federal government has gotten into areas of delivering programs that are clearly the jurisdiction of the provinces. This is all federal governments; it's not this federal government. In fact, this federal government has said: "We're going to look at this with you. We agree that there can be more effectiveness and efficiency in this federation." Mr Pettigrew is at the table doing just that. It isn't an issue of power; it's an issue of spending the taxpayers' money wisely and it's an issue of an effective program with results.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, I don't think there's anything wrong with the federal government and the provinces talking about who can deliver what program better and how the powers can be redistributed and that sort of stuff, but quite frankly that has nothing to do with getting the views of the general public as to how they feel about Confederation and how we can keep our 10 provinces together in one country. There's absolutely no connection with that. I would dare say the average person doesn't know exactly where what program comes from.

If we're going into this with another agenda as well, that at the same time this is a good opportunity to get some of these powers for the provinces, or this, that or the other thing, let's be straight up front with the people of Ontario and tell them what our other agenda is, other than just trying to keep this country together.

The general consultation with the people out there as to what we can do collectively to keep this country together, to my way of thinking, has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government. We may like some of these powers as a province, but I don't think we should confuse the two issues.

The Vice-Chair: We're going to move now to the government side. There was a switch, and Mr Wildman's aware of it. Thanks, Mr Wildman, for remembering.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Where should we start today? Minister, in the last two or three weeks when you've been here, you've stated that Ontario seeks a lot more provincial involvement in the standards of health care. A lot of people think that's because the province is trying to undermine the principles of the Canada Health Act. My question would be, where do you stand on the Canada Health Act? Does the province support it? Furthermore, what do you mean when you say "national standards"?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I've learned very quickly from the public at large, and so have the other ministers, specifically of health, across the country that national standards don't mean federal standards. In that regard, this is one of the great challenges we have as a country. Communication is extremely important.

As we have sat through the Canada Health Act standards for program delivery and the effectiveness of our programs across the country -- which is one of our greatest joys and we're proud of it -- that doesn't mean to say that standards are set unilaterally by any level of government. That would be the main message of the ministers of health in their discussions with the federal minister. This is not new. This has been a statement by provincial ministers of health for many years. We're trying to make some gains in that regard.

The Ministry of Finance actually has the lead on talks with the federal government and other provinces concerning the allocation of the CHST, which is the transfer that Ontario is particularly dissatisfied with. This is unilaterally imposed. It's a federal allocation formula which continues to provide an inequitable share of funding to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. All premiers of all political stripes and territorial leaders recognize that the formula does not allow some provinces an equitable share. This has been the discussion with the federal minister.

Our position in Ontario continues to be, as the former government's position was, and the former Liberal Premier's as well, that the CHST should be paid to provinces on a fully equal per-capita basis. This has been Ontario's long-standing position, and we continue on with it.

Ontario disagrees with the federal government's funding priorities. Even with the federal promise to keep CHST cash transfers below a $12.5-billion ceiling, between 1995-96 and 1998-99, as we look to the future, the federal government will cut the CHST cash to provinces by 38.3%. This was mentioned by the premiers in New Brunswick when they talked about having some input to any of the finances where the federal government finds itself in a surplus position, over and above rebalancing its budget. They wanted a say in the disbursement of those funds.

We all know what was said in the throne speech. Let's give credit where credit is due, because the premiers stated that they wanted some allocation to go to health and we'll see that. But I will say that we will be cut, from the time we were elected until 1999, by some 38.3% across the provinces. Over the same period of time, the federal government will have cut all other federal program spending by only 1.5%.

So this is a matter of bringing to the attention of the federal government the priorities of the provinces and speaking on behalf of our own constituents as to their priorities. It's not a political argument with regard to all the other provinces, because they have the same position, without fail, no matter what the politics of their Premier.

Mr Pettit: I'd like to get back to the devolution of powers that Mr Gerretsen was speaking about. As you know, last week the federal government delivered its throne speech. It seems to me in that throne speech there was a lot of talk about partnership with the provinces but very little about devolution of powers. I would like to get your comments on the throne speech and the implications, as you see them, for Ontario.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Throne speeches by their very nature are somewhat general. We'll have to see what specific initiatives the federal government takes in the coming months. But you're right, they have talked a lot about better cooperation and collaboration with the provincial governments. I can't remember the number of times, but I think it was some 14 times, if I'm not mistaken.

We hope this really is an indication that they're committed to engaging in negotiations with the provinces on reforming the social union, as we've talked about, and the financial arrangements. I'll go back: They're specifically rebalancing issues, because that's why provinces, including Quebec, are not happy within the federation. They think it could work better. I shouldn't say "within the federation"; that's absolutely incorrect. With the way the federation works, it could be more efficient and effective.

With regard to the throne speech, it made no mention of a mechanism to interpret and enforce the conditions of the Canada Health Act, which goes back to your first question: What are we going to do about this? These have been ongoing discussions with the ministers of health and the ministers of finance. At the recent meeting of the federal-provincial-territorial health ministers, the federal government continued to maintain that the final interpretation of the Canada Health Act is a federal responsibility. But ministers agreed to establish a working group to develop a protocol regarding the interpretation of the Canada Health Act. I'm sticking to health because that was your question.

1610

In the throne speech, the commitments to respond to the expanding needs regarding home care and the need to develop a national pharmaceutical plan -- I think they called it a pharmacare plan -- will have the effect of raising public expectations regarding those programs and it could have a major cost impact on the provinces. That's just one area. The fact that it was raised now means it must be discussed. This is an example, if it's not handled appropriately, that will lead to the provinces' diminished trust and confidence in the sincerity of a federal government that says it wants to work more closely with us.

I'm particularly optimistic, myself, that there will be better discussions, a more clear understanding of what all the provinces' challenges are and that we can work around some kind of process. The ministers of health have committed themselves to that so that we can have good discussions and not unilateral interpretations and decision-making around the federal spending power.

That's just one small piece of the throne speech. I could talk to other areas if you'd like me to.

Mr Pettit: You're obviously deeply involved in intergovernmental issues.

Mr Gerretsen: I would hope so; she's the minister.

Mr Pettit: She should be, eh, John?

I think we still face a number of intergovernmental challenges and a lot of progress still needs to be made in areas such as internal trade and the employment insurance system and, for that matter, fiscal reform. I want to ask you why social policy reform is so high on the agenda of your ministry.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's not unusual for us to be carrying on, as I say, from former governments. In my view, if you had to take a look at the expectations of the public when they're giving any level of government taxes, they're looking at priority areas for program delivery. What could be more important than areas in social services -- first of all, health care, which is really important to every family in the country; secondly, education?

Everybody knows that one's quality of life is very much dependent on a good start and a good education, good health. The social system that we have in place across the country is one where all of us are prepared to give to others who are less fortunate than ourselves. That's why I think the social policy area has been one of the greatest challenges to the premiers and territorial leaders with regard to making improvements in the way the federation works, the efficiency and the effectiveness of programs.

It's not new. We've got many intergovernmental challenges, but the area with regard to education reform, health service restructuring, Who Does What, as we call it here in Ontario, is very much dependent on the support of the federal government. That's why we have to have ongoing discussions and that's why we're looking for a new process across the provinces and territories not only to work together but to work with the federal government. The taxpayers are demanding this kind of leadership. They don't want us to waste their money and they want the programs to be effective and efficient. We know that isn't so now, that we could do so much better.

Since there hadn't been a lot of gains in the past in the way the federation works, the premiers decided in St John in the summer of 1995 that they would establish a council of ministers called the Provincial-Territorial Council on Social Policy Renewal. That group -- I represent Ontario on that group -- has been working hard to take a leadership role in working together, looking at clear options and new programs like the national child benefit, which was a success story for both levels of government.

