Legislative Assembly of Ontario

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

NICK MCCOMBIE

MAITLAND WARDER

AFTERNOON SITTING

GRETA MCGILLIVRAY

CONTENTS

Wednesday 30 January 1991

Appointments review

Nick McCombie

Maitland Warder

Afternoon sitting

Greta McGillivray

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)

Vice-Chair: McLean. Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)

Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)

Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)

Substitutions:

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mr Waters

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC) for Mr Stockwell

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North L) for Mr Bradley

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC) for Mr McLean

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP) for Mr Frankford

Perruzza, Anthony (Downs view NDP) for Mr Wiseman

Clerk: Arnott, Douglas

Clerk pro tem: Freedman, Lisa

Staff: Pond, Bill, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

Resuming consideration of intended appointments.

The Chair: The first matter on the agenda is the 45-minute deliberation. We can use up to 45 minutes to review the tentative appointments and the candidates who appeared before the committee yesterday. We have 45 minutes, and we may want to devote it all or the bulk of it to one or two particular candidates. We are not going to be rigid on that, I do not think. We will just see how this flows with respect to the experience we have in the next week or so. What I intend to do is simply go over them as they appeared before us and open it up for discussion and then have an indication on the part of the committee as to whether it supports the recommended appointment.

I reviewed with the clerk today that if we do have a dissenting opinion or a division within the committee, if those who are dissenting wish to do so they can do so as part of our report to the House in writing. It would be attached to the report as the dissenting opinion, the minority opinion, what have you, if they do feel strongly enough about a particular candidate that they wish to do that.

Ms Haslam: Mr Chairman, is that as an individual?

The Chair: Yes, as an individual you are allowed to do that.

Mr B. Murdoch: Can somebody move that this committee does not accept somebody or does not recommend this person? Or is it that each person who, say, did not agree with the appointment would have to put it in writing?

The Chair: You do not have to. You have that option.

Mr B. Murdoch: I realize you do not have to. If someone here did not think one of the appointees should be, does he make a motion that this committee not recommend that appointee to the Premier? Is that how that works?

The Chair: Sure, you can do that. That is the way we were going to handle them all. We can have a motion on whether or not we concur with the intended appointment. I guess we would be looking for a motion to concur with the appointment or not to concur with the intended appointment.

We made a decision a week or so ago that we would carry on these deliberations in open meeting. We may find through experience that we may on some occasions wish to move in camera. We will give it a shot in open session and see how it goes.

We will open the floor to discussion on Mr McCombie, who is the intended appointee as vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Perhaps we should get a motion on the floor, and then we will discuss the motion. That may be the more appropriate way to go.

Mrs Marland: As both Mr Murdoch and I are substitutes on this committee, and I was not part of your organizational meeting, was the decision made to discuss these people in open session?

Mr Silipo: As you said, Mr Chair, that was our starting point. As you indicated, we did leave open the possibility that we might want to go into private session to do that. If you have a feeling for that, that should be expressed.

Mr B. Murdoch: You need a motion to do that.

Mrs Marland: My feeling is that if I were one of the people applying -- in some cases people have applied; in some places, they are just appointed -- I really would not want my eligibility discussed in public. I do not think it is in very good taste. In my 12 years of municipal politics, we never discussed any personnel matter in public. I really think it would be more appropriate for this committee to have the people come before it in open session, and then the deliberation of whether or not their appointments are supported by the committee in private session.

The Chair: You are free to make such a motion, if you wish, to move in camera.

Mrs Marland: I would make that motion.

Mr McGuinty: I understand the concerns raised by a fellow committee member, but if the objective here, as the Premier has stated, is to ensure openness in this process, then we will be defeating that objective if we go in camera. By keeping these meetings open, we ensure that our comments are objective. If we go in camera, I think there is a tendency to lose some of that objectivity. I would certainly support these meetings remaining open.

Mr Grandmaître: Also, Mr Chairman, I intend to ask you that the vote be a recorded vote. I am sure that Hansard and our minutes from this meeting and other meetings will be available to the public. Personally, I think we should leave our doors open and be open with the public.

Mr Silipo: I have thought a fair bit about this issue since yesterday's meeting, and it is with some reluctance that at this point my position is that we continue in public session. I am not sure whether my position will change over the course of time. It may, because having had a fair bit of experience in terms of interviewing people for various kinds of positions in the education field -- I mean, obviously part is done in private. There is, in my view, a difference in this process.

I think I would agree with a number of the things Mr McGuinty said. It also means to me, however, that we need to be very careful not so much for ourselves but in terms of the individuals, about the way in which we express our opinions about the individuals we have interviewed, if we remain in public. I think we can do that. It challenges us a little more, but I think in the end, the process, as I see it right now, is probably better served by us doing that in public. As I say, it is subject to my mind being changed on that, but that is my position at this time.

The Chair: Any further discussion? We have a motion before us by Mrs Marland to move our deliberations in camera. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mrs Marland: Are some people not voting, Mr Chairman?

Interjection: None of them has to.

Mrs Marland: Yes, they do.

The Chair: I am not sure what the rules of procedure are with respect to abstaining in committee. I know in the House you cannot do it; it is not allowed. For the new members, I am advised that it is not allowed, so I will call the vote again. All in favour of moving in camera? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Motion negatived.

NICK MCCOMBIE

The Chair: We will move on to the first deliberation, Mr McCombie, and I think we will move in the same rotation. The party that selected Mr McCombie for review will have the first opportunity to speak.

Mr McGuinty: I want to make a few brief preliminary comments before I move into the specifics with Mr McCombie. I think we have raised in the past the concerns our party has, but I just wanted to touch on them again, because I think this is an opportune time to do so.

If we are to be seen to carry any real weight and if we are to give the impression that this is more than an academic exercise, then I think we should be able to have a power of veto and we should also have equal representation. To give the impression that we have some authority, ultimate authority, in dealing with these appointments, then obviously we need a veto power. The business of equal representation, of course, is that even if we had the veto power that alone would not give the impression that we were dealing with this in a fair and objective manner because the government side could always ultimately carry the day.

The other problem I see, and this is in fairness to the candidates appearing before us, is that there is a shortage of time here in which we have to deal with them; of course, that limits our ability to be thorough.

The fourth problem I see which we will encounter on an ongoing basis here is that we have no perspective. By that I mean we have no information regarding other potential candidates and, as I understand it, we have no right to call witnesses or to ask for submissions from anyone who might oppose the candidates, so that in essence we are often saying, I would think, that even if we give an opinion we have insufficient information on which to base an opinion. That ultimately, I believe, is an unfairness to the candidates.

1020

With respect now to Mr McCombie, I want to state for the record that in considering any of the candidates, it is not a matter that our party or, I am sure, any of the parties or any of the members on this committee will take lightly. We are unable to support Mr McCombie's appointment for a variety of reasons. First, the selection process was minimal, as I understand it, by a summary here: The search process consisted of a recommendation by an individual, Mr Ellis, chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

There is a letter contained in our materials from Mr Ellis, a thoughtful, well-written and well-intentioned letter, and I found it helpful. Procedurally, I want to note that paragraph 10 of the terms of reference does not allow such a letter, to my understanding, to be submitted. If we are, as a committee, to allow this kind of evidence to be submitted in the future, it would be only fair that we offer an opportunity to other parties to submit evidence which might be in opposition to a letter favouring an appointment.

Mr Ellis's letter, in spite of what I have said, was very helpful. He makes reference to the fact that vice-chairs are normally lawyers. However, that does not give me any great concern here, because Mr McCombie, based on his record of dealings with the tribunal and his publications, appears, if not formally educated as a lawyer, to effectively possess the same knowledge as one specializing in this particular area.

What does give us concern is not that Mr McCombie does not possess expertise, but rather that his background has been as an advocate, a partisan person representing workers. It is significant that on page 3 of Mr Ellis's letter he candidly offers: "My colleagues here at the tribunal, both worker and employer members, and vice-chair, are opposed to the transfer of worker or employer members to the vice-chair role. Their opposition is based primarily on their concern as to the impact of such an appointment on the tribunal's acceptability within the partisan communities." He goes on to say: "Of particular concern to my colleagues is the potential impact on the impression of fairness in the minds of the individual employers who, if Mr McCombie's appointment goes through, will be parties to cases in which the hearing panel will be comprised of an employer member, a worker member and a former worker member."

That is not insignificant evidence, that present worker and employer members and the vice-chair sitting on the very tribunal itself have some opposition to this appointment. I think that is very weighty evidence indeed and not to be easily dismissed by us.

That brings me back to my earlier point. It would have been of some interest to have perhaps other members or vice-chairs on the tribunal to appear before us or even to submit a letter to lend some balance to the evidence that appeared before us.

Mr Ellis offers as well: "It does seem probable that among those who find their way into partisan professional assignments" -- and, I might add, such as Mr McCombie has been fulfilling for some time -- "one will be likely to find a lower proportion having the personal characteristics required for neutral adjudication."

Based on what I have indicated, we are unable to support Mr McCombie's appointment.

The Chair: Do the Conservative Party members want to comment? Mr Grandmaître, did you want to say something before I moved on in the rotation?

Mr Grandmaître: Simply for the record, I totally agree with my colleague Mr McGuinty that Mr McCombie might be doing an excellent job at the present time, but I do not feel that he would be an impartial judge, if I can call him a judge, an independent or neutral judge, and for that reason I will be voting against his appointment.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, do you want the floor?

Mrs Marland: Yes, I do. Some of my concerns have been expressed by the official opposition members and I will not repeat those because they are redundant.

When I look at the position of vice-chair of this particular tribunal, I feel very strongly about the significance of that position. This is not like many of the government agencies, boards and commissions where some aspects of an individual's history would simply not be significant. This is a very significant tribunal. Therefore, the experience of the individuals who are appointed to it, particularly as vice-chair, is significant.

I must say that with my experience on the legislative committee which toured this province on two different pieces of legislation -- Bill 162, which I am sure most of the government members are familiar with, being the bill that dealt with the reforms to the workers' compensation system in this province, and then Bill 208, which should have been a further remedy to the problems associated with workers' compensation in this province in terms of occupational health and safety -- and having spent the number of hours that I did with that committee both here in the Legislature and when we travelled the province, dealing with this whole aspect of the protection of workers and the subsequent compensation of workers who sustain injuries as a result of their workplace exposure, I see the vice-chair of this tribunal -- I have not seen the whole agenda of this committee as to what other appointments you will be dealing with down the road, but I cannot think of an appointment that will be more important than this particular one.

Therefore, the total objectivity of the vice-chair, in fairness to everyone and to maintain the credibility of that tribunal, has to be paramount in our decision today. I would be saying exactly the same thing if we had a very talented person whose background was totally on another side. I see in the résumé for Mr McCombie a very large void, and the large void is in the area of administration. I respectfully suggest to you that to approach this particular position with that vacuum of administration, the experience of dealing with both sides of an issue would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this individual.

