INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
JAMES RAINFORTH
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 August 1997
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr James Rainforth
Mr Louis Zurini
Mr Howard Staff
Mr Frank Miller
Mr Norman Seabrook
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Frank Miclash (Kenora L)
Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Marilyn Churley (Riverdale ND)
Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Clerk / Greffière
Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0934 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Acting Chair (Mr Frank Miclash): Ladies and gentlemen, I call the committee meeting to order. I understand we have a number of reports we want to go through.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Just to make matters simple, I would move to amend the subcommittee report dated Thursday, June 26, by withdrawing the government request of Don Scott from the subcommittee report, and move the subcommittee report as amended.
The Acting Chair: Any discussion? Do we call for a vote?
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): It's okay. It's agreed.
The Acting Chair: Agreed.
And the subcommittee report regarding business dated Wednesday, July 2?
Mr Baird: Just to make matters easy, I would move the adoption of the subcommittee reports dated Wednesday, July 2, Wednesday, July 9, and Thursday, August 7.
The Acting Chair: Agreed? Agreed. Thank you.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
JAMES RAINFORTH
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: James Rainforth, intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: At this time I would like to move on to our appointments and first of all call James Rainforth. Thank you for being with us this morning. Do you wish to make an opening statement, sir?
Mr James Rainforth: Yes, I would, thank you. I would like to take a couple of minutes to give you a brief review of my background and my experience and why I think I should be a useful addition to the escarpment commission.
I have been in agriculture in one way or another all my life. I grew up on a farm. My formal post-high-school education has been degrees in agriculture from McGill University.
My employment has been in agriculture as well, with Agriculture Canada for a couple years in their research section, with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food for 17 or 18 years in various roles. In particular I was involved as a crops adviser, later as manager for the Ontario horticultural crops advisory service, and finally with the ministry as director of what's now the plant industry branch.
Following that experience, I worked and continue to work with the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers Marketing Board out of Vineland Station. My experience during that time of employment has included advice and guidance directly to farmers on crop management, the supervision of the Ontario horticultural advisory program and the supervision and direction of the soils and crop branch of the same ministry. Some of the highlights of that experience have included the responsibility for a couple of pieces of legislation, including the Grain Elevator Storage Act and the seeds and weeds act.
In my time with my current employers, the grape growers and the tender fruit growers, we operate under provincial legislation, the Farm Products Marketing Act and the plans and regulations of the individual boards.
I have been a long-time member of the Bruce Trail Association and continue to be a life member of the association. I have, during that time, been an active hiker on the Bruce Trail, so I know the escarpment quite intimately, at least in the southern portion of the escarpment.
I would conclude with those brief comments on my background.
The Acting Chair: We'll have some questions from the various caucuses, starting with Mr Gravelle.
0940
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Rainforth. You certainly express in your CV some understanding of the escarpment commission in terms of your activities and involvement with that. I'm curious about what your awareness is of the escarpment commission and the exact role it's supposed to play.
Mr Rainforth: I expect I have a lot to learn, but I think I have a passing knowledge of the plan and the mandate of the commission. I see the commission as being largely regulatory and an adviser to the government on the regulations of the plan. I see the commission as largely a regulatory role to carry out the mandate of the plan.
Mr Gravelle: Do you have a philosophy, though, in terms of -- would you see it as a crucial role? There is obviously a fair degree of controversy in terms of some of the appointments today. And what is your philosophy in terms of what your role would be as a member of the commission? Is there a focus you'd have or an area you'd be more concerned with than others in terms of, in essence, the competing interests?
Mr Rainforth: I expect I could describe myself as a moderate in many respects. The escarpment certainly has received some publicity and the escarpment commission has received some publicity which we all read about from time to time. I believe it is a resource in many ways. It's certainly a very important resource in terms of the agriculture I'm involved in. I think it's a resource as well for tourism and other natural resources.
I see the management of the escarpment as use for all, but certainly not to be abused by anybody. That sums it up. That's the best I can do on that one.
Mr Gravelle: Do you have a sense of how that can be balanced?
Mr Rainforth: I think the current plan and the mandate of the commission probably provide the guidelines for how that can be balanced. Like other new appointees, I expect I'll know more about that as time progresses, but I believe the plan is the framework, and the commissioners, in my personal opinion, will be there to follow the mandate.
Mr Gravelle: There have been some rather severe budget cuts to the commission, as you probably are aware. Do you have any sense of in what way that affects the operation of the commission?
Mr Rainforth: It probably will make it leaner and meaner, but that's not a foreign philosophy to any of us. I think we've all experienced budget cuts, either directly or indirectly, doing more with less, so I'm confident the commission can carry out its mandate with its restriction on budgets.
Mr Gravelle: The responsibility for the commission has moved to the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is again a very controversial move. I'm sure we'd all be curious as to your opinion on that. Many of us think that's the wrong move. It's important to get your perspective, as an intended appointee.
Mr Rainforth: I said earlier that I believe the escarpment is a resource. Natural resources as the ministry responsible for the escarpment plan and commission may be, in my estimation, as good a fit as where it was before.
Mr Gravelle: A better fit?
Mr Rainforth: Not worse; not better. I'm not sure. I would suggest, though, that it's probably as good. I see no reason why the activities and mandate of the commission and the protection of the escarpment shouldn't be as well served under natural resources as under environment. I believe in the past the commission has been under different ministries from time to time. I think it will still be able to function as intended under natural resources.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Thank you for coming today. You've told the committee what you understand the role of the commission to be and also what you believe your role as a commissioner will be. I wonder if you can answer this: There have been a number of suggestions over the years, and certainly in the act itself it says clearly that at some point the regulatory control of the escarpment should or could move to municipalities. Do you have a view as to whether the control of development on the escarpment should remain in the hands of the commission or should be devolved to municipalities?
Mr Rainforth: I think moderation may be the answer. I'm sure the municipalities would like more involvement in the planning process as it relates to the escarpment. Perhaps there's a good reason for that. I think the accountability, though, would probably continue to lie with the commission and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Ms Martel: Would you be concerned, though, in terms of trying to protect the environment and ensure that the plan is actually enforced, that that would perhaps be difficult to do if divided up among 37 municipalities and eight regional governments and counties?
Mr Rainforth: I expect the local politicians in the municipalities have equal concerns about the wellbeing of not only the escarpment but the economy and the use of the escarpment as a resource. They all have a vested interest in that, so I don't necessarily see it as a step backwards.
Ms Martel: Do you get any sense that the municipalities want greater control and would actually like the act or the plan devolved to them?
Mr Rainforth: From my limited association with the municipalities in Niagara, I would say yes, they would like that.
Ms Martel: Obviously, it's public knowledge that the escarpment was designated by UNESCO. Do you support that designation?
Mr Rainforth: Yes, I do.
Ms Martel: Can you tell the committee why?
Mr Rainforth: I feel the escarpment is a pretty unique geological feature. As I indicated earlier, the escarpment in a sense is critical to the agriculture in the area I work in. That's not all to do with the cosmetics; it's to do with the geography in a broader sense. It is a very unique piece of land, and I think the designation it received, I believe in 1990, is appropriate and something we should consider and take as a serious and positive designation.
Ms Martel: So you would not want to see that revoked in any way, or be an advocate of that.
Mr Rainforth: No. I think we need to preserve certain parts of our uniqueness.
Ms Churley: Good morning. I would like to ask you a pretty broad, general question, but an important one. From your own experience in the area, what do you think is the biggest challenge facing the escarpment today, and therefore the commission?
Mr Rainforth: It probably has a number of challenges, but it's a pretty desirable, unique piece of property and it's good for many things, so I'm not surprised that there are a lot of demands on it. The demands on it are probably its biggest challenge.
Ms Churley: So the diverse interests, I believe is what you're saying; the challenge is that there are lots of differences of opinion and diverse interests on what should be done on the land.
Mr Rainforth: Yes. It's a nice place to live, for one thing, and it's a good recreation area. It has lots of resources which are valuable and necessary to the economy, so I expect that is the challenge. Perhaps that's where moderation is useful in its future.
0950
Ms Churley: What do you mean by "moderation"?
Mr Rainforth: Preserving it does not necessarily mean you don't use it. I think you use it wisely and you control the use of it so it's not abused, but I don't think you simply set it aside and never touch it.
Ms Churley: Do you have any views or thoughts on the whole area of the landowners' right to do what they want with their land and the right of the government, the people, to protect this land?
Mr Rainforth: I think the landowner is a very key person. They're the ones who made the investment and showed the wisdom or judgement or good luck, what have you, to be a landowner at this time. They're the ones who have put their money on the table, so to speak, so I don't think their interests can be underestimated. More realistically and practically, it's a matter of working with the landowners as opposed to dominating them or saying they don't have rights, because obviously they should have rights.
Ms Churley: Do you think that in the past the private landowners have not had enough rights in the process that's been followed under the commission?
Mr Rainforth: I'm not a landowner along the escarpment, so I'm not sure I'm the right one to answer that one. Maybe I'll pass on that one.
The Acting Chair: Mr Chudleigh, please.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I don't have any questions, but perhaps a comment. Mr Rainforth, you seem to have worked in both levels of government, federal and provincial, and balanced the interests of government policy with agricultural needs. In your current position I believe you balance the needs of the agricultural community with those of the consumers and processors in the Niagara Peninsula, a fair and balanced approach, and I would encourage you to bring that fair and balanced approach to your duties on the commission as well. Thank you very much for letting your name stand.
The Acting Chair: Anyone else? No?
Thank you very much, Mr Rainforth, for appearing before the committee this morning.
LOUIS ZURINI
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Louis Zurini, intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Our next appointee is Mr Zurini. Welcome to the committee. Do you wish to make an opening statement, sir?
Mr Louis Zurini: I would like your forgiveness and understanding. I'm going to be reading from a number of notes I've made.
I wanted to begin by highlighting the fact that the NEC has resided under the jurisdiction of several ministries, and I feel that where it resides currently, with the Ministry of Natural Resources, is in itself encouraging. The Niagara Escarpment is truly a natural resource to our province. It should be managed properly. It should not be squandered. Moreover, it is an asset which is unique to our part of the continent.
Since 1973, my family and I have had the pleasure to live in our home located on the Niagara Escarpment. For this, I and my family consider ourselves fortunate to have lived along with this immense, picturesque resource.
Throughout the last 27 years, I have primarily focused my business experience in a resource that some of us may take for granted: land and property. Being an immigrant to this country, I came from a part of Europe where land and property is precious, whereby properties were often not bought and sold, but ownership was transferred by way of inheritance.