We want to reform the social union, and that's why when I had the question, which I haven't had an opportunity to answer, I will say that this is very much a part of taking this country into the next millennium, to make sure the effectiveness and the efficiency of the federation serves the public. That's something all premiers and territorial leaders and the federal government are interested in pursuing.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): If I could, I'd like to get back to the issue of national unity. We read in the paper or heard on the radio this morning about Mr Bouchard's appearance in France, where he's trying to drum up support for his bid to separate from Canada and where he attempts and succeeds to get a photo op with Mr Chirac, and Mr Chirac giving him what appears to be implicit support of his bid to break up this country. I found it to be extremely irritating. It upsets me. It's an issue that we have to deal with.

I can imagine how France would react if we went into Corsica or Brittany and started promoting their separation from France. It's my understanding that France wouldn't allow such a thing under its Constitution, yet they would implicitly seem to be supporting Quebec's efforts to do the same thing. I find it extremely upsetting.

I was at a Parliamentary Conference of the Americas held in Quebec City the weekend before last. I was one of approximately 700 or 800 delegates who attended from all over North America, from South America, from Central America. There were people from Canada, and the United States was there in full force. It was my understanding and the understanding of most delegates from Canada, anyway, that the issue of Quebec's separation would not be an issue that would be brought up at that conference. Yet Mr Bouchard chose an opportunity in his address to the delegates to bring up this very subject.

I have a halting understanding of the French language; I wish I had a better understanding of its technicalities. I can get by quite handily, but when it comes to dealing with the technicalities of the French language, I wish I were much better than I am. When I was hearing his speech in French, I thought I heard him saying things I didn't think he should be saying, but I wasn't sure, because of my lack of knowledge. So I gave him some polite applause, and now I'm sorry I did, because when I got a translation of his remarks my suspicions were confirmed. As a matter of fact, I have a copy with me today of some of the things he said. I was quite upset.

In one area, in effect he said to the delegates who attended that he would not be discussing this issue; he certainly did. He asks this question: "Why, then, meet in Quebec, in the capital city of one of the smallest nations in the Americas?" He referred to it as a nation. "From a standpoint of population, it is only 1% of the total and the home of a people that speaks French, which is the least widely spoken language in the hemisphere." I thought he had said that, but I wasn't sure. It upset me when I did get the translation.

Another thing he said was, "Our friends south of the border are the greatest economic and cultural power the world has ever known. Our Canadian friends have the advantage of speaking the same language as the Americans do." In this, he's referring to "our Canadian friends" -- not our co-Canadians but "our Canadian friends."

1620

In another part of the address he said: "As you know, some people, such as myself, the members of my government and nearly half the Quebec electorate believe that Quebeckers should go one step further in the twofold logic of integration and the bolstering of the national character by making Quebec a sovereign state associated economically with its neighbours."

The man simply will not quit what he's trying to do. We all know that he's committed now. I'm fed up with it and I'm insulted by it. I spent half my life as a citizen of Quebec and the other half of my life -- and it's been a long one -- mostly in Ontario, and two years in Alberta. Like the other members of this committee, we simply have to do something to hold the country together. It's too good a country to lose.

I was watching the Canada Cup repeat on Sunday night. I recall the days in 1972, 25 years ago, when this entire country was so united as a result of that great hockey series. It seems that this country only sticks together when we have a crisis -- and people considered hockey to be a crisis in those days.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It was in those days.

Mr Doyle: The one thing it did do was improve our hockey here in Canada, but it was a great series and it brought this country together.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the effort of the premiers, when they got together in Calgary, was a good thing. I wish I had the intelligence and I was a wise enough man to know how I could supply a solution. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Maybe you'd like to comment on it.

The Vice-Chair: You've exhausted the government's time. I hope you feel better after that.

Mr Doyle: I'll feel better when we have an answer.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That was interesting.

The Vice-Chair: We'll move over to the Liberal side and we'll continue our regular rotation now. You have another 20 minutes.

Mr Grandmaître: I'm going to take the first five. I just want to ask my friend Mr Doyle, what did you expect from M. Bouchard?

Mr Doyle: Well --

The Vice-Chair: You know, that's probably a rhetorical question, as the Speaker would say.

Mr Grandmaître: I think M. Bouchard will take every given opportunity to boast about Quebec and talk about separation. He's been doing it since the age of 19 and he will continue to do so until he's finally defeated in the next 15 or 25 referendums.

I realize how frustrated you feel. I feel the same frustration as well. I speak their language and I'm not always that welcome, so imagine how frustrated I am. I've spent a good deal of my life trying to mend our differences. I've always thought that speaking their language would bring me closer to a solution. I've never come close to a solution.

I'm still trying to really understand what Quebec governments -- and I'm not only referring to M. Bouchard, but M. Lévesque, M. Parizeau. Even in the days of Lesage, Quebec always had a very special agenda, and it's difficult for the rest of Canada to understand or to take part in this agenda, because they refer to themselves as a people, a nation. It's difficult for the rest of us.

As the minister pointed out in her opening remarks, we have to work together, we have to try and find a solution to resolve those differences. Will we succeed? I don't know if we're going to succeed. Because right now a lot of people are frustrated -- not only you and I, but a lot of people are frustrated. If we're going to tackle this issue, if we're going to try and find a common denominator that will satisfy our 10 provinces and our two territories, we will have to become much more open than we have been in the past. A little while ago we referred to Mr Rae and Mr Peterson, and even in the days of Bill Davis -- to me, Mr Davis was Mr Canada for 25 years.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): He was a strong supporter of the federal government.

Mr Grandmaître: He was a very strong supporter of the federal government. Now we're trying to use the federal government -- and I'm using the word "use" -- to achieve what has been the impossible. Every province has a pet -- I was going to say "to beat," but I'm on record so I'll say a pet to flatter. I think we have to put aside our differences and try to reach a consensus. If we're going to be part of this attempt, I want to make sure we're on the right track, not only Ontario, but Alberta, BC, Nova Scotia, that every Premier is singing from the same hymn book, because otherwise we're not going to succeed. We can talk about our frustrations forever. I don't think we'll be able to satisfy Quebec using this formula.

I don't have a magic formula, but just to give you a small example, Mr Doyle, we have an agreement between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec on workers' mobility. We can't even agree on that, and that's a very small issue. I shouldn't say it's a very small issue; 35,000 Ontarians cross the bridge between Ontario and Quebec every morning in Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer, yet we only have 400 of our own people working in Quebec. I've been living with this for the last 30 years. It's a very unfair practice. Yet your government, when you were the third party, had a solution to all this. We have an understanding, but it's not being applied fairly.

If we want to resolve or tackle the global picture, we will have to put in place these very small, minute agreements we have in place now. Sales tax, workers' mobility, you name it -- especially sales tax. It's a big issue. We're losing money to the province of Quebec, millions of dollars every year. This has been going on for 25, 30 years and we haven't resolved this. Now we're looking at the global picture and we're saying, "Quebec, we love you, we want you to stay in Canada," but we can't have them respect two very small agreements. I'm frustrated too.

Mr Cullen: Just to bring us back to a version of the estimates, I have a couple of small technical questions to ask, and then I'll come back to our favourite subject, which is fixing the country. I've just discovered that, like education, everyone's an expert on fixing the country, and there's not one way to do it.

