Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

CONTENTS

Wednesday 4 November 1998

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Hon Dianne Cunningham, minister

Mr Bob Christie, deputy minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel

Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1541 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): Welcome, Minister. We are ready to proceed with the estimates for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order: I'm just a substitute on the committee and not a regular member, so this probably has been explained before. I'd appreciate it if the Chair or someone on the committee could explain to me the rationale for the allotment of hours. I have in front of me the list pursuant to standing order 59. I note that the Ministry of Health, which is one of the largest ministries, with the largest expenditures in the government, was before the committee for 9 hours; Education and Training, another very large ministry, 7 1/2 hours. This ministry is 15 hours. I wonder if I could get some explanation.

The Chair: Certainly. As you may be aware of the standing order, each caucus selects the part of government expenditure that they feel needs to be brought before Estimates. The first two choices were by the official opposition, and their 15 hours were divided between two ministries. The third party chose their two, and now we are into the business of the government party, which has chosen to examine intergovernmental affairs for, I believe, 15 hours. So it's the choice of each party caucus to focus the amount of time and the specific ministry.

Mr Wildman: So this would mean that either the government members believe there's something in this ministry that really needs to be looked at, or they're just trying to waste time.

The Chair: I can't comment on that, Mr Wildman, but that is the procedure. We will commence.

Welcome, Minister. You may introduce your staff as they are drawn upon to elucidate the discussion. That is certainly helpful for purposes of Hansard. I'd like to introduce to members of the committee our new clerk, Ms Anne Stokes, who is joining us today.

I would like to remind everyone of the format for examination of the ministry. We have half an hour for your presentation, Minister, followed by comments by the official opposition and the third party. Then you will have a half-hour to respond, after which we will go to questions. Just before starting, I will remind the committee, and I'm sure the different whips are aware, that we are approaching the date when the estimates will be put, and that means it's important to make the most of the remaining time we have.

Minister, we're now ready for you.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I have with me today my deputy minister, Mr Bob Christie; our director, Craig McFadyen; our administrative coordinator, Kevin Owens; and our senior intergovernmental affairs specialist, Liz Harding, who are sitting behind me. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity. I know that a few of us have been this route before. I'm looking at my colleagues from the NDP and the Liberals. We spent a lot of time together. I assume that Mr Wildman's compliments today were just that, compliments.

Mr Wildman: No aspirations cast.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I thought not. We've spent a lot of time together. My two critics, Annamarie Castrilli and Mr Wildman, will be familiar with the position I'm presenting to everybody today with regard to this report.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I heard the minister say that we were her critics. I think that I and probably the NDP critic would both want the record to be clarified to indicate that we are the critics of her ministry but certainly not of the minister herself.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Great. That's super. I was saying that because we have worked together a lot.

The Chair: I appreciate both the comment and the civility here.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: They're party to a lot of the things I'm saying today, so I'll be interested in their comments, and in those of my own colleagues, of course. They'll be asking questions too.

It's obviously my pleasure to appear before the standing committee and to present the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and defend them if necessary. I plan to take this opportunity to review the ministry's estimates and provide you with an overview of our ministry's vision in core businesses. I'd also like to discuss the goals and objectives of Ontario's relationships with the federal government and the other provinces and territories, and review the positive and constructive steps our government has taken to fulfill our intergovernmental objectives.

Our presentation will highlight how Ontario is showing leadership and being a constructive partner in renewing the federation. In this regard I would add that we have taken the good advice of the former government, and the government before that, and carried on with some of their direction because it has been the interest of all governments in the last decade to take a look at the way the country can be more effective and efficient, and how we can make those incremental changes to the way our day-to-day work becomes more positive for the people we represent.

I'm going to divide my remarks into two main sections. I'll begin by discussing the administrative aspects of our estimates, including the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs's role and our budget. Then I'll move on to elaborate on our objectives, intergovernmentally, for Ontario including our efforts to strengthen the federation and the pursuit of equitable treatment for Ontario's citizens and our approach to national unity.

My ministry is collaborating with federal and other provincial and territorial governments to identify ways to create a more efficient and effective federation. Our goal is to develop practical, common sense changes to the Canadian federation that will benefit Ontarians and all Canadians in their everyday lives. In particular, these objectives are pursued in the ongoing negotiations among the federal government, the provinces and the territories on a framework agreement on Canada's social union. The ministry has devoted many of its resources to these complex and important negotiations with our partners in Canada.

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

1550

On the issue of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs's role and its budget: Before proceeding with a discussion of how we are carrying out the government's intergovernmental objectives, I would like to talk briefly about the ministry's organization and its budget. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is a small ministry in terms of staffing. The entire staff complement is 39 people, a 40% decrease since 1995-96. Like other ministries in government, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs has had to contend with constraints over the last three years. The ministry's budget in 1998-99 is $4.5 million, a 19% decrease since 1995-96. We've been able to manage these constraints by reducing our administrative costs and concentrating our resources in the office of constitutional affairs and federal-provincial relations in order to carry out our core business.

MIA also provides strategic advice to other ministries and works with opposition leaders, when appropriate, to keep them informed of intergovernmental developments. We provide advice and support to other ministers when they attend interprovincial or federal-provincial meetings. Through strong analysis and coordination of government-wide activities, we ensure that Ontario speaks with a strong and consistent voice in all intergovernmental forums.

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

I think a more detailed description of our ministry's organization will provide you with a better understanding of how we do business. The overall structure of the ministry consists of a policy division, an office of constitutional affairs and federal-provincial relations and a main office comprising the minister's office and deputy minister's office. The policy division has been reorganized into a project-oriented team structure, which ensures optimal use of existing resources and allows greater flexibility to better enable the ministry to deliver high-quality strategic policy advice to myself, the Premier and the cabinet.

The ministry recognizes the importance that the government places on the efficient and effective delivery of high-quality public services within a smaller, more flexible and accountable organization. The ministry realized efficiencies and savings in the past year and will continue to look for innovative ways to work more efficiently and effectively.

Ontario's intergovernmental objectives: Over the last three years, Ontario has had three interrelated objectives in the conduct of its federal-provincial relations. Those objectives are to ensure that Canadian federalism is efficient and effective, to see that Ontario residents are treated equitably by the federal government and to strengthen national unity. These three objectives have guided what we have done in our ministry since 1995. These same objectives have inspired governments in the past and will continue to do so in the future. By clearly defining our objectives and focusing our efforts on achieving them, I think we have enabled Ontario to have a greater impact on events and policies in Canada.

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

Strengthening the federation: The first intergovernmental objective I'd like to examine is the effort to shape a more efficient and effective Canadian federation. Our work on this question is the key to Ontario's actions in the intergovernmental field over the last three years. We've worked closely with our colleagues in other provinces and territories to outline how Canada can be changed for the better. By making practical, step-by-step changes to current arrangements in the federation, we can build a stronger and more united country for the future.

Rethinking the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial orders of government has been one of the centrepieces of Ontario's intergovernmental priorities over the past three years. This concept flows from Ontario's concern with increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of government and making governments more accountable to Ontarians and all Canadians. To make government more efficient and effective as well as more accountable, it is necessary for governments to work together while respecting each other's jurisdictions. The national child benefit is a good example and could serve as a model for how governments can work together in partnership.

Provinces saw a need in the area of provincial jurisdiction and promoted the idea with the Prime Minister. At the provinces' insistence, the national child benefit was taken up by the federal government as a priority at the 1996 first ministers' conference. Agreement on the structure of the national child benefit was announced by federal, provincial and territorial social services ministers in January 1997. FPT social services ministers provided a status report to their premiers for discussion at the August 1997 annual premiers' conference, outlining details on the national child benefit to be implemented in July 1998.

The national child benefit is designed to provide a monthly benefit to all low-income families and children regardless of the source of their income -- welfare or work. The objectives of a national child benefit are to reduce child poverty by eliminating current disincentives to work. This would be accomplished because low-income parents would continue to receive benefits for their children even after leaving welfare for low-paying jobs. Both the federal and provincial governments have clear and specific roles in the national children's benefit. The federal government will be collapsing two existing programs, the child tax benefit/working income support, into one benefit and is providing an additional $850 million for the new benefit, the Canada child tax benefit, to be targeted at low-income families.

Provinces will reduce payments to social assistance recipients by an amount that matches the federal increase and redirect these resources to programs, services and benefits for children in low-income families. Ontario will have a reinvestment fund of approximately $150 million. In the 1997 budget, we announced that $100 million of the $150 million would be directed to the new Ontario child care tax credit. At the 1997 annual premiers' conference, premiers called on the federal government to make a commitment that it will provide the annual investment necessary, estimated at $2.5 billion, for the national child benefit to meet its objectives by the year 2000. This is how the Canadian federation should work: governments co-operating to share responsibility for programs of real benefit to people wherever they live in this country.

While the national child benefit provides an example of the federal and provincial governments working co-operatively together, there are other areas where Ontario and the federal government do not see eye to eye. One area in which the government of Ontario disagrees profoundly with Ottawa is the treatment of Ontarians under federal programs. Ontario supports the principle of equalization as outlined in the Constitution. We believe that the appropriate place for equalization to be provided is in the federal government's equalization program, but we don't believe that other federal programs should have implicit equalization built into them. Let's look at three examples: federal funds for job training in the provinces, federal distribution of regular EI benefits and federal transfers under the Canada health and social transfer, referred to as the CHST.