I have, along with my wife of 35 years, been a broker of record for a medium-sized, full-service real estate firm with approximately 50 sales associates. As a complement to this business, I branched off into operating a commercial construction company where we built commercial-industrial warehousing in the Golden Horseshoe area. Another branch was also incorporated, which is primarily focused on land banking and land development. As a result, I would consider myself knowledgeable in the land development process and in dealing with various levels of government which are involved in the approval process.
My experience with regard to the Niagara Escarpment Commission comes in the way of representing purchasers and vendors of land on the Niagara Escarpment and adjacent land. I've taken part in presentations and fact-finding missions where I represented the purchase or the sale of NEC land. I've always found the staff to be very helpful and courteous.
I must admit at this time that my first appearance in front of the NEC was extremely intimidating and daunting, but after a few battle scars I became more comfortable with the notion of appearing in front of a panel. There are several misconceptions that I was guilty of having, and I feel the general public has some similar inaccuracies when it comes to the NEC.
As a potential member of the NEC, I would like to take on a role of ambassador, where I would endeavour to dispel many of the fallacies with regard to the 90% of applications which are approved rather than turned down. Many people feel the NEC and the war on drugs in the United States have the same philosophy: "Just say no." This notion is far-reaching. It is in the corridors of our city halls, which are part of the Niagara Escarpment, and most of all it is on the kitchen tables of the people who have a vested interest in the Niagara Escarpment because they spend their lives within the Niagara Escarpment. As a potential commissioner, I would like to make the NEC more user-friendly while maintaining and preserving its integrity.
I still believe the commission has a rightful place in Ontario. The Niagara Escarpment is a resource of immense value and at times controversy, and therefore effective management is necessary. Moreover, it should be preserved, yet a balance must be found to utilize it to the fullest potential with an eye towards the future. The province can, if I may use the term, profit from such a resource, especially if through conservation and preservation of this natural resource we will find a rightful place for tourism and recreation.
As I approach a new stage of my life, I begin to think of how I could begin to utilize my time to give back to a province which has given so much to me and my family. I thought of entering politics, but I could not get around the notion of the enormous amount of time and sacrifice that comes with the life of a politician. I commend politicians who give of themselves to their constituents and to the province as a whole.
After much thought, I came to the conclusion that serving on a board or commission was a possibility. On February 11, 1997, an article in the Hamilton Spectator appeared, stating that the NEC, through attrition, was hard pressed to have enough people to have a meeting, and also that there was not enough time devoted to research and public relations. After reading this article, I continued the process of applying for the position on the NEC because I felt I had something to contribute in the public relations sphere, and from a land use perspective as well.
I would definitely be honoured to serve the province in this capacity, and I sincerely hope to maintain the integrity of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and at the same time enhance its vision whereby future generations will continue to enjoy the benefits of living within this most precious resource.
Ms Churley: Thank you very much for your presentation and for agreeing to come in this morning to speak to us. I take it from the overall speech you just gave that you very strongly support the continuation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Zurini: If the legislation permits it. I always look towards the legislators as the actual body -- I am supposed to facilitate the mandate from them. Therefore, if the Legislature wants it to continue, I would like it to continue. I am not opinionated enough to say if it should continue or be disbanded. I would like to see it continue because it serves a very good purpose.
1000
Ms Churley: Do you have any views on what you think might happen if this government determined that it should be left to the individual municipalities?
Mr Zurini: No, I don't. I'm too early in the actual business of the Niagara Escarpment to know. I would like to be a member for a period of time to get my feet wet.
Ms Churley: So at this stage, because you're new to the process, I think what you're saying is you want to learn more before you make any personal comments about where you believe the future of the commission lies.
Mr Zurini: Yes, but as I said in my statement, I'd like the continuation, because that's the only body I know that is doing the job.
Ms Churley: Do you believe in the past it's been doing a good job? I know you're new to this, but in your thinking, would you like to see any kind of changes? Is there anything you think is a major challenge at this point?
Mr Zurini: I mentioned to you "user-friendly" in my speech.
Ms Churley: What do you mean by that?
Mr Zurini: I've sat on the escarpment already once, and the professional presenters, as they arrive, don't feel intimidated. They are professional planners, lawyers, engineers. But the individual who comes off the farm, the individual who owns a small piece of property does not have that experience. While everybody's making notes, sitting around, there are no friendly faces that are being the bridge for him, to make him feel at ease. That's what I mean by user-friendly.
Ms Martel: Thank you for coming today. You mentioned in your statement that 90% of the applications before the NEC have been approved. Certainly there's a whole different view out there, and I would argue a misconception, that it's very much the other way around, that the NEC staff do everything they can to block people's applications, make it difficult for development to occur etc. Do you want to expand more on what your experience has been with respect to the applications that have been approved and the process you've been involved in in dealing with NEC?
Mr Zurini: In preparing for a meeting and reading the five, six, seven pages that have been prepared, there are usually comments there of other bodies within the municipality: engineering, health, planners. These comments are there to help the NEC members understand if it is in the official plan, and if the city of Burlington -- I'm using the city of Burlington at this moment -- engineering department says, "We do not concur with this application; therefore we're rejecting it," if the health department is rejecting it and so on, it seems to be a clear choice that the NEC has at the end of it to very clearly reject it because it doesn't meet all the other criteria which are so important to the development of whatever is desired on that parcel of land.
Ms Martel: In terms of 90% of the applications being approved, that's a significant number. I would find it hard to believe the NEC is purposely trying to block development and that's all their staff is there to do.
Mr Zurini: Let me then expound a little. The applications that are approved usually are of a nature whereby the people are not asking for a brand-new home to be built. They're asking for a barn to be enlarged; they're asking for a ditch to be placed where it's necessary; they're asking for items that are not as grandiose as building a brand-new home or a number of homes -- or severances, for that matter. Severances are not under the control of the NEC; they're under the control of the townships themselves. That is the major hurdle that exists and will always exist.
The Acting Chair: Mr Baird, please.
Mr Baird: We would defer to our colleagues in the official opposition at this time.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm not normally a member of the committee that reviews these appointments, but I happen to believe the Niagara Escarpment Commission is among the most important commissions this province has for protecting a genuine natural asset, a world biosphere.
I know you're looking forward with anticipation to your participation on this commission. I heard you say something that concerned me a bit, and that was about moving jurisdiction for the Niagara Escarpment Commission from the Ministry of Environment, whose role and responsibility it is to protect the environment, to the Ministry of Natural Resources, who -- and I'll express a personal opinion, an observation over three different governments -- could not be accused of having foremost in its mind the protection of the environment. Do you not see some virtue in having the Niagara Escarpment Commission under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment if indeed the government wishes to see the Niagara Escarpment lands protected?
Mr Zurini: I begin by saying I concur with the second part of your question, but let me tell you that perhaps I am under the mistaken impression -- in looking at the present ministry, I also look towards the escarpment as a 725-mile park. Parks have been under this ministry for the past 100 years. Am I wrong in looking at the escarpment as a gigantic park?
Mr Bradley: I would concur that it's a gigantic park, one that should be protected by the Ministry of Environment. That's just my opinion. It's also been designated a world biosphere. Perhaps I was drifting at the time, but did you say in your remarks you supported its designation as a world biosphere?
Mr Zurini: Yes, sir.
Mr Bradley: That is encouraging as well, because there are some who wish to remove that as a designation, and I'm very concerned about that.
Do you believe the cuts made to the Ministry of Natural Resources in this case, and to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, could adversely affect the ability of the commission to do its job appropriately? There have been significant cuts made to both the Ministry of Natural Resources and to the Niagara Escarpment Commission itself in terms of its resources and staff.
Mr Zurini: I don't want to sound presumptuous in answering this question, but the area that more effort has to go into is in public relations and informing the general public about the Niagara Escarpment. I used the word "ambassador," and I would like very much to be that. I was just saying to my family that if a business card should be issued to me by the government as a commissioner, I would like to put on the business card my phone number; I would like to have people call me. I have reached a time in my life when privacy is not as important as it once was. Therefore, if I am to enter and dedicate myself to this project, which is becoming a commissioner, I would encourage that and I would like to help as much as I possibly could in that respect.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a statement more than a question. I've had the pleasure of knowing Mr Zurini for a number of years. Actually, he used to be a constituent of mine in my previous municipal ward in Hamilton. Certainly I'm encouraged by what he has said today. I think the balanced approach you bring is extremely important to the Niagara Escarpment Commission to ensure that the forces that will be pulling there are not going to be tilted totally pro-development and simply opening up the escarpment with a For Sale sign on it.
I'm encouraged by that and I certainly am pleased this appointment has come forward. These are the type of individuals we need on the escarpment commission, and I commend Mr Zurini for putting his name forward.
Mr Baird: Just a quick comment and question. I want to first thank you for taking the time to come before us.
This came up earlier. The Honourable Chris Hodgson, the Minister of Natural Resources, has been very clear that the NEC will continue to oversee planning decisions in the escarpment area. The NEC act will remain on the books. He has been very clear on that. Are you supportive of the overall objectives in the current NEC act?
Mr Zurini: Yes.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir, for appearing before the committee this morning.
1010
HOWARD STAFF
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party and official opposition party: Howard Staff, intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for being with us, Mr Staff. Do you wish to make an opening statement, sir?
Mr Howard Staff: Good morning, Mr Chairman and members. I'd like to address you this morning by starting off and, as we say down on the farm, giving you my pedigree papers.
I'm 54 years old. I've been engaged in agriculture all my life. I'm a full-time farmer. I'm married. I don't know which goes first; I think it's the married part. I have two children, both of whom are engaged full-time in agriculture: one works with me on the farm, in charge of our apple operation, and one is a full-time winemaker in the region of Niagara.
I farm approximately 1,600 to 1,800 acres in the area, depending on the year, and approximately 1,000 acres of that is in the Niagara Escarpment area. Our family farm goes back 170 years that the family has been in the same place. It's where we have our roots.
With that, I'd like to say that my public involvement in regional Niagara has been as chairman of the town of Lincoln committee of adjustment, and I was a founding member of the regional Niagara land division committee. Those two spanned a 10-year time.
I'm former chairman of the Jordan Historical Museum of the Twenty. My family has been on the board of directors since the inception of that in the early 50s, and still are on the board of directors.
I'm a former member and founding member of the St Catharines General Hospital Foundation, which as we know is a fund-raising arm of any hospital to fund the activities of new development.
I'm a former chair of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, which is an organization of 14,000 farmers who grow horticultural crops here in Ontario.
I'm a former member of both the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission.
I'm president of H.A. Staff Ltd, which was a corporation started by my grandfather some 60 years ago. I'm also president of Vineland Growers' Co-operative, which is the largest fruit shipping firm in the Niagara Peninsula, those two operations accounting for some $25 million worth of revenue in the peninsula per year.