Coming back to more technical questions, I have to assume that provincial ministries and federal ministries have established their own bilateral relations and that your office is only consulted in terms of process. For example, where their Ministry of Natural Resources has just recently announced it is not going to provide a service that involved the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, you're only involved peripherally in that you saw the piece of paper but you're not involved otherwise. Am I correct in that?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: There would be some issues that would be brought to me with regard to my work in representing Ontario on both the social policy council and the non-social policy council, which has not been as active but is working on its plan to report back to the premiers in about December. So you're correct; that would be an issue that may or may not come to the attention of the intergovernmental affairs ministers.

1630

Mr Cullen: Would it be fair to say that the lion's share of the work would be evolving towards dealing with the constitutional issues?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would rather state it this way -- because we're actually trying not to use the word "Constitution"; it's a negative and we've all talked about it.

Mr Cullen: I grew up on Fulton-Favreau.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I know; me too. By the way, welcome. It's the first chance we've had to say hello to each other.

We're trying, but not all of us are very good at it, to talk about unity. The premiers basically decided they wanted to work on making day-to-day changes to the federation that wouldn't affect the Constitution at this point. It'll be interesting to see what the public tell us about that.

I'm basically involved in the unity file and many other files that have to do with sectoral ministers. In Ontario it's kind of unique. We have overlap and duplication between our own ministries that we have to be worried about. From time to time we help other ministers, as we did -- Mr Grandmaître talked about our mobility agreement with Quebec, which we did get a signature on, which isn't working to the extent that we want it to. But at least we were able to get involved and push the process forward. This is a coordinating ministry and it's a ministry that basically advises the Premier.

Mr Cullen: Let's take a unity issue that's a provincial responsibility but it's in the Constitution and it involves all the players. I'm speaking about the denominational characteristic of education. We've seen Newfoundland take the first step with its constitutional amendment to de-denominationalize education. We know Quebec is going through its process. It begs the question: When is it, or is it, going to happen here in Ontario?

Saying this after having been a candidate in 1985, I'm viewing these changes with great interest. What can you tell us about initiatives there, or is that something I'm going to have to chase the Minister of Education on?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It would be a policy issue for the Minister of Education, but again, it's our job there to be up to date on these issues that have to do with education as well, any federal-provincial arrangements across the country. It would be my job to advise and work with the Ministry of Education but basically the Minister of Education would have the lead on that. But this is not a policy of this government, nor has it been a policy of other governments. Mainly, we would talk about the Quebec National Assembly's policy and the work that's going on with Mr Tobin in Newfoundland.

Mr Cullen: In terms of coordinating, my role, coming from Ottawa, which is of course the government town, and having been active in local issues, housing issues as an example -- I was very active in a coalition to protect social housing in Ottawa-Carleton called Our Homes/

Chez Nous.

One of the things we discovered going through the back alleyways of bureaucracy was that some of the issues with respect to social housing that our federal government is very much interested in are somehow related to the harmonization of sales tax. That may be spurious, that may have been just an idle conversation somewhere, but I am wondering about the trades that may be asked for, and your and your ministry's role in this -- or is this something that would be more directed to the Premier's table, that is, the kind of bartering that takes place? If we are going to proceed somewhere in decentralizing powers to provinces, then what else would be given up along the way? What agreement would be made among first ministers to accomplish that?

Therefore, the question is, what role does your ministry have in participating in that process, or is it something that's more cabinet and more the Premier's office?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We may advise when it comes to a strategy around negotiations across issues that different ministers would have. On the social housing piece, my instinct is that minister would have dealt on his own in discussions with the federal government.

Mr Cullen: It was actually the harmonization of tax and someone making a linkage quid pro quo --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: To the two?

Mr Cullen: Here is the province of Ontario seeking to devolve its responsibility on social housing to municipalities, but it doesn't have full title. It requires the participation and cooperation of the federal government, because it has equity in a lot of the social housing that exists in the province, in partnership with the provincial government, and to facilitate devolution requires federal cooperation. That currently is being withheld; negotiation between the province of Ontario and the federal government has been suspended.

Concerns are being expressed by the federal government, which by the way I share, but also we know that the federal government would like to harmonize its GST with PST. It's the whole issue of, how does one play one card to the other? I'm not interested in the actual policy outcome; I'm just curious as to where you fit in the loop of things, because that would be the finance minister for the government of Ontario. I don't know if your ministry would be plugged into any of that.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: These two have been very public. It was the federal government, I think in its 1996 throne speech with regard to housing, that wanted to talk about an orderly transfer.

Mr Cullen: Yes, and it was in the budget, two budgets ago.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, it was the throne speech and the budget. We have some provinces, I think New Brunswick --

Mr Cullen: Saskatchewan.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- and Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories.

Mr Cullen: I haven't seen that agreement; I've seen the others.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: So here we are in estimates talking about the issues of intergovernmental affairs. We're always looking for ways to be more successful for the public of Ontario in reaching any agreements with the federal government.

You could be helpful in that regard. If you know some things we haven't done or you're aware of some issues that make some of your federal colleagues unhappy, our responsibility is to work with the federal government around one of their objectives and make certain that we get an appropriate agreement for the public, the taxpayers of Ontario. In that regard, I wouldn't expect that one file would be used as leverage against another, but it could be. I think you have every right to discuss that with the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Housing, and give them the absolute best advice you can give them.

Mr Cullen: I'm being encouraged to give advice. I appreciate it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's true, because when I was in opposition -- I can tell you right now there are opposition members who operate differently from other opposition members. My experience in this House has been that most people know who they are. I think I was fairly successful in opposition myself, and some of my colleagues were as well, in working with both of the former governments and actually getting private members' bills through.

I see a lot of opposition members who are extremely helpful to the government of the day -- you're sitting beside one of them -- who showed the leadership on the labour mobility piece. I have to say that when the NDP was in power, Minister Lankin showed a great deal of support as well. That was an issue that all three parties worked on.

If you've got another one, I welcome your input. If you need to talk to the Minister of Housing or the Minister of Finance and you think you can be helpful, I can tell you we represent the citizens of Ontario. The federal government has looked at a policy. They want us to work with them. If there's a reason that we're not working with them -- I think you started by talking about the back doors or the channels or the streets of bureaucracy.

Mr Cullen: Yes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Funny, isn't it?

Mr Cullen: Yes. It works, though.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Challenging, isn't it?

Mr Cullen: That's right.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The point is, I think there are areas where we can work together, whether we're part of the government or whether we're part of the opposition. There's been a lot of working together of members over the nine years I've been here.

Mr Cullen: The last thing I want to touch on, to come back to the nation-building part of things -- I'm very much interested and concerned about both content and process coming out of Calgary, content in terms of the trend towards decentralization. I can compare and contrast with what's happening locally to the municipalities. I think that kind of debate within our province is going to be very necessary. Bill Davis is not even dead yet and the kind of Canada he saw, the kind of role Ontario played, is still shared by many Ontarians, even though we clearly understand the circumstances have changed. It's not the days of the 1960s and 1970s any more.

But also process. I was a great Meech Lake follower -- I guess that's the wrong word, but I ended up chairing a No committee in Ottawa West.

1640

Mr Wildman: You jumped right into Meech Lake.

Mr Grandmaître: I remember.

Mr Cullen: We had a little slogan: We wanted to clean up Meech Lake and we wanted to amend the accord.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Much to the chagrin of the Ontario government of the day. I remember that.

Mr Wildman: There was a famous cartoon about Mr Trudeau and what he did at Meech Lake.

Mr Cullen: Yes, indeed. The concern back then, of course, was the impact on the charter. I have seen minister Stéphane Dion in action in his search for alternate wording, and I support that. I don't have a problem recognizing that indeed Quebec within Canada is distinct.

I have a concern about what happens to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because you cannot create one class of Canadians where the charter applies one way and another class of Canadians where the charter applies another way. We'll leave that to another day. That's going to be well-worn ground when we go over that.