First, job training: The federal government has offered to transfer the responsibility and money for active labour market measures to the provinces. Such a transfer would help individuals get better access to training and other job services. We want to strengthen the labour market system and make it more responsive to the needs of individuals and specific communities. These changes will also reduce wasteful overlap and duplication between provincial and federal governments.

1600

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

Federal labour market spending now comes mostly out of the federal government's employment insurance fund. An equitable share of federal money should be used to provide job services, including training for Ontarians who need it, especially in light of the level of contributions Ontarians make to the EI account.

The federal government is deliberately building up a huge surplus in the fund by maintaining high premium rates for both employers and workers, and each year a disproportionate amount of this annual surplus is contributed by workers and employers in Ontario. Since 1994, Ontario employers and workers have paid for about two thirds of the accumulated $19-billion surplus. That's a lot of money. Ottawa is using these surplus funds to help balance its books rather than fund training or cut premiums. We think this is wrong. The people of Ontario should have the same opportunity to train for jobs and the same access to job services that people in other provinces and territories have. After all, an unemployed person in Thunder Bay is just as unemployed as someone in another province. Why should a resident of New Brunswick in exactly the same situation receive up to four times more support?

The second example of inequitable treatment is the distribution of regular EI benefits from the employment insurance fund. In 1997, working people in this province paid a total of about $8 billion in EI premiums but got back less than $3.5 billion in benefits. That is an overpayment of $4.5 billion to the EI account. For those of us who went through this last year, you can see the problem is becoming even greater.

In addition to overpaying into the EI account, it is more difficult for a worker in Ontario who has lost her job to qualify for regular EI benefits than it is for a worker in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland who has lost her job. The EI program was designed to provide a safety net for all Canadians no matter where they live across this country. It was not created to favour residents of one region of the country over another.

Finance Minister Paul Martin has recently stated that he is considering introducing legislation to permit the employment insurance account to be used for purposes other than employment insurance. This would further entrench discrimination against Ontario under federal programs. My colleague Finance Minister Ernie Eves recently wrote to Mr Martin and clearly articulated Ontario's concerns and the concerns of the people of Ontario who are very much confused about why they should be paying twice the amount of premiums than they get back either in wage replacements or opportunities for retraining, and very much confused about the fact that they seem to have stiffer rules about their eligibility in the first place, which, by the way, were not negotiated with any of the provinces or territories.

All premiers agreed at their meeting in August, everybody agreed in August, that EI premiums should be reduced and eliminated entirely for young Canadians. This move could create as many as 200,000 new jobs. Ontario has consistently pushed for a reduction in premiums to $2.20 per $100 of insurable income from the current $2.70. With our colleagues in finance, we will continue to push for the fair treatment of Ontario on this issue, as have governments before us.

The third example of inequitable treatment is federal funding to the provinces for health, social services and post-secondary education. Ontario does not receive a fair share of federal funds under the Canada health and social transfer. This transfer helps to pay for health and post-secondary education programs delivered by provinces. Ontario's per capita CHST cash transfer is the lowest of all provinces except for Alberta. Ontario's cash transfer is about $352 per capita, compared to the average cash transfer for all provinces of about $409 per capita.

In 1998-99, if Ontario were to receive the same per capita allocation of CHST cash funding as the average allocation for all Canadians, Ontarians would get about $657 million more in federal funding than they now receive. This is just on the CHST. It's a big loss to the people of Ontario. Residents of Ontario are simply out of pocket for this amount and the Ontario government is hard-pressed to make up the shortfall.

The amounts of federal money denied to Ontarians in funding for training and jobs services, EI benefits and CHST are considerable, but just as important as the money is the principle of fairness. When the principles underlying our fiscal arrangements are undermined, we risk undermining public support for the system itself and for our country and the way it works, or doesn't work.

Let me reiterate: We support the principle of equalization, the traditional means for helping the poorer provinces. We support that. The equalization program provides funds to seven of the 10 provinces to allow them to offer services reasonably comparable to those enjoyed by people in a wealthier province like Ontario. Our point is that the federal programs -- and I underline -- outside of the equalization program should treat all provinces equitably. Let me be very clear on this point: Ontario supports that the principle of equalization is not in question, but let's also preserve the principle of equity in other federal programs.

Rebalancing the social union: I'm stressing these points because these are concerns to all of the provinces, whether they are net receivers or net contributors. These are some of the reasons the people in our country are concerned about the need not only to rebalance our social union but to have a better way of communicating and a better process for concluding the improvements that must be made.

Over the past three years, premiers have led the effort to rethink federal and provincial roles and responsibilities in the area of social policy. At the 1995 annual premiers' conference, the first one I attended with our Premier, the premiers agreed on the need to improve federal-provincial co-operation in managing social policy programs and also agreed on the need for provinces to take a leadership role with respect to matters within areas of provincial jurisdiction. To this end, they established the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal and directed it to explore ways to reform social policy.

The frustration was that we were attending meeting after meeting and we had to find a way to solve the problem. I think any representative of the Ontario government at that time would have entered into some kind of a new process to find a solution, and this is what this is all about.

In December 1995, just a few months later, this ministerial council issued a consensus report representing nine provincial governments; Quebec did not participate on the council. The premiers discussed the report at the first ministers' conference in June 1996. Progress was made on one proposal in the report: the establishment of a national child benefit, an idea which originated at the provincial level. Aside from this, however, the federal government did not actively engage the proposals made in the report, which of course were passed on by the premiers to the Prime Minister at the time.

1610

At the 1996 annual premiers' conference, premiers continued their discussion of these issues and released a document entitled Issues Paper on Social Policy Reform and Renewal -- Next Step. From Ontario's perspective, the most important recommendations were as follows:

(1) The need to develop mechanisms to reform the management of the social union in Canada, including a federal-provincial review of new approaches to the use of the federal spending power. All of us together need to do this; not one over the other, but the provinces, territories and the federal government.

(2) The need to develop a joint federal-provincial administrative mechanism for interpreting the Canada Health Act.

(3) A reform of fiscal federalism.

That was in the summer of 1996.

At the 1997 annual premiers' conference, all premiers agreed on the need to negotiate a framework agreement with the federal government on how social policy responsibilities could be clarified. The objective is to get the federal government and the provinces working together co-operatively on these important questions.

As a result of Ontario's leadership in the development of the options paper on the new social union:

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

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

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

(4) The premiers recognized that coordinating the redesign of financial arrangements with social policy renewal will require addressing provincial differences in the ability to raise revenues and ensure that individuals are treated as fairly as possible no matter where they reside in Canada. The solution isn't simple, but as long as we all know and all recognize that addressing provincial differences in the ability to raise revenues is important to all of us, then that means the solution isn't going to be a simple one, but it must occur.

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

We actually do think that our responsibility as provinces and territories is to come together as much as we can and do our own homework and then work with the federal government to get at least something done before we present our recommendations; otherwise we'd never solve our problems as a country, and that has definitely been proven in the past.

At the 1997 first ministers' meeting held December 12, 1997, in Ottawa, first ministers, excluding Premier Bouchard, gave the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal a clear mandate to negotiate a framework agreement on the social union. All provinces and territories are currently engaged in negotiation on this agreement. Federal-provincial territorial ministers responsible for the framework negotiations have been meeting since March of this year. Federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan is the lead federal minister on framework agreement negotiations. The provincial co-chair with Minister McLellan is Saskatchewan Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Berny Wiens.

The goal of these negotiations is to find more effective ways of working together to improve social programs to make sure they meet the needs of Canadians no matter where they live. Ontario is committed to these negotiations, as a framework agreement on social union will strengthen the federation, the country.

At this year's APC, the premiers reconfirmed their commitment to the social union negotiations and Premier Bouchard joined the provincial-territorial consensus position so that Quebec now has a seat at the negotiating table. The premiers unanimously agreed on a negotiating position concerning the future of social programs. The Quebec government formally joined the existing consensus of nine provinces and two territories. The premiers welcomed the federal government's renewed commitment to reaching an agreement and noted that the stated provincial and federal proposals share many common objectives.

The premiers also underlined the importance of certain aspects of the position they have adopted, including collaborative arrangements on federal standing in areas of provincial jurisdiction, a fair dispute resolution mechanism and the ability to opt out of any new or modified Canada-wide programs.

The premiers also emphasized the importance of renewing fiscal arrangements to sustain social programs and they instructed their ministers to push ahead on negotiations with the federal minister responsible with a view to concluding a framework agreement on Canada's social union by the end of the year.

Mr Chair, I have further remarks, which may be appropriate at another time, with regard to the outcomes of the 1998 annual premiers' conference; a few remarks on national unity and the position we've taken as a province; a fair bit on the Calgary framework and Ontario Speaks, which we all participated in together -- a fair bit, I'd say, a couple of pages; and then a short conclusion. It's up to you how you would like me to handle it, or not handle it.

The Chair: Minister, you have the option on the half-hour of return commentary. You can use that for questions, you can use it to complete your remarks, whatever is appropriate. I'll now turn to the official opposition. You have half an hour.

Ms Castrilli: Mr Chair, if it's in order, I'd like to move unanimous consent to allow the minister to finish.

The Chair: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for that. I'm certainly willing to --

Mr Wildman: It's not as if we're pressed for time.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think your name's in here about eight times, but it takes up a lot of time to say it.

Ms Castrilli: "Castrilli" is longer.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yours is in nine.

The Chair: Please proceed, Minister.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: These are the other outcomes of actually the 1998, the more recent, annual premiers' conference.

Ontario has a strong commitment to engaging in a process of constructive discussion and negotiation with the federal government. Over the past two years, Premier Harris has played a leadership role in the area of rethinking how the federation operates, with a special emphasis on social policy.

