Legislative Assembly of Ontario

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID ARNILL

MARGARET MUNNOCH

ROBERT SAMPSON

JAN WESTCOTT

CONTENTS

Wednesday 15 April 1998

Intended appointments

Mr David Arnill

Mrs Margaret Munnoch

Mr Robert Sampson

Mr Jan Westcott

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président

Vacant / Vacant

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)

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

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1006 in room 228.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID ARNILL

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and third party: David Arnill, intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Silipo): I call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order, please. Welcome back, everyone. We have a number of intended appointees to review this morning. Let's just get right to it and call Mr David Arnill to come forward. Mr Arnill is an intended appointee as public-at-large member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Welcome to the committee.

The process, as I'm sure has been explained to you, is that we have up to half an hour to spend with you. We will start by giving you an opportunity to make any opening comments you wish, and then we will start a round of questions from the three caucuses, starting this time with the official opposition.

I just want to remind the committee members that if you don't use up all of your caucus time and wish to have the opportunity of a second round, please indicate at the end of your questions that you want to reserve the balance of the time. Otherwise, I will take it that you do not wish to ask any further questions.

Mr Arnill, the floor is yours.

Mr David Arnill: First of all, I'd like to apologize for not being able to meet the March 31 meeting. I was out of the country when my nomination was announced, and I just returned on the weekend.

I was raised in the village of Dundalk. I never actually lived on the escarpment, but over the years I enjoyed the scenic splendour of Beaver Valley, Blue Mountain and especially boating on the west side of Georgian Bay.

The Niagara Escarpment is one of nature's greatest treasures, and its core ecosystems must be preserved without reservation and regardless of cost. I believe the Niagara Escarpment control act is an excellent piece of legislation which both protects the escarpment and balances the needs of all the stakeholders. The act has had years of comprehensive input, scientific studies and public debates. The 1985 act, the 1994 act and the 18-month review have had the endorsement of all three political parties. I also believe the Niagara Escarpment Commission is the legislative body best qualified to protect and enforce the objectives of the act.

I know my appointment has caused a lot of controversy, especially with CONE, and I can understand some of their concerns. Perhaps a small history of my business background and my knowledge of development in aggregate resources might put some of their concerns at rest.

I was raised in a small village where my dad and grandfather operated a small rural construction business. Most of my future business skills were learned from these two men, who taught me that land is and always has been one of our most valuable assets. As our business grew, we eventually had sales of over $50 million a year and employed between 400 and 500 people. We probably mined wayside pits in over a hundred different sites. We were into rehabilitation long before it was legislated, and no one today driving down any of the highways we constructed would ever realize that many millions of tonnes of aggregate had been extracted from these sites by our company.

I served on the Aggregate Producers' Association board of directors for approximately seven or eight years, culminating in my presidency in 1996. This is one of the most informed business associations in North America today. Its committees handle everything from environmental manuals to health and safety education, transportation, public and political relations. Everything is done to minimize impact and to increase public knowledge of the industry.

With the downsizing of all levels of provincial government and bureaucracy in order to balance our provincial budget, when I was president the Aggregate Producers' Association worked with the current government and with both opposition parties to enact Bill 52, a bill which legislated self-regulation on the aggregate industry.

I hope my business skills will be useful to the commission, especially in times of cost cutting. There are always ways to increase efficiencies and improve service.

My knowledge of the aggregate industry will also be useful to the commission. For example, the commission granted a wayside quarry permit in the escarpment area in Euphrasia township to Grey county a few years ago. This was a major mistake. When one recognizes the huge costs to open and rehabilitate a quarry -- in the range of $300,000 to $500,000 -- I knew the only way for the county to recoup its costs would be to eventually apply for a full aggregate licence. They have now done this.

With my knowledge of aggregate resources and costs, and with no conflict of interest as I have now, I could have helped the county to find an equally suitable site off the escarpment. There were several available. CONE would have been pleased.

I look forward to joining the NEC and I want to assure all of you that I will work with the environmentalists and all concerned to ensure the ultimate integrity of and the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Arnill. We'll turn to the Liberal caucus.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Arnill, welcome to the committee this morning. Did you approach someone or were you approached to sit on this commission?

Mr Arnill: Actually, I was at a Christmas party for Jim Wilson and he mentioned at that time that several people in our area had applied for a vacancy on the commission and I told him at that time that I would like to stand myself.

Mr Agostino: Are you a member of the Progressive Conservative Party?

Mr Arnill: Yes, I am.

Mr Agostino: Were you involved in Mr Wilson's last election campaign?

Mr Arnill: Yes, I was.

Mr Agostino: Were you his campaign manager?

Mr Arnill: Yes, I was.

Mr Agostino: Thank you. I just wanted to get on the record the political involvement.

I want to ask you about the balance that we have to strike on this commission between the aggregate producers, which you were a member of and past president of in 1996, and whether you're still on that board today --

Mr Arnill: No, I'm not. I sold my aggregate and construction business a couple of years ago. Normally on the board the past president would sit on the executive. Because I had sold my business, I resigned from the executive and the board.

Mr Agostino: Over the years, with the business you were in, did you have many reasons to appear before the commission?

Mr Arnill: We appeared before them in I believe the mid-1980s, the latter part of the 1980s. One of the quarries that I had purchased was a 170-acre site which was licensed. The previous owner had purchased an additional 30 acres, I guess, which had originally been severed off the site but was not licensed. We wished to licence that 30 acres. We found that in the 1985 act the natural line that was between protection and rural had sort of come up and then arbitrarily jogged into this 30 acres and then back out. Our argument was that had the previous owner not owned that 30 acres, that specific parcel would have been designated rural. We went through an extensive municipal board hearing and the decision came down in our favour.

Mr Agostino: Obviously, the aggregate industry has a great deal at stake on the escarpment. Do you perceive that at least people could see that there would be a conflict there, as someone who had been involved in the private sector in the aggregate industry over a long period of time -- and very successfully, which is great, with your family. Is there a perception, do you think, among the public that your decisions and your leanings may go towards favouring a pro-development stand or a stand that would favour the aggregate industry in applications in front of the commission simply because that is what you've done your whole life? Your work history, your business connections and friends would be in a similar industry that you were involved in. Do you see a danger of that perception being there and that people could suggest there may be a conflict as a result of that?

Mr Arnill: As far as friends in the industry are concerned, I guess we've all made some friends. About 90% of the aggregate in the GTA is controlled by the multinational cement corporations. I was one of the few independents that took those people on and serviced this market. You don't make a lot of friends doing that.

I don't see any conflicts here whatsoever. The act legally authorizes aggregate extraction provided it can be done in an environmentally sensitive way and meets all the development criteria. As I said, the act has gone through years and years of study and public debate, and all three parties endorsed the act, which does permit aggregate extraction in the rural areas of the escarpment if it meets the proper criteria.

The Aggregate Resources Act is one of the greenest pieces of legislation in North America today and that's for licensing a site anywhere in the province. You have to prove extensively that there will be acceptable levels of impact. A normal quarry licence today could take in the five- to seven-year range and the cost for consulting and planning could be in the $1-million range.

Mr Agostino: Mr John Snobelen, the minister, has said in a number of articles that you are well known for your reclamation efforts in regard to the work you have done and have achieved awards for it. Were these awards from environmental groups or from the Aggregate Producers' Association?

Mr Arnill: The Aggregate Producers' Association has a bronze plaque award, which isn't given out very often. I am the current recipient of that. It recognizes exceptional rehabilitation efforts, putting land back into public use. The property I'm getting an award for was a gravel pit that we mined for over 20 years in the town of Wasaga Beach. We progressively rehabilitated it as we mined and the end result today is an 18-hole golf course and a 500-lot subdivision. We have maybe 500 acres on the site and probably 50 acres of that is natural parkland. We have five or six miles of hiking trails. We have soccer fields. We have tennis courts. I'm currently finishing up that development now.

Mr Agostino: The bronze award that the minister was referring to, that you're referring to now, was from the Aggregate Producers' Association?

Mr Arnill: Yes, it is.

Mr Agostino: Just one more question to wrap up: Had you not been a friend, a card-carrying Conservative and a campaign manager for Jim Wilson, do you still believe you'd be here today for an appointment?

Mr Arnill: I don't know. I understand there were a lot of people who applied for the nomination. I don't know. Jim would have brought my name forward, but I understand a lot of other people were nominated as well.

Mr Agostino: Thank you. I'll reserve if there's any time.

The Vice-Chair: We'll turn to the NDP caucus.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Welcome to the committee. I should tell you that when we were in government the Tories and the Liberals hounded us every time there was a smell of any possible affiliation to our party. I don't have any problem with that because I think all parties do that. My comments are more related to how your experience and the work you do might affect what you're being appointed to. You already commented on that. I want to go through some of those questions and deal with that again.