1030

Without any management experience at all, and only coming from the purview from which he does come, I really wonder whether he is in a position to understand the other side. We do have a flawed system in workers' compensation and I am sure there is not a government member on this committee who would dispute that fact. If you had the experience -- and maybe you have; I do not know your individual backgrounds. I am saying this to the government members. I guess I do know the individual backgrounds of the people who happen to be sitting on the committee on this side of the room this morning.

You only have to hear first hand what our legislative committee heard as we travelled the province on Bill 162 and Bill 208 to know that our system is seriously flawed. I was concerned yesterday, in answer to one of the questions, when Mr McCombie did not really accept that. In fairness I can only paraphrase his answer, but he did say something about, "There have always been problems," but he really thought things were working fairly well now. I think he said something in that context.

Then he said that in any case the tribunal was not where the problems were. He said that the problems were with the Workers' Compensation Board and that the tribunal was apart from that. I really have a very strong disagreement with that. The tribunal is apart from the Workers' Compensation Board, but the tribunal is part of the whole system of trying to look after workers in this province, equitably making sure that employers are part of looking after those workers.

I was rather surprised at his point about the fact that there was no problem with the tribunal. When the tribunal was established, it was established because it was thought that it might be a remedy for the problems that existed in the system, and it has proven that it has not been a total remedy. I feel that while we have such a flawed system, perpetuating it by making any more mistakes is very serious.

My feeling is that Mr McCombie comes only -- solely and exclusively -- from one side of an issue for which he is going to be sitting in judgement with the very heavy responsibility of representing both sides. I think that would be unrealistic for Mr McCombie, in his sincerest wish to execute that office, that it would be asking too much of him, not in terms of his personal ability whatsoever -- I do not question his personal ability. I do not question his experience. He is obviously a very competent individual. But what I do question is that his experience is solely from one side.

Just briefly, there is only this comment that I wanted to make about Mr Ellis's letter. I must admit that I did not know until Mr McGuinty mentioned it that these letters were not to be part of submissions. I did not know that, since I am substituting on this committee. My reaction to the letter when I read it and when I saw it -- not knowing what the ground rules were supposed to be -- was that I did not think it was appropriate for the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal to be in a position of endorsing his own vice-chair. I thought that was a reflection that was somewhat incestuous. I feel a chair should be appointed and a vice-chair should be appointed, but I do not think a chairman should be able to write an endorsement of an individual because of the fact that he is the chairman. I just felt that was inappropriate.

Perhaps the idea of having letters from a whole range of people who know these individuals is something the committee may want to look at. In fairness I have to say that for all of us on this committee who equally share this responsibility, and I do not take this responsibility lightly, that it is a heavy responsibility, particularly if you look at the workers' compensation system in this province. You know as well as I do that we are talking about millions of dollars, and that is not the biggest thing; the biggest thing is that we are talking about the health and safety of workers.

Set aside the multimillions of dollars that we talk about in this system and look at what is priceless, to which we cannot attach any dollar amount, and that is the safety of our brothers and sisters who work and are employed in the workplace. Those individuals and their health -- I can answer your question afterwards, Karen --

Ms Haslam: Thank you.

Mrs Marland: -- and safety is priceless and there is no dollar attached to it, but I only say that to emphasize the significance of what this tribunal is about and why this appointment of the vice-chairman is such a significant appointment.

That is why I personally was concerned about a chairman writing a letter with regard to his or her own vice-chair. For those reasons I cannot support this appointment.

1040

Mr Silipo: I guess the first decision that we will be making on this process will give us the first opportunity to split on it, because we will support Mr McCombie's appointment. I want to explain some of the reasons why, and some of my colleagues here have some comments to add to what I am going to say.

I want to start by saying first of all, partly in response to some of Mr McGuinty's opening comments about the process, I think we all recognize that the process we are undergoing may not be perfect, and in fact we may all come to some agreement as to ways in which we can improve it down the line, but I think we need to keep in mind that our role in the process is not so much the appointment part as it is the review part.

There is in my view a very clear distinction in what that means for us in this sense: It is not our role to decide if there are other candidates who might be as good as or better than the candidate who is before us. That is not our job in reviewing the intended appointment. Our job is to determine if the individual who is before us is capable and able to do the job that he or she is being recommended for.

I think that is very different from a situation where we may be interviewing three of four people for a particular job. That presumably is what has happened before the recommendation and the decision on the intended appointee is made by the ministry or the Premier's office, as the case may be, and then comes to us for the possibility of review.

I think it is important to keep that in mind because our answer and our position on this one and indeed on any of the others might very well be different if we were in a situation where we as a committee were determining who in our view would be the better person to fill a particular vacancy.

I think that we all agree on one thing with respect to Mr McCombie. That is that in the end the issue about his appointment is the one of impartiality, the movement by him from his present position, to which he was appointed as a worker representative, to the vice-chair position, which is deemed to be an impartial position.

I am satisfied, having heard his comments yesterday and reading the comments of Mr Ellis -- I want to comment a little later about that whole aspect of things as well; Mr Ellis's letter that is. I am quite satisfied that Mr McCombie (a) is quite aware of the transition that he needs to make and (b) is quite capable of making that transition. I think that has been demonstrated, again relying on Mr Ellis's information.

More particularly it was demonstrated to me in his approach to some of the questions that were asked. When the questions around the workers' comp system were asked by Mrs Marland, for example, I certainly for one, and I am sure everyone on this side, agree that the whole workers' compensation system is seriously flawed, as Mrs Marland said. What I heard Mr McCombie tell us in effect was that the changes that would have to be made were our responsibility and that the role of the tribunal was to apply the law as it was to the particular cases that were before them.

If there are problems with the legislation that guides them in terms of how they are to make decisions, that is an issue that we as legislators need to come to grips with and make the appropriate changes in that legislation. I certainly for one believe very strongly that there are a number of changes that we need to make in the whole workers' compensation legislation, particularly as it relates to the Workers' Compensation Board. I am sure even with respect to the tribunal, that is something I know less about, but I can tell people that it is an area I am quite interested in and so will probably know a little bit more about as time goes on. I think that is the distinction for me.

On the question of Mr Ellis's letter, I have to say that I do share, and I think I made this clear earlier on when we were talking about the process, that in the end to me it is irrelevant how a chair of a particular agency, board or commission feels about an intended appointee. I do not rely, in any great way at least, on those particular points of view, whether they are in favour of or against. What I found useful in Mr Ellis's letter, and I appreciate that it is difficult to make the distinction in the two larger points that are made in Mr Ellis's letter, is the explanation of the recommendation; that is, why he feels Mr McCombie would be an appropriate person to fill this role despite all of the things that might go against that.

It is in that aspect that I see there is a usefulness to this, although I do agree that we may, again as we go through this more and more, have to come to grips with the nature of letters like this and how we use them and how they come before us. That aspect of it is useful for the committee because it goes to the very heart of what the issue before us is. Mr Ellis, in his useful fashion, has put very clearly before the committee not only his own views on the matter but indeed the views of the other members of the tribunal, so that information is also before us. That ought to balance, I suppose, the recommendation that he comes up with at the end.

Coming back to this question of impartiality, I think we need to also keep in mind one of the things that is in Mr Ellis's letter, which is that it is wrong to assume that people who are appointed to the vice-chair position come to those positions completely devoid of any particular bias, whether it may be in favour of workers or in favour of employers, because I am sure that if we were to look critically at each of the vice-chairs we could easily distinguish them as falling into one camp or another; perhaps not, but my guess is that we probably could, at least most of them, if not all of them. I think that is something that we need to also keep in mind when we address this issue of impartiality.

In the end, the bottom line for us is, and ought to be, is Mr McCombie able to make that transition in a way that will allow him to fulfil the role of vice-chair in an impartial way? I think the answer to that is yes, and on balance then, in the end, that is why I and the members of the government will support this appointment.

Ms Haslam: I think Mr Silipo has covered quite a number of points that I wish to bring forward talking about the process and the fact that a veto power is not the issue here. I think it should be very clear that we are looking, particularly in this situation, at the experiences and the qualifications of a candidate, and I think Mr McCombie has those qualifications that we should be looking at. The criteria are very important and that is what we are reviewing, his experiences and his qualifications. I will not go and repeat everything that Mr Silipo has said, because he really has covered everything quite effectively.

I would like to point out that we are asking whether he can be unbiased, and he admitted that there were cases where he had voted along the lines of the legislation and had taken a position against a particular worker's case. He has already indicated that he has been unbiased in his decisions and that he has written decisions and taken part in cases where he has looked very effectively at the legislation.

When you talk about safety of workers as being a prime factor in appointing a vice-chair, and yet you do not want to appoint this particular person because he comes from an area where you see him as coming from a worker's side, I think that those two things are in a juxtaposition. I think that if we are looking at the safety of workers, as you say, Margaret, as the prime factor here, then the reason for not appointing him is not a good one to bring forward. I agree.

I would just like to disagree with Mr Silipo on one thing. I appreciated the letter from Mr Ellis. I think it is important that we receive some information from co-workers or from a superior officer. We should be looking at that and do take that into consideration. How much weight we apply to it is our decision, but at least the information is there for us, and I think that is an important bit of information, especially in the appointments of vice-chairs, who have to work closely with a chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have used up the bulk of our time. Really, we only have about 12 minutes.

1050

Mr Perruzza: Can I just make a few comments?

The Chair: Sure, go ahead.

Mr Perruzza: I was not going to speak on this, but I guess some of the comments that were made by both the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to suggest that at this committee -- and I hope it is not a precedent -- we are going to be playing politics all over again.

I do not quite understand what the "other side" means. I guess that was central to the arguments that were presented by both the Liberals and Conservatives. If the "other side" means that we should be appointing or looking at someone for this position who is not going to be sensitive to injured workers, with a comprehensive understanding of what an injured worker and his or her family have to go through in order to receive some fair and equitable compensation for his or her injuries, I would offer a comment to both the Liberals and Conservatives that the compensation board structure is, in my view, the other side.

I think in these tribunals we should be looking at people who are sensitive to and understand the plight of injured workers, people who are subjected to a process that is, in many respects, inhuman. I offer these comments and these cautions to both the Liberals and Conservatives. I think that this particular person is someone who has demonstrated and offers a career background which seems to indicate that he is sensitive and understands injured workers and what they have to go through. Looking at some of the comments that were made by both Mr McGuinty and Mrs Marland, it would seem to suggest that they have not been injured in the workplace in recent times and have not had to go through a compensation process themselves, because otherwise they would clearly have seen that at the end of the tunnel, at the end of the day, they would have liked to have appeared before an individual who was sensitive to their case, sensitive to their cause.