It's the process of consultation. Although I'm a great believer in using all avenues, I've just discovered, for example, that Hansard is no longer available in print form for the general community outside this building; it's in electronic form. Everyone is very caught up with the Internet and what have you, but then again when you look at the penetration of personal computers into homes, there are a lot of people who do not have it. It's not even a majority in our population.

I am concerned about not only having something to consult about, but where the consultation is to lead. What is the point of the exercise? Simply to say, "We're nation-building," begs the question, "What kind of nation are you building?"

We've had the discussion even within our own caucus about the purpose of public consultation. If it is to end up with a Canada that has either more centralization or less centralization, then those parameters have to be out there so people can see the choices and then come down to have a discussion having an idea of what choices are before us. If I go out and consult about something that's happening in my community, my shopping centre wishes to expand, people know that it's either expansion or not expansion; with expansion, we'll deal with parking, we'll deal with traffic, we'll deal with safety, security, whatever. We don't have that sense here.

If I look at the Calgary declaration, we don't have a sense of what the public consultation is about, because quite frankly the declaration itself doesn't do anything. It doesn't change the current, existing situation; it doesn't do anything. I'm very concerned about the nature of consultation. Expecting MPPs to go and hold town hall meetings in itself is not helpful. Perhaps you'd like to respond to that.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks, Mr Cullen. Your time is up. Maybe the minister would like to respond the next time around. Mr Wildman had to go; Mr Bisson is coming back. Could we move to the government side and then when Mr Bisson comes back we'll return to the NDP. Is that fine?

Mr Cullen: For 10 minutes?

Mr Doyle: Sounds good.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Mr Doyle, you had a question?

Mr Doyle: I wondered, since I spoke out the time and didn't give the minister a chance to respond, if maybe the minister has some comments on what I had to say. I don't know, Minister, whether you do. If not, I have other questions I could go to.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I just think that what you were talking about is of significant concern to Canadians. Canadians are proud of their country and quite frankly -- this is my view, and I invite others to use our time to talk about it -- they don't like it when we've got a Premier who is clearly focused on taking a province out of the country. I don't know how else to put it.

Everybody has a different way of expressing their horror with regard to a person who is focused on dividing Canada. What I found interesting in looking around at my colleagues when you and Mr Grandmaître described your experiences, that you were surprised -- I think that's true of all of us when we first meet individuals, and this is not the first individual but this is the one who happens to be the Premier of that province at this time who is totally focused on separation.

It is a shock, especially to citizens in Ontario. Most of us, growing up, our great dream was to visit Quebec, to learn a second language. If you didn't go to Niagara Falls, you went to Quebec City when you were in grade 8, if you were really lucky. It hasn't changed for my kids, and now I'm finding out that it hasn't changed for even that next generation, many of whom have grandchildren. They're starting to save for their college education and their grade 8 trip.

Having said all that, we're somewhat appalled. That's why we're in this meeting. We can talk again, but we don't want to be a group of members of an elected assembly who don't do our best. That's all of us.

The Vice-Chair: Now we'll return to the NDP for their 20 minutes.

Mr Wildman: I've listened with interest to the comments various members have made and I do appreciate the commitment that all members of the Legislative Assembly, no matter what political stripe, owe to the country as Canadians. I listened with care to Mr Doyle's comments and understood his frustrations.

I want to raise a number of questions that I think go beyond the question of simply saying, "We must do something" -- don't misunderstand me; I'm not being critical -- or that we must all love Quebec and love Canada. I think all of us as Canadians have a tremendous feeling for our country and for the many diverse parts of the country, including Quebec.

I honestly think the framework for agreement that was arrived at in Calgary goes somewhat beyond process. I think it has within it a statement of principles which are substantive and which are significant. The statement that all provinces are equal is of significance to all provinces, and I suspect particularly to a province like Prince Edward Island.

The statement that Quebec is unique in its language, culture and civil law is also significant. I frankly don't agree with those who have said it doesn't really mean anything. It's to state a truism of course, but it also may mean something. I know M. Johnson believes it means something, particularly because the statement that accompanies that is that the government of Quebec and the National Assembly -- the Legislative Assembly I think it actually says -- have a role to play in protecting the language, culture, law tradition, the uniqueness of Quebec. I think Mr Johnson in Quebec believes that carries with it some legal meaning.

So when the minister says, "We don't want to talk about constitutional change; we're talking about process, we're talking about the Romanow formula of 80% making the country work, 20% constitutional, and we haven't got to the 20% yet" -- I think we have, if Mr Johnson is right. Because one of the next statements in that set of principles is that if any province gains more powers -- I'm not quoting it exactly, because I'm doing it from memory -- then those powers are available to all provinces who wish them. I think I'm being fair in paraphrasing that.

1650

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're doing very well, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." Of course, it's optional to those provinces whether or not they wish to avail themselves of such a change.

To me, those are substantive statements. They're not just process statements. Those are statements which could be translated into constitutional language if that was the desire of Canadians and the desire of the various provinces of Canada, as well as the federal government.

My question is this: When we begin to consult in Ontario, however we decide to do that, with the citizens of this province, what are we going to be saying about those statements of principle? Are we going to be saying that we believe they carry with them legal weight, or could carry with them legal weight, or are we going to be simply saying, "This is just a statement of love for Quebec"?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think that it's not what we're going to say that is going to matter nearly as much as what the public say. But having said that, you do have an interesting point, and that is, part of this exercise all of us have agreed to, even in this meeting, is that we have to send information out if we're going to get a good discussion. We have to provide some level of education, knowledge, information, whatever word we choose to use, to the public. They deserve to have some good information.

Perhaps, Mr Wildman, we should be thinking about the point you've just raised. Without influencing people's thinking, at least give them some information so they can tell you and me what they think. What I liked about your lead into this question was -- and I thought you had it absolutely correct -- that we're not yet talking about constitutional change, but you implied we might be. Depending on what we hear, we have to be prepared to deal with that too.

That is a huge responsibility for all of us. We'll have to decide in this assembly how we put all this information together. We will decide. There will be at least a small committee of some of us who will say: "Who's going to put this together? Who's going to decide the next step for Ontario? What kind of recommendation should we be making to the Premier with regard to either action or non-action by our Legislative Assembly at this time?"

We probably will have some precedents. I know the one hope of the Premier was that the public would have the amount of time they need. We have to make that interim report, so we know we've got that deadline. We want to influence the thinking of the people of Quebec, so we somehow have to get to that deadline. You yourself will probably have a good feeling about just how far we can go, whether we're looking at a resolution in the Legislative Assembly or just what kind of options we have. We could put those options out to the people as well; I know other provinces will.

Mr Wildman: I think the statement of principles is an attempt to bridge a very wide gap -- some would say it's unbridgeable -- between those who believe in asymmetrical federalism and those who believe in equality of all the provinces. Because on the one hand we're saying that Quebec is unique, for obvious reasons, and that the Quebec government and the National Assembly have a role to play in protecting that uniqueness, and on the other hand we are saying that all provinces are equal and that if there is constitutional change which confers new powers on one province, those powers must be available to all.

If we are going to bridge that gap, it is going to take more than only listening to the citizens and asking them their views. As you've indicated, it's perhaps going to take education of some sort; it's also going to take leadership. As I've said before in these estimates, that involves political risk. While the Premier has said that he doesn't believe any political leader in Ontario has ever lost votes because he was trying to hold the country together, I do know what has happened to some leaders in this province who have made a very strong and genuine commitment to the country. I believe that risk must be taken and that it is better to have tried and lost than not to have tried. I'll just leave it at that.