You are not a member of any other board or agency, are you?

Mr Arnill: I was a member of the hospital board in the town of Collingwood for a few years. The other time was eight years I spent on the Aggregate Producers' Association board and that demanded a lot of time and volunteer effort. It is a tremendous association.

Mr Marchese: I was looking through your curriculum vitae and I didn't see some of that experience. I wondered about your public involvement in other areas and wondered therefore why this was of more particular interest to you than anything else that you might have wanted to do perhaps.

Mr Arnill: I sold my major business a couple of years ago. I am currently in the development business; I am building houses in a subdivision. I just need something more to do to keep me active. This is a volunteer situation.

Mr Marchese: Yes. It's not for the money, obviously. The money is not that big.

Mr Arnill: I honestly feel there are legitimate applications for development and there are frivolous ones and I have the experience to know the difference. As I said before, one of the biggest reasons the aggregate industry is mining on the escarpment is because, first of all, dolomitic rock is absolutely essential to the infrastructure of the province. You couldn't build the CN Tower with other aggregates. Unfortunately, the Niagara Escarpment is the only place where it comes to the surface. Normally, as you get into the rural areas of the escarpment, the dolomite slopes off and you're into maybe 20 or 30 feet of overburden, which makes it absolutely impossible to mine it.

1020

As I say, in this one area in Euphrasia township I had actually located a property which was off the escarpment where the rock came to the surface. Grey county, as far as I'm concerned, should never have been permitted to open a wayside on the escarpment when there were other sites that were equally suitable.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate that.

I want to get to some other aspects of this thing that interest me. You talked about the Niagara Escarpment act and how you're a supporter of that. You are familiar with the objectives, and I'm assuming you support all of that: "to protect unique ecologic and historic areas; to maintain and enhance the quality and character of natural streams...; to provide adequate opportunities for outdoor recreation; to maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Niagara Escarpment," and on. You do support these objectives, correct?

Mr Arnill: This is one of the most comprehensive acts that probably was ever developed in North America and I fully support this act. I think it's a terrific piece of legislation.

Mr Marchese: On page 8 of our document -- I'm not sure you've seen this or whether you have access to it -- the researcher does point out, "Under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Niagara Escarpment plan overrides all municipal official plans and bylaws."

Mr Arnill: That's correct.

Mr Marchese: Do you support that?

Mr Arnill: Yes, I do.

Mr Marchese: You wouldn't want to amend that?

Mr Arnill: Absolutely not.

Mr Marchese: In terms of your reclamation efforts, have you reclaimed or rehabilitated many sites, and can you give some examples of them, the one you got an award for?

Mr Arnill: As I said before, we grew up in a small construction business and part of the value of the way to make money that my father and grandfather taught was that you remove the gravel from a piece of property and you always rehabilitated it, you put the topsoil back, you put it back into productive use and you increased the value of that property. That's how we made our living. We used to watch the large contractors come through when there was no legislation and they actually destroyed land. They just mined it and walked away from it. We never did that.

Mr Marchese: So as far as you're concerned, you have a fairly good reputation in rehabilitating any site that you have operated on.

Mr Arnill: Yes we do.

Mr Marchese: There's one on Grey county Road 4 near Thornbury which you started and worked on for a long time. From some reports we have, it was an eyesore, and as far we know, there had not been any rehabilitation, but you're saying that's not true.

Mr Arnill: The pit isn't finished yet; it's still being mined. It was one of the properties I did sell, and the eventual plan for that is going to be about a 70- or 80-acre lake. Until you've mined all the aggregate from under the water you really can't do a lot of rehabilitation work.

Mr Marchese: So it is an eyesore while you are working at it, but rehabilitation is something that will have to take place once the whole thing is exhausted, in other words?

Mr Arnill: That's correct, yes.

Mr Marchese: I imagine some people would think that some of that work should go on as you are working so that it doesn't become an eyesore for people, but you say --

Mr Arnill: Over the years we had done progressive rehabilitation on that property. There was some rehabilitation done. Silts were put down, topsoil on them was seeded, but again, there's always an open face, and an open face, if it's visible from a road, is an eyesore.

Mr Marchese: Sure. The award you won you made clear was given to you by the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario. Were you required to rehabilitate that site in order to get your permit to build, or did you do that voluntarily?

Mr Arnill: That was a site that was operated before the legislation, so it was a non-conforming site, but under the new Aggregate Resources Act we had to put a plan of final rehabilitation into it. But we were rehabilitating that site as we came along. Every year, we were closing it up behind us, putting topsoil back on.

Mr Marchese: Mr Snobelen makes some comments in an article by Mr Brennan, who's actually here, where Mr Snobelen is quoted as saying. "They are people" -- meaning people like yourself -- "who are concerned about the Niagara Escarpment and protecting it." I don't have any problem at all with that. Then he says, "They're trying to bring some balance to the commission and I don't think any one set of opinions are right." What do you think he means by "balance"? Is there an imbalance in this commission?

Mr Arnill: I felt there was under your government. The hearing officers, if I can quote them, said: "The Niagara Escarpment Commission's approach to resource extraction was fundamentally misguided. It did not scientifically evaluate the effects of older quarries and it did not consider the economic and social impacts either inside or outside of the plan area. If extraction was not allowed on the escarpment, it would increase the cost to the taxpayers of Ontario for aggregates in the range of $100 million to $250 million a year."

As I say, your own government, when the 1994 plan was recommended, with the suggestion of the environmentalists, actually went through another extensive 18-month review and your cabinet decided that aggregate extraction was necessary, if it could be done properly, in the rural areas of the escarpment. You agreed with the plan.

Mr Marchese: So you're saying that the commission members were obviously one-sided in their views, that they didn't recognize the value that people like yourself obviously do and bring to this economy, and you're simply trying to correct some of those views that are incorrect, I guess.

Mr Arnill: There has to be a balance. We have to listen to the environmentalists and they have to listen to us. One of the things I did on the Aggregate Producers' Association, one of the chairs I handled one year was the political action committee. Before I got involved with that committee, it was just a fund-raiser for the Liberal and Tory parties. We completely changed that committee. We divided the province into 17 areas. We asked all the producers in each area to join our political action committee, and the objective is to meet with all MPPs regardless of which party they belong to, just to discuss problems we were having and issues. Maybe if we couldn't reach an agreement with some of these people, at least they understood our concerns and opened up a two-way dialogue.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, that' the 10 minutes. We turn to the government caucus.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Thank you very much, Mr Arnill, for coming today and for letting your name stand for this appointment. It's not always easy to get people of your quality and obviously busy nature to take on these commitments. I was impressed with your opening comments and your commitment to the Niagara Escarpment and its plants.

It also struck me that on Bill 52, with its enactment and the reclamation process that was put in place, this process was really designed after what you and your company had been doing for some time. Is that accurate?

Mr Arnill: Yes, it is. Bill 52, which is about self-regulation of the aggregate industry, I think is going to be extremely effective. When you realize the tremendous cost of acquiring a licence today -- you have to file an annual report. If you falsify that report in any way, you're subject to a $5,000 fine and revocation of your licence. The costs are far too extensive to allow anything like that to happen.

Also, the MNR staff was cut from over 80 people to 14 inspectors. These inspectors now are acting as enforcement officers. They know the good operators from the bad ones and now they have the legislative authority to shut those people down.

The Aggregate Producers' Association also took over the responsibility of reclaiming abandoned pits and quarries. The MNR had a staff of 55 people that reviewed these. We today do it with two and we're getting more done. I think, again, Bill 52 is an excellent piece of legislation to govern the aggregate industry.

Mr Chudleigh: In the future, as we drive around the province, not only on the escarpment but other parts of the province as well, the abandoned pits that we sometimes see now, those wayside pits, gradually will be reclaimed and there will be no new cases where operators have walked away from the reclamation responsibilities?

Mr Arnill: That is correct.

Mr Chudleigh: I think we've covered the Wasaga Sands development and your award. How often would that bronze award be awarded? Is it a yearly award?

Mr Arnill: No, it's not. Probably on average maybe every other year. It's something that isn't given out without a lot of thought put into it.

Mr Chudleigh: It's an exceptional case when it's awarded.

Mr Arnill: Yes. It recognizes exceptional examples of rehabilitation and putting the old site into a use that can be enjoyed by people.

Mr Chudleigh: Again, thank you very much for agreeing to stand on this committee. There seemed to be some comment about your political affiliations. I wasn't aware that was a criterion on an appointment. I suppose that means that --

Interjections.

Mr Chudleigh: The former chairman of this committee may be a card-carrier in the future as well, I suppose. We'll look forward to that opportunity.

1030

The Vice-Chair: Anything else from the government?

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): First of all, to be honoured by your peers I think makes the honour that much more special. I mean that very sincerely.