The Chair: Thank you. The biggest part of this job now is keeping the time. We still have a bit of time left. The Liberals have used about nine minutes of the time, the Conservatives have a couple of minutes left and the government has a few minutes left as well. We have two other recommended appointees. We can use up the remaining time on the one individual, if you wish, or we can move on to the other two appointees.

Mrs Marland: Speaking for our caucus, we are supportive of the other two appointments and we do not have any comments to make.

Mr Grandmaître: I want to assure the members opposite that we are not trying to play politics. We are trying to resolve the WCB and the tribunal wing of the WCB. We want it to work, but I think it was very evident, too evident, that Mr McCombie may be a very competent person, but as your colleague pointed out, the transition from being a member to becoming a chair -- personally I thought that it would be a difficult task for Mr McCombie to dissociate himself from the past.

I realize that a chair must be neutral at all times. We read in the newspapers every day that when a judge cannot be neutral or exposes himself to too many hard facts, he is criticized by the general public and his peers.

I want to assure the members on the opposite side of this issue that we are not playing politics. We are taking this very seriously. Personally, I think this is our very first case and what we are witnessing this morning will be repeated day after day. There will be block votes. The whip of the NDP committees was the first speaker to say, "We will vote for it." So if this is an independent committee, I think it should be independent and that is the reason that I will be asking for a voice vote, so that everybody will know where everybody stands.

The Chair: You mean a recorded vote?

Mr Grandmaître: A recorded vote, I should say.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, just on a procedural point, could we just be clear? I think we might be getting ourselves into some problems. The time that we have is an hour in fact for all three appointees.

The Chair: We have 45 minutes and we will be finished at 11:02, if we stick right to that.

Mr Silipo: It is a bit unfortunate then that we did not parcel out the time accordingly, because I certainly have some comments I want to make on each of the other two appointees.

The Chair: You will still have time, if Ms Haslam is reasonably brief.

Ms Haslam: I am never too long, Mr Chairman. You know I will get right to the point and I am very brief and I have my very quick questions.

The Chair: Mr McGuinty did have the floor.

Mr McGuinty: Just very briefly, I am taken aback, candidly speaking, by Mr Perruzza's suggestion that this has been reduced to partisanship. That is not something that I feel has taken place here, certainly from my own personal perspective. He made reference to our position and I guess he suggested that it may be that we were concerned that Mr McCombie had represented workers in the past and somehow we are not sensitive to the plight of the workers. That is an unfair suggestion. I would be making the same comments or expressing these same reservations if, for the past 12 years, Mr McCombie had represented employers.

The other point I wanted to make is that the members supporting this appointment who have spoken have indicated their confidence in Mr McCombie's ability to make the transition from a partisan person involved in the process to one who is truly objective. He may very well be able to make that transition. but certainly one of the things we are concerned with here is perception. I know it is trite, but it has often been said that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. I think we have an obligation to be sensitive to all persons who would be appearing before Mr McCombie, particularly employers, who would have difficulty adjusting to Mr McCombie's new role, given his 12 years' history representing workers.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, two minutes, and that will chew up all of your time.

Mrs Marland: I listened very carefully to Mr Silipo's comments and I think Mr Silipo's comments and Ms Haslam's comments really were reasoned and rational. I think it is very important that this committee does function as an independent committee, without partisan aspects. I did not hear from Mr Silipo or Ms Haslam any tone of partisanship, but I would suggest to Mr Perruzza that he read the rules for procedures in the House, which also follow in the committee. In one of those rules we are not allowed to assign motives to another member's opinion.

I would respectfully suggest, Mr Perruzza, that you read that rule and give all of us the respect that we deserve, which is not to assign motives to our opinions, because my opinion this morning was based purely on the fact -- I am not going to repeat anything of what I said. If you wish to read Hansard, you will see that what you suggested I said, in fact, I did not say.

Mr Chairman, I feel that it would be unfortunate if the very first appointment that this committee deals with falls into partisan approaches only and I hope that that will not be the case.

1100

Ms Haslam: Just quickly, to Mr Grandmaître and Mr McGuinty, I would mention that whereas our Chairperson maybe said we had discussed it or we would look at it, I would also like to point out that Mrs Marland said "our caucus" would not be voting on this. So please, do not deliver non-partisan ideas on anybody. I think we are all trying to be very non-partisan and I appreciate that as a new member. I would like to keep it that way. I just want to say that I feel that Mr McCombie has illustrated in his comments that he is going to have an unbiased opinion and that he has brought that towards the cases he has been in already, so I think this is evidence that we can see him doing this job.

Mr Silipo: I am going to suggest in future that we divide out the time we have when we are dealing with more than one, because it has created a problem. I had wanted to make a few comments at more length than I am going to be able to about the other two appointees.

I want to just say first of all, with respect to Mr McCombie, that my position that we will support the appointment reflects discussion among the members of the NDP caucus who are here. It is not simply the traditional three-line whip that I know people are accustomed to seeing sometimes in these procedures.

I want to say on the other two appointments briefly that we will be supporting those. I want to add, however, that in my view -- this is my particular view -- that in both of those, and more strongly so with respect to Mr Eckert, there are some concerns that I have, particularly about his view of his role in the Planning and Implementation Commission which I would like us to pass on in whatever way is appropriate for that to be talked over with him. I would have preferred to see a stronger knowledge on his part about some of the things that he was going to be doing in his job. Also, quite frankly, I would have liked to have heard less about some of the policy areas, which in my view have very little, if anything, to do with the work of the Planning and Implementation Commission, on which he was quite willing and ready to provide us with his perspectives. I am not sure that he has thought through enough the process of whether those positions will impact his work on the commission. I think, in balance, I certainly can support that appointment.

With respect to Mr Brandt, again, I do not have anywhere near the same kind of hesitation in supporting that appointment, but I do want to stress again that my decision, quite frankly, might have been different had we been in the position where we were looking at a number of people, potentially, for that job, as indeed for the other position. In that case he may not have been my first choice, but given the process that we have and given that our role is to review, I certainly feel quite comfortable, in fact more than comfortable, in supporting that appointment.

The Chair: We have really exhausted our time. I am going to give the Liberal Party an opportunity to make a brief comment about Mr Brandt's and Mr Eckert's appointments. One minute.

Mr Grandmaître: One minute? I will take five seconds. I will be personally voting for the next two appointees.

Mr McGuinty: I would just add one thing with respect to the process. I know Mr Eckert was one of the final six out of an original 35. It would have been interesting to know who the others were. With respect to Mr Brandt, a well-known figure, I understand a short list was prepared and proposed and delivered to the deputy minister and the Premier. It would have been interesting as well to know who else was on that list.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, you indicated your support for the final two appointees. I am going to treat them on an individual basis. We are going to have separate motions for each appointee. The wording of the motion is we will move that, we concur with the intended appointment or we do not concur. So I am looking for a motion in respect to Mr McCombie.

Mr Perruzza moves that the committee concur with the intended appointment of Mr McCombie as vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Would it not be more appropriate for a member who actually was here during Mr McCombie's attendance to move? That is not a requirement?

Mr Perruzza: I was here.

The Chair: He was here in any event, but that is not relevant. Let's move on. We have the motion and we have a request from Mr Grandmaître that this be a recorded vote. We are all in understanding of the motion.

The committee divided on Mr Perruzza's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 6

Cooper, Haslam, Lessard, Owens, Perruzza, Silipo.

Nays -- 4

Grandmaître, Marland, McGuinty, Murdoch, B.

The Chair: Can we do the others with simply a voice indication?

Clerk of the Committee: Sure.

The Chair: We have unanimous support for the appointments of Mr Brandt and Mr Eckert. The record will show that.

We are going to have a short break so we can stretch our legs and get a coffee, and then we will have Mr Warder as the next intended appointee who will be appearing before us.

The committee recessed at 1106.

1112

MAITLAND WARDER

The Chair: Mr Warder, would you like to come forward and have a chair? Welcome to the committee. Mr Warder, as your agenda indicates, is an intended appointee as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. He was selected by the third party for review. We have up to an hour and a half. We do not have to use all that time, of course, but it is available to us to discuss this appointment with Mr Warder. Leading off the discussion is Mr Murdoch.

Mr B. Murdoch: Welcome to Toronto. My first question is, do you live under the Niagara Escarpment plan? Where do you live?

Mr Warder: Where I live, the front part of the farm is in the incorporated village of Lion's Head and the back 50 acres are in the Niagara Escarpment control area.

Mr B. Murdoch: In the past, have you sold, rented or leased under agreement any of your other properties to the Niagara Escarpment, the Ministry of Natural Resources, a conservation authority or the Ontario Heritage Foundation?

Mr Warder: No, we have not.

Mr B. Murdoch: You have not sold any of your farm properties to any ministry --

Mr Warder: You are talking about farm properties?

Mr B. Murdoch: Any land you have owned.

Mr Warder: Yes. We sold timberlands to the Ministry of Natural Resources 24 years ago.

Mr B. Murdoch: Are those lands under the Niagara Escarpment plan now?

Mr Warder: No. They are in Parks Canada.

Mr B. Murdoch: All right. With your experience, this will be an answer you can give me, about whether you feel local governments should have more control, or agencies set up by, say, the provincial government. Which way do you think things should go, whether the local people should have more say or boards?

Mr Warder: That is an answer that will have to have some qualification. We must remember that during the last 20 years we have been developing the land use ethic, and from what I have observed, local governments are not totally familiar with the land use process and the mechanics that are in place; I am talking about legislative support. It is my opinion that the local planning authorities have demonstrated that they tend, unless the property owner stops them, to extend their powers beyond that provided by statute. What I am saying is that I do not mind local planning authorities, which, of course, are represented by the municipal councils, having authority, provided that they earn it. Up to this point, I am not sure they have.

Mr B. Murdoch: So if you sat on the board of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, would you more intend to follow the program laid down by the planners of that commission rather than, say, the local municipality's decisions?

Mr Warder: Well, I think they have separate mandates and separate territories.

Mr B. Murdoch: Not really. On the commission, there will be a report presented by the commission's own planners but there will also be a report commissioned by the local government. You will have to make the decision one way or the other. You will have to weigh your decision on whether you believe the planners of the commission or the decision of the local government, the municipality, wherever the decision has to be made. They both will present a case to you and they may differ from time to time.

Mr Warder: I am not certain it is an adversarial arrangement, as you suggest. The facts of the matter are that each may be a resource unit which may be consulted with, but to say it is one as opposed to the other --

Mr B. Murdoch: If that happens. I am saying that may happen from time to time. I just wonder which you feel obligated to, in your own opinion, which one you feel should be listened to maybe more than the other. the local one or the one from the commission?

Mr Warder: I do not think it would be prudent for me to say that I am going to support one or the other when I do not know what the substance is.

Mr B. Murdoch: No. but you have to know in your own mind that you feel that --

Mr Warder: You mean I have to be prejudiced?