I have just recently been appointed the agricultural fund-raising chair for the joint hospitals fund-raising drive in the region of Niagara, and I'm just completing my year as Grape King, which means this past year my vineyards were chosen as the finest vineyards in Ontario.
For interests, I like to fly. You might ask, "Where does flying fit into agriculture?" We plant wheat with an airplane; we get parts for our equipment with airplanes. It probably means that when we talk about the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I've spent more time over it than a lot of people have. I have flown the escarpment control area from one end to the other, I would say innumerable times, because living on the escarpment is, as I said earlier, part of our roots also.
I will end up with the one passion I do have at the present time. I'm a cancer survivor, being six years now deemed free of the disease, and I counsel other farmers in regional Niagara and their families as to what's going to happen to them when the dreaded news comes to them. On almost a weekly basis I'm out doing that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, sir. The Conservative caucus, please.
Mr Baird: We would defer at this time to our colleagues in the official opposition.
Mr Agostino: Mr Staff, thank you for allowing your name to stand for the commission. I have a couple of questions. One is in regard to trying to get a sense of the view of potential members on development that may or may not occur on the escarpment, and your approach to that.
I am aware of a proposal called Twenty Valley Estates that was on the lands of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. If I recall correctly the work we've done on this, the development was going to be large estate homes. It was a development that was opposed by people concerned about the environment, the preservation of the escarpment, agricultural land. The MOE reportedly came forward and said that development was to be denied and turned down. As a commissioner, would you support such a development as the Twenty Valley Estates development in Niagara, or would you oppose it?
Mr Staff: That's rather an unfair question, because I was called before that particular proposal to give evidence as to one small part of it, and that was my views on the agricultural capabilities of the land involved. That's why it was there. I didn't form any opinions as to the whole project other than a very cursory view. That view was that out of the 90-some acres that were involved, as I remember -- we're going back three years now -- 30 acres were going into development and 60-some acres were being deeded to the Ontario land heritage, or some type of designation like that. I thought that was a viable alternative to the whole land being left in private hands.
Mr Agostino: Are you still a member of the Niagara Escarpment Landowners Coalition?
Mr Staff: That organization hasn't met in the last two years. It's sort of a defunct organization.
Mr Agostino: When you were a member of the organization, it opposed UNESCO's world biosphere reserve designation for the escarpment. Do you still support that position? Do you believe the designation should remain and should be part of the escarpment, or do you support pushing for the removal of that designation by UNESCO?
Mr Staff: I think you're interpreting that in a different light than what it was intended to be. In the UNESCO designation, there are 10 points of reference for the area to encompass being brought under, and those 10 points of interest have to be addressed by the governing body. To date, only three of those points have been addressed by the escarpment commission. That's what the landowners' coalition was saying: Until you address all 10 of them, how can we implement it when it's only a part of the equation? That's where the group, at its last meeting, had left it.
Mr Agostino: Just one further question. When you look at the type of development that can or cannot occur on the Niagara Escarpment, do you believe things such as golf courses, commercial or industrial development should be acceptable on escarpment lands?
Mr Staff: The escarpment is a very huge area of land. If we had the map here in front of us just for regional Niagara, you'd find there are areas up to two miles away from the escarpment that come under its protection. When we talk about the actual escarpment face and that particular piece of land, I think it needs good protection.
But we have to look at what can happen, because in my own instance, where I have lands that are up to two miles away from the escarpment, I have to live there and I have to still be able to make a living there. That's one of the reasons I've tried to be on this commission. My name has been before this commission for 12 years, because I'm a major landowner. There have never been the interests of major landowners represented on the commission, to my knowledge. We have to balance what I as a person can do. I wonder whether two miles is the right designation. It's an area of concern, but then that's what the commission is for, to look at the rules.
Mr Agostino: Just about what you said, do you envision part of your role being to represent the interests of major landowners on the NEC?
Mr Staff: No, I just pointed that out as a for-instance, that landowners have to be represented. I think I can represent landowners. I think I can represent any point of view, if the arguments are made for it. That's part of the commission.
1020
Mr Bradley: I guess I should address you as "Your royal highness," because you're still the Ontario Grape King, until at least near the end of September. I think it gets to that question of a position we're all placed in, whether it's as elected politicians or on boards or commissions: Do you believe it could place you in a difficult conflict-of-interest position by being a landowner in that while we recognize the landowners would exempt themselves from consideration of their specific property, policy decisions that are made could benefit or not benefit people who own land on the escarpment? Do you believe that could make it very difficult for you to be able to carry out your responsibilities as a commissioner?
Mr Staff: I don't think there would be a difficulty on my part, because the act is a given, and it's up to the commission to work within it. I believe all sides of the coin have to be looked at. I'm not downplaying what the commission has done before, but I'm saying there is another side of the coin, lots of issues. I've been to many commission meetings and listened to the debate that took place, and in every one of those I felt there was something else that could be added. That's where I think my expertise would come through.
Mr Bradley: The Ministry of the Environment, in about 1989, I think it was, assumed responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment Commission because it was felt by the government of the day that the purpose of the Niagara Escarpment Commission was to protect the Niagara Escarpment lands, to preserve those lands, to, if I may use the word, conserve those lands. Subsequently, it was moved to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I have my own theories as to why. Do you believe the Ministry of Natural Resources can better be the ministry responsible for the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment lands than the Ministry of Environment?
Mr Staff: First of all, I'd have to say that it's far beyond me to comment on the wisdom of a government decision of the day.
Mr Bradley: I thought I could get you to do that.
Mr Staff: Being in the grape industry, I've had to work with politicians on a daily basis. My comment would be if that's the case, then why are all the parks under natural resources?
Mr Bradley: Good question.
Mr Staff: Our parks are there, the escarpment commission is there. I ask that question as a statement. After all, it's all in this province; it's all the same province. There's a set of guidelines for them to operate under. The mandate is to operate within the guidelines. Maybe the Ministry of Health should be the one to administer, but far be it from me to get into that.
Ms Churley: Thank you very much for coming in this morning. I'd like to try to get to the heart of some of the concerns that I'm sure you have heard expressed by now. I'll quote something back to you that I read in an article that you said: "I think (the commission) needs some balancing. It has been heavily weighted to the side of conservation." I'd like to understand better what you meant by that. If you believe that, what do you think has gone wrong in the past and what would you as the new commission do to change what you perceive or believe is unbalanced in the commission? How are you going to change things at the commission?
Mr Staff: First of all, I'm going to work as a commissioner within the commission. Being one person out of 17. I can't change it myself, but I would hope there may be two or three areas, one being the public perception and the public being able to access and get information and have information dispensed to them that is correct for the day involved.
The second thing would be an awareness of the public that, as I understand it, between 60% and 70% of the land involved is still private property. In my instance, the problems I'm having with people saying it's government land -- there's nothing I've seen, though maybe there is, that has gone out to try and reinforce what's public and what's private. The private people in my area -- and we're in a high-usage area -- are taking a real beating on people walking in and just doing whatever they want. I think there has to be a new awareness generated from the escarpment commission that a great deal of this area is private land. I don't know whether I can accomplish that or whether it's even within our mandate to do it. I don't see it within the mandate, but somewhere there has to be a new fostering of that.
Ms Churley: Just following up quickly on that, do you believe, then, that people should be able to do what they wish on their own private property, or do you believe there needs to be some intervention?
Mr Staff: Every one of us has restrictions put on us, whether it's by the municipality, whether it's by the region or whether it's by the provincial government. That is where the public consultation comes in, where the review of the escarpment commission comes in every five years, so the public can give their input as to what can and cannot be done.
Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Staff, for attending today. Can you outline to the committee what your association was with the Niagara Escarpment Landowners Coalition?
Mr Staff: I was a member for a number of years, and I believe the last year it was working I was a board member.
Ms Martel: Can you describe the mandate of the coalition to the committee?
Mr Staff: I can't give the mandate to you verbatim, but it is for the preservation of the escarpment. That's first off.
Ms Martel: What does it say about private land versus the balance with the escarpment plan and the commission?
Mr Staff: That private landowners should have a greater voice in what's going on or in helping to shape the rules that are there.
Ms Martel: Should that voice be superior to whatever the commission has in place in terms of the act and the need of the commissioners to apply the act and the plan?
Mr Staff: No, I don't think it should be superior. I think it should be on an equal basis.
Ms Martel: The letter that was written to the Canadian Commission for UNESCO was pretty clear. It said, "We wish to formally request the temporary suspension of the biosphere designation for the Niagara Escarpment planning area." As far as I know, that letter is still on the books; it has not been withdrawn. So as far as I can tell, the coalition would still like to see that.
Again, I ask you the question, do you support the designation of the escarpment by UNESCO as a biosphere reserve?
Mr Staff: If you read on in the rest of that and read all the preamble of it, rather than just taking the first sentence, you'd find out that we were requesting -- and I believe the words were there -- "temporary suspension" until all 10 points that are in the UNESCO mandate are addressed.
Ms Martel: But the request hasn't been withdrawn; there hasn't been a change. At this point --
Mr Staff: I still stand by that until the commission addresses all 10 issues. Why aren't we addressing the other seven? I ask you the question.
Ms Martel: So until the commission addresses the other ones, the designation should be temporarily withdrawn.
Mr Staff: But I still think there's nothing wrong with the UNESCO designation, and I stated that earlier. There's nothing wrong with it, providing all 10 points of interest are addressed.
Ms Martel: You said earlier that you wanted landowners to be represented on the commission. When I checked with the commission, my understanding was that in the last 20 years only three people who have been appointed have not been people who have lived in the escarpment and been people who have knowledge of the escarpment. So I'm curious as to your concern that you want landowners to be represented. If I look at who has been there, they have been people who have lived in the escarpment and have knowledge. Can you explain your view?
Mr Staff: I'm making the statement in the area of what I perceive, that there's a difference between the points of interest and points of view of someone who has a lot or a small retirement farm, as opposed to someone who has to make their living off practically every last acre involved within the escarpment area.
1030
The Acting Chair: One final question, Ms Martel.
Ms Martel: In terms of your appearance with respect to the Twenty Valley Estates residential subdivision, you said you had been there and you had to express a view. Were you subpoenaed to be there, or did you go to represent a particular party, and which one?
Mr Staff: I went to represent the landowners who were applying for the application. I had, up until about a year ago, a small agricultural consultative service, where I would go and look at the capabilities of a particular piece of land and advise people whether it was suitable for grain or whether it was suitable for growing grapes; in other words, looking at land and judging its capabilities and what can be done with it.