At the 1998 annual premiers' conference in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, premiers discussed a number of important issues, and Ontario can consider the outcomes a resounding success. Progress was made on such items as compensation for hepatitis C victims, employment insurance reform, the negotiations on a framework agreement on the social union, health care funding, and jobs and economic growth.

Premiers were able to forge a high degree of consensus on issues that had traditionally divided them. Provinces will pursue negotiations with the federal government from a position of unity and strength and hopefully best recommendations.

Ontario played a strong role in building and maintaining the provincial consensus on a number of issues.

The first one was that premiers unanimously agreed that the existing federal-provincial proposal for compensating victims of hepatitis C infected through the Canadian blood system was inadequate and that they will ask the Prime Minister to direct the federal health minister to work with provincial ministers to arrive at a fair, appropriate and timely resolution of the compensation issue.

Second, the premiers unanimously agree to call on the federal government to reduce employment insurance premiums to previous levels and eliminate them for youth. Ontario has been a leader in this regard and now all provinces and territories support the call to create jobs by reducing EI premiums.

1620

Third, premiers agreed that the top priority of Canadians is to maintain and enhance a high quality, universal care system that respects the principles of the Canada Health Act. To accomplish that goal, premiers agreed that the federal government must restore the cuts of over $6 billion that it has made to the Canada health and social transfer. Premiers committed to directing additional federal support to core health services. Most of that number, the $6 billion, is health. That's a very big reduction for all of us in Ontario, and it only really means the taxpayers here are having to put more money forward to get the right kind of dollars into our health care system.

I noticed today that the minister in the House mentioned it was over $2 billion. That is a year. In fact, it's almost $3 billion a year.

National unity: All of these practical changes to the way the federation works, I feel, most of us are convinced will work to help to strengthen national unity. Indeed, Premier Harris has characterized this as 80% of the solution to the issue of national unity. The other 20% of the solution to the issue of national unity involves the symbolic dimension of the federation. I think the first coining of that 80%-20% solution was basically by Premier Romanow in Saskatchewan, who brought that forward. He made a very clear distinction to his colleagues, who all are using that formula as a solution to the national unity of our country.

This includes a recognition of equality and an embracing of diversity. It also involves a recognition of the unique character of Quebec society. The Calgary framework was a response to this symbolic dimension of Canadian federalism. As you know, my colleagues from the NDP, with the leadership of Bud Wildman, and from the Liberal Party, with the leadership of Annamarie Castrilli, worked long, hard hours to put forward a plan to consult with the people of Ontario, and I personally will always be appreciative of their support and their hard work.

We know there was a lot of work that went into the Calgary framework and the Ontario Speaks process, which all parties were involved in. Of course, Ontario Speaks flowed out of that framework, which eventually resulted in the adoption of a resolution in the Ontario Legislature on May 26 of this year. I probably won't speak to that in any kind of detail, but some of us did live through it and it was a positive resolution for the Legislative Assembly.

On September 14, 1997, the nine premiers and two territorial leaders met to discuss the future of the Canadian federation. Many of you know about that. At this meeting, the 11 leaders signed a framework for public discussion on ways to strengthen Canada. This seven-point framework became known as the Calgary framework, and the 11 leaders all committed to a process of public consultation on a framework in each of their respective jurisdictions. They agreed that the consultations would be open to all of the people in each province and territory except Quebec. They agreed that efforts should be made to find creative ways of engaging Canadians in each provincial consultation process. They agreed that governments should act as catalysts for the process, show leadership. They agreed that the advantage of a coordinated time-frame was recognized, and they also agreed that each province was free to decide on the range and scope of the consultations.

In Ontario, Premier Harris met with the Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, and the NDP leader, Howard Hampton, and they agreed to establish an all-party coordinating committee to run non-partisan public consultations entitled Ontario Speaks: A Dialogue on Canadian Unity. I was appointed the chair of the coordinating committee. Annamarie Castrilli and Bud Wildman, as I've already stated, represented their parties respectively.

There was a consultation secretariat established at the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs in November 1997 to support the work of the coordinating committee. We did receive additional one-time funding of $1.252 million to fund the consultations. All of the additional funding was spent in the fiscal year 1997-98, and upon the completion of consultations, we released the summary report on the results of our consultations and introduced a resolution in the Legislature which reflected the outcome of the consultations.

The primary objective of the Calgary framework for Ontario and the provinces was to identify an expression of the strength and diversity of Canada that reconciles the need for Quebec recognition with the deep-seated value Canadians place on equality.

Objectives: The key objectives of the Ontario Speaks consultation process were, first, to measure the public support for the Calgary framework in Ontario. In particular, Ontario was interested in support for the recognition of Quebec and support for the renewal of the federation as expressed in point seven of the framework. Another key objective was to fulfil an all-party agreement to hold non-partisan consultations. Another objective was to provide everyone in Ontario with the opportunity to participate in the consultations. The last objective, obviously, was to pass a legislative resolution reflecting Ontarians' view of the Calgary framework.

Achievements: The public consultation on Ontario Speaks: A Dialogue on Canadian Unity ran between November 12, 1997 -- so very timely; at this very moment we were just getting started -- and March 15, 1998, and was one of the broadest public consultations ever undertaken in Ontario.

The consultation secretariat worked hard to achieve the objective of providing extensive opportunities for Ontarians to participate in the process. The communications activities included a mail-back brochure sent to 4.1 million homes, bilingual toll-free phone and fax lines, advertisements in all daily and weekly newspapers in Ontario, a bilingual Web site, over 65 public meetings involving 80 MPPs, the development of a school curriculum unit sent to over 3,000 schools in Ontario, a public opinion poll conducted in March 1998, a public display in the Macdonald Block lobby, and many, many speaking engagements for all of us concerned.

Approximately 75,000 people participated in the consultations. This rate of participation is similar to that of other provinces. Some 65,000 questionnaires were completed, representing 1.6% of Ontario households. There were 6,500 phone calls or faxes made to the toll-free lines, and 35,000 hits made at the Web site. Some 2,000 people participated in public meetings, 300 written submissions were made, and 1,000 people participated in a public opinion poll.

Key findings from the questionnaires and polling: Over 84% of respondents to the questionnaire agreed with the approach to strengthening Canada proposed in the Calgary framework; 76% of participants agreed with the acknowledgement of the diversity of Canada as described in the framework; 89% of participants agreed that if any future constitutional amendments give additional powers to one province, these powers must be available to all provinces. Polling data from March 1998 show that support is also strong for individual points in the framework. In particular, 95% of Ontarians agreed that, "Canadians want their governments to work co-operatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation."

The evaluation: Ontario Speaks was a success for all political parties and for the people of Ontario. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs was able to facilitate the work of the all-party coordinating team, which culminated in a resolution on May 26, 1998. It was passed by an overwhelming majority of 89 to 1 in the Legislature. Every province and territory except Quebec has completed consultations on the Calgary framework and passed legislative resolutions supporting the framework.

1630

The key findings from the consultations, both in Ontario and nationally, were positive. Results showed a high level of support for the Calgary framework in general, as well as a high level of support for the individual points of the framework. The people of Ontario value the diversity of our great country, as well as the equality of our citizens.

Having successfully completed the Calgary framework initiative, it is important to focus on practical administrative changes to renew the federation. Our priority at this time is to find ways to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments. We believe that achieving some successes in this area is an important first step in strengthening the federation and improving, and I underline this, health care and social programs for Canadians.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that I'm personally optimistic about Canada's future and Ontario's role in that future. My most positive and sometimes very enthusiastic experience with colleagues from across the country over the last three years has certainly bolstered my optimism. Ontario is playing a constructive role in Canada in providing leadership by working with other governments to make practical improvements to our federation and to ensure that all Canadians are treated equitably.

If we tackle these challenges together, I'm convinced that Canada will continue to be in the forefront of successful nations in the 21st century.

The Chair: We'll now to turn to Ms Castrilli from the official opposition.

Ms Castrilli: Let me say at the outset how much we in the opposition always welcome the opportunity to have a minister before us and the opportunity to review a ministry's operations, programs, budgets, objectives and plans for the future. But I'd be less than honest if I didn't say I wonder why we're doing that in this case. The reason I say that is that I happen to have brought with me the estimates statements that the minister made last year before this committee, and I was reading right along as the minister was making her speech here. There are a few updates, but essentially there has been very little that's new in the activities of this ministry.

I want to ask the minister a question, and I hope she can give me the answer. We could have dispensed with the particular objectives and plans and budgets of this ministry in fairly short order. Why did your government feel it necessary to allot 15 hours for discussion of your ministry?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I actually don't agree that it would have been appropriate to dispense. You're quite right that there are updates, but there wouldn't have been anything that I could have said at this time last year about the Calgary framework, because at that particular time we were just embarking on it. So I haven't made any official report on the Calgary framework and the work that we were all involved in. As you can remember, that's a very time-consuming process for the ministry and there was a fairly large budget attached to it, but more importantly I think it's important for the country. I think every province and territory across this country is very concerned about the fragility of Canada, for want of a better word.

The objectives were, let's make things better where we can through incremental changes to the everyday way that the country works and the frustrations of provinces, and sometimes of the federal government. I haven't mentioned a lot about the federal government in this regard but there will be times, I'm sure, during the questions where we can share their frustrations, because every penny that is spent of the taxpayers' dollars should be spent in results. This is about results.