This act that you feel is an excellent act, and I agree with you, certainly it's been around for a long while, and it's like Bill 52: You have to make some changes every now and again. Do you foresee any change that should be done in that act to increase the preservation and the integrity of the escarpment?

Mr Arnill: The Aggregate Resources Act?

Mr Stewart: No, the Niagara Escarpment act.

Mr Arnill: I think, again, this act has had years of input and debate. All sides have put their positions forward. I guess it is a very comprehensive act that understands conservation and the balance of resource utilization. I think one of the reasons it was recognized by UNESCO was because it did take all those things into account.

Mr Stewart: I think that's why it's very important that you do have a balance of people on the commission. Thank you very much.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Thank you, Mr Arnill. Listening to the presentation here, clearly your contribution to the aggregate industry has been well recognized by your peers, not only with the award, but also becoming president of the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario. How long have you been active with the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario?

Mr Arnill: I've probably been a member for 15 years. Normally, you would sit on the board for seven or eight years and just work your way up through the various committees until you can accept the position of president if you want it.

Mr Cullen: I was certainly taken by your comments when you talked about the need for balance between the environmentalists and "us." Earlier on, you talked in relation to some of the questions about Bill 52 and some of the issues being raised about aggregate extraction. You talked about "our concerns." With 15 years of involvement with the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario and the commitment, the recognition of your peers, I think anyone would say that you would be very closely identified with the aggregate interests in Ontario. You can't have a position any other way.

Mr Arnill: No, I understand the interest, but I also understand there has to be a balance with the environmentalists. The best way to achieve that balance is to be able to sit across the table from them, talk to them, tell them what our concerns are, listen to their concerns and see if we can come to some understanding.

Mr Cullen: This opens a door, because obviously the legislation is there to preserve the escarpment. You've alluded to that as well. But we also know the escarpment is the site of a very large mineral aggregate extraction industry in Ontario and that every application coming before it is, in one form or another, to develop some part of the escarpment. You don't have any applications going the other way.

You're there with a long history of identification with the aggregate producers of Ontario and presumably they will see you as their spokesperson. You say it's between you and the environmentalists, but we're thinking in terms of the public interest here. It's not just the environmentalists we're talking about here. But clearly, for anyone who's coming forward, you're going to be there. Do you not see yourself there as the spokesperson for the industry?

Mr Arnill: No.

Mr Cullen: That's going to be quite a shock to your peers who gave you the award, whom you've worked with for 15 years, gone through the whole committee structure and found yourself elected as president.

Mr Arnill: I have an understanding of the industry and I also say that aggregate extraction is permitted. It's a legitimate use under the plan, provided it's done properly.

Mr Cullen: Absolutely. So, having been an advocate for the aggregate producers of Ontario for these many years, you're going to go on the escarpment commission and you're going to change your spots?

Mr Arnill: As I said before, if I see an application coming forward that has not been done properly, I have the knowledge to stop that application. If an application comes that does meet all the criteria, then it is the responsibility of the commission to accept that.

Mr Cullen: We've dealt with a number of appointments to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. One of the points I like to make is that, in trying to preserve the escarpment, there must be a compelling reason to develop it, because once you develop, you've lost it.

You're coming from an industry that recognizes the escarpment as a site for exploitation. You've been a spokesperson for the industry and you're basically saying unless there's a compelling reason not to accept it, you're going to support development proposals that meet the letter of the law.

Mr Arnill: Aggregate extraction is not permitted in the natural areas or the protection areas. It is only permitted in the rural areas. You take a look at the rural areas. I think 1.6% of the plan area is suitable for aggregate extraction. When you take a look at that 1.6% and you realize that many of the landowners do not want to sell their properties for aggregate extraction, the resource is limited even further.

Mr Cullen: So you think you're not going to have much work to do. But we know that every applicant who comes forward will come forward with their consultants, which will show that this particular application meets the criteria, that this little thing here can be redefined with no loss of integrity and that the development application should proceed.

You're not going to be sitting there with nothing to do in terms of the development applications. That 1.6% is going to occupy -- if indeed it is 1.6%, because I'm sure the applicants come forward trying to change all that to make an application successful. You're going to be there looking at it and saying, "I understand your perspective because I've been there." Is that not what you're going to be saying?

Mr Arnill: My mandate will be the same as all the other commissioners' when I sit on this, and that is for the protection of the Niagara Escarpment in accordance with the act.

The Vice-Chair: We'll have to leave it at that. Thank you, Mr Arnill. That completes the time for -- yes, Mr Johnson?

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Are we out of time? I had a question.

The Vice-Chair: Yes. You used up the balance of the time with Mr Stewart's question.

We have completed the round with respect to Mr Arnill. We can either deal with the vote on appointment now or deal with it later on after we've finished the other interviews, as you wish.

Do it now? Is there a motion?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I so move.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Grimmett moves that the committee concurs.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, just a comment as well.

The Vice-Chair: Discussion, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Because the House is not sitting, we haven't been able to replace our member Floyd Laughren, who has resigned, so I won't be able to vote on this matter. That's just for the record.

The Vice-Chair: All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion for concurrence in the appointment of Mr Arnill?

Mr Agostino: I appreciate the presentation that was made today. Again, it's not a difficult question. I'm concerned on a couple of points, first of all on what appears to be this ongoing list of patronage political appointees, period.

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: Mr Spina, your friends come up next, so keep it down.

We have now seen a pattern in the last two committee meetings, and it will continue today, of blatant patronage appointments, which is a sign of a government in desperation, as Mulroney did in the dying days, basically just all the friends they could find piled on to committees. Very clearly, it taints the appointments.

I'm not questioning this gentleman's integrity, but there's a perception here of a conflict. There's a perception of an industry that he has worked very hard and done very well in over the years and now he will be sitting on a commission that is going to judge applications that come. As independent as you want to be, you can't help but have that bias at the table. You have done that job your whole life. That's all you've worked in.

That is part of a pattern that is developing on this escarpment commission. It has become the Niagara Development Commission, frankly, under this government, which continues to stack the board with individuals whose backgrounds and work experience tend to lean very much towards a much more open development policy for the escarpment. That's dangerous.

1040

Over the years, governments of all political stripes have worked very hard in trying to preserve the Niagara Escarpment and worked very hard to put the proper checks and balances in place. A great deal of that was as a result of the balance on the commission that made the decisions. We're losing that balance, and this appointment continues to add to that. We saw it last week. We saw it before. We saw it with Mr Seabrook, who had to resign in shame. It becomes an ongoing pattern here, not only of blatant political appointments but of very strong pro-development appointments to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I think that's dangerous. I think it's detrimental.

I know we're not going to win the vote today because the government members will, all five, vote in favour of the appointment, as they have on every other appointment that has come forward to this committee, but I think it's important for us to make our concerns known and to raise the danger signals. It started with the shift of responsibility for the escarpment from the Ministry of the Environment, that was there to protect the escarpment, to the Ministry of Natural Resources, that is there to develop the escarpment.

I will vote against the appointment, Mr Chair. I think it is blatant patronage once again. This gentleman, by coincidence, was approached by Jim Wilson, the minister, at a Christmas party. This gentleman happens to be a Tory member and, beyond that, he ran Jim Wilson's election campaign. It appears that the first priority is that you have to be connected with the Conservative Party of Ontario in order to be appointed, and second, you then have to be connected to the development industry in order to be appointed to this commission. I think that's wrong.

Mr Marchese: Just for the record, I don't have any problem with the fact that Mr Arnill happens to be a Conservative member. I know the Liberals would do the same. We've all had different systems in place. The Liberals, I think, had the Premier and -- I hear, anyway -- his wife do the appointments. It wasn't much of a public, open system. That's what I hear; hopefully, it's wrong. But if the spouse was not involved, I hear that the Premier, by and large, was the person who made most of the appointments, and I don't remember it being very open.

But in terms of what the Tories are doing, it's quite open. They don't make any bones about it. They attacked us on a daily basis when we appointed people. But I think political appointments are the way of most political parties, except that what the New Democrats did was to have this system that permits people to come forward and allows the opposition parties to at least say, "Are you a Tory?" At least we made it an open system that permits this kind of discussion. I don't have any problems with patronage, because it goes on and on. What I don't like is when the Tories say, "We would be different; we would be pure," and then they just appoint Tories all over the bloody map, which is what has happened.

On the matter of Mr Arnill's nomination here, I find him very sincere in his remarks. He seems to be the type of person who is very caring about what happens to the escarpment. How can one object to those things he speaks in favour of? I do have a problem, however. In spite of Mr Arnill's sincerity, I don't think the kind of balance that he and this government are trying to achieve is going to do very much to the objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in spite of what I heard today.