Ms Martel: So you were in support of the subdivision.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Martel.
Mr Baird: I appreciate your coming in to discuss your potential appointment with the committee.
I suppose one thing you have different from most of us around the table is that you actually live in the escarpment area. I represent a suburb of Ottawa, so I can tell you, before I was elected I didn't have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the NEC. In the House we've had two private members' resolutions on the issue, so I had to quickly try to acquaint myself with it. I supported both resolutions, one brought forward by Mr Bradley in support of the NEC and a separate one brought forward by Mr Skarica. I'm generally supportive of the role and mandate of the NEC.
One of the issues that has come up has been with respect to a balance. You mentioned there are 17 members on the board. Obviously, we wouldn't want all 17 to represent the same point of view; you want to strike a healthy balance between the rights of those folks who live there and of course the overall provincial policy objective of the commission. That's the whole purpose for its existence.
I wonder if you could discuss some of the common complaints and the perspective you would bring. I had heard that in the past there have been complaints of secrecy, perceived arrogance in dealings with the public by the NEC, inconsistencies in their decisions and long delays -- a lot of customer service issues which arise and have some residents in that area concerned. What sort of perspective would you bring to the 17-member board on that issue?
Mr Staff: First of all, I have to be appointed to be able to get to the inner workings of what's going on. But in dealing with the commission personally over a number of years, I had to ferret out the rules I could work under, rather than them being addressed to me. I find that disturbing. In other words, I wanted to build a new airplane hangar. They told me, "Just don't bother applying, because airplanes have nothing to do with the Niagara Escarpment." Yet I plant hundreds of acres a year with an airplane. Has the commission not caught up with what's going on out there in the field? I use that as a small example of how we have to get in touch with what's happening, and that's a very small example. But in making that application, I was the one who had to ferret out that if I built it over 300 feet away from the road I didn't need to apply, yet I was held up for weeks while we were getting through that. I had to read the whole act to be able to interpret it.
I don't think that's right. I think the commission is there to help people, not to just throw a roadblock up and say no.
Mr Baird: Just as a comment, I think if folks, even when they make an application and it's not favourably received, can feel it has been dealt with fairly, has been dealt with in a reasonable period of time and there's adequate reasoning for the decisions and some degree of consistency in them -- even those people who may disagree with the decision of the NEC would at least respect the process. That's certainly a concern that a good number of residents of the area have raised. I appreciate your time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Staff, for appearing before the committee this morning.
FRANK MILLER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Frank Miller, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Parks Board of Directors.
The Acting Chair: I'd like to call our next intended appointee, Mr Frank Miller. Good morning, Mr Miller, and welcome to the committee. Do you wish to make a few opening comments?
Mr Frank Miller: I'm glad I came a little early.
The Acting Chair: We're moving right along.
Mr Miller: It's a change to sit on this side of the table and to look at the rest of you. I was thinking back to my first term -- some of you are still in your first term, I assume -- and the first job I was given on a special committee of the government. It was with a former Premier of the province, Leslie Frost, who chose to be chairman of a committee to design the master plan for Algonquin Park. All of us who had a riding touching Algonquin Park, no matter what party we were in, were put on the committee so we'd have some input. I recall him saying that of all the things he could do in his last public task, he chose to work in the parks because of his love for them. It's safe to say I feel the same way.
I was lucky enough to serve in a number of ministries. You can't really like being health minister; I'm sure when you're Treasurer you have more friends on the opposition benches than you have on your own side; industry and trade is interesting; but natural resources is without a doubt the one ministry that was able to arouse my real passion and interest, because I always felt that things there really did matter to the province in the long run.
Among the things the Ministry of Natural Resources was responsible for, of course, were the parks. In my very brief time -- 18 months -- as minister, I tried very hard to see most of the parks we had. I saw quite a few of them. I see there are now 272. I don't know how many there were then. That's a lot of parks.
I really believe the parks are a vital part of our future, and that the mandate of the committee, which is basically to protect them, to plan for their development, to develop them and finally to manage them, is an important task. That's why I was very happy to have the opportunity to serve on this committee. I must admit I didn't know I was the chair until the order-in-council arrived, but I'm happy to be. All the material I read said the deputy minister was.
In my years, I had the opportunity to see some parks created and to see how sometimes the opportunity to get private land especially doesn't have a lot of lead time. With crown land you have a fair amount of lead time.
I'm thinking, for example, of Hardy Lake Provincial Park, where a man named Nelson Davis owned a prime piece of my riding, Muskoka, about 13,000 feet of lakeshore. I don't know anywhere else in Muskoka where anybody owned 13,000 feet of lakeshore. He had threatened to leave the province and take all his money if we ever tried to buy it for a park. Luckily -- I shouldn't say "luckily." He dove into his pool one day and didn't come up. Very quickly, the nature conservancy, in cooperation with the ministry, acquired that land. It's now, while not a developed park, a planned park and it's there for the future generations.
I can think of the Copeland forest, if some of you know that, which is about 50,000 acres of land just north of Barrie on Highway 400. Again, a family owned probably one of the few pieces of central Ontario that was accessible. It had all its roads closed, which is rare. It was well managed. All of a sudden, the family's cash need made it available as a park or a government property, and we bought that.
You can't always plan ahead and reserve, but I think we have a great park system which needs to be carefully managed in the interests of the future as well as the present, and I'm just delighted to have a chance to be considered.
1040
The Acting Chair: We'll start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Bradley: As they would say in the United States, welcome, Premier.
Mr Miller: In Canada they forget so fast.
Mr Bradley: They retain the titles, whether it's ambassador or governor or whatever it is. They still call them the title long after they've lost the position.
Mr Miller: Only the opposition does it for me.
Mr Bradley: In the provincial realm too you lose the title "honourable" after you lose the position.
Mr Miller: Unless you're a PC, and I didn't quite make it, except in the party sense.
Mr Bradley: That's right; neither of us is a privy councillor.
My question is on your overall view of parks in the province of Ontario -- I had to briefly absent myself from the committee -- in terms of whether you feel we are adequately served today or we should be searching out new areas of parkland in view of the significant increase in population in Ontario and -- I was going to say, "in view of the increase in leisure time," but I see somewhere that's changing, that we're all working harder again. What would your view be on that?
Mr Miller: I would guess if you asked the ministry staff or the parks staff, they probably have a whole series of places they'd like to create parks, but unlike most of the United States and many other countries, Ontario is still 84% or 85% crown land, which means we have ownership of a great deal of land where its future use is still within the control of government. I think that gives us a flexibility that very few other regimes have.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Good morning, Mr Premier. As you know, in recent years the government has been looking at ways to raise revenues in extraordinary fashions, from fees etc. One of the concerns many people have with the parks today is that they will become increasingly forced to look to their own revenues for support of the park system, perhaps at the expense of the public interest. Some of us are concerned that the provincial parks are part of our heritage and we really don't want the KOA-type facilities in our provincial parks. I wonder if you could give us some of your views on revenue from the parks and privatization of parks.
Mr Miller: I was looking at the five-year plan the ministry had in place for the parks, and it was saying that something like 43% of the cost of the parks is generated in income today and their objective is something like 60%. That may mean more ways of raising dollars that don't necessarily raise fees. I think in that plan they go into a number of alternatives, none of which I have tried to evaluate yet. I think it would be premature for me to jump to conclusions about whether they do or don't. The primary responsibility of a resource like that is that it be well maintained, well run and accessible. We have to keep that in mind as we look at the options that come before us.
The most important change has been the accounting procedures that permit the ministry to segregate the moneys that flow into the parks for future improvement of the parks. I have to say, in my years as Treasurer that was contrary to central policy, in that we said all moneys flowed into the general revenue fund and then budgets allocated spending. But that resulted, particularly in parks, in very silly manoeuvres. If ice cream cones sold well, you stopped selling ice cream cones because there was no money to buy ice cream. That really defeated its own purpose. I think they've taken some accounting steps that allow more ingenuity in the use of the moneys and therefore more incentive for the people in the parks to see that the increase is used to their benefit.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm a northern member and represent Algoma-Manitoulin. You made the comment that 84% or 85% of this province is crown land, and that's true. It often occurs to people from our part of the province that southern Ontario is a place where there needs to be more emphasis on parks in general. This is where there aren't great expanses of public land. I wonder what your view of that is. Certainly we have lots of opportunity in the north to do many more good things in terms of parks, but there is limited opportunity, at least from where I sit, in southern Ontario.
Mr Miller: Luckily, there are federal parks, there are provincial parks, there are municipal parks and there are conservation authorities. As you know, over the years conservation authorities broadened their mandates to provide a lot of recreational land in the name of flood control. I think some of that has been restricted; I'm not up to date.
It's important that land for recreational purposes be close enough so that the average person can get to it. I think that's the point. Polar Bear Provincial Park would be a great example. I think it had 62 visitors the last year I saw figures for it. It's a pretty hard place to get to. You can say it's a huge park, the biggest in the world or whatever it is, but the fact is it isn't much use to somebody who lives in the outskirts of Hamilton. One has to keep their needs in mind too.
Mr Michael Brown: Just to bring you up to date, you would know that the conservation authorities are under tremendous pressure these days.
Mr Miller: I'm aware.
Mr Michael Brown: Part of my thinking was that there may be opportunities the province may have in that the conservation authorities may be in positions where they will be selling land, maybe not in the provincial interest from a government's point of view.
Mr Miller: That's one I wouldn't want to cross until it happened.
Ms Churley: Thank you very much -- I'll follow my colleagues -- Premier. It's nice that we have this opportunity this morning to talk to you. We wanted you to come in -- and I realize this is new to you -- to talk a bit about the new direction of the government on the operation of parks.
As you know, the minister made an announcement, I believe last year, about operating provincial parks as a business. As has been pointed out, about 70% has been cut from conservation budgets. The Ministry of Natural Resources itself had huge budget cuts. About 2,107 jobs have gone, which all impact on our parks. The minister, to deal with these cuts in the parks area, talked about a more businesslike approach and that the parks have got to be able to start generating revenue.
We don't really know where all this is going at this point, but we do know that in part of the mandate, some of the functions include developing marketing strategies for the provincial parks, raising funds, employing a variety of entrepreneurial strategies. There's a real focus on raising revenues through the parks. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
But I do have some concerns. We don't know exactly where this is going, and there are some concerns about how high user fees should go and parks being turned perhaps too much into commercial entities to raise money, and concerns that if some smaller parks can't meet the bottom line they might be shut down.
I know that's a lot here, but I'm expressing some of the concerns about where we may be going in terms of the parks as we know them changing. I'd like to know what your views are on how this can be managed to raise necessary funds but without going overboard.