It may seem that not a lot has taken place, but most of the meetings that I refer to have very extensive agendas on very important issues. I didn't go into those kind of details; we could if you would like to. But we had to start somewhere, and as you can see, since we met last year a lot of work has taken place on trying to improve the way the country works. So you might think there is very little new. I could have chosen other areas, I suppose, but for me personally, as a minister, this was the most important thing that we accomplished together.

I think the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is about that, not only on national unity but in other areas, in making sure that our own ministries work well together and that we get rid of the overlap and duplication, that we have objectives that we put forward in the best interests of the people we represent. I think this has historically been a ministry that has advised other ministries on how they can do their work more effectively and efficiently with the other provinces and territories and with the federal government. I don't think our role has changed a lot, but I would say, given the last three or four years where things have really gotten out of whack, and certainly since the Second World War -- and we went into this last time -- the federal government in fact has intruded into the delivery of programs that are within the jurisdiction of the provinces.

I suppose there was a time, and I say this to myself when I'm asked these questions in public, when it wasn't that important, but it's important for two reasons. This really came to light, I think, at the beginning of the time of David Peterson and became a very much bigger problem at the time that Bob Rae held this portfolio, in that the people of Ontario don't have the same opportunities with regard to the amount of money that they give the federal government, in trust and in good faith, with a formula that is very difficult for the people of Ontario to understand.

I think the piece that really made it very apparent to me that we have some difficulties -- it isn't only in the roles and responsibilities and more effective and efficient programs, which is what we're all about as elected representatives. It's in the absolute waste of billions of dollars in two ways: overlap and duplication.

I'm getting ready for a panel discussion soon, and I was looking at the work that the government of Alberta had done with the University of Alberta in Edmonton. They had taken each ministry and looked at the overlap and duplication between the two orders of government, and they resolved that there was a waste in potential services to people of $7 billion. These are the kinds of numbers that absolutely shock people when you think of the kind of money that, number one, we could be putting into front-line services if that's what's necessary, but more importantly, they may be taxes that we don't have to collect in the first place. So this has become a bigger problem.

Ms Castrilli: I know we have all the time in the world to discuss this and other issues --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: But you asked me a question, and I'm just saying --

Ms Castrilli: I understand that, but surely it's a question of priority. It was your government that decided we should have 15 hours on this ministry. I'm looking at the report by this committee pursuant to standing order 59, which sets out the selections.

Your ministry, with 39 people, $4.5 million, has essentially presented nothing new here today, with the exception of some updates that we'll get into a little later on. At the other end of the spectrum, we're looking at the Ministry of Health, which only gets nine hours; the Ministry of Education and Training, half of what this ministry is getting; the Office of the Premier, one half; and then Comsoc, only one half. With all of the issues, the huge budgets, the concerns, the programs that need to be dealt with, they get a fraction of the time that this committee is getting with this particular ministry. Then there are ministries that aren't on at all.

How many times have we stood up in the Legislature and said we've got backlogs in the courts, there are alleged criminals who are going free, we have judges who are in revolt saying there are serious crises in the judicial system, we have women and children who are not getting the money that's due them under family support, we have legal aid that's in crisis? None of those issues are before this committee at all.

So the question then again is, what's the rationale for allotting 15 hours to a ministry which virtually -- forgive me for saying it, because I believe, like you, that national unity is important and intergovernmental affairs are important. But what you've presented here today, quite frankly, is not of the magnitude of the issues that we need to deal with in regard to other ministries. What's the rationale? I have to ask the question that my colleague from the NDP asked: Is it just a question of filling up time so the opposition will not deal with real issues and the government is ducking the real question?

1640

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would suggest that these kinds of questions have been asked for the 10 years I've been in the Legislative Assembly, and certainly much, much longer, since Mr Wildman has been in the Legislative Assembly. Maybe if this isn't a good process you should all take a look at it and decide how to do it in a different way because it's not a new question. It's the kind of question that has been asked by government, by opposition parties to government, and I might say I asked the same question myself.

I personally think this is an important ministry and if we're talking about how money is spent across the ministries within the government, and if we can have a better working relationship with other provinces so that we get rid of barriers and work together to use each other's best practice models, I think that those are the kind of questions you should be asking. It's important that this be highlighted to the public in some way, that it is important to the success of our delivery of health care and education.

I also think that the federal government should be taking this very seriously. Any federal government, I might add, should be taking this very seriously, regardless of political stripe, because we're wasting the taxpayers' money by not addressing the problem. If you happen to want to talk about the specific programs themselves and social services or the specific programs themselves and health, there's probably another arena where you're going to have to address it because, obviously, collectively, it goes on and on and on like this. It's not that I haven't been in your shoes, but I actually don't think this ministry has had this opportunity very often. I would bow to Mr Wildman on that, but I don't remember.

Ms Castrilli: I think we had it about the same time last year.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, I'm not saying this time last year. I'm just saying in my time I'm not sure that we have looked at the work of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, and maybe that's one of the great problems. If we had looked at it properly, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess with regard to people who are paying taxes right now. Employment insurance is a payroll tax. That's what we do. You can put into an insurance fund whatever you want and I don't think anybody, very few people in this province, understands that every time they put money into that fund they're putting twice as much as is necessary, and you and I, all of us, are responsible to solve these problems.

I can understand your question; I've been in your shoes too. But I don't believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that we have had estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs during the time of the NDP government -- we can look into it -- and I certainly know we didn't during the time of the Liberal government. So what makes it wrong to do it?

Ms Castrilli: The issue is not whether intergovernmental affairs should be before this committee; the issue is the quantum of time allotted to this particular ministry as opposed to others. I've got to tell you, Chair, when I go around in my neighbourhood and knock on doors, people talk to me about health, education, downloading, justice. Nobody mentions intergovernmental affairs. It's not to say it's not important, but if you're really interested in the citizens and delivery of services to the citizens, I would say to you that some different choices could have been made by the government to give that kind of accountability to citizens that you talked about.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): They don't raise it because it's very complex.

Ms Castrilli: I would like to say to the member opposite that he'll have his half-hour and I would ask him not to intrude on ours.

I've made my point, Minister, and I understand you can't be faulted for the selections that are before this committee, but I think it's important to state for the record that there are many issues that could have been raised and will not get the look that they deserve from this committee.

Let me ask you some questions about what you have presented today, particularly on the issues which you've updated for us. I'd like to start with the last issue that you raised, the issue of the Calgary resolution, and the spinoffs, what we can expect from that. You may recall that we had some extensive discussions during the work that led up to the presentation of the resolution in the House and it's fair to say that those discussions are reflected in the report that was signed off on by all three parties.

For the benefit of those who weren't members of that working group, as Mr Wildman, the minister and I were, I will attest to what the minister said, that it was a long and arduous process. We worked co-operatively together to come to a report which reflected a diversity of opinions with respect to a lot of subjects. We may not necessarily agree as to the quantum of the consultation, I must say. That's where I probably differ with the minister. I don't believe this was the widest consultation of Ontarians ever undertaken. I would have to say there have been some previous examples of something which was much more broad and constructive. But I'd like to ask you specifically about a number of issues that we raised in the report and wondered what, if anything, is being done about them.

One of the issues you've raised is the issue of a constitutional consultation. You remember that the three points that were left hanging after we presented the report were, first, the issue of French rights in Ontario, the minority rights; second, the Constitutional consultation, which you dealt with in part, that is, if we go to a new constitutional round, there has to be a solid consultation in Ontario; third, the issues that were raised by the aboriginal peoples, because there were some difficulties with the way the resolution was framed. Franco-Ontarian rights, minority rights were really not there; the aboriginal peoples felt excluded. There was a slight amendment of the resolution, but I don't think that went very far, with respect to the aboriginal peoples, to allay some of their fears.

I wonder if you might speak to those three points. What is being done? What has been done? What do you think will happen?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Do you mind just telling me exactly how you want me to speak to them? Do you want me to talk about how they were or were not involved in the process, or do you want me to talk -- I'm now talking about the aboriginal peoples.

Ms Castrilli: I'd like to know, with respect to those three issues, what has happened since the Calgary resolution was adopted in this Legislature. I think we're all clear on what the process was and why we got the resolution that we did. We don't need to revisit that, unless you think there's something in it that's pertinent. But I really would like to know what has been done to address those concerns with the federal government and with the groups themselves.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm not sure I'm clear, so if I get on the wrong track, feel free to correct me, because I do want to answer your question.

Ms Castrilli: Let me be more specific. There was a real issue around French minority rights. You may remember that Franco-Ontarians did not feel that their rights were protected in that resolution. There was a real issue with respect to the aboriginal peoples. They really felt that their concerns, particularly around sovereignty, were not respected in the resolution. There was also some real concern by a number of Ontarians, expressed at public meetings, that said: "We don't think this is real consultation. If we go to real constitutional change, we want something more than we've had this time and we want a commitment from the government on that point."

Those were the three points that were left hanging in our report, and I wonder if you might tell us where we are now.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll give it an effort. I think after Calgary the effort has been on the 80% solution. Just to speak about the second point I think you made, the new constitutional round, and then I'll talk about the other two, it has certainly been the statement made by all premiers and territorial leaders that, until we have a government in Quebec that is interested in working with the other provinces and territories and federal government to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the federation as well as to make any constitutional changes, until we have a government in Quebec that's interested in working for a better Canada, it has pretty well been stated that there won't be any constitutional changes. There's nobody looking for that. That was the 20% of the solution, so that's been set aside for the moment. We're certainly on the eve of a very important time in the history of our country.