Mr B. Murdoch: No. You have to know, though, whether you think the local people should have more say than, say, a commission which is not made up of all local people. I just want your own philosophy on that. You must have one way or the other.

Mr Warder: The Niagara Escarpment Commission members represent a group of people who are concerned about a geographic area of territory that stretches from Niagara Falls to Tobermory.

Mr B. Murdoch: Right. They are not made up of all local people. I realize that.

Mr Warder: They are local people.

Mr B. Murdoch: Not all the commission. The commission is made up of 17 people. and they are from, as you said, Tobermory to Niagara Falls. So when there is a case presented for a development of some sort, the commission's planners will have a position for you to look at; also, there will be a position presented to you by the local municipality which the development or whatever it may be is being held in.

So you will have to make a decision. I just wondered if, in your own mind -- maybe you do not have one, one way or the other. I am just asking if you feel that the local municipalities maybe should be listened to a little more than, say, the commission's report. If you do not have one, that is fine, but I am just asking whether you do or do not.

Mr Warder: I think what you have to be asking me is whether I think local municipalities have earned the right to my blanket support, and they have not.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is fine. That is what I wanted to know. That answers the question.

Are you a member of the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment or the Bruce Trail Association yourself, or do you belong to any agencies that do belong to them?

Mr Warder: I have not paid any memberships to either, yet I do receive the Bruce Trail News.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am going to ask you some questions about the Niagara Escarpment plan. Do you know the difference between the natural and the protective and the rural areas?

Mr Warder: I do not have lucid definitions.

Mr B. Murdoch: So you are not totally familiar with those three terms.

Mr Warder: No, I have not been associated with this particular thing in recent time.

Mr B. Murdoch: How would you describe yourself? Are you an environmentalist or a preservationist?

Mr Warder: I like to think I am a conservationist.

Mr B. Murdoch: I guess my definition of a conservationist would be someone who makes wise uses of our natural resources. Would that be the same philosophy as yours?

Mr Warder: I would not dispute that.

1120

Mr B. Murdoch: That is fine. That is what I say a conservationist is.

Do you sometimes think that in some cases the plan is overprotective? If you are not too familiar with the three areas, you will not be able to answer this. I was going to say that sometimes the plan may be too protective, and would you be more inclined to use common sense rather than -- would you be prepared to rule against some decisions if you felt they did not make a lot of sense?

Mr Warder: Any matter has to be considered on its merits. I do not have your definition of common sense yet.

Mr B. Murdoch: Well, I would take your own common sense.

Ms Haslam: It is Margaret Marland.

Mr Silipo: We only wish.

Mr B. Murdoch: They are picking on you, Margaret. Do you want to ask some questions?

Ms Haslam: Take it, Margaret.

Mr B. Murdoch: Margaret, they must want you in here.

Mrs Marland: I will wait until he is finished.

Mr B. Murdoch: I was going to ask some more questions about the plan, but if you are not that familiar with it, it will not be fair to ask those questions.

Mr Warder: Well, I wrote the family corporation submission on the proposed plan, and not a great deal of it has changed. I do have concern about your expecting me at this particular time to commit myself to certain details which are, first, out of context and not relevant to a particular piece of property.

Mr B. Murdoch: I was not really asking you to get into that. I mean more or less your philosophy on different things. That is all I really wanted. But that is fine; you have basically said some of the things you agree and do not agree with in your philosophy.

Now that the plan is in its five-year review and it has been ordered by the province to do this, again, you can give us a broad range of what you think. Do you think the plan now is too protective, maybe should be less protective, or whether the plan maybe should be turned over to the local municipalities?

Mr Warder: I do not need any second thoughts on that one. As far as I am concerned, if we are weak about the plan and we tend to allow it to be diluted, then it will become non-existent eventually. As far as I am concerned, the legislation requires a five-year review. I think it is most unfortunate that similar conditions are not imposed on the local planning authorities.

Mr B. Murdoch: They do have that provision in there -- I think it is a 10-year review -- but sometimes it does not get done. But the five-year, on this one anyway, right now is in process.

One more question: As you will probably know, the plan sometimes finishes on a road, so on one side of the road you are in the Niagara Escarpment plan or under its jurisdiction, and on the other side of the road you are under the local plan. Some people feel that if you are within the plan, you are rated like a second-class citizen, because your rules are different from someone on the other side but the land is basically the same; there is no difference between the contour of the land or whether there are stones or whatever. Do you think that is fair for people or not?

Mr Warder: Of course if what you say is true, it is not fair, but the fact of the matter is that is not the way it is. For instance, more than half of my farm is under Niagara Escarpment control and we have on occasion asked for all our property to be under Niagara Escarpment control.

Mr B. Murdoch: You have asked that?

Mr Warder: We have asked, yes.

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay. As soon as Margaret gets some water, we will let her ask some questions. Get Mr Warder some maybe.

Mr Warder: Thank you. I needed that.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. I think --

Mr Warder: Madam, if I might interrupt for a minute, I had not finished what I started out on. There were certain organizations, and to be specific about it I mention the Niagara Escarpment Northern Ratepayers Association, which thought the province of Ontario should pay to the property owners along the escarpment a quarter of a billion dollars for loss of property values because of the imposition of the Niagara Escarpment plan. You recall that yourself, do you not?

The fact of the matter is, of course, that where property values are the most stable now and where people are most busy is north of Highway 21, most of which is in Niagara Escarpment territory, and of course as the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled in the matter, the impact of the Niagara Escarpment plan on property in the development control area is impacted on the same as the local planning authorities do when they rezone property. We have had this happen ourselves. Get property rezoned and it may go down in price or it may go up in price. The same thing may apply for the application of the Niagara Escarpment plan.

Mr B. Murdoch: So you believe in the concept of buying as much of the Niagara Escarpment area that is under the plan as possible through the Ontario heritage fund. Do you think that is a good idea?

Mr Warder: They have, and fortunately by having both willing buyers and willing sellers they have acquired a great deal of vital land and also they have not impinged on me and my farming operation or anything else.

Mr B. Murdoch: You think that is a good idea then, to buy the land.

Mr Warder: Well, of course, yes.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is fine. I just wanted to know what you thought of that.

Mrs Marland: Mr Warder, what is a definition of "vital land" in that last answer you gave?

Mr Warder: Vital land?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

Mr Warder: I am talking about land that is vital, that needs the additional protection of the Niagara Escarpment plan.

Mrs Marland: But what would you describe as vital? What is your description of vital land?

Mr Warder: Something that Warders own.

Mrs Marland: Some what?

Mr Warder: Some that the Warder family own. There is a large piece of escarpment covered with soil within the village of Lion's Head with a gradient of 45 degrees, and the village of Lion's Head -- this would be interesting to you, Mr Murdoch -- consulted with the Niagara Escarpment Commission as to whether or not it was extremely hazardous. It was and we as a family have agreed to have been rezoned so that this vital land form is not threatened.

Mrs Marland: So vital land would be any property adjacent to the escarpment to protect against erosion of the escarpment? I am not talking about the Warder land; I am just talking in generalities.

Mr Warder: Yes. Now when you talk about the escarpment, are you talking about the cliff face or are you talking about the whole land form?

Mr B. Murdoch: I think that is what you mean. Is that the vital land?

Mrs Marland: I am trying to establish what the vital land is. Is the vital land what is needed to protect the escarpment, or does vital land go on for ever in geographic relation? When is it vital? Is it vital because the land is at 45 degrees? I am just wondering how broad the protection has to become; that is all. It was really a philosophical question as to what is vital land. I am not asking about your property.

Mr Warder: My opinion is that it is a one-way street. If we decide that we are going to give way here and that we are going to take some of this and we are going to divide the land away and we are going to put high-rises on it and so on and so forth, we may some day regret it. As far as I am concerned, the area that is under development controls is lean enough already.

1130

Mrs Marland: Just a further question to the point that Mr Murdoch was getting at at the beginning: Earlier this morning we were discussing another candidate for another position and what I was personally trying to establish was that whenever people are appointed to these government agencies, boards and commissions, in my opinion the best appointees are people who can look at a total responsibility of two sides of every issue and then make a decision.

I think when Mr Murdoch was asking you whether you would take the local municipality's viewpoint or the escarpment commission's, the NEC's viewpoint -- I want to be clear -- I think your answer was that you are not going into the NEC with a preconception of any viewpoint, that you are going to look at the matter before you and make a decision based on the information that is before you, and the implications to the municipality, to the property owners and to the NEC. Is that a fair understanding of what your answer meant?

Mr Warder: I think the Niagara Escarpment Commission indulges in a great deal of site planning. I am a supporter of site planning, which means that each application is considered on its own merits. In the local planning authorities, that zone, of course you are extended certain privileges, but you are also extended certain barriers by zoning.

Mrs Marland: Let me ask you another way then. Would you have a blind faith in the NEC where you would disregard -- if there were three parties to a decision, which would probably be the individual land owner, the municipality and the NEC, how would you approach making a decision with a tri-party interest?

Mr Warder: You have not said which of the three parties has the mandate. Is the NEC being consulted or asked to comment for a local planning authority that has the mandate? You have not explained this to me.

Mrs Marland: What do you mean by the mandate? Do you mean the application?

Mr Warder: No. The NEC has a mandate and the planning board has a mandate under the Planning Act. In this particular case, of course, the two have provincial statutory mandates and the role may change with each piece of property; so you are asking me to give a blanket answer to something that has to be looked at in detail.

Mrs Marland: I think what I am asking you is, recognizing the individual jurisdictions under existing provincial statutes, if you are associated with one jurisdiction, would you be looking at it only from that perspective?

Mr Warder: That is what I am required to do. If I am on the planning board, I look at it from their perspective. If I am on the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I look at it from their perspective. If the commission is asked for an opinion, you give a candid opinion. If the local planning authorities are consulted with by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, they would conduct themselves likewise, I would think.

Mr B. Murdoch: Margaret, I was just going to jump in. When an application is made at the Niagara Escarpment Commission, there are different agencies commenting on it, and I think this is what Margaret means. We can use severance or a building permit or a development permit which is applied for at the Niagara Escarpment. They do allow all the other agencies to comment on it. I think that is what we are asking. Would you give due regard to their comments? The municipality has a chance to comment on that, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would comment on that and so would the commission. They would just comment on it, as to the way they see it. What I mean by the commission is the staff of the commission. So you are sitting as a commissioner. You have to decide in the end how to do that. That is your decision. I think all we are asking is, are you open to everyone's opinion or are you closed to just the opinion of the Niagara Escarpment staff?

Mr Warder: I suppose this brings up the matter of the definition of responsible government. I have always followed the philosophy that I make the decision and express the opinion that I consider to be appropriate, and I take responsibility for it on election day.

Mr B. Murdoch: So you would give everyone their due regard then?