Mr Miller: I was both pleased and surprised, in reading my briefing material, to see that that change of direction and emphasis occurred while you were the government. I believe it was a policy in about 1994 or 1995 to increase the generation of revenues from the parks. I may be wrong there; that's the material I was given.
Ms Churley: You're wrong. There was a plan to raise some fees and generate more revenue, but it's this government's direction to make the big cuts and turn it more into a business plan.
Mr Miller: First of all, you can't have sat in the treasury and cut people's budgets without understanding that it's not a pleasant task, and it has many repercussions and forces all ministries to take steps they otherwise wouldn't take. That's a given. I have to live, as a person appointed by government, with those decisions. Certainly I can't do more than try to fight for those parts of the pie that we believe we need to cover our mandate, so I'm not going to try to get into policy. That's no longer my job. My job is to try to flesh out those objectives. That's what the committee is for. I don't really know the members of the committee, so I'm starting out with a fairly fresh approach to it. I would think they represent a wide spectrum of points of view. I hope they do.
Ms Churley: Not necessarily. We'll have to check into that for you.
1050
Mr Miller: Time alone will tell. I can tell you there are always disagreeing points of view when it comes to parks, in terms of how they should be used and how they should be kept. We'll be listening to those. Rather than jump to conclusions to say the plan is fixed, it isn't. My understanding is that's exactly what the minister wants the committee for: to take what they see as their objectives today and offer advice on them. Rather than prejudge what's happening, I'm hoping I'll listen to the points of view and, with the committee, offer the advice as we see it.
Ms Martel: Thank you for appearing here today. Part of the concern is that if you look over the number of parks that have been traditionally operated by the province, you wouldn't see that the vast majority of them have been self-sustaining. It's not the nature of provincial parks. You referenced Polar Bear; there's any number of other provincial parks in the province that have never broken even, nor would they ever break even, because of the number of visitors. But they have been protected for the public for various reasons.
My overwhelming concern is, given that the government's approach now is to make the parks pay and make them generate the revenue to be self-sufficient, the vast majority of them are not in a position to do that. You can sell baseball caps and cups and everything else you want at the park entrance, but at the end of the day the only way you're going to find the money to make up that shortfall is through fee increases. Let's face it: The people who use our parks in the province -- there's a lot of seniors, there's a lot of disabled people, there's a lot of families who use the parks because that's what they can afford. If we're looking at trying to sustain a number of parks that are not sustainable otherwise, I think we're talking about huge fee increases. I just don't see any other way you can raise that kind of money to make them self-sufficient.
Mr Miller: I don't think self-sufficiency was defined as an objective. I think 60% of the expenditure was set as the objective, if I recall the plan. I may not be accurate, because obviously I haven't been briefed by ministry staff, so I'm going on the basis of what I read. It's like any museum. I was commenting the other day about the steamer Segwun, which I've been associated with on the Muskoka lakes for years. It's probably one of the very rare museums that has a cash flow surplus. The very existence of those kinds of protected historic assets or whatever is that generally you have to contribute to their maintenance.
I can't see parks being a cash cow. I can see them becoming more efficient and still delivering the service. That's more the way I would like to think of the mandate. I hope there aren't any tests that a park has to close if it doesn't make money, that kind of thing. I'm saying that off the top of my head, but I would hope that was the case. In other words, we have to look at the value to the public, rather than the balance sheets specifically. What we have to do is see that the money that's spent is spent wisely. I hope we all would agree that should be our objective.
The Acting Chair: One last question, Ms Martel.
Ms Martel: So it would be your view that as chair, part of the direction you're going to give to the board, and I hope it's a significant part of the direction, is that parks have to continue to be accessible to the Ontario public and that will be a prime focus.
Mr Miller: Above protecting them, that's the second objective, isn't it, to have them both there and accessible?
You've been Minister of Natural Resources?
Ms Martel: Northern development.
Mr Miller: Well, you'd still hear the same fights about whether the government competes with small local industry or not, or small local campsites. In my area of Muskoka, which is heavily tourism-oriented, the complaints were always that the bargains were too good in the parks, as opposed to the prices the private sector had to charge. I don't know whether that's still the case, but that certainly was when I was around. They were always complaining that it was unfair competition because the best values, and of course the best sites, are in the parks. A balance is what we're trying to strike.
Mr Chudleigh: Premier Emeritus, nice to have you with us. Thank you very much for coming.
Mr Miller: I'm not sure about the "emeritus" part.
Mr Chudleigh: Ontario Parks is a huge facility. I think we have 14 million acres of parks in Ontario. Compared to agriculture, which represents perhaps a little more than nine million acres in Ontario, putting it in perspective, it is a huge mass of land to manage.
Earlier this year or late last year we set up this special-purpose account that the funds flow to, through the parks service, in order to reinvest those funds and avoid some of the accounting nightmares you've referred to earlier. This situation will impact on the board to bring in a balanced approach between preserving the natural heritage of our parks for the purposes the parks were originally set up for back in 1893, beginning with Algonquin Park I believe, and balance this against the commercialization which has been mentioned as a concern.
In moving the priority of the income flow from the low 40s as percentage of their income to 60%, do you see any problem in this balance in prioritizing where this money will come from? Are you comfortable with that policy objective, while still maintaining the natural heritage and the purposes of our parks system?
Mr Miller: I'm comfortable at this point. Until I face the realities and the problems of achieving that, I can't say whether it is a realistic objective or not. I have to take it as realistic until such time as I look at the causes and effects of trying to achieve it. If the committee felt it wasn't realistic, it would be our responsibility to give a different figure as an objective.
Mr Chudleigh: I would encourage you to do so.
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Good morning, Mr Premier. Thank you for coming.
I was struck by your one comment about people having ideas about the commercial aspects of the parks presently operating, whether they're good value or bad value and how they affect the economies in the small villages and towns around the park.
I represent the riding of Guelph, and I found it very interesting that in two years I've had several constituents come in, either associated with the university or just very avid park users themselves, who had ideas about how to make our parks better. I think in your role as chair of this new parks board, you will have some very interesting ideas come forward from constituents all across this province on how to make our parks better. They will bring a commercial aspect to it no doubt, but I'm quite confident the overwhelming motive behind most of those people coming forward will be how to enhance our parks and build on the heritage all of us appreciate from time to time.
I just wanted to make that note for you, that there's a tremendous asset out there waiting to be tapped and I think you'll hear from a lot of those people, and to say to you that of all the people who could have been chosen for this position, because of your unique ability of having visited probably almost every corner of this province at one time or other and having talked to such a broad number of constituents, of interests and talents, you are uniquely qualified to take on this task. I was quite struck by your comment about the contribution you could finally make to the province. I wish you every success in this.
The Acting Chair: Mr Premier, thank you for appearing before us.
Mr Miller: It's a pleasure.
The Acting Chair: I might at this time mention that we have a former minister, Ruth Grier, and a former member, Mel Swart, with us as well this morning. We have a very popular committee this morning. Again, thank you for being with us.
1100
NORMAN SEABROOK
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party and official opposition party: Norman Seabrook, intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Our next intended appointee is Mr Seabrook. Welcome to the committee. If you wish to make a few opening comments, we'd appreciate that, and then move on.
Mr Norman Seabrook: Thank you for the privilege of appearing here. I strongly feel this should have happened 23 years ago to every appointment. I think we should be not only qualified but known to be qualified, to sit on this commission.
I have a brief profile. You probably have a copy of it. I will simply read that as the basis of my ability to serve on the committee, if appointed.
Early last June I was advised by the Ministry of Natural Resources that I had been officially nominated as one of eight delegates to represent the community at large as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I was and am honoured by this nomination for an important public service, and I'm pleased to offer the following outline of my background, experience and qualifications in accepting it.
I'm a lifetime escarpment resident, and my family has been involved with escarpment conservation since 1853; almost half a century of personal commitment to sustainable escarpment development; a two-term elected councillor in an escarpment municipality. I'm an active member, or have been, and participated in 12 recognized community associations -- that's been updated to 17; lifetime connection with agricultural issues and rural affairs across Ontario. I was on the ARDA committee back in the 1960s and was appointed a delegate from the Ontario Farmers Union. I was a member and an instructor of local team sports for over 15 years. I had an association with the Boy Scouts of Canada as troop leader, group committee leader and district council from 1958 to 1975.
As a practising conservationist, I have been directly involved in private, public and commercial forest regeneration in the Niagara Escarpment plan area since the early 1940s, some 30 years before the plan area existed. During that time period, I also functioned as contract manager of several escarpment agricultural businesses based on sustainable organic farm practices. From 1982 to 1987, I was a field supervisor on federal and provincial conservation projects in western Canada, including rehabilitation of irrigation canals and Banff National Park maintenance. In 1993 and for several other years, I was an active member of the local chapter of the Ecological Farmers of Ontario.
This hands-on experience in good conservation practice has added to my knowledge and understanding of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, legislation with which I have been intimately familiar since its inception on June 6, 1973.
I believe this background reflects a long-term commitment to the concept of sustainable conservation practices, as well as a keen interest in blending natural and human needs in the Niagara Escarpment plan. I'm a long-term supporter of escarpment protection. I'm prepared to also endorse whatever procedures might more effectively and democratically implement the act in its entirety and in accordance with its original intent.
Education: 1941, public school honours graduate, followed by wartime family farm obligations; in 1949, I took a two-year course in training in diesel mechanics; in 1960, I did a three months' welding theory and practice course; in 1964, three months machine shop training; in 1985, I was involved in a six-month alternative energy study with Georgian College; in 1990, provincially sponsored training in landscape architecture.
Business experience: From 1946 to 1950, I was involved in harvesting, hauling and processing commercial hardwood timber. From 1951 to 1953, I was in livestock management as herdsman. From 1953 to 1958, I was involved in the operation of the water-powered feed mill on the escarpment and the sale and maintenance of that plan. From 1958 to 1961, I was operator-manager of a farm and forestry operation on the escarpment. From 1961 to 1994, I have been an owner-operator of a construction/landscape equipment and supply enterprise.
Achievements: I was instrumental in the creation of two community centres in our hamlet; I chaired the Georgian College seminars on the future of a specific escarpment area; I was chair of the local chapter of the Ontario Farmers Union for a time; I was appointed a participant in the discussions on the future ARDA programs in the 1960s; I am the current chair of the Grey County Historical Society, which is dedicated to heritage preservation.
Personally, I've been married to the same wife for 47 years. We have nine children -- eight living -- 17 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. In addition to that, my father of 92 years looks after his own affairs yet.
Interests include history, gardening, travel, family and sustainable land-use planning.