Ms Castrilli: Could I just follow up on that? You're not saying that those have been set aside, but that the commitment to have broad consultations has been set aside.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: For constitutional change?

Ms Castrilli: Yes.

1650

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I don't know how premiers and the Prime Minister at the time will deal with that, but I do know that the people of Canada will never be satisfied again with decisions being made by men in suits behind closed doors. It's that simple. All of us, when we knock on doors, know that the public will want a different kind of process.

Although you stated that this hasn't been the most inclusive process, I would ask you to table a better one. I certainly was involved as part of the select committee on Meech, not as a permanent member but certainly as a substitute member from time to time on Charlottetown. Perhaps that might have been the reason we didn't need the intergovernmental affairs people even then at another committee, because many of us worked for a very long time to get out and reach as many people as we could.

Ms Castrilli: I was involved with all three ministers and I've got to tell you, the other two that you mentioned were far more consultative than the process that we went through in the past.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: They may have been, but I would suggest there that that was the challenge of the individual elected members of the Legislative Assembly. I can only say that, number-wise, both in the receipt of written reports and materials and the number of people who appeared before committees, which is well documented and we certainly did that as part of our research, the 75,000 people in Ontario far surpassed in any way the numbers we could actually count that were involved in either Meech or Charlottetown. That would be the view of my colleagues across the country of all political stripes. They actually kept those kinds of documentation and results, which are for anybody to look at, as you well know. We have good mechanical ways of doing that now.

To get on to what has happened since, obviously we have been working very hard, as I stated, on the 80% solution. I think last December, when the Prime Minister and the premiers decided together to work towards finding a mechanism so we could achieve some of these changes together, was a historical moment in these recent times for Canada because many of the concerns that the premiers and territorial leaders had are absolutely the concerns of the francophone community.

Certainly the people of Quebec have been more verbal about this piece of the agenda, the day-to-day, practical changes to the Constitution. Some of the achievements that they have, with regard to the unilateral decision-making around the spending power, some agreements with the federal government that are particular to Quebec, are achievements that other provinces would like to have had the opportunity to discuss. I can only say that all governments want to ensure that the francophone population is participating in any process here in Ontario and that the aboriginal peoples will participate in processes.

At this time, the decision of the federal government, of the Prime Minister and the premiers was that we work hard to come forward with practical changes to the federation and a mechanism to accomplish these changes, whether it be the principles that we all agree to or the roles and responsibilities or new financial arrangements, which haven't been looked at in detail but have been certainly on the public agenda for a very long period of time. Dispute mechanisms were one of the directions that we were given. When the report is made to the federal government and to the premiers, they will have to decide how the public is involved. But that's not a fait accompli. That's just the first stage, looking at a better way for the country to work together. Our mandate was to make some kind of report to the first ministers by the end of December of this year.

Ms Castrilli: I guess what I'm hearing is that with respect to those three issues that were flagged in the report, really all of them have been shelved for the time being. There may be some other discussion going on, but unless there's a new constitutional round, we're not going to be prepared to deal with them. Is that what I'm hearing? I'm not sure.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The premiers have met with the aboriginal leaders. Some of the concerns of the aboriginal leaders were sent off to sectoral ministers; for instance, the ministers of social and community services. But you are correct in that if we're looking for everyone to be involved in these practical changes, there will be time, your observation that the direction the premiers received and agreed to with the Prime Minister of this country is that we come forward with the best ideas, the best suggestions, which is not easy.

We are talking about a more modern way for the country to work. We're looking at a better way to spend the taxpayers' money, in that communication will be the success story of the next millennium. It isn't appropriate to have unilateral decision-making around the spending power. It's no longer appropriate, I believe, to stay with the same financial arrangements, because we've talked about the changes.

I'm extremely enthusiastic about this opportunity for all of us. Governments will probably change in the next year or two, and I'm hoping that the same commitment I've experienced with the leaders of different political parties representing different provinces and ministers will proceed with the same kind of enthusiasm and determination, because I think it has been a very positive process.

The frustration -- and I actually won't use the word "frustration" with regard to your comments, Annamarie -- but I think there's always some concern, more so by the media than by the general public, that maybe we're coming to some conclusions behind closed doors. That isn't the case. I think the conclusions behind closed doors in the past were the end result.

Here it's a matter of the Prime Minister basically saying to the ministers, and the premiers saying to the ministers, "You go and do the best you can with each other and with the federal representative, Anne McLellan" -- who has been a very enthusiast and welcoming participant in the process, a very good co-chair, I might add, along with Berny Wiens -- "just do your best." That's where we're at, because we know it's extremely important to come to some kind of a conclusion so that the general public can be more involved.

There's no secret; it's just so technical. As you've stated yourself, this is a very technical ministry. Those of you who have been involved in the front lines of Meech and Charlottetown will agree that, when you're looking at financial arrangements and whether mechanisms to settle disputes are important to the way the country may work in the future, we don't want anybody, I suppose, to get the wrong message out to the public, because really this is a tremendous effort on behalf of all of us to come up with our best solutions.

Ms Castrilli: May I ask whether the issues that were raised in our report on Franco-Ontarian rights and aboriginal rights have been referred here in Ontario to the ministers responsible? Have you consulted with them? What have they told you about what they're prepared to do?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: With regard to the kind of individual analysis that may or may not have been done, the number of strategies that were undertaken to ensure that the francophones in Ontario were able and indeed encouraged to participate in the consultation process, as you know, were very sincere. We did make, I think, somewhat of an error in the beginning which we tried, all of us, to rectify in some way. There were approximately 4,500 French-language questionnaires completed, but they were answering the same questions that the rest of us were answering. We haven't done a further analysis of some of those responses individually, except to analyze them within the seven questions.

1700

Ms Castrilli: We presented a report that said, "These are issues with Ontarians." I'm assuming the results that were tabulated verified what we said, because that's what we said. I don't know that we need to go behind the document.

My question is very simple: Have the recommendations that were made in that report with respect to those two particular groups been referred to the ministers responsible here in Ontario and what, if anything, have they said they're prepared to do?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think what happened with the results here in Ontario, as across Canada -- they were made available, obviously, to the ministers responsible. Here in Ontario, whether you're talking about -- are we now talking just the French?

Ms Castrilli: I'm referring specifically to Ontario.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You might refresh my memory as to what you thought one or two of the more important recommendations might have been.

Ms Castrilli: I'm referring specifically to the issues dealing with francophone linguistic rights and aboriginal concerns around self-determination. Have those been referred to the ministers here in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. The self-determination piece has been a very real part of our discussions, of all the provinces' discussions with the federal government. We have taken the position that the federal government is responsible for the programs and services of native Canadians, both on and off reserve. In the meantime, since the federal government doesn't agree with that in many instances, although they haven't really responded, we find ourselves across this country providing very important programs -- health, social service, education programs -- to native Canadians, both on and off reserve but especially off reserve.

Here in Ontario we have made a huge commitment to the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy which was started I believe in 1995. We've had a three-year commitment which we are reviewing now. In the absence of some response by the federal government in any way with regard to the dollars that should be spent on these programs, which is the responsibility via the Constitution of the government of Canada, and the whole issue of self-government that rightly lies with -- and we certainly made that point, both before and after Ontario Speaks, I might add, to the federal government. That has been a unanimous position of all provinces and territories since I've been involved in these discussion since 1995.

Ms Castrilli: This is not your ministry, of course, but you know that in Ontario we've not always taken the position that it's only the federal government's responsibility. I would remind you that a previous government signed an agreement with some native peoples here in Ontario. I'm having trouble understanding that.

My question was not to get into the specifics of self-determination. When we finally tabled a report with respect to the Calgary resolution, there were a couple of recommendations. My question is very simple: Were they referred to the ministers involved, did they take a position on it, and what have they done since? I'm not interested in whether the federal government ought to be doing something in a wellness program, which I think is wonderful. I asked a very precise question: Are the ministers aware and what, if anything, have they discussed with you they're prepared to do?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: They are aware of the observations and recommendations that came out of the discussions, obviously. Some of those observations and recommendations have influenced one's thinking as we renew our commitment to the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy, for one. You may not think that's important but it's a huge --

Ms Castrilli: It's extremely important, but that wasn't my question.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are other, smaller programs across ministries that have been affected by the desire of the aboriginal people to have self-government. There have been some efforts, which of course I can't answer in detail at this meeting, but I would be happy to get them for you. I have been party to the discussions. I'm invited to those meetings. I've met with aboriginal leaders myself on two occasions, along with my colleagues from nine other ministries, and I'm sure the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, Charles Harnick, would fill me in on any more specific things he's working on, as well as my colleague Noble Villeneuve if you're talking about the francophone population. All of these initiatives by both of those ministers obviously are shared with myself.

I think the big issue for us in this instance -- we might say we're not interested in the role of the federal government but the aboriginal people are interested in the role of the federal government and sooner or later --

Ms Castrilli: You're misunderstanding. I didn't say we're not interested in it, I just said that's not my question. I asked a very different question.

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt the exchange. I let that go on in the hope that it could be concluded.

Ms Castrilli: Chair, could I take the minister up on -- I don't know if other members of the committee are interested in the information she has offered to provide, but I would be very interested to see if there is anything with respect to aboriginal rights and French-language rights.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: An update.

Ms Castrilli: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, it's now your turn. You have 30 minutes.