I think the commission is there for a purpose: to defend the Niagara Escarpment plan, which is very clear. The people nominated to that commission should be there for the sole purpose of defending what is there. I frankly don't think we need a balance, as these Conservative members are doing, where with every new appointment we see now, as is listed in our research report, we are getting people who, I'm sure, will claim they support the objectives, but I'm not sure they're the types that should be on that commission, from an environmental point of view in terms of protecting the escarpment.

I want to state my concern about what this government is doing with respect to this concern about the appointments. I am not supportive of this type of balance they're trying to achieve. I'm not sure that in the end we're going to be able to maintain the objective of the Niagara Escarpment plan, and that's my fear. Although they might say they are not interested in making amendments, it is my view that amendments will be coming in the next review of the plan. Should this government continue to be in power, I fear we will see amendments to that plan, in spite of the claims we hear. I worry about that. My interest, and the interest of most environmentalists, is to preserve the escarpment in the ways we understand it.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My comments will be short. First of all, I think David Peterson wrote the book on pork-barrelling, but anyway --

Interjection.

Mr Spina: Well, there were Liberals a lot longer in federal government before Mr Mulroney ever got there.

Interjection.

Mr Spina: Pardon?

The Vice-Chair: It's all right, Mr Spina. Carry on, please.

Mr Spina: Thank you. Maybe you want to withdraw that, Cullen.

I want to thank Mr Marchese for the comment he made about making the system more open and transparent. I think that's a valid thing your government did as far as this appointment process is concerned. I think it will be seen too that we can be objective with the appointments of people like Mr Laughren when he comes before the board at the appropriate time. But I think the opposition assumes that the only perspective or the only view that should be on the commission is that of the environmentalists, period, end of story. They are the only ones that they feel should be seen and should be the ones to defend this process.

I challenge that because, frankly, any individual in society who conducts business in a socially responsible manner will do what Mr Arnill's track record demonstrates, and that is that you conduct business with respect for the land you live on and the land you work. We talk about the balance, and I think it's good to have another individual on a commission, on a board of directors, who does have an understanding and an appreciation for the other perspective. I don't think that in any way should denigrate their position with respect to the protection of the act and the protection of the lands that were there, so I have no compunction in endorsing Mr Arnill's appointment to this position.

The Vice-Chair: Further discussion? If not, we'll proceed to the vote on concurrence in the appointment of Mr Arnill.

Mr Agostino: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Chudleigh, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Spina, Stewart.

Nays

Cullen, Gravelle.

The Vice-Chair: It's carried.

MARGARET MUNNOCH

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Margaret Munnoch, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.

The Vice-Chair: We proceed with the next intended appointee, Margaret Munnoch. Ms Munnoch, welcome. As with the previous individual, we have up to half an hour to spend with you. We will give you an opportunity to make any opening comments you wish, and then we will start questions, beginning with the Liberal caucus.

Mrs Margaret Munnoch: Good morning, gentlemen. I would like to give you a short background about myself.

I worked as a registered nurse before coming to Canada from Scotland in 1957. I have been married to a family physician for 43 years and have lived in Woodstock for 41 of those years. We have four grown children whose birthdays are just one year apart, so my early married years were mainly spent at home while doing a small amount of volunteer work such as canvassing, stuffing envelopes etc for many agencies.

As you can see by my résumé, I have experience with many organizations and agencies, all of which I have found both challenging and rewarding. I have recently been appointed by the municipality to the Woodstock Police Services Board, having served there before as mayor of the city of Woodstock. I was deeply involved in the planning, the fund-raising and the building of the $13-million community complex in the city of Woodstock, completed two and a half years ago.

My municipal political career has given me a wide span of awareness of the need for financial assistance throughout our communities such as is awarded by the Trillium Foundation. If appointed, I feel I can make a meaningful contribution to this board.

I thank you for your attention.

1050

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mrs Munnoch, and welcome. Obviously, the appointments to the Ontario Trillium Foundation are very important appointments, particularly at this time, as there is very much a proposed change in how the foundation itself will work. Can you tell me just how familiar you are with the Ontario Trillium Foundation in terms of how it has been set up and how it will be in the future?

Mrs Munnoch: As I understand it, agencies have made their applications, they have been very thoroughly evaluated and reviewed, and the awards have proceeded as a result of those reviews and evaluations. I understand there is going to be a lot more money involved now, and of course it will take a lot more reviewing and evaluating.

Mr Gravelle: You are familiar then, obviously, with the proposal to have 10% of the revenue from slot machines now basically being put into the system?

Mrs Munnoch: Casino tables, I understand, the Trillium fund will be looking after.

Mr Gravelle: And to fund more agencies: arts, culture and recreation.

Mrs Munnoch: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: So you're familiar with this. Have you had an opportunity at all to study the foundation to find out exactly what it has done?

Mrs Munnoch: Yes, quite a bit of it, I have.

Mr Gravelle: What are your feelings, based on that, about the role the foundation plays in terms of the funding? What I mean specifically is, do you think it's important and significant that the foundation operates in an arm's-length relationship in terms of the government? In other words, there should be no connection between the government's position and support for various things and the actual agency itself. Do you believe the arm's-length relationship is an important part of the actual agency, the foundation itself?

Mrs Munnoch: Yes, because I think then it is non-partisan. You have a board dealing with it in a very fair manner. They're dealing with requests coming in from the different agencies and it's completely non-partisan and in a very fair way.

Mr Gravelle: It's very important that you say that because obviously it's something that is very important and will continue to be so. It brings me to a concern that needs to be expressed and I want to ask you about it. You are, I understand, very active in the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mrs Munnoch: I have been.

Mr Gravelle: In fact there are some members of your family who have actually worked for the Premier, Mr Harris, and who have worked for Mr Hodgson in northern development and mines. Is that the case, that you have children -- indeed your relationship is such that your family has been involved in that way?

Mrs Munnoch: That's correct, Mr Gravelle. They no longer are, but they have been.

Mr Gravelle: That being said, I take it you've had an opportunity to talk to the minister himself or to members of the government about the direction they're going in terms of the Ontario Trillium Foundation?

Mrs Munnoch: No, I have not.

Mr Gravelle: But you are certainly sensitive and clear on what direction they're going in.

Mrs Munnoch: I got it from information I've received just recently.

Mr Gravelle: Do you not think it's difficult to be in the position you're in, in terms of your involvement with the party itself let alone the fact that two of your children were involved in a political capacity, and to maintain that arm's-length relationship?

Mrs Munnoch: No, absolutely not. I hope I'm not here because of my political affiliation. I hope I'm here because of the strength I have shown in my résumé. I would continue to be a member of that board in a completely non-partisan fashion, as I have done in all my other work, including my municipal career.

Mr Gravelle: Obviously, you have a stellar municipal career and it's very impressive in terms of the activities you've done. But I think it is important to state as forcefully as possible that the arm's-length relationship is important. I think it's a great concern, not just to those of us in the opposition but certainly those agencies that will be funded potentially by the foundation, that the arm's-length relationship remain.

If indeed there are a number of appointments of people who are not only members of the party -- I do not in any sense necessarily object to members of the Progressive Conservative Party being appointed, but if it's such a relationship that that arm's-length relationship is threatened and is not able to be maintained, I think it's legitimate for us to be concerned.

The questions have to be asked and have to be asked again. How can you maintain that relationship if you are in a position where one of your obligations in a personal sense is to support the principles of the party?

I certainly don't mean to be rude to you in any way at all. It's a concern we have, particularly, may I say, in this case with the Ontario Trillium Foundation. This is an organization that has funded groups in a very important way. The expansion now is one that there are some concerns about. I guess what I'm looking for is some reassurance that you're not going to in essence be an appointment who will ultimately make decisions that are based more on what the government's priorities are than objectively from an arm's-length position in terms of what the agencies' needs are.

Mrs Munnoch: No, Mr Gravelle, I would expect to go with the wishes of the Trillium board, as a member of that board. I would be entirely aside from government opinions or anything else as a member of that board. I have done it in many other boards. As I said, my political career municipally was completely non-partisan. I know I'm perfectly capable of being on a board and being totally non-partisan.

Mr Gravelle: How do you feel about the fact that revenues, now from slot machines rather than video lottery terminals, in essence gambling revenues, are going to be used as ways of funding these various organizations. What are your thoughts on that in general, in terms of the whole casino issue?

Mrs Munnoch: Gambling is a form of life, there's no question. There are not many people, I don't suppose, in this room who haven't gambled at some point. I gather the percentage of people who gamble in the whole of Ontario is fairly high and a very small percentage of those people have any problems with it. I think there are a tremendous number of agencies, particularly with government cutbacks now, that are going to need the help of the Trillium Foundation.

Mr Gravelle: Did you seek out this appointment? I'm curious as to the process you went through in order to have this appointment.

Mrs Munnoch: I was asked if I would consider being appointed to the board.