Comment: I was brought up to have regard and respect for the democratic system and related natural justice. It would seem the voice and political influence of Ontario's rural population has noticeably diminished and urbanization of the rural landscape has become more and more evident. Many full-time escarpment residents are distressed by an apparent trend towards urban-based planning and land use control of rural areas without advance consideration of, consultation with or input from the affected property owners.
In my view, elected or appointed public servants must be accountable for the decisions they make. Thus, as a Niagara Escarpment Commission member, I would be guided by the mandate of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act in its entirety, always ensuring that the mandate is administered in the best interests of the escarpment's principal stakeholders and the public at large.
The Acting Chair: We'll start with the NDP caucus.
Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Seabrook, for appearing. You are, as I take it, the chairperson of the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth.
Mr Seabrook: I have been.
Ms Martel: It says, "At present I am involved." I have a copy of your résumé in front of me, which was given to the committee. Can you tell us what the mandate of that association is?
Mr Seabrook: I have a flyer with me; I'll leave it with you. You can join if you wish. The title pretty well describes what it's about.
Ms Martel: On behalf of the association in 1995, you made a presentation at the Leading Edge 1995 conference, sponsored by the NEC. You said: "We question the legitimacy of the `biosphere reserve' designation." Do you still support that statement?
Mr Seabrook: At this time I haven't found the answers I've been looking for, and until I find those answers I'm not answering any more questions. I have some concern.
Ms Martel: You still question the legitimacy?
Mr Seabrook: No, I question the obligations that this country may have placed itself under in accepting that.
Ms Martel: In that respect, in an interview you had with CBC which aired July 19, the reporter said, "Seabrook would like to see the commission abolished, its planning authority turned over to local municipalities.... He's researching the UN document designating the escarpment a world biosphere reserve, a designation he suspects will lead to forced depopulations."
The quote from you is, "I think Canada is obligated to do whatever the UN tells them to do in this biosphere reserve. Agenda 21 also states that there will be a human exclusion zone. There's no doubt in the world that much of this area will not be populated down the road; that's the intention."
Do you really believe that is the intention behind the UN designation?
Mr Seabrook: I can't answer until I get direct answers from these people.
Ms Martel: From which people?
Mr Seabrook: UNESCO. I have to see the agreement that was signed and I have to understand what obligations there are before I can make any comment on the biosphere reserve. I said it's probably a good idea.
Ms Martel: You said, "There's no doubt in the world that much of this area," meaning the Niagara Escarpment, "will not be populated down the road; that's the intention." That's what you believe is the reason behind the designation?
Mr Seabrook: That appears to be the direction we're headed.
Ms Martel: In your presentation in 1995, the recommendation you made was to "terminate the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act." Do you still support that recommendation?
Mr Seabrook: Yes, but not at this time. You have to remember that the act called for the completion of the plan and reviews and the whole thing, and then it was to go back to the municipal area. I still support that, but this is not the time to do it because of restructuring at the local level and because I don't feel the commission has completed its mandate as set out in the act.
1110
Ms Martel: You said -- actually, this was the CBC interview again and this was just as of July 19 -- "Seabrook would like to see the commission abolished; its planning authority turned over to local municipalities." That was quite a recent comment. Is your view still the same as the comment you made on July 19?
Mr Seabrook: That's what the act calls for, but not until the plan is completed and ready to turn back. I'm a human being and I make mistakes. God knows I made one back in the 1960s: I voted NDP.
Ms Martel: Are you aware that the minister has said he has no plans to end the escarpment commission, and that the only way he would consider that is if a concerted effort were made by every municipality to take control? He also said that a lot of people are pleased with the way it's being managed right now. Do you agree with the minister's statement?
Mr Seabrook: Yes, I do.
Ms Martel: You have a bit of a contradiction, as I see it, Mr Seabrook, between some of the most recent public comments you've made and what you're saying to the committee today.
Mr Seabrook: I don't think so. That's your opinion, but it's not mine.
Ms Martel: Let me ask you another question. This is with respect to some more of the comments you made in 1995. You said, "Your continued reference, `the Niagara Escarpment is a continuous natural environment' must again be challenged!" Again a quote: "The notion that the escarpment is a continuous natural environment is inaccurate and is indeed a falsehood." Do you still believe those statements?
Mr Seabrook: The Niagara Escarpment was surveyed and settled in our area in 1840. If you tell me that's a natural environment, I will argue with you from here till doomsday.
Ms Martel: The phrase "natural environment" actually appears in the purpose which is outlined in the Niagara Escarpment plan. That says the purpose of the Niagara Escarpment plan "is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment...."
Mr Seabrook: That's section 2. If you read the rest of the act, you'll find out there's also great consideration to be given to the socioeconomic wellbeing of the area.
Ms Martel: But if I read the act, it also says that one of the responsibilities of the commissioner is to uphold the act. It says the role of the commission is to administer the plan. It seems to me that you have a fundamental disagreement with the purpose of the plan. I'm wondering how you as a commissioner can then uphold the plan.
Mr Seabrook: I can only refer to the act in terms of what the late Ivor McMullin said back in 1980, that in his opinion the act was poorly written. That was one of the little pieces of it that was poorly written. There were assumptions made in that act that are not accurate and there are assumptions in the plan that are not accurate. I see where they say "the largest continuous forested area in southern Ontario." The escarpment is not a continuos forested area.
Ms Martel: The act sets out specific things; the plan does. Your role as a commissioner is, as I see it, to support both the act and the plan and the continued existence of the commission itself. Are you prepared to do that?
Mr Seabrook: I'm prepared to act in the best interests of the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment.
Ms Martel: Can I ask you as well, have you ever had any involvement or association with a group called the Wise Use Movement in the United States?
Mr Seabrook: No.
Ms Martel: Can I ask you as well, at the time you put your name forward or had someone put your name forward for you, you had an application before the commission to exclude your property from the planning area. Is that correct?
Mr Seabrook: Yes, in 1991 -- in fact, I have the thing here. At that time the commission and staff had not given any reason to myself and others why the rural area should remain in the plan, so I asked to have mine taken out. Following that, the county of Grey made a presentation to the review to the same effect, so I put my proposal on hold. Six years later, lately, somebody has dug it out of the mud and said, "You've got a conflict of interest." I don't think I have.
It's unique that when I applied for a development permit to build a house and couldn't build it for a couple years, I had to go back and start over. They wouldn't acknowledge or renew my application. But when I have an application for a plan amendment, six years later, when it's convenient, it's dug up and shown as a conflict of interest.
Ms Martel: So you don't see it as a conflict that as a member of the same commission that would make a decision about whether or not to remove your property, you should still have that application? I know it's been withdrawn; it was withdrawn, after I raised it in the Legislature, within about 24 hours. But you didn't see, even at the time you applied, that there was a conflict of interest there?
Mr Seabrook: In my mind it was dead long before that. My house-building permit was dead.
The Acting Chair: Mr Baird, please.
Mr Baird: We would defer at this time to our colleagues in the official opposition.
Mr Bradley: In addition to your being a member of the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth and being involved with the presentation of a paper at the Leading Edge 1995 conference, I believe you have made comments that the escarpment preservation theme was overblown from the beginning, and as has been noted, you recommended the termination of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the legislation related to it. Your observation in the paper was, "What has occurred since 1973, (when the NEPD act was passed), is a continuing government takeover of the use of private property within an arbitrary plan area."
All of those seem to be statements which are in conflict with the purpose of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which is to protect the Niagara Escarpment from the kind of development we've seen in other jurisdictions where you have commercial, industrial, residential and other kinds of development that take away from its natural beauty. Do you still subscribe to those views?
Mr Seabrook: You've thrown quite a package out there. I can say I still subscribe to 50% of it; the rest I don't. The Niagara Escarpment in my opinion is a most valuable natural resource, but there's a lot more involved than a piece of rock. There's an aggregate industry, there's a forest industry, there's the tourist industry and there's the 90% occupation of human element. You've got to put this package together if you're going to make it work. You can't say this will be a continuous natural area. You can't say that. So I back up what I said pretty well all the way.
Mr Bradley: I take it from that, and tell me if I'm wrong, that there would be circumstances where commercial, industrial and subdivision development should take place on the Niagara Escarpment lands.
Mr Seabrook: Again you're throwing a big package at me, because some of it I would agree with and some of it I wouldn't. I do not in any way agree with rural subdivisions. The development of the aggregate industry has to be done with discretion, but always keep in mind that the users are the ones who are doing the bitching about where it's coming from.
Mr Bradley: You must be aware of this, no doubt: Did you support the moving of the jurisdiction for the Niagara Escarpment Commission from the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Honourable Norm Sterling to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Honourable Chris Hodgson? Did you support that? Do you think that's a wise thing to do?
Mr Seabrook: Absolutely. I look on the escarpment as one of the most valuable natural resources we have.
Mr Bradley: But if the Ministry of Environment's role is to protect the environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources doesn't necessarily have that role, because its clients in many cases are people who wish to exploit those natural resources. Do you not feel that if one wanted to preserve the Niagara Escarpment lands, it would be better to put them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment?
Mr Seabrook: Sir, you can make that distinction, but I do not.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe the designation of "world biosphere" by UNESCO should be maintained or do you think that should be removed?
Mr Seabrook: I wouldn't answer that until I had the answer myself.
Mr Bradley: You have never advocated that or suggested that at any time?
Mr Seabrook: Until I have learned what the obligations of this country and this province are to that commitment, I wouldn't pass an opinion on it.
Mr Bradley: Could you tell us how you became a member? Did you write a letter applying, or did someone approach you and say you should be a member?
Mr Seabrook: As a matter of interest, this is the third time I've been approached to be a member of the commission. The first time was back in 1978 or 1979, then again when the Liberals were in power. On both occasions my work was such that I couldn't commit myself to this task. These last couple of years I'm no longer carrying on with the work I was doing. I'm available, I have the knowledge, I have the background, and 25 years of my life, or maybe more, have been dedicated to the preservation of the escarpment. I would be a willing servant of the people.
1120
Mr Bradley: I understood you believed -- and I know you will correct me if I'm wrong, sir -- that the Niagara Escarpment land should really come under the jurisdiction of the municipalities.
Mr Seabrook: No. That's not what I have ever said. I've said the plan should be completed as set out in the act, then returned to the municipalities for control when that is suitable and they can accommodate it. That is what the act says and that's what I support.
Mr Bradley: Would you have a concern that if it were turned over to municipalities, it would be easier for people to get amendments to the plan to enable development? They know the local politicians, they're their friends, their neighbours, people they see at church, at the ballpark, at service clubs and so on. Just as we saw widespread severances being granted in Grey county and a great concern expressed about that, do you feel the same could be the case with Niagara Escarpment lands?