Mr Warder: You have only covered half the area. You have not mentioned that the local planning authorities will be asking the Niagara Escarpment for opinions and the Niagara Escarpment will be asking the local planning authorities too.

Mr B. Murdoch: Not lately. The Niagara Escarpment only comments within its own area. They do not comment on areas out of their jurisdiction, but within their jurisdiction, within the plan, the other agencies do comment.

Mr Warder: I think you have to be living in the wrong county, because in Bruce county where I live, I have recently, in an application to the planning board, received a comment, so there is the liaison in Bruce county.

Mr B. Murdoch: Sometimes, yes, there is a difference. They vary from county to county. You are right. I think we are talking about within the Niagara Escarpment Commission, within its planned area, and that is the one we are concerned with because that is where you are going to make the decisions.

Mr Warder: That is right.

Mr B. Murdoch: When they have a hearing, the other agencies and the applicant also have a chance to come before the board to state their case. What we need is people on the board who will listen to all sides of the story and make the decision, because you have that right to do that as a commissioner. You do not have to decide the way the planning staff of the commission bring their report in. You have the right to decide the way you feel it should go.

Mr Warder: Are you implying that I should make decisions without all the information being in?

Mr B. Murdoch: No. That is what I am asking, if you make the decision after you have heard everyone and you give everyone due regard in the process.

Mr Warder: Yes, and I will live with it.

Mr B. Murdoch: Yes, that is right, but you would give everyone their chance?

Mr Warder: Yes.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is what I am saying. In the past it has been stated that some commissioners only listened to the report from the Niagara Escarpment Commission staff. What we are looking for is people who will sit down, and when you have the hearing, the same as you are having right here, you have all the different agencies plus the applicant plus the local government make a submission to you as the member, along with the commission's report -- that is from its staff -- and then you have to make the decision whether it should be allowed or not. That is all we are asking, if you would listen to everyone.

Mr Warder: Yes. I cannot give you any comfort right now with regard to whether or not I am going to show any favouritism to local planning.

Mr B. Murdoch: I do not ask for that. All I am asking is that you listen to them and give them their regard. That is all I am asking for. It does not have to be the local: It has to be the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, it has to be the Ministry of Natural Resources, it has to be the applicant, the person who is applying for it.

Mr Warder: You merely want to ensure that I will proceed without prejudice.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is right.

Mr Warder: No problem.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is all we want, but it took a long time to get that out.

The Chair: Is that it, Mr Murdoch? Are you finished?

Mr B. Murdoch: I understand the process and you are trying to figure it out also, so that is fine.

1140

Mr Owens: I probably will be a little bit easier to deal with and probably a little bit more direct. In reviewing your curriculum vitae two things come to my mind. One is public service and one is your involvement around issues of preservation with respect to land and historical artefacts. I am wondering if you could let the committee know how your experiences you have listed in your CV will help you discharge your role as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission to the best of your abilities, as well as within the mandate set up for the NEC.

Mr Warder: I guess I should say at the outset that I consider myself lucky to have been born in 1920, to have been brought up and taught how to use the cross-cut and so on, the pipe pole and the cant-hook, and having learned to follow the walking plow with the horses and so on and so forth. Those things have taught me that adversity does have some benefits. In retrospect, and I am being philosophical here, it has been a privilege to have been poor. I think this is perhaps one of the areas in which my children may be shortchanged because life is vastly different now.

The area around Lion's Head was seen by Mississippi state to be an ideal place for outdoor studies and in 1928 the escarpment at Lion's Head was featured in the American National Geographic Magazine.

As time went on, and as my résumé indicates, I finished school in 1935 and in the immediate war years more attention was being paid to conservation. During the days that Fletcher Thomas was Minister of Agriculture here, an all-party committee was set up at Queen's Park called the select committee on conservation. It was headed by a member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party. This was a process I could observe and evaluate.

Then in the 1960s the universities started to send their outdoor education classes to the Bruce Peninsula, because a lot of the history of the planet was exposed there and Dr Kruger and Professor Officer and Dr Helen Abel and so on would bring the classes to the Bruce Peninsula and I was invited to go and talk to them about the changing economies of the peninsula from when it was settled in the 1870s.

This eventually led of course to the suggestion being made from the universities that we have an outdoor education site, a residential school, in the Bruce Peninsula. This happened to come to the fore about the time that the new county school boards were being launched. That prompted me to stand as a candidate and today Bruce county has not only one of the best outdoor education sites in Canada but in the world, and getting better all the time.

I think the experiences I have had in this matter of getting our young people to be more aware through the school system about man's role on this planet -- it is a role of course that does not stack up very good in comparison with the other species. Man's aggressiveness of course has not always been for the good. Is that the sort of thing you wanted to hear?

Mr Owens: Keep going. I have a personal connection to the Bruce Trail. My wife and I met there on a blind date and went off to, so far, nine years of happy marriage, so I look forward to returning to that trail on a yearly basis rather than visiting Bill's Burger Bar at the base of the Bruce Peninsula.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for a great history lesson. When I was responsible for the Niagara Escarpment plan, I will tell you, if I would have had a deputy minister like you, I do not think we would have had too many problems. You know the background of the NEC very, very well.

Let's go back to 1985, when the government was serious about balancing the commission. As Bill pointed out, nine members are publicly appointed, if I can use the words "publicly appointed," and eight are appointed from within the 27 municipalities -- or is it 29 municipalities? -- that are part of the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr Warder: I cannot verify that for you.

Mr Grandmaître: And four regions? You should know them, Bill. You used to argue with me daily on the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr B. Murdoch: Not that many. They go by the counties.

Mr Grandmaître: Anyway, I would like to talk about the balance. What do you think of the balance at the present time on the commission? Are there more pro-developers or more pro-environmentalists? What are your thoughts on the actual composition there?

Mr Warder: I think it is a bit precarious. I must be frank and say that the future of the preservation of the escarpment would not be very secure if it were otherwise, if we found that there was a preponderance of people who had development plans and so on. Do you follow me?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, I follow you. I just want to point out that there are 27 different official plans in the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr Warder: Right.

Mr Grandmaître: There are 27 official plans and not 27 municipalities. I am sorry. Go ahead.

Mr B. Murdoch: He answered your question.

Mr Grandmaître: Oh, okay. You should not be talking to me. Bill. Back in the days of Bill Davis, when he was Premier of this province. his dream was that one day all of these official plans which are supposed to be incorporated in the NEC plan would be turned over to the individual municipalities. Do you think that is a dream or could it actually happen within the next, let's say, 10 years? I know 10 years is a very, very short time, but do you think that this is a dream. or will it actually happen?

Mr Warder: It could happen.

Mr Grandmaître: What would be needed in order to accomplish or achieve this?

Mr Warder: I mentioned early on about the development of the land use ethic and the time it takes the local municipalities to be conversant. and the unfortunate thing is that the municipal councils are responsible for planning under the new Planning Act. My particular experience and that of my family, the Family Corp, is that local authorities tend to extend their own powers without legislative support. This has cost us a fair amount of money, because the only way you get that stopped is to fight an appeal and go before the Ontario Municipal Board and then, if you are not successful, plan a rehearing and pursue it. In all our cases we were successful, but not without cost.

I think there is a deficiency in the local planning authorities that they have not defined their roles. This means reading and gaining an understanding of how the powers are handed down from the federal to the provincial and to the local municipalities. There are a lot of blanks in there. That is why I suggested to Mr Murdoch that I thought the local planning authorities needed a study. I mean a self-examination of their performance and what they are trying to do.

1150

Mr Grandmaître: Do you think it was a wise move when the NEC responsibilities were transferred from Municipal Affairs to the Ministry of the Environment? Was this a good move?

Mr Warder: I thought it was a good move. I have discussed it with other members of my family and also friends in the community and so on and people in good standing. I have not had a negative response from anyone. They think it is a move in the right direction, and I agree. Time will prove whether or not that opinion is accurate.

Mr Grandmaître: I know that the transfer happened very recently, June of last year, if I am not mistaken. I have always been concerned about the, let's call it, politics that have been played between the provincial government and the individual municipalities. I can remember having to meet with maybe 10 mayors on one day, trying to satisfy them that the NEC was there to protect the area. It is very difficult to satisfy 10 or 12 or 17 mayors. I realize this.

What I am trying to get at is -- and I know it may sound very unfair of me, because your answer could be: "Look, you were the minister responsible for the NEC. Why the hell didn't you do it when you were minister?" But I think back in the early 1970s, when the dream was to protect the area, I do not know how many square miles of space -- do you think that we should take a second look? Instead of reviewing the NEC every five years, do you think we should look at the total area and possibly break it up and give back that responsibility to municipalities or regions? There are four regional governments that are involved in the area. Do you think it should be chopped up and given back to the regions? Do you think this is a wise move?

Mr Warder: It does not turn me on. I have to say that I did serve on municipal council. I made the decision many years ago that I would serve on municipal council before I became involved in education. This was because certain responsibilities are bestowed by statute on the local municipal councils to collect revenues for the conservation authorities, the school boards and so on and so forth. I was not inspired by my experience in local municipal government. I think it has improved, but there is a lot more to do. During the time that I was on, the municipal council talked about not only some of their own business but everybody else's and the advice was free and all the rest of it.

But I think in many ways local government has defaulted in several areas. They used to have the administration of justice; they used to have the assessing system; they used to be responsible for any payment that was made in support of dental and several others that I cannot recall at the moment. They have had shrinking responsibilities, in spite of the fact that other public authorities have had increased responsibilities. I am inclined to feel that there is going to have to be a great deal of reform done in attitude and in philosophy and so on, before it is broken up into 27 pieces.

I want to say in addition to this that the Niagara Escarpment Commission has not run roughshod over the official plans of the municipalities.

Mr Grandmaître: If you were to be appointed on the commission, would you go so far as to recommend or move a motion that these plans should be turned over to the respective regional level? Would you be willing to make such a move?

Mr Warder: I give you the same answer as I gave to Mr Murdoch. That would be premature.

Mr Grandmaître: But it sounds good, though, eh? No, I would not want to influence you, but personally I think it is a good move and I agree with you that most of these municipalities have not been responsible in the past.

Mr Warder: That does not mean they cannot be.

Mr Grandmaître: Oh yes, absolutely.

Mr Warder: It is to everybody's advantage that they carry out reform.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes. I think the commission has been placed too often in a very precarious position. Maybe there are too many politicians on the commission. What do you think of that?

Mr Warder: I have thought about that and --

Mrs Marland: How many are there?

Mr Warder: I do not know.

Mr Grandmaître: Eight politicians and nine reasonable people.

Mr Perruzza: Could I have a clarification? Does he mean current politicians or ex-politicians?

Mr Grandmaître: No, current.

Mr Perruzza: Current? People who hold elected office today?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, councillors. So do you think we have too many politicians?