I would like to ask some other questions with regard to your role in relation to other provinces and the federal government. I have before me some documents that were put out at the end of the 1996 annual premiers' conference. They talk about rebalancing as a key priority for Canada, to demonstrate the Canadian federal system is flexible. They also talk about harmonizing environmental management.

I must say, as someone who would describe himself as an environmentalist, I find that very worrisome. I think we should harmonize, but I think we should be harmonizing up, not down. I won't point any fingers here, but I will point out the very active role of Alberta around this file for many years. I'm not pointing at any particular government of Alberta.

Mr Cullen: There aren't too many to choose from.

Mr Wildman: I'm not saying the Klein government or his predecessors particularly; they've all taken a similar position. That is that we must harmonize, but we must harmonize with Alberta.

I remember the first time I met Mr Klein, if I'm allowed an anecdote, when I was Minister of Environment and Energy. He said: "Oh, you're Minister of Environment. That's a great, friendly ministry. You keep meeting the friends of this and the friends of that, and you think they're great friends until they throw a dead fish at you."

Mr Cullen: Did it ever happen to you?

Mr Wildman: No, but it obviously happened to Mr Klein when he was environment minister. I did meet a lot of friends in that area.

I would like to have some comment on the progress that is being made with regard to harmonization and what this province's view is, particularly considering the changes we've seen in this province with regard to environmental regulation, whether or not we are attempting to bring those who might be less enthusiastic about regulation along to match our strong commitment to environmental protection, or if this provincial government might be tempted to deregulate even further than they've proposed to do already in order to match the tremendous effort the government of Alberta has made to protect its environment.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I can't help but comment on your initial comment about rebalancing up. Rebalancing is about deciding who does what. There are obviously areas where the federal government will want more responsibility.

Mr Wildman: Don't misunderstand me. I wasn't saying up in terms of up to the federal government; I was saying bringing all the standards up to a higher level.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I just want to clarify that, that's all.

1700

Mr Wildman: No, not at all. I don't think we harmonize by saying, "This government," whether it's a federal government or a provincial government, "has lower standards, and therefore we all harmonize with those lower standards." Rather, we look for the highest standard and say, "Let's bring all the other provinces and federal government up to that standard."

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Obviously, this is one where the Minister of Environment and Energy would have the lead, but I can say that while the federal-provincial discussions on environmental harmonization have been going on for roughly four years -- two with us, two with the former government -- there are clear indications, and you would know this better than anybody, Mr Wildman, that there's some real progress about to be made. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment will be meeting very shortly and it's expected that they're going to endorse a multilateral environmental accord and three subagreements, one of which does deal with environmental assessment.

All this should be music to your ears, because your government had a huge role to play in this regard. As a matter of fact, when we first became the government, we thought there would be signature then. We expected real progress within a year, but it didn't happen. However, we do have a change, and at the 1997 annual premiers' conference, Ontario and the other premiers, again with the exception of the Premier of Quebec, were unanimous to move forward on the environmental harmonization initiative. It is part of the communiqué.

The communiqué serves two purposes. One is to choose the areas of priority and let the public know what the premiers decided upon. The other is to light a candle and say, "Get on with it," to certain ministers. I can only say that there's an agreement here to finalize and sign this environmental assessment subagreement as soon as possible. That's where it is fed-prov now.

Mr Wildman: When we come back in the circulation, I will get to questions around the thorny GST harmonization question, but I would like, when it's back to the third party's turn, to get some analysis from the minister about the progress that has been made with regard to the national children's agenda and the youth employment strategy, and questions around student loans and debt among the provinces and the federal government. Do we have any more time?

The Vice-Chair: You have five more minutes, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: If that's the case, I'll deal now with some of the questions around the GST harmonization. I know it's been the position of all in this assembly and most provinces that arrangements around any attempt to harmonize the GST with the provincial sales tax that include compensation should ensure that the same compensation is available to all provinces. So the provisions that were made for the maritime provinces and Quebec should be available to any other province that might decide to harmonize.

I must say I don't personally think we should be harmonizing, because I'm still waiting for Mr Chrétien to eliminate the tax. But if he and his government are not going to live up to the commitment they made in 1993 -- I never thought I'd be agreeing with Nunziata about anything --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We can't afford to print these Hansards, so you're okay.

Mr Wildman: If we're not going to see that, then I want to know what progress, if any, has been made with regard to ensuring that compensation will be made available to Ontario and other provinces, similar to what has been done for Quebec and the Maritimes.

1700

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll start at the end. This, of course, was an issue at the 1997 annual premiers' conference. There are a number of finance issues, and you're absolutely correct: The federal payment was some $961 million to the three Atlantic provinces in order for them to harmonize the sales tax. We're footing about $400 million of this cost here in Ontario. Those are real numbers that have been analysed by our own finance people, in cooperation with other finance ministers.

As a result of the big challenge we have along many files where we actually are at a disadvantage, the premiers agreed there should be a review of federal tax policies by the federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers to ensure consistency, non-discrimination, fairness and transparency.

I might add that finance ministers, over a long period of history, have had a life of their own. I'm being fairly blunt, but I think it's time we all understood, to the best of our ability, these issues that are of concern to us. This may be part of educating the public across all provinces where they have done a balance sheet, because we need to know what it looks like. Basically, it's a non-partisan issue. We just want a fair share.

Mr Wildman: Just to clarify, is Ontario taking the position that this province and other provinces should get the same compensation as Quebec and the Maritimes, or are we trying to make a deal with regard to changes to the employment insurance premiums and so on as a price for harmonization?

The Vice-Chair: Quickly, Minister.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll quickly say this: I, in my head, will not mix this. Ontario has always said, Mr Eves has said, that we're open to harmonization if it costs less money for the taxpayers. If you're harmonizing two taxes and you're looking for a more efficient delivery system, it should cost less money.

Mr Wildman: Yes, but that doesn't answer whether we're asking for the same compensation.

The Vice-Chair: Your time is up. Maybe we can return to that at a later time. The government has 10 more minutes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Time's up, oops.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I just want to follow up to the minister on Mr Wildman's subject with respect to the goods and services tax. Obviously there hasn't been an agreement reached. I'm kind of interested in what the progress is and the reasons we haven't been able to reach an agreement. There is also talk right now at the federal level, because we have a surplus, supposedly, about eliminating it or reducing it. I don't know whether that adds to the dynamics of the discussion or not, but I'd like to know where we stand in terms of not being able to reach an agreement or where we are in trying to get an agreement.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: With regard to the GST harmonization, we've made a policy statement, and that is that if it reduces taxation for the public of Ontario, we will pursue it. We rejected Ottawa's proposal for the harmonization, as you're aware, because it was going to shift an estimated $2 billion in taxation from businesses to the people in Ontario. So the proposal was not acceptable to our government, nor would we have expected it to be acceptable to any previous government, had it been proposed. It was not a good, fair deal for the people of Ontario.

Mr Tascona: Was the proposal that had been made a combined 15% sales tax? What was the proposal exactly?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm afraid to guess. I knew it at one time. I don't remember what it was. It was to harmonize at some level, but whatever the negotiations were -- I think at one point they were looking at an extension of the base as well.

Mr Wildman: One that would be extended to other provinces with PST.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that's right.

Mr Tascona: There are a number of components to it. There's the actual figure as to what the sales tax will be; there's also the base in terms of what goods and services it would apply to. Have there been any negotiations on the base, for example?