Mr Gravelle: You were asked. May I ask who you were asked by?

Mrs Munnoch: Barbara Minogue.

Mr Gravelle: You were asked specifically about the Trillium Foundation itself?

Mrs Munnoch: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: It's my understanding that none of the present members of the Ontario Trillium Foundation are being reappointed. It seems to me that in the sense of a collective memory of an organization, in terms of what has gone before, that should be considered as something that's important in terms of maintaining something. My understanding is that none are being reappointed. How do you feel about that? Obviously people have served it well and honourably. How do you feel about the fact that there are potentially all new appointments and that a large number of them appear to be coming from members of the Progressive Conservative Party? That certainly would concern me if I was in that position.

Mrs Munnoch: I believe some of them have been reappointed prior to this time, so many of them have served quite a few years. I also think new blood is extremely good, especially when there are going to be changes to this foundation. A change in thinking and handling many of the --

Mr Gravelle: Do you know for a fact that some of them have been reappointed? Certainly my information is that none have been reappointed.

Mrs Munnoch: I mean that prior to this, when their appointments were due, some of them I believe were reappointed. It's not just an unusual thing for people not to be reappointed; it's also quite customary to be reappointed. I think new blood is good.

Mr Cullen: You've been a municipal politician; I've been a municipal politician. We've had deputations come before us asking for support, good charitable organizations. The Trillium, as you know, initially was set up to deal with social services. In the area of social services, if you're dealing with the poor, very often you're also an advocate for the poor, or if you're dealing with schizophrenia, you become an advocate for schizophrenia. We can go through a whole list. You're going to have the same thing coming forward at the Trillium. What's your attitude about that?

Mrs Munnoch: I think you would have to look into where their funding is coming from elsewhere and weigh it against what the needs are.

Mr Cullen: We have a government that doesn't like advocates, that's taking money away from advocates. Do you agree with that?

Mrs Munnoch: There are other agencies to get money from besides the government.

Mr Cullen: So you think that an agency that serves a need in our community, and we know the need has become greater with government cuts, if it's involved with advocacy on behalf of its clients, should go elsewhere than the Trillium?

Mrs Munnoch: No, I don't think they should go elsewhere. If their cause is correct and they meet the criteria for the foundation, then it's quite all right for them to apply.

Mr Cullen: So in terms of the arm's-length --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Cullen, that's the time. You'll have to leave it at that.

1100

Mr Grimmett: Following up on the question Mr Cullen was asking, we had talked already about the changing role of the Trillium Foundation and how one of the roles you would have if you were successful in becoming a member of the board would be to review grant applications. Do you think your background gives you the experience to help make these kinds of decisions, and if so, can you perhaps enlighten us on how your background might help make those decisions?

Mrs Munnoch: I certainly think it does. As you know, I have quite a wide spectrum of interests and have served on many boards and agencies. We have dealt in many of them with large sums of money. I recognized the responsibility as mayor -- as I say, we agreed to build a $13-million or $14-million community complex. It took a lot of thought to give the okay on that. I think my municipal experience has helped me judge where money should be going, to a large extent.

Mr Grimmett: Are you aware of the plan to establish community funding bodies under the Trillium corporation?

Mrs Munnoch: Yes.

Mr Grimmett: Could you perhaps comment on this and how it might affect the accountability of this process to the public?

Mrs Munnoch: I think these councils will be able to answer both to their municipality and to the Trillium Foundation.

Mr Grimmett: I was more interested in how the average member of the public might be served by such a body. Do you think they might be?

Ms Munnoch: I would think so. I think their voices need to be heard and the council will be a listening body for the public.

The Vice-Chair: Any further questions? Other members?

Mr Stewart: A foolish question, but Punkeydoodles Corners -- I have to ask you that question. What is that?

Ms Munnoch: That was a very unusual event. Three counties went together to produce -- there is an area in Oxford county called Punkeydoodles Corners. It was a fair day, so to speak, like a fair.

Mr Stewart: I'd just like to say that the opposition keeps harping on the fact that you may be a member or whatever of the Conservative Party, but I cannot understand why they can't look at your credentials. If I look at your credentials and what you've done, I believe you are an excellent appointment to this board. You've been involved with the grant system in your capacity as mayor and deputy mayor. You've been involved with a number of charities and giving dollars to them. So I think you're an excellent choice and I support you 100%.

The Vice-Chair: That concludes the time with you. Thank you, Ms Munnoch.

I leave it up to the committee whether you want to proceed with the vote on concurrence at this point or not.

Mr Gravelle: Do them all at once.

The Vice-Chair: Do them all at once, given that all three are for the same board.

ROBERT SAMPSON

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Robert Sampson, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.

The Vice-Chair: Let's call forward Mr Robert L. Sampson, intended appointee as member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors. Mr Sampson, welcome to the committee. We'll give you an opportunity to make any opening comments you may wish to make and then we'll go around in rotation. We'll spend up to half an hour with you.

Mr Robert Sampson: Briefly, I would like to explain why I am interested in serving on the Trillium Foundation. By profession I am a professional teacher. I have been in the education field for 33 years and am now retired. Most of those years were spent in administrative roles, from department head to vice-principal to being a principal of a secondary school to superintendent in two different boards. My experience has been both in the separate school system as well as in the public school system and my experience has been centred mostly in northern Ontario.

Throughout my career as a teacher, I have devoted many hours in community service. I have served on a variety of boards, mostly dealing with adolescents. I was on the children's mental health centre in Timmins. I was chairman of that organization. I was on the Concordia board of directors in North Bay, which is another children's mental health centre, for several years. I've acted as treasurer for an organization in North Bay that's called Connections and deals with dropout students. I've acted as a member of a hospital board for approximately 12 years at St Joseph's hospital in North Bay, Ontario. When I resigned from that board I was the vice-chairman. I've been a member of the Rotary Club for approximately 15 years, and I've served in a variety of capacities serving the needs of children.

I think this background has provided me with skills in two particular areas: first, in working directly and providing volunteer service to people; and second, I've had the experience of working on several boards. I think I could be effective as a board member on the Trillium Foundation.

In conclusion, I think I'm here for the same reasons I've been on other boards and I've volunteered my services in other organizations, and that motivation is to serve, and to play a role in whatever capacity I can to improve the quality of life for other people.

Mr Gravelle: I will be pursuing probably the same approach, if I may, as I did previously with Mrs Munnoch. The Trillium Foundation is obviously an organization that has funded social service agencies in the past. The proposal is to change its mandate, which obviously is going to be very significant. May I just have your response in terms of the importance of the arm's-length relationship between the foundation and the government.

Mr Sampson: I support that kind of structure. Coming from education, I'm particularly sensitive about it in terms of how we've now established the Ontario College of Teachers and the office for evaluation and quality assessment, and I think setting up service organizations in that fashion is a very healthy practice.

Mr Gravelle: In that regard, it's probably important to ask you just how it came about that you put your name forward to the foundation board. Were you approached?

Mr Sampson: I'm here for two reasons. About a year and a half ago, I submitted my résumé to my constituency office and indicated that I would be willing to serve on any committee where they felt I could play a role. At that time it was accepted and they said, "Well, Bob, if something comes up, we'll inform you." Recently, I was approached about the Trillium Foundation and asked if I would be willing to serve on that, and I said yes, I would be.

Mr Gravelle: My understanding, Mr Sampson, is that you do have a fairly close relationship with the Premier, that in fact you are a golfing buddy, so to speak, of the Premier and that you travel on golf vacations together. Obviously, that's just fine, but it does bring up the concern that in that regard you've had an opportunity to discuss with him a variety of things. To address Mr Stewart's concerns mentioned earlier, what we are concerned about is that because the foundation is an extraordinarily important organization and because there are some real changes in the mandate, the arm's-length relationship is important. We don't want the foundation to become in essence a policy arm for the government, so I don't think it's inappropriate for us to ask that. Can you respond to that: your friendship with the Premier and your opportunity to discuss some of these issues with him?

Mr Sampson: I would be pleased to. Yes, I am a friend of the Premier's. I have not had the opportunity to play golf with him for a number of years, but I have crossed paths with him on the golf course.

I have made it a personal practice, and this is something I strongly believe in, that I would never compromise a friendship in any way, shape or form, so I have always made it a practice not to discuss political matters with the Premier. I've been involved in a number of initiatives that would tempt me, for example, to say, "Do you think you could help me with this?" but I would never do that, because in my own set of principles I would separate friendship from politics. If I wanted to deal with anything on a political basis, I would go the natural route and I would try not to be influenced by my relationship with any particular politician.

1110

Mr Gravelle: Can you appreciate the concern we have in that regard?

Mr Sampson: Obviously. Yes, sure.