Mr Warder: No. I was in the planning board office and I was expressing my support for site planning to one of the planners and he said, "Well, it's all right, but it's more costly." And I said: "Well, if we make application for a permit here, we have to put a certain amount of money back just to have our case considered. With the commission that doesn't happen. We're not required to pay fairly substantial sums of money."

His response was, "I know, but in certain municipalities the fees are excessive. But the Niagara Escarpment Commission is becoming politicized."

Now that is the way he put it. I asked my solicitor about it and he agreed. I also asked him about whether or not I should be a candidate here for a position on the commission and he said I should because it would mean that the political aspect would be diluted. So you may read from this that I have no political loyalties.

Mr Lessard: You have a good lawyer, though.

1200

Mr McClelland: Very briefly. I wanted to raise one issue. There could be many more. One of the concerns that has been brought to my attention by a number of people is in fact a little bit unusual, I suppose, in the context of what we are discussing, and that is from time to time the lack of decisiveness by the commission. I can give you, without naming any specific cases. a number of scenarios that have been brought to my attention wherein the commission will write a report with no objection per se but an open-ended decision that effectively says, "We have no objection but nor will we approve the issue on the table," the result being that ultimately it ends up going to cabinet and the decision is made some three or four years down the road.

The question that I want to put very directly is your response to that in terms of the role of the commission to be decisive and to live with the decision. You already alluded to it in terms of your political career. I just wondered if you would like to comment on that, perhaps reaffirm it in some respect.

Mr Warder: Our experience has been -- I am speaking as a family and a corporation of which for some years I was president -- I spent a great deal of time before hearings and the Ontario Municipal Board and so on, struggling against decisions that had been imposed by the local planning authorities. The local planning authority had imposed costs just to have my application considered. They are not saying, "Pay him so much money and it'll get approval." They are saying: "Pay him so much money and we'll tell you what we think of it. If we say no, it will still cost you money."

Any application that we have made to the Niagara Escarpment Commission has had a hearing within, I believe, about 30 days. We know where we stand. From my own experience, the commission's procedures are more lucid and faster.

Mr McClelland: The other question that you alluded to was that you have an interest. You have land obviously there. There is a possibility that you may end up selling that land through the vehicle of the heritage fund to the commission.

Mr Warder: That I have land now to sell?

Mr McClelland: Yes.

Mr Warder: No.

Mr McClelland: Okay, fine. Thank you.

Mr Warder: In fact, the only land I have, the farm I live on and farm, the director of the Veterans' Land Act has titled away. It is not a mortgage; it is title to it.

Mr McClelland: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that point because I had misinterpreted one of your comments.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Warder, I am newly elected and furthermore I am from Ottawa, so I do not know much about the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr Warder: You should.

Mr McGuinty: But what I have heard tells me that it is an ongoing source of some controversy. You indicated you were born in 1920, so you are either 69 or 70 years of age. You have led a full life. You have had a family. You have farmed. You have served your community. Why is it you want to become involved in this?

Mr Warder: Right now?

Mr McGuinty: Yes.

Mr Warder: Well, for the reasons I gave earlier. I think that as an independent person, a person who has lived on the Niagara Escarpment all his life, a person who has become conscious of the fact that we humans are going to have to show more concern about the world we live in and do more about it -- and here in Ontario we have a land form that is not just important to Ontario, but it is one of the cardinal landscapes of North America.

I had decided some years ago that I would terminate my political career and live in a village called Lion's Head that is so much like Camelot, a good place for happy-ever-aftering and so on. However, when this came up and the obvious strengths and weaknesses were pointed out to me, I decided that I should return and give something of myself once more.

Mr McGuinty: I am surmising from the answers you have given today that if we had to categorize you, as I am sure the other members sitting on the commission now are categorized, as having either environmentalist leanings or development leanings, it would be fair to say you have environmentalist leanings.

Mr Warder: I accept that title with some reservation. As a farmer, I recognize that agriculture has unfavourable impacts on our environment in so many ways. Over the years, we farmers have got to make some revisions and so on in order to contribute in our own way to a healthier planet. But so many of the things that are put forth that are espoused by people who call themselves environmentalists are not very practical. Some public bodies, including this one, will have to take facts to the drawing-boards and eventually come up with solutions.

If I mentioned some of the things in agriculture that impact unfavourably on the environment -- I think about beef cattle because I am a beef cattle farmer -- I think about the spreading of commercial fertilizer and the use of pesticides and so on. The immediate withdrawal of any of the items that contribute to food production will increase the number of people who die from starvation. Fertilizer, in particular, if it were withdrawn from use, food production in North America would go down about 60% and there would be mass genocide throughout the world.

Nevertheless, that does not say we do not have a responsibility to come to grips with it. None of these things -- you mentioned the unpopularity of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and so on -- will be done without offending people. I believe that down the road, what the Ontario government began with this legislation in 1973, this program one day will be as popular as the National Capital Commission, which is a similar thing, and also the Niagara Parks Commission, which has been in existence now for over 100 years.

Mr McGuinty: I take it from your answer that you see yourself as having some environmentalist leanings, but you express reservations about that label.

Mr Warder: Everyone who speaks as an environmentalist is being useful. We know that many of these things are supported by good ideals. We do not like to see people dying and suffering and so on. We have to get busy and find ways.

Mr McGuinty: Maybe I could put it this way. How will others who come before the commission see you? You will acquire a track record at some point, and then people who appear before the commission will, as you know, label members one way or the other. How do you think you will be labelled?

Mr Warder: My position so far with regard to the Niagara Escarpment hearings and my public statements and speeches which I make to local groups and so on indicate that I am not a man that has to be loved. I say a lot of unpopular things.

The Chair: I guess that concludes the process, Mr Warder. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee. You will be advised later this week as to the decision of the committee in respect to our views on your appointment. Thank you once again.

That does it for now. We will break for lunch and reconvene at 2 pm.

The committee recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1406 in committee room 1.

GRETA MCGILLIVRAY

The Chair: Our first and only witness and intended appointment appearing before us today is Greta McGillivray. Mrs McGillivray, would you come forward, please, and have a seat. Welcome to the committee. If you wish, you can make a few brief opening comments; if not, we will get directly into questions.

Mrs McGillivray: I would like to say that I feel very privileged. It is an honour to be selected to come before you today and particularly in the light of working with the environment. That is one of my primary concerns in life today, being a grandmother and a mother and being very concerned about the condition that we have got ourselves into; so finding myself in this position is certainly an honour and a privilege. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We will begin the discussion with Mr Murdoch.

Mr B. Murdoch: Again, I guess the first thing I will ask is, do you live in the escarpment area?

Mrs McGillivray: No, I live in the town of Collingwood.

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay. So you do not have any land that is directly affected by the plan.

Mrs McGillivray: No.

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay. I want to ask you about the plan then. Do you understand the three major areas in the plan, the natural, the protected and the rural areas?

Mrs McGillivray: Yes. As you mention them, yes, I do understand that.

Mr B. Murdoch: But you know what each one sort of stands for and that there are different regulations on each of the three areas?

Mrs McGillivray: Yes.

Mr B. Murdoch: So you do know them. Would you care to comment whether each of those areas is too restrictive or should be more restrictive, or are there ways we could change the plan to, say, help it be more acceptable to the local people who live on it? I mean now, example, the three are the natural, which is the real meat of the plan, and then there is the protected and the rural. I guess just to go on further, the natural, as you know, is basically the rock face or swamps and the sort of areas that go along with the rock face. Then the protected is to sort of protect that area. Then we have this one called the rural which probably is the most contentious, in our area up our way anyway. Do you feel maybe the control on it should be lessened or even done away with? Do you have a feeling on that? Can you just sort of give me maybe your philosophy on those three areas?

Mrs McGillivray: Well, my philosophy is that we are currently going through a very important sort of transition in our way of looking at the world and our whole biosphere and our bioregions and that is, we are moving from a human-centred sense of reality and value to an earth-centred sense of reality and value and somehow or other we humans have to find ourselves within the integral life systems. So if we are talking about environment and we recognize the fact that we are killing off about 50 species of life a day, species being one-time events, we are indeed killing the very life systems upon which we depend. So I would have to say that I would be pro sustaining any kind of development that would be occurring because all the other life species are as important as I am at this particular stage of our evolution.

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay. That is a philosophy of an overall look at the world, which I can accept is your philosophy.

Mrs McGillivray: No, it is a philosophy that comes from my grass roots and from my involvement within my community.

Mr B. Murdoch: But I guess I take from that answer that you like the status quo of the plan or even more restrictive.

Mrs McGillivray: No, you cannot take that --

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay.

Mrs McGillivray: -- because I would view each case individually and there would be things one would have to take into consideration, such as the hydrological and geological facets of any particular proposal.

Mr B. Murdoch: We will get into those in a minute.

To get back to my original question, and you may not be able to answer it, I used the example of the rural area as the most contentious area of the whole plan, as I see it. It is my experience with it. What I am saying is, you use your whole philosophy plan about killing off species, and I fail to see how that reflects on what happened on the plan. I do not know of many species that have been killed off in that area. Now, there could be some.

I do not know, by saving the rural area of the plan -- you see, the plan is to protect the natural part of the Niagara Escarpment from Niagara Falls to Tobermory. I do not find many people wanting to do anything with the natural part of it, the natural area. That is fairly well looked after. We have an area to protect that. But then we go beyond that for some reason, and I fail to see why, with this rural area. That is where I just want to find out if you think that that rural area could be expanded or deleted.

Mrs McGillivray: It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that there have been some 1,400 applications for development, and that about 90% of these have been passed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission --

Mr B. Murdoch: I would not know the statistics.

Mrs McGillivray: -- which would allow me to think that the commission takes into consideration very seriously whatever kind of development is going on.

Mr B. Murdoch: Unfortunately, a lot of those development permits are for a roof or a pond or something like that. A lot of them are minor things.

Mrs McGillivray: Obviously 90% are passed, so there cannot be too much disagreement.

Mr B. Murdoch: Those are statistics, if we want to get into them. I did not bring them with me and maybe I should have. We could have gotten into that. A lot of them do not mean anything. I almost think you could take half of them away, but the bottom line is the 10% we are having the problem with and the local people have a problem with, or some of the local people have a problem with.

I can see you do not really want to answer that with a yes or a no.

Mrs McGillivray: I cannot answer it until I see the particular case we are dealing with.

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay, that is fine.

The reason I am asking that is because we are in a five-year review right now. If you become a commissioner, you are going to be very instrumental in whether or not that area is reduced, and whether that area is reduced or not is going to become very instrumental in whether the people in the local municipalities, where I am from, anyway, accept it.

If we are going to go on in the adversarial way that has been happening for the last five years or longer with the Niagara Escarpment, we are not getting anywhere on that. We are spending a lot of taxpayers' money between local governments fighting with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. That is just wasted energy that could be used other ways, maybe looking after your global project.