Mr Wildman: As I listened to the exchange, and I won't belabour this point, I was reminded of a joke my grandfather once told me that apparently had some basis in fact about an elderly and well-respected history professor at Queen's University who seemed to most of the young students to be quite ancient. He used to come into his classes with a very small booklet of notes, very brittle yellow paper, and he would lecture. He was apparently well known for expecting his views on the history of Greece, I think it was, to be regurgitated on examinations. So most students took copious notes and wrote madly as they listened to these lectures except for one young man who sat in the very front and didn't take any notes at all. After the first few weeks of the semester the professor stopped and said, "Mr Smith, you don't find what I have to say interesting?" He said, "Oh no, sir, I find it very interesting." The professor said, "But you don't find it necessary to take any notes?" He said, "Oh no, sir, I don't have to take notes." The professor said, "Could you explain why not?" He said, "Because I have my father's notes."

I was reminded of that joke as I listened to your presentation because it did remind me of what I had heard the previous year.

I would like to raise a couple of points, because I did take notes, in the context of what you presented to the committee and updates of last year's presentation and the comments of my friend from the Liberal Party. I certainly support your view that Ontario must play a constructive role in Confederation and must find practical and common sense approaches to changes in the federation, but I have some specific questions.

There are 39 people in your ministry, which you've indicated is a 40% cut since 1995-96, despite the fact that we were going through what you characterized as a major consultation around the Calgary framework. The total budget is $4.5 million, which you indicated is a 19% decrease since 1995-96. I would be interested in finding out just as a matter of information how this compares with Quebec's efforts in Ontario. I wouldn't even ask you about Quebec's efforts with regard to other governments, whether they be in Ottawa or France or the US or whatever; I'm just interested in knowing how many staff are in the office of the Quebec government here in Toronto. How does that compare with the total number of staff you have in your ministry? I note that you have two staff people in your Quebec City office. I suspect the Quebec office in Toronto has considerably more than that. I'll just put these out and you can perhaps respond after I'm finished.

1710

Obviously, all of us are interested in a strong, united Canada, and I appreciate the fact that both my friend from the Liberal Party, Ms Castrilli, and myself were asked by the minister to participate in the attempt to have a consultation around the Calgary framework. I would say as a sidebar, though, I do regret that this government has apparently chosen not to follow the example of every other government I can remember in my time in this place in that the Davis government, the Peterson government, the Rae government, all of them regularly invited one or two members of the opposition to attend as observers at interprovincial meetings. I thought that was useful. Frankly, the input that we received from Charles Beer, who was the observer in the meetings that I was privileged to participate in as a member of the executive council for this province, and Ernie Eves usually and sometimes Norm Sterling for the Conservative Party, was useful and was certainly advisory. They understood it was in that vein, but it was useful. I was privileged to be invited by the Honourable Tom Wells to participate as an observer in meetings in Ottawa in the early 1980s convened by the then Prime Minister, Mr Trudeau, and I appreciated the opportunity at the time.

In terms of the rebalancing of the social union, I must say I agree completely with your view vis-à-vis equalization. All parties in Ontario support the concept and the principle of equalization and understand that we must, as a well-off province compared to other provinces, along with Alberta and British Columbia, contribute to equalizing the resources to provide services for Canadians in other provinces. All of us support that. I agree completely with your view, which is in line with the position taken by the NDP government when we were in government in Ontario, that equalization should not be implicit in other transfer-of-payment programs. This started under the Mulroney government and it has been continued under the Chrétien government, and it is very unfair to Ontario. You pointed to training and so on.

I want to raise some disagreement, though, over the EI situation. I certainly agree with all of the provinces' view that the federal government, Mr Martin, should not be able to use the $19 billion as a way of balancing the budget, because this is an insurance program and it should be used as an insurance program. Where I have differences with the position taken by this government and other governments across Canada is that I don't believe this money should be turned back to the employers and employees who have paid into it.

I don't see the $19 billion as a surplus. This so-called surplus has resulted from cutting benefits and making it harder for people to collect. The fact is that one third of the people who are unemployed in this country can't collect unemployment insurance thanks to the changes that have been brought about by Mr Martin and the Conservative government before him. In our view, that money should be used to improve benefits and ensure that those people who are unemployed get unemployment insurance. I don't see it as a surplus.

I don't think it should be turned back as a disguised tax reduction, any more than it should be a tax increase if it's going to be transferred to cut the federal deficit. Those monies were paid into it as an insurance plan, and those people who have unfortunately become unemployed should be able to collect the unemployment insurance. Benefits should be improved, and the people who are being denied benefits because of the restrictions on the eligibility that the minister complained of in Ontario, for instance, should be able to collect.

That's what we should be doing with the money. It shouldn't be used to cut the federal deficit, and neither should it be used to cut payroll taxes, but rather it should be used to benefit those people who need it. I wish this government were taking that position, and I wish that position were being expressed vehemently to the federal government.

A lot of what we've had discussed about the future of Canada and the federation, unfortunately -- and I say that advisedly -- relates to the outcome of the current provincial election in Quebec. I wish elections in Quebec were not always fought on the future of our nation, but I think that's inevitable, so I guess it's just wishing in the wind. I regret the intervention of the Prime Minister at the beginning of the campaign, or just before the campaign was called. It was most ill-advised. I wonder what the minister's view is about Mr Chrétien's comments that constitutional change is very unlikely and that the aspirations of Quebec, that 20% of the 80-20 split, are not likely to be met, or, in his view, perhaps have already been met. That certainly isn't the view of any politician in Quebec, separatist or federalist.

If we're interested in rebalancing the social union, I must say that I am concerned about the comment that was repeated by the minister here and that has been made by her colleague the Minister of Finance and by the Premier from time to time, that if we don't ensure proper funding for things like health and social services -- I use health in particular -- and that the transfers are made fair -- which I believe should happen -- it may undermine public support for the program. I may be reading too much into that statement, but to me it sounds like a veiled threat, that somehow if Ontario doesn't get the money they deserve -- which I agree they do deserve, in transfers from the federal government -- Ontario's participation in medicare may end.

I know there are people in Ottawa who are concerned that that's what that statement may mean. I understand from press reports that they are already working on some programs to try to ensure that Ontario and perhaps Alberta do not decide to go it alone with regard to health care and the health care system. I would like a commitment, a flat commitment, from this government that they are in support of the national medicare program and intend to continue the province's participation in that program, and with that, the support for the Canada Health Act.

That brings me to some of the questions that were raised by my colleague from the Liberal Party with regard to those two things that were left hanging from the consultation around the Calgary framework: aboriginal concerns and francophone issues. The minister referred to the aboriginal healing and wellness program that was begun in the late part of our mandate and has been continued under this government. That is a good program, but I am very concerned about this government's approach to it.

1720

I'll give you an example. I just recently received a copy of a letter that was sent by the minister's colleague the minister responsible for long-term care, Mr Jackson, to Sylvia Maracle, the executive director of the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, with regard to her concerns about the distribution of long-term-care beds to aboriginals off-reserve in this province as part of the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy, in which he flatly says to her that there is no different approach to the distribution of long-term-care beds for the aboriginal community than there is for the rest of the community, that any proposals, whether they come from the individual Indian friendship centres or other organizations off-reserve, must qualify under the process with the CCACs the same as anybody else.

I don't have it with me, but I could bring you a copy of Mr Jackson's letter. In the correspondence from Ms Maracle -- those of us who have the privilege of knowing Ms Maracle know that she says what she thinks -- she essentially says that this is a diktat and that she doesn't appreciate it and doesn't think it's a proper way to approach the process.

The problem we have in dealing with your government as it relates to aboriginal communities, and First Nations generally, is that you treat them as just one more group, and they aren't. They are the aboriginal people. They are the indigenous people, who, under our Constitution, whether various people like it or not, have rights that other people in this country do not have. They believe they should be dealt with as a third order of government on a government-to-government basis by this government; they do not believe they should be treated just like any other group that's applying for long-term-care beds, for instance.

The same goes, as a matter of fact, for the lands for strife process of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Grand Chief Charles Fox of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation has stated clearly that they have withdrawn from that process because aboriginals' and First Nations' concerns have not been dealt with and that they do not appreciate the fact that they're being dealt with as any other interest, like, for instance, the anglers and hunters, the forest industry, the environmental groups, the tourist industry or whomever, because they aren't. He's quite right. But this government fails to understand that, apparently. You're not going to resolve the questions around aboriginal rights and aboriginal issues in this province until this government recognizes that. It's difficult, I know. But I'd like to know how this government is going to resolve these problems, because they fester.

With regard to the francophone community, which is a very different type of issue but it also relates to the Constitution and the rights of a minority, a significant minority in this province, the Franco-Ontarians, my colleague from Sudbury East raised in the Legislature just today or yesterday the fact that Collège Boréal is without funds because the federal and provincial governments have not renewed the agreement for funding. Each government, this government in Ontario and the federal government, is saying the other one should fund it, instead of both of them sharing it, the way it was before.

Whether it's aboriginals or Franco-Ontarians, for this government simply to say it's the responsibility of the federal government I think plays into the hands of the Péquistes in Quebec. That's certainly not true of the aboriginals, but in terms of the francophone issue. We talked about the Montfort Hospital the last time we were before these estimates; Collège Boréal is the same kind of issue in Quebec.

That also raises a question around something that has been a perennial issue. It's not just an issue related to this government, it has been an issue for all three parties in government, and that is the cross-border labour issue in construction between Ontario and Quebec because of the differences in the way we manage labour qualifications and eligibility for work in various regions of our provinces.