Mr Seabrook: If the plan were prepared as set out in the act, it would not be a concern to me.
Mr Agostino: One of the comments you made in the paper you presented at the conference was, "The appointed commission has at all times been stacked by members not representing the interest of the citizens on the escarpment." We were told earlier that the vast majority of appointees continue to be landowners and people on the escarpment. How do you suggest that the interests of the citizens on the escarpment have not been protected by the fact that most of them have been citizens of the escarpment? Whose interests are they protecting?
Mr Seabrook: The appointments from day one have not taken into consideration properly, in my opinion, the residents of the escarpment property owners. I wrote to the minister of the day in 1974 advising him of this fact. He wrote back and said, "You are adequately represented," which I knew not to be true. I don't know the figures, but from then until now there have been very few escarpment resident property owners sitting on that commission. They may be associated with the municipality but they're not escarpment residents.
Mr Agostino: Let's look at the numbers. If you look, and Ms Martel made reference to this earlier, that certainly is not the case.
I just want to go back to the issue of the abolition. I have a difficult time trying to understand why you'd want to be part of a commission that you don't believe should exist. Are you not condoning the existence and the ongoing work of that commission by saying, "I want to be on it," and at the same time advocating the abolition of the same body?
Mr Seabrook: The 23-year inadequacy of the commission's activity caused me in frustration to make that statement. The commission has not, in my opinion, completed the task set out in the act, and this would be the wrong time to terminate the commission due to other circumstances. That's the reason I guess you could say I backed up a little on the abolition of the commission.
Mr Agostino: Just to go back to the earlier point, you still believe that the commission you want to sit on should not exist and should be abolished at some time.
Mr Seabrook: In due course, as the act states.
Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much for coming in today, Mr Seabrook. You've stated today that you see the Niagara Escarpment as a unique geological formation. You say it's one of our most valuable natural resources. I take it from your comments that you feel there is a need for balance within the workings of the commission so all users have a seat at the table, as it were.
I've been interested in listening to the conversation. I think there are some definition problems between what you consider to be a natural environment and what perhaps some members of the opposition consider to be a natural environment. Those will be interesting to watch the fallout of.
Minister Hodgson has been clear, and he has stated on several occasions, that the Niagara Escarpment Commission will continue to operate and that the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act will remain on the books. In as clear terms as you can put it, do you agree with those two statements?
Mr Seabrook: Until such time as the act has been properly concluded, I totally agree.
Mr Baird: Thank you very much for coming in today. The Niagara Escarpment Commission has 17 members. Do you think it would be wise to have all those 17 members represent one viewpoint or do you think it would be good to have a whole spectrum of opinion?
Mr Seabrook: I have no objection to the composition the commission was set up with in the first place, but the exclusion in the selection process of resident escarpment property owners has been so obvious through the years, there has been no balance. That's why I said at the outset that I think this review should have taken place from day one, to ascertain the interests the commission is composed of, to make sure you had a balance. That's the only way you could be sure.
Mr Baird: It's been taken at the provincial level, through the development of the Niagara Escarpment planning act and the commission, that provincial interest has been deemed when it was created. The minister has said it's not only a policy of his but of the government's to maintain that and the act. However, the effect it has on the communities -- you obviously want a broad spectrum of opinion on the board so there is at least some input from the affected communities on the board.
Mr Seabrook: Yes.
Mr Baird: You mentioned earlier, and I just wanted to follow up on it, your long-standing interest in the commission and that you've been approached in the past to sit on it. Could you maybe just give us some background on that?
Mr Seabrook: I've been involved from day one. I was one of the people initially who took a close look at the act -- I shouldn't say it but I will -- a lot closer than the politicians who passed it looked at it. We had concerns from day one. I've been involved ever since. I was thinking, when I was coming down today, I've been to 400 or 500 meetings in between there somewhere all related to the Niagara Escarpment. I've been through that act from beginning to end many, many times. I've discussed it with more knowledgeable people and my opinions are not strictly my own They're based on research and others' observations as well.
Mr Baird: You mentioned in an earlier answer that you were approached in the 1970s and then the 1980s with respect to an appointment.
Mr Seabrook: Because of my ongoing involvement, they felt I should be on there as a representative. It wasn't possible at that time.
Mr Baird: This was under governments of other political parties. You mentioned it was also by a Liberal government.
Mr Seabrook: Yes.
Mr Baird: What year was that?
Mr Seabrook: Whenever the Liberals came into power, when Peterson became Premier.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Seabrook, for appearing before the committee.
At this time I would like to turn to the committee and look for motions for concurrence. The first one we'll deal with is looking for a motion for concurrence in the appointment of James Rainforth as an appointee as public-at-large member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Baird: I would move concurrence on the appointment of James Rainforth as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Debate? Discussion? Do we have concurrence?
Mr Baird: Could I get a recorded vote?
Ayes
Agostino, Baird, Chudleigh, Churley, Elliott, Ford, Gravelle, Martel, Preston, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Acting Chair: It's unanimous.
The next one we'll look at is a motion for concurrence in the appointment of Louis Zurini as appointee, public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Baird: I would move concurrence on the appointment of Louis Zurini as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Any debate? All those in favour?
Mr Baird: Could I ask for a recorded vote.
Ayes
Agostino, Baird, Chudleigh, Churley, Elliott, Ford, Gravelle, Martel, Preston, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Acting Chair: It's unanimous.
I'm looking for a motion for concurrence in the appointment of Howard Staff as an appointee as public-at-large member for the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Baird: I would move concurrence on the appointment of Howard Staff as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Debate?
Ms Martel: The New Democratic Party would not concur with the appointment. Do I have some time to speak to that, Mr Chair?
The Acting Chair: Yes, you do.
1130
Ms Martel: We continue to be very concerned that Mr Staff was associated with an organization, namely, the Niagara Escarpment Landowners Coalition, up to the time of its demise some two years ago, as he indicated, an organization which had taken the time and the opportunity to write to the Canadian High Commission requesting the temporary suspension of the UNESCO designation.
As Mr Staff put it to us this morning, they did that because they were concerned that some of the conditions had not been met by the commission and that designation should be withdrawn or suspended until such time as the conditions were met. The fact of the matter remains that this letter still appears in standing with the commission.
I think the majority of the public in Ontario were very pleased with the UNESCO designation and would not want to see anything happen to jeopardize our continuing to have that particular designation. I am very concerned about his affiliation with an organization that would have that as its premise and as its request, whether or not there were conditions they believe the commission hadn't met or whether or not the circumstances around all that were indeed the case. We cannot support the appointment of an individual who has been associated with a group that has had that particular affiliation and view.
Secondly, we are concerned with the fact that Mr Staff appeared as a consultant on behalf of a group of landowners who wanted to have a development and talked about the reasons why he did not believe that land was prime agricultural land, as he has every right to do as an individual. However, we do note that cabinet only several months ago, in dealing with an OMB decision, supported the Niagara Escarpment Commission's ruling in that particular case. Therefore, it would seem to us that Mr Staff and the group he represented at the time, the group of landowners who wanted the property development in question, had a very different view than cabinet and at the end of the day cabinet supported the commission. We find ourselves very concerned with the difference in opinion there with respect to what cabinet's final decision was.
For those two reasons, (a) the position that was taken with respect to Twenty Valley Estates and where cabinet ended up in relation to where Mr Staff was and (b) with respect to the issue around the temporary suspension of the UNESCO designation, we believe we cannot support this appointment.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): As to Mr Staff's situation as a consultant, he was asked in his own words what the soil would do. That in no way indicated he was in favour of the decision. As a matter of fact, he made a point of saying he was not in favour of or against the decision for the Twenty Valley Estates, which parallels -- Olson's lawyer does not have to believe in Olson; he does his job as a lawyer. Mr Staff did his job as a consultant. That in no way said he was either for or against the Twenty Valley Estates. He has no apparent argument with any cabinet decision; he just said what the soil would do.
Mr Baird: I listened with great interest to Mr Staff's presentation and the questions and answers. I found he showed very solid support for the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the act. Different opinions and views on the commission are necessary, as long as the overall objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the act remain intact.
This gentleman obviously knows a terrific amount about the escarpment. He's lived there for many years and has a strong background in the agricultural community, which is obviously a key stakeholder in the vicinity. I'm supportive of his nomination.
Ms Churley: Following up on my colleague the member for Sudbury East and the comments from Mr Preston, I'd like to clarify this: Mr Staff argued that the property in question wasn't prime fruitland. We have to be clear here. Unfortunately, we can't any longer question Mr Staff, but it's my distinct impression from what I've read and even from listening to him today that that was his position, that he took a position on this particular piece of land.
Mr Preston: "And it wasn't mine"?
Ms Churley: He had said that the land in question wasn't prime fruitland in his opinion, so I'm responding to that, to clarify that issue.
I want to reiterate, Mr Staff has a right to his opinion -- nobody's questioning that -- and he has a right to be involved in his community, to have his say, which I understand he has done on many occasions. Nobody's disputing that.
My concern comes from some years back. The member for Grey-Owen Sound and a few other members from the then third party, the Tories, complained vigorously about the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and in fact one member vowed after becoming government to try to get rid of the thing.
I have to tell you that I have some serious concerns about the steps that have been taken to date. We have a loosening of the aggregate controls. That happened under the previous environment minister, who is here. The present environment minister did mitigate that to some extent, but it was still a loosening. We watched while the commission was transferred from the Ministry of Environment, whose job it is to protect the environment, unlike the Minister of Natural Resources, who has a mixed bag, who's not just there to protect the parks and the escarpment, but also is in charge of the aggregate businesses.
We watched these particular steps happen and I'm afraid we are now seeing some of the people who are being brought forward to appointment -- in my view, it's falling into what I believe is the final, later position -- and also I failed to mention the budget cuts. There are a number of issues here that bring me to the conclusion that this government is taking steps to, first of all, weaken the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and to see its downfall, notwithstanding that it's been quoted here today that, "Oh, yes, the Minister of Natural Resources says he supports it."
There is all kinds of evidence to indicate that we're heading in a very dangerous direction here. No matter what party people belong to or what their points of view are, that the bottom line is we have to appoint people who are unequivocal in their support of the principles of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and, I would say, the majority of people in Ontario.
On those grounds, I would say Mr Staff should not be appointed to this commission at this time.