Mr Gravelle: Here's an organization that's lost some funding, that now is going to be funding areas from another source. In essence, it's a way of the government not staying as involved. So when we see these appointments it does give us a great deal of concern, and I think for legitimate reasons.

Mr Sampson: Yes, I can understand your concern, but I would like to suggest on the other side of the coin that I don't think, as a citizen in a democratic society, that I should be penalized because I happen to be a friend of the Premier.

Mr Gravelle: I'm not suggesting you should. I'm just suggesting that we want to be very vigilant in terms of an organization like this maintaining a truly arm's-length relationship, and it becomes questionable when you see a number of appointments of people who have a relationship with the party, but, more significantly, with the Premier himself.

Mr Sampson: I appreciate that sensitivity.

Mr Gravelle: One more quick question. There are no appointments, that I've been able to see, from northwestern Ontario. I'm from northwestern Ontario. You're from North Bay. Do you believe there should be an appointment from northwestern Ontario? It's obviously an extremely large part of the geographic area of this province. There was an appointee who was not reappointed. This is of great concern to me, so as a northerner, I'd like your thoughts on it.

Mr Sampson: I believe that in structuring the representation on the foundation, one of the criteria that should be acknowledged and supported is to ensure that there is equal geographic representation as much as possible on the Trillium Foundation. I do not have enough knowledge at this point to appreciate what that looks like at the present time, but certainly I would argue in favour of that very much.

Mr Cullen: Just a couple of questions: I see that you were very much involved in the Nipissing Board of Education, I guess during the tenure of one trustee, Michael Harris.

Mr Sampson: No, I was not an employee when Michael Harris was the chairperson of the board. Michael had left the board at that time. I came to Nipissing in 1982 as the superintendent.

Mr Cullen: Right. When you submitted your CV to the constituency office, which constituency office was that?

Mr Sampson: Nipissing, Mike Harris's office.

Mr Cullen: Okay. The concern we have is very much about the politicization of this board that's going to hand out money to charitable groups. These are time-limited grants; these are yearly applications.

Earlier, I touched on the topic of, given the nature of the clientele these people, these organizations are serving, certainly in my community muscular dystrophy lobbies for adequate health care funding, and I could go on with a number of examples, what is your view about advocacy when an organization comes forward? Do you think that's appropriate?

Mr Sampson: I think any organization that is looking for government funding support, or any kind of funding support, is going to make every effort to be successful with that application. I'll give full marks to any organization that's trying to serve people, to do the best they can to generate the revenue they require.

However, I believe the Trillium Foundation has a history of being an organization with a great deal of integrity. It's an organization that establishes very clear guidelines as to who qualifies for a particular grant. I think, as a board member, I'd be obligated to be vigilant in ensuring that the rules of the game are observed and that the disbursement of funds is done in a fair and just manner.

Mr Cullen: Coming back to the issue of politicization, and I know I'm dealing with someone who understands politics. You were the political action officer for district 33. You can't call yourself apolitical.

Mr Sampson: That goes back a long time.

Mr Cullen: That goes back a way, yes. But even so, we have a government which has taken away funding from a lot of these agencies and which has been punishing agencies for daring to advocate that there is a funding shortfall, that clients are being affected.

Do you see the Trillium providing a stopgap? Do you see when there is such competition for scarce funds, does that issue come into play?

Mr Sampson: No, I don't believe so. I think being an arm's-length organization, it has to work with the government of the day, and whatever those conditions are that are established by the government, those are the cards that are dealt and you've got to work within that environment. Whether it's a time of plenty or a time of extreme need, your organization has to function independent of those circumstantial conditions and deal with the disbursement of funds in a most equitable way.

Mr Cullen: We've touched on the fact that you certainly know the Premier through your golfing connection and of course you've submitted your CV to your MPP, who is the Premier, and that you've been active in politics, certainly from the OSSTF. Are you a member of the Progressive Conservative Party?

Mr Sampson: Yes, I am.

Mr Cullen: Thank you.

Mr Spina: Welcome, Mr Sampson, to this committee. I look forward to hopefully your successful appointment, because I think that a Basilian-trained student in high school, as I am, has learned some skill sets that I think are applicable to the world in general.

I wanted to ask, the Trillium board is intending to develop some of these community funding bodies across the province so that the local communities and local leaders are making recommendations to the Trillium board. I guess it's partly to perhaps address the concern that the opposition members have about the politicization of the process, of the appointments. By having these community boards and particularly from the north -- I'm pleased to see that there's a northerner being appointed -- do you think this will improve the accountability of the Trillium board and that it may defray perhaps the concerns that the opposition has?

Mr Sampson: Yes, I do. I was pleased to see that provision in the proposed structure because I do believe that sometimes the best decision-making occurs at the most immediate level of the service. I believe that the people involved in a particular community will have very strong insights into the needs and the priorities that exist within that community. A municipal-based committee I think is armed with a strong knowledge base, more so than perhaps a more distant organization, to make the best decisions.

Mr Spina: Do you think your appointment would enhance, perhaps, opportunities for northern Ontario?

Mr Sampson: Not necessarily. I would hope being a representative on the Trillium board from northern Ontario will contribute to the credibility of the Trillium Foundation in ensuring that there's fair distribution of funds and fair responses to requests that emanate from northern Ontario. But again, I would be governed by the criteria that the Trillium Foundation establishes and if an organization from northern Ontario does not meet that criteria, then my role would be to make sure that they're informed about the reasons and what criterion that had to be addressed wasn't addressed.

Mr Spina: The only thing I have to add is that I don't think any of us has to be embarrassed by being a member of any party, whether it's NDP, Liberal or Conservative. Thank you for coming forward.

The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from the government caucus? No. Mr Sampson, thank you for appearing before the committee.

Mr Sampson: Thank you very much.

1120

JAN WESTCOTT

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and third party: Jan Westcott, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.

The Vice-Chair: We proceed to our final intended appointee for today. We'll call Jan Westcott to come forward, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors. Welcome to the committee. As with the others, we'll give you an opportunity to make any opening comments that you may want to make and then we'll start questions again from the Liberal caucus.

Mr Jan Westcott: Thank you very much. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. It's quite an honour to be considered for an appointment to the Trillium Foundation and I'm looking forward to making a contribution to the work of that organization.

I believe that I bring to the position a solid mix of business -- yes, "business" -- volunteer and public policy experience that I think I've gained over many years. Some of you may know me from my work in the Ontario brewing industry or as the former head of the Wine Council of Ontario, others perhaps from my days in the government during the 1970s.

In addition to those roles, I have extensive volunteer experience in several charitable and community organizations, particularly in the environmental field. I had been a director of Earth Day Canada since 1993 and I served on the board committee of that organization that was tasked with creating a new vision and strategic plan for the organization as well as sorting out both its financial situation and developing a more secure funding base in a period when reliance on government was diminishing and that organization, along with many others, had to find other sources.

In 1996 I was elected to the board of directors of the Recycling Council of Ontario where I participated in many activities, not the least of which is the Ontario Waste Minimization Awards. These are important because they play a critical role in recognizing and publicizing the work that businesses, municipalities and environmental and community groups are doing to reduce the amount of waste that's generated.

Shortly after I joined the RCO board I was one of the proponents and originators of the RCO's involvement in trying to bring all of the diverse interests to the table to try and sort out both the long-term and the short-term issues around solid waste management. I'm quite proud to say that since that time about two years ago, I have served on the RCO roles and responsibilities, both on the steering committee and on the working group, to try and develop waste management options for the province, municipalities and the public to consider and think about.

I've had some experience with a number of local, community-level environmental groups, helping them to try to address specific local issues of concern to their communities. At different times, I have had volunteer experience with the Salvation Army, the Boy Scouts, and as a canvasser for the Kidney Foundation. I think these experiences have acquainted me with the types of challenges that are faced by public bodies such as the Trillium Foundation and equipped me to assist the foundation in achieving the goals it has set out.

Mr Cullen: Thank you, Mr Westcott, for coming before us today. I've looked over your CV. You've heard our questions earlier about the arm's-length relationship with this government in terms of the Trillium Foundation. I don't think you have an arm's-length relationship with this government, do you?

Mr Westcott: Let's be candid. I've been a Conservative all my life. I think I'm pretty well known in that capacity. I have had the opportunity and in fact a lot of enjoyment in working with quite a series of different governments and have formed some pretty good working relationships over the years with different governments.

I think the trick in all of this is to bring a professional approach to these things, to recognize what your base is but also be objective, and I think I can do that. On some of the other boards I get appointed to, sometimes people are reluctant to look at you because in fact you have relationships with the government. Some of the things I do are from time to time critical of the government, this government and other governments. It's part of the process.

Mr Cullen: No one is doubting the skills you bring; it's just the issue of the politicization of the Trillium board. Here you are basically a CEO of the Brewers of Ontario, a spokesperson for the Beer Store retailing and distribution system; you're a lobbyist for that organization with the government. You have deep ties with both the party and the government. The issue comes back to the notion of arm's-length.