Last week, I heard an interview on the radio involving two mayors, one from Témiscaming, Quebec, and the other from North Bay, both of whom were saying that the fact that people from North Bay could not work in Témiscaming but people from Témiscaming could work in North Bay wasn't fair and didn't make sense. The mayor of Témiscaming was pointing out that the easiest access to his community is through Ontario -- there is access through Quebec, but it's much easier through Ontario -- and it didn't make sense for someone to have to come all the way from, say, Montreal to go and do construction work in Témiscaming when there might be somebody qualified in North Bay to do the work. I agree. This is a difficult issue, and I'm not being critical, I just would like to have an update on what has happened in terms of resolving those problems that have been befuddling governments of all political stripes in Ontario.

Just as another matter, in regard to what I was saying about the commitment of this government to the continuation of the national medicare program and the Canada Health Act, I would like to get some further explanation about the commitment of premiers to provide core health services. I would like to find out how we will ever in this country in the future go about making changes to the national medicare program. Whether it's pharmacare or long-term care or community care, how would any of these possible programs ever come about in future? Will they only be possible provincially, so if a government in Ontario or British Columbia or Alberta wanted to bring in one of these programs, it could benefit their citizens, but a Canadian citizen living in Newfoundland or Quebec or New Brunswick or Manitoba might not be able to have the benefit of a similar program? So someone moving from Ontario to New Brunswick would not continue to have the benefit of a program that had begun in Ontario once they'd moved to New Brunswick. If this is the case, then it does not bode well for the future of national medicare and ensuring that citizens across this country will have the benefit of similar services; I'm not saying exactly the same, but similar services across the country.

Sometimes we have to determine whether we are Ontarians first or Canadians first. I suppose those people who live in my part of the province have to determine whether they're northerners first, Ontarians first or Canadians first. I suppose I would say I'm a northern Canadian, keeping in mind that everything west of Ontario is farther north than we are. I really think these are important issues, and I'd like to have them dealt with.

1730

The final issue I want to raise doesn't relate to any of these directly. That is a question that was answered by the minister in the House last week in response to the violence against physicians who provide services that some people find objectionable. The minister was asked in the House by one of my colleagues, the member for Riverdale, if she, wearing both hats, as minister responsible for women's issues and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, would speak to her colleague the Attorney General, who was going to be attending the meeting of the attorneys general in Canada, justice ministers, about raising the issue of adequate funding and resources for the police efforts to investigate the threats of violence against these physicians and the wounding of a number of physicians in Canada and the murder of a doctor in New York state.

I saw from the press earlier today that the American authorities, the FBI, have identified an individual they wish to talk to about the murder in New York state, and I hope they're successful. I think everyone who thinks about it hopes they're successful. But that still doesn't abrogate the need for adequate funding for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial police forces and municipal police forces in the coordinated effort across Canada to investigate individuals and/or groups involved in this intimidation and actual threat of violence against physicians who perform operations with which they disagree. I was appreciative of the fact that the minister immediately said yes, she would speak to the Attorney General about this. I would like to know what success she had and what discussions took place at the interprovincial-federal meeting of attorneys general on this matter.

Chair, how much time do I have left?

The Chair: Two more minutes.

Mr Wildman: I haven't given you much time to respond to me, so perhaps you'll have to respond the next time we come back to this. But these are the issues I would like to raise.

I do think this is an important ministry. It can and could play a role in coordinating our efforts in a number of areas with line ministries or it can be simply an adjunct to the Premier's office. I hope you're not the latter; I hope you're the former.

The Chair: Minister, there are approximately 13 minutes remaining in the time. We had unanimous consent to give you some of the time earlier to finish your statement. There are now 13 minutes for you to respond to the questions that have been put or to use it in any way you see fit.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I'd certainly like to thank my colleagues for their questions. I attempted to answer, although not all, Annamarie Castrilli's questions. We made a couple of notes to get some responses and if you'll make sure that I get from you the questions that you felt I didn't answer, then I'm happy to bring forward --

Ms Castrilli: You have another 13 hours.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I know we've got lots of time, but sometimes if I know ahead of time, it makes better use of the time.

I will proceed with Mr Wildman, if that's appropriate. The first question had to do with the staffing. There is an office in Ontario for the government of Quebec. They have three staff there. But it actually performs, I was interested to learn, a different function. A lot of their functions have to do with taxation because of how they collect taxes differently. I think they're possibly comparable, but I didn't know the answer to that question before you asked it, so I thank you for that. I'm not a bit surprised; I actually thought they would have more people than that.

Mr Wildman: I thought they did too, actually.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think maybe that they've met up with the same kinds of challenges as we did. Do you have anything to add, Mr Deputy?

Mr Bob Christie: Only that, as the minister noted, they do have a broader range of function, but to get you specific information on how many people they have at the moment and what those people are doing compared to what our people in Quebec City are doing, we would need to do some follow-up, and we'll do that follow-up.

The Chair: Madam Minister, I just want to interrupt for one moment to make a procedural point clear to everyone on the committee. These are the last hearings of the estimates committee. November 17 occurs while we are on recess and therefore, at the end of this particular session, we will be done with estimates because we're not permitted by our standing orders to meet beyond that point.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: So today is it?

The Chair: Today is it, for the purposes of --

Mr Wildman: Well, I take back everything I said.

Ms Castrilli: That's the fastest 15 hours I ever went through.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I tried to make that point at the outset but obviously not very successfully. To put the parties on notice, we will ask for unanimous consent for the consideration of these estimates for this ministry at the end of our time today. At the end of the time today, all of the estimates will have deemed to have been done, as our time on the calendar has unfortunately expired. I don't want to interrupt any further.

Minister, I invite you to continue.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: These were serious questions today, so I think what would be fair under the circumstances is that we take a look at the Hansards and answer you in writing. I'd be happy actually if we could have our own meeting, one on one, or the three of us together, because there are questions. I'll answer them as fully as I can right now, Bud, because you did have 10 questions. Number one was the Quebec office. Number two was your observation with regard to being invited to the meetings as members of the opposition, and I think that you're probably talking about the Meech and Charlottetown, but maybe more than that. I'm not aware.

Mr Wildman: It goes right back to the Constitutional discussions, Mr Trudeau and the provinces, in the early 1980s. I was an observer at those meetings.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's interesting, only from my own personal observations, in the meetings that we've had across the country right now we do a lot of it by conference calling. It's extremely expensive for the ministers to come from across the country and everybody is worried about --

Mr Wildman: I was talking mainly about the premiers' and Prime Minister's conference.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Premiers? It hasn't been the case and sometimes it's not even the case that there's more than one minister there, even though the topics on the agenda would have to do with other ministers, but I certainly accept your observations. If there's some appropriateness to that, we could consider it, but it has been noted by all of the delegations from across the country that there are very small delegations on behalf of every province compared to what they might have been three or four years ago. I think it's probably the initial real effort of everybody to conserve where we can. But the discussions are important, and I certainly heard you.

The rebalancing and equalization piece: I'm happy that you agreed with regard to our observations on equalization. I can only add for you that this is of great concern, looking at reopening the equalization files as part of the financial arrangements. It would be inappropriate for me not to tell you that at the very first meeting in 1995 when the maritime provinces were very concerned about our looking at financial arrangements -- this is just us together, without talking to the federal government -- our Premier basically said that if we have to take a look at the equalization file to reach their concerns around fair share, that is exactly what we would do.

How we get to the end of that is a real challenge, but everybody is in there on good faith, so we'll see, and we may have to count on your good advice in this regard, because as you know, some of the best advice that we get in our ministry is by some of the same advisers that you did use. So if at any time you're wondering what kind of a position we might take, I invite both of you to let us know where you feel we can get our best advice and we'll take advantage of it. As far as I know right now, the best advice we're getting is from some of the best people that you've been able to use in the past.

I'm happy to know that you also agree that anything over equalization, it's not implicit there with the other transfer payments that they be equalized or that they be fair share, and I'm happy that you've agreed with me there. I actually think when I make my statements on EI that you might agree here too. We can see, but again, these are interesting discussions.

You say that the $19-billion surplus -- I don't use that word often myself, I might add -- shouldn't be used for balancing the budget, but you certainly agreed that this should not be turned back to the employees and the employers. I haven't really kept up to date with regard to the media, but that has never been the position of any of the provinces that I know of. It's been the position I think of some people in the media but we actually did have --

Mr Wildman: It's the position of a number of parties in the federal House too.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes. I'm not aware of any other province that has ever suggested that this be turned back. I am aware that the premiers drew this to the attention of the federal government, that they all did agree that there should be the reduction in the premiums that I read into Hansard earlier, that there should be a combination of that. I don't think they have taken a joint position on eligibility, but that has been raised as a very big concern, and I put that in my notes at the very beginning.

I suppose the tax reduction piece is meant to meet the needs and I don't think there is a simple solution in this regard, so I'm certainly interested in your views on this matter. I think what we were trying to do is balance it, only take what we need as far as possible and maybe set up some kind of reserve for the times when we don't raise enough money. There's got to be a better way of doing it than what we have now, but certainly I'm not aware of anybody ever turning back.

I will read to you from Saskatoon in 1998, because some of the other provinces wanted this in the record and we all agreed. Under "Employment insurance, Saskatoon, 7 August, 1998," it says:

"Premiers also agreed that additional benefits for seasonal workers should be provided, the situation of older workers should be addressed and options for northern relocation assistance be examined."