Unless changes are brought to the plan, we are going to continue that way. I can easily see that. That is why I was asking that question, because if you really know the areas, then you could probably easily comment on a rural area because it is very distinct. If we had the maps here, I could show you.

I can understand that, not being a commissioner yet, you do not have the answer for that rural area, but I think that is one place, if you are selected to the committee, that you should look at if you want to solve some of the problems.

I will not make you go on.

Mrs McGillivray: I certainly would not pretend to have all the answers. I think we have to learn to discover those as we proceed.

Mr B. Murdoch: But you are going to get into the fray as soon as you are on the commission. In some areas, it is not a nice fray to be into.

Mrs McGillivray: I will enjoy the challenge.

Mr B. Murdoch: Okay.

As you said, you will look at everything and I can ask the same question of Mr Waters. Do you believe in the local autonomy at all? Are you going to give each agency that comments on a development or whatever the same priority as you will the commission's report because you have the right to do that? Even though the commission's report says that this should not be granted, you as a commissioner can overrule that report if in your mind enough other agencies say that it should be. Will you be fair to every agency, and the one I am really interested in is the local municipality --

Mrs McGillivray: I was born on a farm and grew up on a farm in the Niagara Escarpment, so I have some feel for rural farmers and people. In fact, that is a very big part of my life. I really respect farmers and people in the rural areas so I think you can feel assured that I will give them my concern and consideration.

Mr B. Murdoch: The reason I bring that up is that this has been a complaint to my office in the past and right now up to the present day, that the commissioners seem to be blindsided by their own staff and they just go by staff reports which will go by the plan. But you have that authority to overrule them and listen, say, to some of the other people.

Mrs McGillivray: I think you will find I am an independent person. I am what I call a marginal type of person. Unless I can look my politicians straight in the eye and hold them accountable, I am not just too sure which way I will vote.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is fair.

I am not about to ask you -- I have no problem and it does not bother me -- about party affiliations or anything like that; that is neither here nor there. But the one thing I would like to know is if you are a member of the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment or the Bruce Trail Association.

Mrs McGillivray: No, I am not a member of CONE, but I work with an environmental group and we are very involved with conservation and ecology. We are patrons of the Bruce Trail Association.

Mr B. Murdoch: But your group, which is a seniors league, does not belong to CONE?

Mrs McGillivray: Yes, the senior league does belong to CONE. I personally do not belong.

Mr B. Murdoch: No. It is the different agencies that make up CONE that belong to it, so you do belong to the senior league and it does belong to CONE. I just wanted to make sure that was put in there.

I was looking at some of the other things here. I would like you to explain to me in your own words whether you feel you are an environmentalist, a conservationist or a preservationist. Where would you be in those three?

Mrs McGillivray: I guess here again I am going to be a little bit difficult.

Ms Haslam: Or a grandmother.

Mr B. Murdoch: Or a grandmother.

Mrs McGillivray: I have been called Mother Earth by the mayor in our town.

I would have to go a little step further, I think, because an environmentalist is often concerned as a person who is sort of interested in that stuff; ie, his surroundings. But I have what I call a deeper commitment to things and that has to with the ecology and that has to do with the whole spectrum, in the sense that we have in our genes, and it is in our program, that the natural depth of each one of us, and that includes you too, sir, is the whole of creation.

It is our high privilege to reflect the whole of creation back to itself. If we think about that, we have not been doing a very good job of that.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is debatable, but we will not get into that.

Mrs McGillivray: So I would have to say I am an ecologist.

Mr B. Murdoch: You are going to add a fourth one. We do not have any more to ask. I got the conservationist in the last one so I have four now. I will not have anybody more to ask that.

What you are saying then too, and it goes back to your philosophy about preserving everything -- not preserving, but looking after the whole ecology and everything -- is that a lot of people seem to forget there are people too. We worry about losing a species every minute or whatever, and that is a good concern. but we are also people and people have to live on the land.

I just hope you are concerned about the people also because this land has had a plan put on it and some of them did not quite agree with it, yet they owned the land, especially the groups that seem to be complaining about not being more protective of it, the people. You are concerned about the people as an animal too?

Mrs McGillivray: I am certainly concerned about people, of course I am. I am very involved with many things.

On the other hand, I think it was Herman Daly, who is a very famous economist but also an ecologist, who wrote that there is something fundamentally wrong with a civilization that treats the earth as if it is a business in liquidation.

I would have to say that we have to start to look at the earth and the business of owning land in a much different light. We have to be stewards and we have to really be involved with the whole life system of whatever properties we do own and are responsible for.

Mr B. Murdoch: One last question; Margaret, you are here now. They sort of had to keep going until you got here.

Ms Haslam: That's what I said. You can stop talking, Bill; Margaret's here.

1420

Mr B. Murdoch: I guess the last question I will ask is, if you were put on the authority and you knew we were in the five-year plan, and originally the plan was designed to be given back to the local people to look after without the commission, would you be in favour of working towards that goal? That was the original goal. I think it has gotten lost somewhere along the line, but it may come back up again, I am sure, if you are on the commission. I just wondered if you have any thoughts about that.

Mrs McGillivray: I really have not thought about that particular one, but I think it would be a two-way street.

Mr B. Murdoch: I will leave that with you then.

Margaret, do you want something, or do you want to come back?

Mrs Marland: No, I would like to come back.

The Chair: That is not the way we do it, Mrs Marland. We have a block of time for each caucus and that is the way we are handling it.

Mrs Marland: Yesterday we came back and let the Liberals use a couple of their minutes that were left over.

The Chair: Well, we could. Do you want to have some time to collect your thoughts?

Mrs Marland: Thank you.

The Chair: It makes it more difficult for the Chair and the clerk, that is all.

Ms Haslam: Mr Chair, what you are saying, for process you block the time, you get as much questioning done as possible and then you go on to the next block of time.

The Chair: Yes. I can appreciate Mrs Marland's point. If there is time left, we will get back and obviously we are leaving time here. Do we have a member of the government caucus who wishes to participate?

Ms Haslam: There seems to be some concern, and I would like to address that. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act is "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment."

The concern seems to be that we would put people on who are inflexible in looking at development plans. I want to give the opportunity to discuss development plans and whether you feel that you can be an unbiased person and look at a development plan and come to a decision on the merits of what comes forward, or are you going in with a preconceived agenda to this committee?

Mrs McGillivray: No. I would give each case an individual opportunity to present or to prove its case.

Ms Haslam: I just thought that should be brought out. There seems to be a concern that you would take your own ideas in, and I want to be quite clear that under the act you are to do certain things about natural environment. You are to ensure the development keeps compatible with natural environment and you would look at individual cases.

The Chair: No one else at this point? Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Grandmaître: I noticed that you were born in Caledon.

Mrs McGillivray: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: What did you think of the Caledon brickyard development or the tentative plan to develop a brickyard in Caledon?

Mrs McGillivray: Which brickyard are you speaking of?

Mr Grandmaître: I am talking about the Canada or Dominion brickyard.

Mrs McGillivray: Is that something that has happened recently?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, five years ago.

Mrs McGillivray: I was not aware of that. I lived on 5 Side Road between the 2nd and 3rd lines on the top of the escarpment which is now the Eaton property. There has been a huge ugly castle built on that property. How they got permission to do that, I have no idea.

Mr Grandmaître: The quarry is located next door to this big ugly castle.

Mrs McGillivray: Is it?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes. You are not familiar with it?

Mrs McGillivray: That would be in the old Credit Valley quarry location?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mrs McGillivray: I did not know that it was being made into a brickyard.

Mr Grandmaître: Where are you a resident of?

Mrs McGillivray: Collingwood.

Mr Grandmaître: What do you think of the development that has been going on in Collingwood? The Blue Mountain resort and so on? You have lost, not your image, but your character in the last 10 years with these great big condominiums going up. What are your feelings on that? Do you think they are ruining it?

Mrs McGillivray: I would think that is a very strong possibility. I am sorry to see so much happening so quickly. I think things need to slow down and happen on a much slower basis. We are working to preserve wetlands which are within the municipal boundaries of Collingwood at the moment, the last remaining shoreline access to Georgian Bay for the other species, and hopefully to stop some further condominium development. We feel that we need these natural corridors for bird life and the other species. I think we will be successful because we find that our town now seems to be becoming aware that we have much more to look after than the almighty dollar.

We are changing, I think, from what I call a material society to a moral society. In the last two years, I have been having much more success with my ideas. I used to be considered that wild woman, but now I think they really do think of me as Mother Earth. It is interesting the change that has taken place in two years.

Mr Grandmaître: Did you regularly attend at the NEC meetings?

Mrs McGillivray: I have never attended a Niagara Escarpment Commission meeting.

Mr Grandmaître: Never? How did you get interested in the NEC?

Mrs McGillivray: I have loved the Niagara Escarpment all my life and certainly when the government of the province decided to take it on as a whole proposal, I believe that was in 1985, I became very interested in the fact that we were going to have the opportunity of preserving and conserving what I felt was one of the great jewels of North America.

Mr Grandmaître: If you never attended an NEC meeting or gathering, how were you approached to become a member of this commission?

Mrs McGillivray: How was I approached?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mrs McGillivray: I have worked with several environmental groups and particularly one group where I was given the job to extrapolate from all the various policies on wetlands some kind of what we felt would be legislation which would help to preserve our remaining wetlands. In the process of working with these other five environmental groups, these people asked me if I would stand for being a member on the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr McGuinty: I just want to pursue that a bit further, please, Mrs McGillivray. Who was it in particular who asked you if you would be prepared to stand?

Mrs McGillivray: He was an environmental lawyer who -- I am trying to remember his name. The name escapes me right now. He lives in the Beaver Valley -- Gerry Weinberg.

Mr McGuinty: What connection does he have with this, do you know? Why would he be making that overture? Who was he acting on behalf of?

Mrs McGillivray: He works with a group called the Beaver Valley Heritage Society, which is an environmental group in the Beaver Valley.

Mr McGuinty: I am trying to establish a link between this gentlemen and the Ministry of the Environment. There is none there that you are aware of?

Mrs McGillivray: No.

Mr Grandmaître: Or the NEC.

Mr McGuinty: Or the NEC, I guess.

Mrs McGillivray: I do not know Mr Weinberg in any way other than through the work we have been involved with, and that is at a very grassroots level. That is specifically at a grassroots level.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, we are bringing in a third party in the review of this particular appointment, and I do not think it is fair to the nominee to proceed with that kind of interrogation. I do not understand the point of it, I do not see the point of it, and I think it is unfair to her.

The Chair: I am allowing you to put that on the record. You have stated your case. I do not see anything untoward in the questioning. If the witness finds it difficult, I am sure she can indicate that.

Mrs McGillivray: No, I am sorry, I just did not remember his name right away.