1710

Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, because the other provinces are not happy; they've expressed their discontent with the agreement that was made with the Atlantic sales tax harmonization and compensation deal. The whole discussion has become a much bigger issue. There was a discussion in New Brunswick, and I think it's extremely important to note that for the first time the premiers said to the finance ministers, "You're to meet together to discuss many issues of tax policy." There are four or five that we've been interested in, and the opposition parties have too, because they've raised them in the House. We've put them all on the table and we've said we want consistency, we want non-discrimination and we want fairness and transparency. I'm sure this will be one of many tax policies that will be raised.

Mr Tascona: In terms of the base, I take it the federal position is that they have a larger base than the current provincial sales tax and they haven't changed from that position. In terms of harmonization, is it as simple as saying, "We want 8% plus 7%, which equals 15%"?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I don't believe it was that simple, but we can get more detail for you. The finance minister has the lead. I'll try to get you more information on where the last offer was. We haven't discussed it since.

Mr Tascona: I think that's important, because this situation may be one that's in a state of flux, depending on whether the federal government is going to listen to its own federal colleagues versus the provincial finance ministers.

One other area is the current infrastructure program. What's the status of that? Are there any future plans for federal-provincial programs?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you talking about the one that was just agreed to in relation to working with the municipalities and making priorities?

Mr Tascona: Yes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Our province did make some gain in those discussions by focusing on areas that were a priority for the elected MPPs in this province. Otherwise, we were saying -- here, I've got some of it now. The Minister of Transportation has the lead, by the way, on the infrastructure program. We signed that extension to the 1994 agreement. It means another $459 million invested in Ontario by the federal government and our local partners. We made some gains in our discussions.

At the annual premiers' conference, the premiers endorsed the concept of a new national infrastructure program to make the strategic investments that I tried to talk about earlier. The strategic investments had to be around economic development and job creation. Those were long-term, not short-term, and we wanted results measured into those priority projects. That happened to be the focus of the premiers at their conference, economic development and jobs, and they asked their finance ministers and their transportation ministers to report to them on the principles for this new program.

We want two things in the new infrastructure program. I believe this was something we all agreed to. We wanted to take a look at working with the private sector -- because we think they have a role to play -- post-secondary institutions, non-profit organizations and municipalities. It may be housing, if we can work something out with the private sector and non-profit groups. That's one of the focuses. The other is that it's within our own fiscal spending plans. We're not going to add new dollars, because we've very carefully set our budgets with our business plans; we know what those programs look like through to the end of the next fiscal year and we want also that the federal government is committed to a full sharing of all the costs.

Mr Tascona: When do you think we're going to get the results of how we did in terms of economic development and jobs?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you talking about from Stats Canada?

Mr Tascona: No, in terms of what you just said. You indicated that you wanted to make sure the program was effective.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Again, I'm going to have to say to you I don't know what kind of progress we've made in the tracking, but I will check with the finance minister, as I do after these estimates if there are questions, and certainly in this regard the Minister of Transportation. So you've now got two questions that I have to get responses for, and that's fine.

Mr Tascona: Ministerial undertakings.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Any other questions on the government side? Then we'll go back over to the Liberals. We will go for the 20 minutes and then we'll end off with the NDP for their 20, and that will bring us right to 6.

Mr Wildman: Save the best for last.

The Vice-Chair: While we have a minute, Mr Wildman, you requested some material in answer to two questions. Minister, do you have that material with you, or would you need some time to prepare that?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Refresh my memory.

The Vice-Chair: Youth unemployment.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can talk about that.

Mr Wildman: Sorry, I don't want to take someone else's time, honestly.

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: No, I wasn't. He suggested it; I didn't.

The Vice-Chair: We have a minute.

Mr Wildman: I wanted to talk about the national children's agenda, what progress is being made there, the youth employment strategy, and student loans and debt.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can give the beginnings of an answer on that. The only thing I would add is that the ministers of community and social services are meeting next week, so we would have more information, hopefully -- I'm not sure, but maybe in time; maybe not.

Mr Wildman: That's particularly why I raised it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's right. I can certainly answer that.

On the other one, the education ministers did meet a week ago, but I have not been briefed as to any progress. But I can certainly let you know where we stand as of about a month ago.

The Vice-Chair: We have 40 minutes left today, and that will be divided evenly among the two opposition parties, starting with the official opposition.

Mr Grandmaître: I want to go back to the Calgary declaration. When you look at number 4 in the declaration, "...diversity includes aboriginal peoples and cultures...," the aboriginal leaders were not included in this statement. What will be the consultation process with the aboriginal leaders to get them on side, to agree to this kind of statement? Because they were not part of the final solution or the final declaration, how will you get the aboriginal leaders involved in this consultation process?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Do you have the first page of the press release there?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Obviously, this is a very important issue for the premiers and the territorial leaders. In the last paragraph, you'll see, "Premiers and territorial leaders remain committed to meeting with aboriginal leaders to follow up on the recent annual premiers' conference held in St Andrews." There were a number of issues there that they would be interested in, and I think we can assume they'll want to know about the implications for them in the public consultations, which are for all citizens. At this point, and I'm not sure there's any change, we've got it tentatively set for Winnipeg on November 18.

Mr Grandmaître: I read this, but we're already in the consultation process.

Are these bells a quorum call? These government members.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Déjà vu, huh?

Mr Grandmaître: Are the aboriginal people in this consultation process at the present time, or will they find out on November 18 where everybody else stands? Has there been consultation between our nine premiers and the aboriginal leaders? I'm sure that on November 18, when the leaders are invited, it won't be a complete surprise to them. Do they agree with those seven points?

1720

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Are you talking now about the aboriginal leaders?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm sure the aboriginal leaders will have information that they'll want to share with the premiers with regard to this document.

Mr Grandmaître: What I'm trying to get at, Madam Minister --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Do they agree with the document?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I don't know. Isn't that the purpose of the document, as the initial framework for consultation? But do remember that this is just that, a framework. We expect there will be many other issues raised. They may be different in provinces across the country. In our province, it's our responsibility to disseminate all the information we get. Remember, I had talked about how all of us have to decide how we're going to do that. That will be part of the process that we in a non-partisan way decide on. You're quite right; we're going to have to take a look at the input from our own aboriginal population here in Ontario. We have had some meetings.

Mr Grandmaître: That's my next question. Have you or your ministry met with our aboriginal leaders, or have you started to prepare these people to think like we're all supposed to think?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This is a responsibility of the Attorney General, who also has native affairs as part of his portfolio. There have been two inclusive meetings with not only that minister but other ministers. I attended one of the meetings where the leaders of the off-reserve nations were talking to us about their hopes and aspirations for programs and for the country. We have had two rounds that I'm aware of. There may be another date. Some of us are meeting individually with the groups as a result of those meetings. The Premier will obviously be advised of those two meetings. This has been an ongoing request, since at least Jasper, for a meeting with the aboriginal leaders. At the premiers' conference this summer they didn't achieve that in the past year, and that's one of the main reasons this date was set.

Mr Grandmaître: How about other cultural communities in the province? Will they be part of the global consultation process, or will they have their individual say?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: That's another piece as we take a look at how we're going to consult and who we're going to consult. I think there wouldn't be a member of this Legislative Assembly who wouldn't say this should be totally inclusive. That's something we have to take into consideration as we ourselves go out and consult with our own constituents. There may be different ways the members will want to consult with their own constituents. In your particular riding, or Mr Doyle's riding, or Mr Wildman's riding -- he may choose, and share with us, how and who he will consult. That's the kind of information all of us will have to share with each other.