That's the one part that I didn't read in, but all the premiers call for reduced premiums and the premiers, obviously including our Premier, agreed to focus some attention on this issue. They did reaffirm their call on the federal government, not only to reduce the insurance premiums, but they did say that the premiers agreed that the premiums should be eliminated for youth. I just wanted to verify that. I'll bet you anything that if we look at this, the solution, the end result, we could possibly discuss it, and I welcome you to have that discussion with myself in this regard, because I think you're well qualified to give us good advice. I underlined, "Do not cut the federal deficit." I think you said that, and do --

Mr Wildman: I'm not opposed to cutting the federal deficit, just not with this money.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We agree with that. You said, "Do not cut taxes," but I think that if we were to study what the premiers did want and you could see what the end result would be --

Mr Wildman: What I meant was that this should not be treated as a payroll tax cut by lowering premiums, but rather, the benefits should be improved. That's basically my disagreement.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: They did agree that the premiums should be reduced, "Reduce employment insurance premiums to previous levels," and we went into more detail here, which would be consistent I think with the other premiers. I think we're on the same wavelength here.

I won't respond in any particular way to Mr Chrétien's interview, except that I did see him on television last night saying that everybody has a bad couple of weeks or something, so maybe we should always give people the benefit of the doubt.

Mr Wildman: It's unfortunate to have one just as the election is called.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Timing is everything, isn't it? I do think that we have to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt whenever we can.

With regard to the health commitment, I should let you know again that this summer in Saskatoon, in August, I actually said, I think in my own introductory remarks, that we are absolutely committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act. I'll read from the statement that the premiers made:

"They reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining and enhancing a high-quality universal health care system for all Canadians. The premiers observed that every government in Canada but one, the federal government, has increased its funding in health care. They expressed concern about unilateral federal cuts to Canada health and social transfers beginning in the 1994-95 fiscal year that now represents more than $6 billion a year. This is the transfer to provinces which helps support core health care services, post-secondary education and other programs for Canadians. The federal government cut its funding to social programs through the CHST by 33% while at the same time spending on federal programs fell by just 6%."

I think that's an important piece that we all have to know about. They did end up by using a word that you referred to, Mr Wildman, "The premiers are committed to directing additional federal funds to core health services." I think that was your next piece. Unequivocally, the premiers and our Premier have committed themselves to the Canada Health Act.

I wouldn't mind having further informal discussions with either of you with regard to some of the discussions that may be coming up, but it's not specifically on the agenda, because I actually believe when we get into these kinds of discussions at some time that maybe the ministers of health would have a discussion, but perhaps if it's part of the mechanism on the financial arrangements, it would be in the arena that I'm responsible for.

But there's no doubt that Canadians see themselves as living in the best country in the world. What they do identify with, if they have to think about anything else in any other country, is that here the first priority is health care. There's no doubt that we want that to be available to everybody, no matter where they live.

The Chair: Minister, on a positive note, I just want to remark that we're at the end of the session. As you know, there won't be a lot to follow, but there is a segment for question and answer for which we'll go to the official opposition. Just before we do that, I wanted to ask that the information you offered to provide to the respective critics be shared with all the members of the committee, if that could be agreed. Then I would invite Ms Castrilli to enter into the question-and-answer session, for which we have approximately 10 minutes.

Ms Castrilli: Had I known that the time was so short, I think I would have used my time differently before, I will say that. Because there's so little time, let me simply try and flesh out some of the issues that I think we need to focus on, and you can respond at a later date.

Let me start by saying that I'm of the view that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs ought to play a far greater role than it does and if there's a frustration that you hear from the ranks of the opposition, it's that we think it's largely a symbolic ministry except in moments of crises of one sort or another. We showed how in the past year the ministry had to have a rush of money and a rush of people to be able to do the work that was required at a very critical time.

Intergovernmental affairs is at the heart of what Canada is all about, and I think the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs ought to be involved in a very real way in everything that goes on. The questions that I asked you earlier about the outstanding issues coming out of the Calgary resolution work that we did around francophone and native rights point to just that. What I had hoped you'd say to me is: "I understood what people were saying to me through the report and I took a direct action. I went to my colleagues and I demanded that they act on it in one form or another." That's not what we got. That's not what we got and that's what I'd like to see the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs do in areas that are very critical. I have highlighted two of them for you, and let me suggest that there are others where there has to be a stronger presence. If these committee hearings help in making the ministry much more of a focal point, then they're all to the good.

Let me suggest to you that the issue, for instance, of cross-border employment is a festering sore that is simply not going away, and it's an area where I'd like to see the ministry much more involved and I'd like to know what it is that we're doing short of just getting some rhetorical statements from the province of Quebec, and then not actually insisting on the rights that should flow from that.

Let me also say that I'd like to know -- my colleague from the NDP mentioned this before, and we went through this last year but not with any great satisfaction -- how our activities in Quebec compare to the activities of the Quebec government in Ontario. I think they probably have it right in some way; they are using their Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs as a very real tool to further their agenda. I'd like to see Ontario use it as a tool to further a co-operative federalism agenda. We're not doing that and I'd like to suggest to you that's something that really should be pushed, and I'd like to see what the figures are right now with respect to that.

You mentioned a number of initiatives, and I'd like to know how close we are to achieving any kind of agreement on job training funding. You mentioned there are some difficulties. I'd really like to know the mechanics of where we are and what needs to be done, if anything.

You gave us a synopsis on the national child benefit, which I believe only went to about August 1997.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: No. That's there.

Ms Castrilli: What you gave us was 1998? It was unclear to me.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The national child benefit is part of the tax system now. It will be Canada-wide.

Ms Castrilli: There are no outstanding issues with respect to that?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, money.

Ms Castrilli: We're getting to that. I'd like to know how that $2.5 billion is to be found.

Interjection.

Ms Castrilli: Yes, it's a lot of money. The reality is that if the money is not there, then the benefit is non-existent, so I'd like to know what Ontario is doing with respect to that. How much more time do I have?

The Chair: Another five minutes, Ms Castrilli.

Ms Castrilli: Let me return to a point that's been made before. Part of the reason that you sense this kind of unease with respect to this particular ministry is that it's not a ministry that's front and centre. There are things that happen that catch us by surprise. My colleague Mr Wildman alluded to the fact that there was once a practice of having the representatives from the opposition parties involved. I think that would go a long way to achieving a couple of objectives.

Firstly, it would keep us all on the same wavelength so that we wouldn't get caught by surprise. Secondly, if the objective is to make the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs more of a lead ministry, I think you would find that there would be some natural allies on the part of people in the opposition whose goals are the same, to further national unity, to further national objectives, while maintaining an Ontario presence. I think you'd find some natural allies there which would be very useful to you and to the Premier as well.

When we were working on the Calgary resolution, it was obvious that we did it in a non-partisan fashion, and I think our approach to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs differs from that which is normally taken with other ministries, because what's at stake, while it may not always be visible, like -- shall I say it again? -- the backlogs in the courts and the other problems that we mentioned before nevertheless fundamentally affect the fabric of this country and the future that we're facing. It's very important to make sure that there is some consistency and ongoing consultation with the opposition.

Let me mention one final point which has been troubling me all along. Some of the positions that are taken by the Ontario government vis-à-vis the federal government have to be weighed very carefully, because so often the positions that are taken are positions that feed the separatists in Quebec, and I don't know whether that's intentional or not. When you talk about decentralization, when you in fact start to dismantle certain programs -- I was glad to hear you say that you endorse absolutely the principles of the Canada Health Act -- be very careful that what we are saying here in Ontario doesn't fuel separatism. Sometimes it's not done intentionally, sometimes it can be a totally haphazard thing, but some of the policies that we've taken around co-operative federalism, whatever that may mean, and I asked you a fair number of questions about that last year, trouble me because the responses that I've seen from your ministry are responses that sound more like a separatist government in Quebec than the traditional Ontario response of national unity.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can assure you that is not the intent at all. Certainly I can speak on behalf of the whole Legislative Assembly in Ontario, as long we've been here. Mr Wildman asked what do we consider ourselves, and I think Ontarians are probably the people who when asked, "Where are you from?" say, "We're Canadians." We know that, we've all got it in our bones, and certainly our Premier and former premiers have been huge leaders in this regard. When we talk about decentralization, that is not what this whole process is all about.

Ms Castrilli: We didn't get into that issue, unfortunately, because one of the objectives --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's part of a problem in a way. What we're trying to do is prevent it. We'll have to have some further discussions about this but this isn't about taking any powers away from the federal government; it's about communicating with each other, solving problems with each other, and getting rid of the overlap and duplication. The days are gone when you'd pick up the phone and say, "This is what you're getting."

I would be really happy to talk with any members of the opposition with regard to our training agreement, because we need that for the people in Ontario. It's somewhat silly that we haven't reached a conclusion, but in fairness, we've been in serious discussions now for about --

Mr Wildman: Immigration issues.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We did make a difference on that.

You can see that there are lots of important issues in this ministry. I appreciate the observations of my colleague and any recommendations that you've got will be considered.

I did want to make it very clear that what we're trying to do is not about power; it is about getting rid of the overlap and duplication, picking up the phone and talking about financial arrangements, and it's very serious business for all governments and certainly for the future of our country.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. The time for proceedings today has come to an end, and as I noted before, we have the unfortunate task of also wrapping up the estimates procedures, because we will reach the statutory date during the time we're on recess. I'd like to put the report to the Legislature tomorrow so that it is properly put.

I would ask for consideration for unanimous consent for considering the estimates of this ministry so we could add those to the list of ministries that are considered, but it would require your consent. Is it your wish? Agreed. I'll proceed then with the vote.

Shall vote 1501 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare it carried.

Shall vote 1502 carry? Carried.

Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs carry? Carried.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to the House? Carried.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1756.