Here we have the Trillium Foundation, whose finances are going to be enhanced tremendously by the redirection of some of the gambling money -- not all, but some of it -- towards Trillium. It's going to be looking at not only social services but recreation, sports, arts, the environment, in terms of applications. These are all time-limited applications; they are to avoid long-term relationships. So there are going to be a ton and a half of organizations coming through every year.

Obviously the government has an attitude, a predisposition, with respect to all this. By definition, you're not arm's-length. How do we deal with that? How do we ensure that indeed the very skills that make you so extremely critical, to use your own words, to this government aren't going to continue to be used so by the government in this position?

Mr Westcott: I don't think so. The way I would answer that is that when I go in to sit as a member of the board of directors, I'm going in as Jan Westcott. I live in Oakville. I have a family. I have a couple of kids. I look at these issues like everybody else. I come from a family of nine children. I'm part of my community. I think I bring a perspective and work very hard to bring that perspective to my dealings. As I said, I try to be as professional as I can be. We are all shaped by our backgrounds and some of the things we believe, and I accept that, but I think I will be able to bring an objective point of view as an individual and look at the criteria that have been established by the foundation.

I've had an opportunity to look at some of the things they have been doing over the past couple of years. It's a pretty impressive group of people. They have a very clear mission and clear vision. I think I'd like to try to make a contribution to that. It won't be perfect, but it will be a voice that reflects my background, where I live, and my values. As I said, it's no different than if people ask me about the alcohol business. The reality is that I have two small kids, and I have exactly the same concerns and issues that everybody else out there has around a number of these issues.

Mr Cullen: Let's just take an example I'm very familiar with, which is the community care access centre in Ottawa, which receives government funding and didn't get sufficient funding. A number of the charities whose clients need home care services are currently lobbying the government for additional funding. They've gone public with this because they're trying to make sure that everyone is aware of the issues. Muscular dystrophy, heart and stroke and the cancer society have all gone out publicly and said: "We have a deficiency here. Minister, please provide us with the funding." They've gone very public. They're trying to use the democratic process.

What happens to you when you get a phone call from the Minister of Health's assistant who wants to talk to you about some of the applications coming forward at Trillium?

Mr Westcott: If we're going to be truly at arm's length, then that would be an inappropriate communication.

Mr Cullen: You would expect that as a member of Trillium, you would not be returning those phone calls?

Mr Westcott: I would expect that other people would respect the independence of the board of directors and, yes, my position, and not put me in a position like that. If put in that position, I would take the view that this would be someone inappropriate to have those discussions with. At the same time, it's conceivable and I do understand that the board members play a pretty significant role in looking at the grant applications and getting to know the people and the organizations, and that's encouraged. So I guess it's a tough call in terms of how information is brought to the table. But if I was being called to sway my point of view, I think that would be inappropriate.

Mr Cullen: But you're a lobbyist -- for a reputable organization, not a problem, but a lobbyist for the Brewers of Ontario. How would you know that that phone call is coming from -- someone's called from the minister's office. You don't know that; the message is there. You're going to call them back, and already you're involved in that conversation. You're going to say, "Sorry, we've got to separate these two things." Most political assistants don't separate those things. They like leverage, you know, and you're a lobbyist.

Mr Westcott: I guess that's part of what comes with experience. I appreciate that. There are days occasionally when you have to tell people that what they're asking you and what they're proposing is not appropriate, and I've had to do that a few times in my life. It just comes with the territory. I think I'm capable of making those decisions. Again, no one's perfect. I won't make every right decision, but on balance I think my experience will help me handle those kinds of circumstances.

Mr Cullen: You can appreciate our perspective, though --

Mr Westcott: Absolutely.

Mr Cullen: -- with the politicization of the foundation, your deep connections with this government, previous governments, this party, the situation. There's the whole perception that's out there, and that is indeed for us a problem.

Mr Westcott: I understand that. I think it's also fair to point out, though, with the deep relationships that you refer to, that I have many deep relationships on all sides of the House. I have many good friendships and, as I say, long-term relationships with many people in the public service, both elected and on the staff side. I think it's always a question of sorting out your professional responsibilities from your personal relationships and your interests.

Mr Gravelle: Just one question, if I may. It's my understanding that all the members whose terms have expired are not being reappointed, and it does appear there will be all new appointees. What are your feelings on that in terms of any board, especially a board as significant as the Trillium Foundation? As you know, the board members play a very significant role. It's not simply advisory, literally. Do you think it's unusual or strange to have a board that's completely reconstituted in terms of its members, and should there be perhaps some transition involved here?

1130

Mr Westcott: It certainly helps, there's no question, and I won't deny that. I've had experience coming into the Earth Day board when virtually there was only one continuing member, and it posed some challenges.

The encouraging thing, from what I've understood from the Trillium Foundation, is that in addition to the board of directors, it's the type of organization that seems to engender a lot of continuing interest in volunteering your services to the organization. So even though some of those directors, a couple of whom I've met recently, are no longer on the board of directors, the fact is that when they were talking to me, they see a continuing role for themselves in participating in the organization and helping to make decisions and to bring things forward. In other organizations it may be more of an issue. I think it may be less of an issue here because of that kind of interest in continuing to volunteer. I had a chance to speak to an older gentlemen -- I can't remember his name -- who was going off the board. He does not see his activities in terms of the Trillium Foundation decreasing. In fact, he thinks they're going to continue pretty much the way they are; he just won't be formally on the board. I think that's pretty good.

The other comment I would make is that the staff is pretty impressive. I think they've done some great work. In the best organizations, it's really always a question of who is leading who. It's kind of chicken and egg. If you've got a great staff that does good work, that's got a pretty clear mission and a good idea where they think they're going --

Mr Gravelle: A reduced staff, of course.

Mr Westcott: I wasn't aware of that.

Mr Gravelle: In terms of the funding cuts, some of the staff have been -- there have been some staff cutbacks in terms of the foundation.

May I have one more? I think it's important to state the concerns that we've expressed, and the government members I think are irritated by --

The Vice-Chair: Less than a minute, Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: Okay. It's not personal. You were very clear in terms of what your response would be if there was inappropriate behaviour by other people. But having said that, if you have a board that is made up of a number of people who perhaps share the same political philosophy, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that, even if it's not specific, there can be a sense of: "This is the direction we want you to go in. These are the kinds of things we want." Do you appreciate that concern?

I can't tell you that I know the entire makeup, but when you see a board being done like this, I think everybody would agree that members from all political parties have every right to be involved in every agency in the province.

Mr Westcott: I do appreciate the concern. Let me interpret it another way. Let me take that as a challenge and make sure that the concern you have isn't reflected by the way we operate and the way we behave. I think that's an understandable issue.

Ironically, in every political party, the world outside tends to see political parties and partisans as being somewhat homogeneous. You gentlemen know that is absolutely not the case. You put five Liberals, five Tories and five NDP in the room, and they are distinct individuals with different perspectives. In my own party there are different factions, and a number of us are associated with respective points of view. So I would take that as a challenge and say that the concern is appreciated and we'll have to work hard to make sure we don't give you any grounds for concern.

Mr Spina: Mr Westcott, thank you for coming forward and being straightforward in your responses, particularly those that perhaps challenged your integrity. I think the fact that you were a political staffer at one point gives you that unique capability of discerning when an impropriety can surface.

I just want to draw to the attention of the opposition members that in almost three years of government, this government has not had one cabinet resignation, whereas the other two had some significant ones because of what Mr Cullen actually said, where a minister would call somebody and try to micromanage an issue. That's the reason why those ministers had to resign. This government has been completely intact in the integrity of its ministers. I'm pleased to be able to say that.

You have some considerable experience in communications from before. Not a lot, I think, is known by the public about the Trillium Foundation and what happens with all the cash that comes in from OLC and now other sources. Is this a situation that we should be making better known to the charities of Ontario?

Mr Westcott: I think so, and not for the reason that it's nice to be loved, although it is nice to be loved. Set that aside. All organizations and institutions want to be loved. I think the reason the public needs to know and understand it better is that sometimes you deny access to a funding opportunity because people don't know. The trick is to communicate what it is, what it's doing, what it's supposed to be doing, so that the widest number of people feel entitled -- and that's the word I would use, "entitled" -- to come forward and say: "Here's what we're doing. We think it's worthy of support. Consider our application, consider our request under whatever program." So from that point of view, communications are very important.

In my own life, I think that when you're not successful, it's because you haven't educated people, you haven't given them enough of the facts, they don't know enough. If you can give people information, I'm a strong believer that you really are empowering them to act and that they will act.