Mr Grandmaître: Who will be the deciphering officer for all this information?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think the MPPs are going to have to do their consulting with their own constituents, period. That's going to be one of the ways --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I see some groaning here. Having said that, obviously that was one of the givens, that the elected members should show leadership in their own ridings. But how they do it will be different. I'm sure that won't be the only way we're going to consult. That may be a small part; it may be a large part. That's what we have to talk about together, within the framework that the premiers set aside, the guidelines for the process of public consultation. We ourselves have to answer these questions here in Ontario. We'll have some precedents by the time we finish answering them, because at least two of the other provinces will have launched their processes, including Alberta on October 2.

Mr Grandmaître: Now I'll feed you to the lions.

Mr Cullen: I'm aghast.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You're aghast that the MPPs have to talk to their own constituents? You'll learn.

Mr Cullen: No, no. Learn? Excuse me. After six years of being on a school board and dealing with school closures, after three years on city council and dealing with shopping mall expansions and major changes of the level of service --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I take it back; you don't have to learn.

Mr Cullen: I have lots of people to learn from. I haven't learned it all.

I'll get back. If we leave it in the hands of individual MPPs to consult with their communities, of course they will consult, according to their own styles and the needs of their communities, but the degree of coverage, the degree of debate will vary so widely, unless we are given a number of frameworks, such as a framework for the kind of public consultation, because I might just do a cable TV phone-in show once, whereas my colleague here holds meetings in every one of his schools, compared to someone who just puts out a householder that says, "Please mail back and put your own stamp on it," versus someone else -- the variety will create what I will call a mosaic of ability to get back public opinion. I'm not sure we will have served the public well in giving them the information with which to participate.

We all know that when it comes to plebiscites or elections or what have you, people are focused on an event and they come out in various degrees to participate. I want to come back to --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I have to interject. I like what you said. Those were great ideas --

Mr Cullen: Maybe we could talk about them.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- reflecting the individual needs of communities.

Mr Cullen: Indeed, but the other half of that has to be giving the public the ability to participate in a meaningful way. If it's just left up to me to put out my take in my householder, and someone else says, "Just read the TV guide; I'm talking about national unity. Please call in, and that will do," that's not sufficient.

I have to come back to the framework and the process for public consultation. The first question everyone's going to ask is, what is the point of talking about this framework unless we're going from A to B? It's not clear to me just reading the framework that it indicates where B is. We can talk about where A is and we can discuss the framework, but where is B? If B means, "Let's talk about division of powers," or if B means, "Let's talk about a constitutional amendment that seeks to change something we have today to get to another B" -- B1, B2, B3, B15 -- these things have to be out there.

That also implies that if we are going to consult, there are pros and cons for different sides. I can remember the last go-around with Meech Lake and how stacked that was in terms of the ability for the legislative committees to hear from the public. Although there was a raging debate in the public, which I thought was great, and ultimately the public had an opportunity to express itself through the plebiscite on the Charlottetown accord, I think there has to be some non-partisan ability to frame the discussion.

If we're going to talk about decentralization and the government has an agenda with respect to decentralization, but we want the public to talk about it, in a sense the government should act as a catalyst for the process of consultation. Therefore, someone has to speak, for example, like they do in the Quebec referendum, that there's a Yes committee and there's a No committee, or that there is a public defender for this point of view and a public defender for that point of view, so people can get the different information and therefore engage in debate and come to some kind of worthwhile contribution to aid the Legislature, let alone the government, so that we get to B. But it's not clear to me right now what B is, where B is. If we're going to search for a B, God love us, that's going to be fun. It's so fuzzy out there.

1730

I want to make sure that if indeed the MPPs are going to be charged to engage in public consultation, we have questions and information that frame the debate, so that if I am talking about different rights across the country, I've got that; if I am talking about different abilities of governments to accomplish their stated objectives, I've got that out there, whether it's federal, provincial or municipal, for heaven's sake -- municipalities, by the way, are the oldest form of continuing governance in this country, predating provincial or federal governments.

Mr Grandmaître: And the best.

Mr Cullen: Indeed. That's where they get the best politicians, I always say. No disagreement around the table.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I agree with you; I was a school board trustee for 15 years.

Mr Cullen: There we are.

I know you need some time to respond.

The Vice-Chair: You're running out.

Mr Cullen: I'll stop right there. Perhaps you'd like to give us some feedback.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Let me start with your talk about A to B. Remember, in this framework for discussion we have a responsibility here in Ontario to give information to the public that includes all items the other provinces will have information on. We may have a chance to see some of that work that's been done even though we're doing our own.

There are two issues here. I tried to answer it before. One is sending a message to Quebec. Daniel Johnson actually likes this framework. He likes the idea of talking about number 7.

Mr Cullen: He liked Meech Lake.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but so did we.

Mr Cullen: The country didn't.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: And it didn't work. The key difference here is that many of us even in this Legislative Assembly, myself included, on more than one occasion were not asked. We gave the responsibility to the premiers, who worked with the leaders. That wasn't all of us. We had some mixed feelings about it, but in the interests of the unity of the country we all set them aside. There was never any public statement by any member that I can remember --

Mr Cullen: I don't think that served the process well, though.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It didn't, and that's why this is an open public consultation, not only for us as elected MPPs who are supposed to show some leadership but an opportunity to get input from the public.

The one thing I'd like to close on here is that Canadians actually don't like it when their governments bicker. They want us to show some leadership. If we've got some areas where we don't work as well together across the provinces and territories or with the federal government, I agree with you: I think we should get that into the open. We didn't serve the public well by not talking about it before. One of the great challenges we've got, and it'll be interesting to see what we come up with on the education piece, is how well Quebec does in this federation.

Mr Wildman: Just before we go to the matters I raised, I would like to follow up on Mr Cullen's questions. I think he's raised some very important issues. If we're going to consult, we have to know what we're consulting about, and if it's simply the declaration from Calgary --

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: Yes. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Minister, what the Premier is aiming at is an all-party resolution in the Legislative Assembly by either the end of this year or the early new year, stating the Legislative Assembly's support for the Calgary framework, and somehow leading to that all-party resolution there will be consultation with the citizens of Ontario and the Ontario government will act as a catalyst, whatever that means, for that process.

If we are going to reach an all-party resolution based on what we've heard from our constituents, we have to at some point come to grips with the questions Mr Cullen was raising. I'd like to know what is anticipated by the government, whether there's going to be an all-party committee in the assembly to consult with the public as well as the individual members, or if there's some other process contemplated.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Certainly, step one, as we've stated here today, is to take a look at how we can best give the public good information, how we can help each other take some leadership roles in our own constituencies. There's lots of good advice we've had here today just in discussing things.

I know the Premier's expectation, and the statements he has made after consulting with the two leaders, is that the first part of this consultation process will be a report that will be ready for him to share with other premiers and perhaps even the federal government in time for Team Canada. It has never been stated that we have an end result in mind; that is something all of us will be in a better position to talk about after we hear from the public. Other governments at this point have made that statement; we haven't.

Mr Wildman: We still have the problem -- I consider it a problem, to be quite frank; some of my friends in the Conservative Party may disagree with me -- that somehow at some point we have to be putting something concrete to the public in a referendum. The Conservative Party in Ontario is committed to a referendum. We had a referendum on the Charlottetown accord, which carried in Ontario but was defeated in the rest of the country.

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: Yes, it carried in Ontario. It was very close.

We have laws in Alberta and British Columbia that require those provinces to hold referenda. It's unclear to me how we get from the point where we are now or even the point where we have an all-party resolution in the Legislature, if that happens, to the point where we actually have referenda. I don't understand that. It may be that the premiers haven't been able to come to grips with that at this point; I suspect that's the case.