The Chair: That is fine. If the witness has some difficulty with the line of questioning, I am sure whoever is appearing before us will indicate that. In my view, the opposition parties and the government members are not going to have restrictions placed on them in respect to questioning, unless I feel they are getting into areas that are offensive to all of us as members. Again I am ruling the questioning, from what I have heard, to be in order. If any member disagrees with that, I am open to a challenge of the Chair's decision, but I personally see nothing wrong with it.

Mr Perruzza: It is not that I meant there was anything offensive in the questioning. I just thought we were talking about another person in his or her absence. The witnesses are really not here to establish the kinds of links that they are trying to --

The Chair: Well, I --

Mr Perruzza: I do not understand it, so that is why I interjected. I live by the ruling of the Chair.

The Chair: All right. We are limited in the time that we have with witnesses and deliberations, and I just hope that we will reflect on this. We have discussed this whole process at length in the weeks leading up to this week, and I hope we are not going to be faced with these kinds of situations and interjections for ever and a day.

I hope, as I have said, that we are going to gain from experience in how we deal with witnesses and the kinds of questions which are appropriate or inappropriate. I intend to be as fair as I possibly can be with all members of the committee in respect to questions, and the members on this side and on that side are going to decide how they want to use their time. Proceed, Mr McGuinty.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Chair, and thank you, Mrs McGillivray. Those are my questions.

1430

The Chair: Mrs Marland, do you still wish to ask some questions?

Mrs Marland: I notice, Mrs McGillivray, that you are chairman of the public liaison committee for the Georgian Triangle waste management master plan, and I am sure that committee has had to work with the municipal councils.

Mrs McGillivray: Yes.

Mrs Marland: You may have already answered a question similar to this, but how do you see the relationship and role of NEC with local area municipal bodies, not necessarily just the elected bodies but the planning departments and the interests of the individual citizens? If you are appointed to the NEC, how will you consider the interests of this committee, for example?

Mrs McGillivray: Land owners who may have a dump put on their property?

Mrs Marland: Which may be part of what you have been dealing with with this Georgian Triangle. It is not Georgian Bay; it is just Georgian Triangle, is it?

Mrs McGillivray: It is the Georgian Triangle waste management master plan.

Mrs Marland: You have obviously experienced how important it is for all levels of government and all agencies to --

Mrs McGillivray: To be involved.

Mrs Marland: To be involved, to relate together and to make equitable decisions not only in the interests of one of those bodies.

Mrs McGillivray: That is right.

Mrs Marland: So how do you see that as a member of NEC?

Mrs McGillivray: I would see it the same way, that we would have to work in co-operation with all the various municipalities in concert with the people we would be working with. I find in most things that it is always a process. We learn as we go together how to deal with most of the problems.

Mrs Marland: I was interested in your answer to Mr Grandmaître about what could be described as the rape of the escarpment by the ski industry. I see you are a member of Osler, which is probably the original ski club up there.

Mrs McGillivray: It is the original private club, but Blue Mountain was the original.

Mrs Marland: It was older, was it?

Mrs McGillivray: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Obviously from all your interests, all your community work and your other activities and interests, you are very much a grassroots individual who has been totally involved in donating your time to the cause of conservation. You are going to be in a position on the NEC where you are going to have to make some tough decisions, and some of them may not always have to be made in the interests of conservation but in the interests of equity of everyone's point of view.

Mrs McGillivray: Yes.

Mrs Marland: How do you see yourself making those decisions from that perspective, when you have been totally involved really in one side? It is not like you are a developer who is going to be appointed to the NEC.

Mrs McGillivray: Well, I think I can handle those things very well. My experience has been, I think, pretty equal in its approach to things which are presented. I really feel it is a process. You work with people and you work through things and usually what comes through is the best thing.

Mrs Marland: I guess we did not do it this morning with Mr Warder, but we were asking yesterday about the political interests and involvements of any of the people who came before us, even Mr Brandt yesterday. Are you a member of a political party?

Mrs McGillivray: Not at the moment.

Mrs Marland: You have been. Is that what you mean?

Mrs McGillivray: I have been.

Mrs Marland: Which political party?

Mrs McGillivray: I was a member of the Liberal Party about 10 years ago.

Mrs Marland: Did you work on the election campaign this year?

Mrs McGillivray: I worked for Jozo Weider when Jozo Weider was the owner of Blue Mountain. The Conservatives have always been in power in Collingwood. I was very fond of Jozo Weider. He wanted to run at the last minute to be nominated, so I worked for him on his campaign. But that was my card-carrying history of being involved directly.

Mrs Marland: And that is 11 years ago.

Mrs McGillivray: I do vote and I do have very strong ideas, but I am marginal when it comes to affiliating myself with a particular political party.

Mr Owens: As a person who does not live on the escarpment, or as a person who has not attended a NEC meeting, do you see that as being an asset with respect to impartiality and the appearance of impartiality so that persons or groups cannot accuse you of having a vested interest one way or the other?

Mrs McGillivray: Yes, I do.

Mr Owens: Could you explain that a little bit more?

Mrs McGillivray: I think when you come in fresh to something like this you can often see the trees instead of the forest because things stand out easier for you. On the other hand, I think there is definitely a process one has to go through, and I am sure I will be at sea to begin with because I will have to learn the process and do a lot of reading, sorting out and coming to terms with the job that will become real as I proceed.

Mr Owens: That is fine.

The Chair: Anything else, members? I am just curious in reading it. I know absolutely nothing about the NEC. Do you have a view in respect to development? I see that the mandate of the NEC is to maintain the escarpment and lands in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment and ensure that all new development is compatible with the natural environment. How do you feel generally about development on the escarpment? Do you think there should be simply a development freeze? Do you think there is a place for development on the escarpment? Do you have a view?

Mrs McGillivray: I think there is always a place for something but, generally speaking, I feel that we need this natural environment. We just need to conserve it and preserve it.

The Chair: Could you be a little more specific? What would you see as compatible development? How would you define that, from your eyes?

Mrs McGillivray: I think there is existing compatible development of farm lands on the edges of the Niagara Escarpment. There are some buildings that have been put up and some park lands that have been established with buildings on them. I think these are compatible development features that have taken place.

The Chair: But you would rule out residential, commercial, industrial uses, those sorts of things? You see no place for them?

Mrs McGillivray: It is my understanding that there are areas where there is some residential area which is encompassed in the Niagara Escarpment. I would think that is also possible. But by and large the escarpment itself, that great white cliff, if we are talking about the rugged cliff parts, I would have to say that should remain the way it is. But then there are areas where it is farm land and where the craggy cliffs sort of disappear into rolling hills, which obviously are farm lands and areas that are compatible with farming and so on.

The Chair: Let's check the time out here.

Mr B. Murdoch: Mine is a very easy one, I think. You know of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, I am sure. They buy lands along the escarpment. Do you support that? When they buy the lands, they either put them into the conservation authority or the Ministry of Natural Resources, a government agency, so that everyone in Ontario owns it, everyone in Ontario has paid for it. Do you support that concept?

Mrs McGillivray: Actually, up in Barrie we were involved, as you know, in the procurement of the Feversham conservation area.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is where it shows a problem with the escarpment; it is not in the escarpment.

Mrs McGillivray: No, it is outside, just outside.

Mr B. Murdoch: I know but it is not, though. We had trouble --

Mr McGuinty: Mrs McGillivray, from what I have heard from you today, you say that you will be bringing a predominantly environmentalist perspective to the commission. Do you think that is fair?

Mrs McGillivray: In this day and age, yes.

Mr McGuinty: Do you think what I said is fair, my analysis?

Mrs McGillivray: Yes.

Mr McGuinty: Do you see that as interfering with your ability to bring an objective assessment to the matters that you will be dealing with?

Mrs McGillivray: No.

Mr McGuinty: Can you tell me anything else that might reassure me further in that regard?

Mrs McGillivray: Well, maybe we can work on one of the problems together, or one of the things that would come up. I can tell you that the Federation of Ontario Naturalists gave us the conservation award last year.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs McGillivray. We appreciate you appearing before the committee today. We will be getting in touch with you in the very near future as to the committee's decision.

Mrs McGillivray: I did want to mention -- I cannot remember whether you were Liberal -- I very much enjoyed Jim Bradley and I also really appreciated the fact that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs gave over its jurisdiction to the Ministry of the Environment. I had a great deal of respect for the Liberal government in that respect.

Mr Grandmaître: That's enough.

Mrs McGillivray: I just wanted to tell you that.

The Chair: That might swing a vote or two. Thank you very much.

Mrs McGillivray: Thank you very much. I have enjoyed this opportunity.

The Chair: Before we adjourn, Mr Grandmaître was inquiring yesterday about the status of our request for the appointments secretariat to provide us with a list of OIC appointments that are not going to be subjected to review by this committee. This arose as a result of Robin Sears's appointment. As of today -- the clerk just checked -- we still do not have that list and we are going to follow up on it. I personally see no reason why there should be a lengthy delay in receiving that list, so hopefully we will have it this week for scrutiny by the members.

Mr Grandmaître: Any reasons given?

The Chair: No, not at this point. I am hopeful we will have a response and the requested material by the end of this week. If we do not, we can certainly raise the issue.

Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely.

Mrs Marland: Just on another matter, I noticed that we are starting at 10 tomorrow for a one-hour determination, and then at 12 noon we have a meeting of the subcommittee. I was wondering whether another choice would be to have the subcommittee meet at 11 or the meeting start at 11.

The Chair: My own personal preference, since I have to attend the subcommittee meeting, if we are going to change it, I would rather see the subcommittee time change to 11 or 11:15.

Mrs Marland: Yes. It is not necessary to have it so spread out is my point.

The Chair: We will go with about an 11:05 start for the subcommittee rather than 12 noon.

Mr McGuinty: I wonder if we could establish a procedure to deal with extrinsic evidence. What I am referring to is the type of thing that Mr Ellis submitted, for instance, that letter. I interpreted paragraph 10 of the terms of reference as I thought was appropriate. I would like confirmation that my interpretation was correct and, if it was, how are we going to deal with these in the future?

The Chair: The clerk and I did discuss it. Hopefully he is going to seek advice on that question and we will have an answer for you tomorrow. I share your interpretation, to be quite frank, but the clerk feels there are other interpretations that could be applied. He is going to talk to others in his office and try to come back with an opinion from the members of the clerk's office in respect to what we can and cannot do. So perhaps we will have this discussion tomorrow.

Mr Silipo: Just on that whole issue, I think it is a discussion we should have at some point, because I also have some concerns about the nature of the kind of information that we are being provided with through our own research processes. I do not want to get into any details at this point, but if we are going to talk about the whole realm of information that is provided to us, I want to put that into the hopper as well. I think we need to develop some clearer guidelines around that as well.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned. We will see you tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1445.