I think that's an area that's worthy of a considerable amount of focus. It's all well and good for people to sit in Toronto and assume that everybody all over the province can do that. That may not always be the case. I think it's important to work hard to communicate what it is, what it is supposed to be doing and encourage people to come forward.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you for coming forward and letting your name stand on this. It's always marvellous to have people like yourself with your kind of background come forward.

In following up on some of your approaches, as being a well-known Conservative, being a representative of the brewing industry, it must have given you great pause in 1985 when you found yourself facing a Liberal government and five years later finding yourself facing an NDP government.

Having come from that trade association business myself, did you really notice much of a difference in dealing with those governments?

Mr Westcott: No, and in fact I've been quite outspoken in reminding everybody that people are people. To be fair, I would say that while I think I've always had pretty good relationships all around, it was really interesting the extent to which you could develop very solid working relationships and quite productive relationships.

Let's make no mistake: In the 1980s, on behalf of the industries I represented, I think our industries, and for the good of the province, made a lot of progress. Similarly, in the 1990s, when I was representing the brewing industry in Ontario, which is a very large, value-added business in Ontario, I made a lot of progress in managing the opening of a market with a different government.

I think you have to be candid and provide as much information as possible. The right decisions aren't always made, but by and large it's what's made the job interesting and at some times exciting. No, we don't always agree on everything. We don't always agree with the existing government on everything.

Mr Chudleigh: Perhaps it comes down to good management and good judgement. I think you have a strong track record in that regard and I look forward to your representation on the Trillium board.

1140

Mr Grimmett: Just very briefly, Mr Westcott, I notice from the material we have that you have been active in some environmental organizations. It's been commented several times today that the Trillium Foundation is moving into a new role and some expanding revenues in terms of raising money through new initiatives. Do you see an opportunity for some environmental organizations to possibly access some revenue in the new role of the Trillium board?

Mr Westcott: I do. One of the things I have been very outspoken about is the opportunities. Many people in business think environment is a cost. What I've been going around, in the last couple of years, trying to explain to people is that environment isn't a cost, it's a tremendous opportunity for your business. Using the brewing industry's experience as an example, trying to talk about that, I think one of the things I'd like to see and that Trillium seems to be quite interested in doing is crossing different kinds of goals. So it's very important to have community-based environmental groups that are looking at specific issues in their communities.

I think there's an opportunity to link that with economic development that looks at creating jobs, in many cases what I call entry-level jobs in different kinds of things. I think there's an opportunity to link that with some training for kids. I have a 16-year-old and a 13-year-old, and they say, "What am I going to do when I grow up?" It would be nice if there are opportunities for them in Oakville and Burlington and Mississauga out where I live, and not all in larger environmental organizations centralized in Toronto.

I think there are some good opportunities to look for situations where you can accomplish some of those things together, because they are not mutually exclusive and I believe very strongly in that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Westcott. That concludes the questions for you.

We are then able to go back, committee members, to deal with concurrence for Margaret Munnoch.

Mr Grimmett: I so move.

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion?

Mr Stewart: A recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair: We have some discussion first.

Mr Gravelle: Mrs Munnoch is obviously an individual who has had a great deal of experience in municipal government and in her community, and is someone who expressed her strong sense or strong belief that she could take on this position and operate in a very objective fashion. But I think it's important for us to note that regardless of what each of these individuals has told us -- in this case, Mrs Munnoch -- I think there are some great concerns about the fact that the Ontario Trillium Foundation has been in some ways an extraordinarily non-partisan group and very much a non-political organization and there does seem to be an attempt by the government to put a number of people on the board of the foundation who are sensitive to the position they've taken.

The fact is that this government is, I think probably all will acknowledge, far more aggressive in terms of the approaches they have taken and aggressive in terms of the way they wish to fund the organization. I think ultimately the concerns are that, although members from all political parties certainly have every right to be on it, this politicization of the Trillium Foundation, or what may be, is enough for me to register my concern and indeed not to support Mrs Munnoch's appointment.

I think our caucus feels that way. Again, it's not in any way a personal reference. I hope that the remarks she made and the others made will be the case, but in light of our great concern about this particular foundation and the new funding that will be coming forward, we feel there needs to be some objection expressed to the appointments, the fact that previous board members have not been reappointed. We won't be supporting this recommendation.

Mr Spina: I can't let this go, but they obviously will not either. The fact remains that nothing is absolutely, totally independent in this province as long as you have political parties that govern. That's the very nature of our system. When Liberals were in power, they clearly appointed Liberals or Liberal associates and Liberal friends. The NDP did the same thing.

I reiterate the point I made earlier, and it's what Mr Marchese said, that this is an open process. The NDP made it an open process. None of us, of all parties, should be embarrassed about our affiliation with any particular party or embarrassed by it. I'm pleased that these people are honest and straightforward in admitting either their current or past association. I think that's the fundamental difference between the pork barrel patronage appointments from 10 years ago under David Peterson versus the process that's in place now. I appreciate the comments Mr Gravelle made about the actual talents and qualifications and skill sets that not only Mrs Munnoch but the other two members also bring to the table.

Mr Cullen: We know that the skills people bring here are good skills. The issue, as we have said time and again, is the politicization, not simply patronage, because we understand how the system works.

I have to say that before I got elected here I was for many years involved at the municipal level in my community. With the election of this government, agencies that had been doing the work -- remember this whole issue of governments cutting back and the volunteer sector filling in -- a lot of social service agencies, a lot of agencies that we would call charities that have clients who require needs that government wasn't able to deal with -- with the series of government cutbacks the message became very clear from this government: "Don't talk about it. Don't try and lobby about it. You are lucky to have your funding today. You say something and you may lose that funding tomorrow." So what's happening now is --

Mr Spina: Those are your words.

Mr Cullen: No, I'm sorry, these come from the agencies themselves out in the street in my community. I'm sitting here listening to this stuff, and these are people I work with who have worked with many governments, who have been there for many years dealing with the previous governments -- I won't say all 42 years of the previous governments, but whatever.

The point comes out that here we have appointments, and there are good people to appoint from every party; they don't reside in any one party. It's the whole issue of politicization. When very strong Tories are being appointed by a government that has not shied away from using political intimidation to get its ends, then we have to object. This is supposed to be an arm's-length, standalone operation taking money -- of course, we won't talk about where that money comes from; that's another story -- and doling it out to these groups that have to come by year after year. Year after year they have to come forward, and if they haven't been good this year: "We have so many other people to look after. Goodbye." It's that kind of blackmail that has been going on for the past two and a half years in my community that I know about.

Interjection.

Mr Cullen: Don't tell me that's bullshit, sir. That is a fact.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Cullen, Mr Spina, please, let's watch the tenor of the language used.

Mr Spina: Could I ask the member to withdraw the word "blackmail," please? I think that's unparliamentary.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, I was going to suggest that also, Mr Cullen. That gets slightly beyond the border of what's allowed as parliamentary language.

Mr Cullen: In terms of the parliamentary rules of this committee, certainly, but the fact still remains and the fact continues here with the politicization of the Trillium Foundation. That is unfortunate.

The Vice-Chair: Further discussion? We'll proceed to a vote on concurrence in the appointment of Margaret Munnoch.

Ayes

Chudleigh, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Spina, Stewart.

Nays

Cullen, Gravelle.

The Vice-Chair: That's carried.

Dealing with Robert L. Sampson, is there a motion?

Mr Grimmett: I so move.

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion?

Mr Gravelle: Just very quickly, I think it's important to make the point that Mr Sampson obviously is an individual of great abilities and background, but in terms of his relationship with the Premier there are some concerns.

It's important to state that the concern is not so much with the individuals as it is with the history of this government. We're more concerned with what behaviour the government itself may show towards the people who are appointed to this board, and the very great need for a rigorous arm's-length relationship for the Trillium Foundation is more important than ever as a result of some of the changes. This compels us to express this concern, not so much because of the individuals themselves, who have expressed themselves very well in terms of their absolute desire and ability to be objective, but because of the government itself, which we fear may try to exert some influence in terms of some of the decisions. So we will not be supporting Mr Sampson's appointment either.

The Vice-Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Cullen: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Chudleigh, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Spina, Stewart.

Nays

Cullen, Gravelle.

The Vice-Chair: That's carried.

With respect to Mr Jan Westcott, is there a motion?

Mr Grimmett: I move that.

The Vice-Chair: Discussion? We'll proceed to a vote.

Mr Cullen: Recorded, please.

Ayes

Chudleigh, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Spina, Stewart.

Nays

Cullen, Gravelle.

The Vice-Chair: That's carried as well.

Committee members, thank you. That concludes our business for today. I would like to ask the subcommittee members to stay for a couple of minutes, just so we can sort out an item with respect to the next meeting.

Mr Cullen: When is that?

The Vice-Chair: That's the issue we'll have to sort out. With that, I'll have the committee stand adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1151.