If it's anticipated that will happen some time in the future, perhaps after the next Quebec election, okay, but I would like to have some idea if that's what is contemplated or if something else is contemplated.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I've said before that we're not trying to rush the process. We don't have an end result in mind. That's going to be our decision, across government and opposition parties, after we disseminate the information. We don't have a hidden agenda. This is a new approach, a different way of doing things, because the old way didn't work. We want to engage the public in discussion. I use those two words carefully.

If I can be allowed a personal observation, and it is just that, I feel that at some point, you're right, we will have to have some kind of a result, but do remember that in the past when legislative assemblies took positions, they were looking at constitutional reform. Our Premier stated publicly that he would be wanting to talk about changes to the Constitution where all provinces could be represented. That meant we would be looking for Quebec to be part of that. Hopefully, this whole process can have some impact on the citizens of Quebec with regard to a choice they might make.

Mr Wildman: I understand what you're saying. All I would say in concluding this seminar we're all participating in here is that it must have clarity. Oftentimes Canadians outside Quebec as well as many within the province of Quebec have criticized the questions that have been put to Quebeckers because they were not clear. The Prime Minister of Canada has made the statement that if there is a decision to be made, it must be on a clear question that is understandable. I agree with that view. So I think our process cannot be a fuzzy one. It has to have clarity so that everyone understands. That obviously doesn't mean we all will agree, but we have to understand it or there will be even less possibility of agreement.

Having said that, could we come back to the issues I raised with regard to the relations between the provinces and the federal government to deal with some specific problems I enumerated, the first being the national children's agenda and where we are with that.

1740

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The Ministry of Community and Social Services has the lead on this. At the annual premiers' conference, the premiers discussed the work to date, because there had been some gain made on that work in developing this national children's agenda before New Brunswick. They agreed that this work, while it's still in its early days, will complement the more advanced work on the national child benefit by providing -- what should I say? -- a national approach to healthy child development. They want to move that agenda along and it's going to be a priority within the overall social policy renewal process.

All levels of government and the social services ministers and the health ministers or officials are preparing a report for consideration by ministers for the fall of 1997. They were working on that over the summer months. I'm not sure where it will appear, but I know the social services ministers will be discussing it in Newfoundland next Wednesday.

Mr Wildman: Is my understanding correct that Quebec may be prepared to opt out, or is that incorrect?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can't answer that question. They have not been active participants. Basically they've been observers on any social policy.

Mr Wildman: I certainly would not dare to speak for Quebec, but it would seem to me, knowing the position of the current government, and even of other Quebec governments, that their view would be, "Here we now have a federal government looking forward to the day when they're going to have a little extra cash, and here they come again invading a policy area which is in provincial jurisdiction."

Mr Cullen: It's called cooperative federalism.

Mr Wildman: I would say that even Liberal and Union nationale governments in Quebec have not been too happy with that approach.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In fairness to the province of Quebec, their whole point has been that they want to be part of the design and the delivery of programs and that they don't want the unilateral decision made by the federal government; they want to be part of it. That's where it was interesting for me as a new minister to see both Mr Parizeau, who didn't stay for the social policy discussion in Newfoundland but wanted to -- he had to leave at that point. But this year in New Brunswick, Mr Bouchard did stay for the discussion.

Mr Wildman: We'll hear more about that after next week.

I wonder about the national youth employment strategy. I think everyone understands that youth employment is a serious problem in our economy, right across the country; it certainly is in Ontario. I'm wondering if you could give us an update with regard to the national youth employment strategy.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This one was, I would think, the focus. If you had to put a priority on any issue, this was it, in my view, at the annual premiers' conference. It certainly was the area our Premier was most interested in making some gains on. They directed all premiers' labour market ministers to develop a youth employment strategy by January 1998, so this one has a time frame on it. There's a lot of work being done. In developing this strategy with the other provinces, Ontario is going to be looking for the most effective and efficient ways to alleviate youth unemployment.

As part of the process, the premiers agreed, with the exception of Quebec this time, that the appropriate federal programs should in this case be available for, I'll use the word "devolution," or maybe comanagement or colocation, with interested provinces and territories. This is an area all governments, both past and present, have brought to the attention of each other, including the federal government, that there needs to be clear cooperation because there's tremendous overlap and duplication, and for anybody who has been on a school board, I might add, very little accountability in federal training dollars. We have all been working in this regard.

Obviously this has been a priority for us in Ontario because our citizens are demanding that our youth be trained for the jobs, to the best of our ability. Anybody with a school board background knows how frustrated we have been. Now here we are in government and we have an opportunity to change those programs, but we need the help of the federal government in this regard.

Mr Wildman: If I could then move to the student loan and debt situation, all of us recognize the importance of access to post-secondary education for students. With the increase in tuition fees right across the country and in Ontario, student debt has grown exponentially, and it will continue to grow. The increase in tuition fees and the proposal in Ontario to deregulate tuition fees has been justified on the basis that there will be an income-contingent loan program developed between Ontario and the federal government. This has been talked about for a long time. We haven't been able to come to an agreement. The government of Ontario is not waiting until it's in place before increasing tuition fees; tuition fees keep going up.

Now there's a proposal that bad debt will be carried over for 25 years before it can be forgiven. Some of the financial institutions are a little worried about this, to say the least. What it means is that the average debt for students a few years ago was about $7,000 when they finished university, now it's in the $20,000-and-some range, and if this new proposal goes through, we're looking at $80,000. It would be the equivalent of someone having a mortgage before they even start out in life and they don't have any house. Of course the financial institutions are worried about it.

I would like to know where we are in terms of dealing with the level of debt, forgiveness of debt and the development of a loan program that meets the needs of students.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm going to talk about something I have been interested in for a very long time now. In the throne speech there is no doubt that the federal government stated, and I'm going to read here:

"An important role for governments is to ensure the widest possible access to post-secondary education. Canadians are concerned about the increasing cost of higher education, and the resulting debt burden on students. The government took some important measures to address this problem in its budget of February 1997. The government will continue to reduce barriers to post-secondary education through further changes to the Canada student loans program, increased assistance for students with dependants, and new scholarships to encourage excellence and to help low- and moderate-income Canadians attend university or college."

We can go on, but I think that's enough for the purpose of this discussion.

Mr Wildman: My concern is this: At the premiers' conference there was a commitment to review the Canada student loans program loan limits and to implement improvements in time for the beginning of the academic semester beginning in January 1998. I'm just wondering where we are with that. Are we making progress?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would think there are ongoing discussions. I'm going to speak for Ontario here. There was direction from the premiers to the ministers of education and finance ministers to make progress here. We are having some interesting -- for want of a better word -- discussions with the federal government right now, but we do need their cooperation. My hope is that we will move forward on this.

With regard to -- the Chairman's going to cut me off -- some of the statements you made, I wouldn't mind having an opportunity to talk more clearly, but I was told that I have one minute to answer your question. We could have another discussion because I think this is a very fruitful area where we can --

Mr Wildman: It's very draconian, Chair.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It has taken too long and we're all impatient. It's not a matter of blame. This is an area where --

Mr Wildman: It's an area I know he's interested in.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The citizens want their governments to work cooperatively in this regard.

The Vice-Chair: You know what? I think that's an optimistic note that maybe we should stop on for this evening.

Before we adjourn, could I make a personal observation as the Vice-Chair? Today I saw something I hadn't seen here in two and a half years, when we were talking about our country. There was such a great exchange of information and ideas that didn't involve this part of the table. It was three parties communicating extremely well, I thought. Mr Wildman said it was a seminar. It would have been a seminar worth taping and showing to the people of Ontario. That's just a personal observation. I think we should be very proud of ourselves as committee members for what happened today.

Mr Wildman: It's all due to the Chair.

The Vice-Chair: We will reconvene tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1751.