Mr Preston: I'm going back to the statement that Mr Staff said the ground was not conducive to growing fruit. How on earth -- no pun intended -- does that point to his saying he agrees with the Twenty Valley Estates development? It doesn't. He was consulted; I'm consulted; this is a cup. I don't have to agree with what it's used for or disagree with what it's used for. I was asked what it is, and that's all he was asked, as a consultant to designate what the land could be used for agriculturally. That's the bottom line.
The Acting Chair: Might I call for the vote?
Ms Churley: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Baird, Chudleigh, Elliott, Ford, Guzzo, Preston, Ross.
Nays
Agostino, Churley, Gravelle, Martel.
The Acting Chair: Carried.
I'm looking for a motion for concurrence in the appointment of Frank Miller as a member, Ontario Parks board of directors. Do I have a motion for concurrence?
Mrs Elliott: I move concurrence in the appointment of Mr Miller as a member of the Ontario Parks board of directors. May I add that I think we're fortunate to have the opportunity to receive the advice of a former Premier, and honoured to have his leadership on this board.
1140
Mr Baird: I would concur. I think the province would be tremendously well served to have Mr Miller take this position. I found very interesting the way he said that Leslie Frost had undertaken a similar position, and we should be thrilled he's prepared to give more time to the province than he has already given.
The Acting Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? It's unanimous.
The last one we're dealing with today is a motion for concurrence in the appointment of Mr Norman Seabrook as public-at-large member for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Do we have that motion?
Mr Chudleigh: I move concurrence on the appointment of Norman Seabrook as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Acting Chair: Debate?
Mr Agostino: First, Mr Chairman, I'd like to ask if it's possible to seek unanimous consent to give the government an opportunity to withdraw the application.
The Acting Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Baird: I don't know if that motion is in order.
The Acting Chair: Is it in order?
Mr Michael Brown: Anything is, by unanimous consent.
The Acting Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Baird: No.
The Acting Chair: We don't have unanimous consent; I'm sorry. Further debate?
Ms Martel: The NDP cannot support this appointment. Let me give a number of reasons why. First of all, with respect to the conflict of interest I raised in the House on June 23, I continue to believe Mr Seabrook had a conflict of interest at the time he put his name forward and at the time the minister, on June 12, stated that he would be accepted as a board member and that he would come to this committee.
People should know that as a consequence of my raising that question on June 23, later that afternoon the minister's office called the Niagara Escarpment Commission and asked if this was true. Within 24 hours, Mr Seabrook called the commission and said he would be withdrawing his application and would send a letter to the same.
I believe he was in a conflict of interest. In 1991 he put in an application to have his property, which is controlled under the Niagara Escarpment Plan, removed from the plan. I do not believe that as a board member or a potential board member it is appropriate that he should also continue to have an application before the same board that he wishes to be a member of. It is that same board that would make a decision on that application.
I am quite surprised that during the course of questioning here today, Mr Seabrook did not seem to think or feel or understand that this was a conflict of interest. There is no other way to describe it. He would have been in the position of being a member of a board that would make a decision on his application with respect to his property. Surely to goodness that's a conflict, and I suspect that were it not for the fact that the minister's office no doubt called him after they talked to the commission and confirmed that what I had said in the House was true, he would still have that application before the commission today. If he is not clear that was inappropriate, then I don't know what conflict of interest is and means to people, but surely it was.
Secondly, he said he had felt that in the entire life of the commission, the commission had made appointments to the exclusion of escarpment property owners. I said earlier in questioning that I checked with the commission staff and was clearly told that over the last 20 years there were fewer than half a dozen, and I could only get three, names of people who were appointed to the commission who lived outside the Niagara Escarpment area.
Perhaps the people who were appointed did not represent Mr Seabrook's point of view and the view of the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth, but to say that property interests have not been represented is just not true; it is not a fact. My checking with the commission with respect to those appointments has confirmed that.
Thirdly, I am appalled, frankly, that in questioning today, Mr Seabrook could not tell this committee whether or not he supported the UNESCO designation. Surely to goodness we are not interested and the Conservatives are not interested in appointing to the Niagara Escarpment Commission an individual who cannot tell this committee whether or not he supports the UNESCO designation. All of you must understand how important the biosphere designation is. It is not appropriate for him to come before this committee today and say he cannot comment one way or the other because he doesn't have enough information.
The fact of the matter is Mr Seabrook has already made a number of comments about the UNESCO designation. They have not been favourable; they have not indicated support. So I was surprised he couldn't give us a comment here one way or the other today.
He said in a public presentation he made in 1995 -- and I need to repeat -- "We question the legitimacy of the `biosphere reserve' designation." He said, again as I said earlier, most recently in a CBC interview which was aired on July 19: "I think Canada is obligated to do whatever the UN tells them to do in this biosphere reserve. Agenda 21 also states that there will be human exclusion zones. There's no doubt in the world that much of this area" -- the Niagara Escarpment -- "will not be populated down the road; that's the intention."
When I asked him if he continued to believe that notion, that the reason for the UNESCO designation was to depopulate the Niagara Escarpment, he said he could not give me an answer until he had more information from them. I'm sorry, but that is just not acceptable to me. I have to fundamentally believe the members of the commission support the UNESCO designation. For goodness' sake, if they do not, they should not be on this commission. They certainly should, in the presence of the committee here today trying to explain why they want to be on the commission, have a position on that very important issue.
Fourthly, Mr Seabrook said today in questioning that he did support the plan. He thought the plan should be completed and then it could be turned over to the municipalities. Look, folks, his position on this situation was made very clear in 1995, at the same presentation he made at a conference supported or hosted by the commission.
He said in the recommendations -- and we all have it in our packages -- "terminate the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act." Not "complete the act and then turn it over to the municipalities," not "fiddle with the act a little bit, change the composition of the commission and then turn it over to the municipalities." He was quite clear: Terminate both the commission and the act, period, and I assume then all the protection of the escarpment that goes with that.
I cannot accept that as a committee we would appoint someone to the commission who has as his prime focus the termination of both the commission and the act, because as far as I'm concerned, that means no control over development of the escarpment, a free-for-all for all 37 municipalities and the eight regional and county governments. Surely to goodness, this government is not interested in that. I hope you are not.
That's not all he said. That was in 1995. Again in 1996, in a letter to the editor -- this was in the Courier Herald, November 20, 1996 -- he said, "It is long past the time to implement the sunset closure and retire the NEC." It said in an interview with the Hamilton Spectator on June 24, 1997, "Seabrook...also confirmed that he has called for the termination of the commission and turning over the planning functions to municipalities." He said that; he repeated that position again, as of July 19, 1997, that he would like to see the commission abolished. Those are his most recent statements.
I was quite concerned by what I heard today, which seemed to be some kind of support for a commission and a plan which he has repeatedly in the past been opposed to. Let's also be clear that the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth, which he is going to leave me a pamphlet on, also has that as its mandate. So this is nothing new in terms of his position.
There's one other point I want to make, and that's with respect to the plan, because I also did not get an answer to this and I think this is important. At the same conference, Mr Seabrook said, "Your continued reference that `The Niagara Escarpment is a continuous natural environment' must again be challenged!" Again, in this same presentation, he said, "The notion that the escarpment is a continuous natural environment is inaccurate and is indeed a falsehood."
Folks, the theme that the escarpment is a continuous natural environment comes out of the purpose clause of the Niagara Escarpment act, the same act that Mr Seabrook is obligated to uphold as a potential member of the commission. I repeat what the purpose clause says again: "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuos natural environment," and to ensure that only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment.
1150
Mr Seabrook calls that a falsehood. That is the purpose that exists in the act. Surely to goodness, in calling the purpose of the act a falsehood he is not fit to assume the role of a commissioner, because he is in no position to tell this committee or to convince anyone on this committee that he is going to uphold either the act or any of the procedures of the commission or the mandate of the commission, which again are to ensure that the act is clearly followed.
I understand the reason why he is here. I know he is a friend of Bill Murdoch's and I don't have any idea how his name was put forward, but I suspect it came from that quarter. That's fine. He has a right to his view; it's a view he has consistently expressed for the last number of years that he has been a member of the Grey association. But in terms of his suitability as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in terms of his suitability to protect the aims of the commission, the mandate and the operation of the commission and of the act, I have to say that even all of you cannot agree that he is suitable. He is just not, and we cannot support his nomination.
Ms Churley: Following on my colleague's comments, I want to read to you again from the article Mr Seabrook wrote.
"Theme -- Environmental Connections:
"The Grey Association for Democracy and Growth wish to take this opportunity to address a few of our many concerns regarding the implementation of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. Your continued reference that `The Niagara Escarpment is a continuos natural environment' must again be challenged! Settlement over 140 years ago of this part of Ontario created a continuous human environment, not a natural one! However, we concede humans are the most natural part of our environment; certainly the most important."
I want to remind members here why the Niagara Escarpment Commission was created in the first place. In the 1960s, there was incredible concern about what was happening with the aggregate extraction industry and overall the defacement of the landscape and environmental pollution. It was during the Frank Miller government in 1985, I believe, and Mr Sterling, who is now the Minister of Environment, was one of the people who was very actively supporting the setting up of this commission. I want to remind the members that governments of all stripes have supported the protection of the Niagara Escarpment in the past for the very reason that the lack of protection was creating huge environmental problems and defacement of the land.
When I read the quote earlier from this document by Mr Seabrook, I got very concerned, because he is saying -- this is my view of what he is saying -- that people are the most natural part of our environment. What happened here is because of the people and what people were doing to the natural environment -- it's for that very reason that the Conservative government of the day had to bring in a plan for protecting that escarpment.
Now we are faced with the real possibility of going backwards, as we have in many of our other environmental protection laws. I would say to the members today that this is going to be an embarrassment for your government. This man does not support the very basic premises of what the Niagara Escarpment Commission is there to do. The majority of the people of Ontario are very proud of the UNESCO world biosphere reserve designation.
It is going to be an embarrassment to the government to have somebody, whose views I respect -- he has a right to his views. To have somebody with the views that have been outlined by himself and by my colleague previous to me is not going to be acceptable to the public, and notwithstanding what the Minister of Natural Resources keeps mouthing, that he supports the commission, this is going to send a very loud and clear message that indeed he doesn't, to allow this kind of appointment to go through.
I would submit to the committee members here today that occasionally appointments are made that are reviewed by this committee, and this is our opportunity as an all-party committee -- yes, you have the majority -- to take a closer, in-depth look at the profile of the appointees so we can make a decision based on what we heard. What we heard here today, and all the background documentation, which I don't know whether the members from the Conservative Party have, make it very clear that this is a totally inappropriate appointment, an embarrassing appointment for this government.
I say in closing that you will not hear the end of this if you go ahead with this appointment today. It is going to be an embarrassment for the minister and for your government, and I can guarantee you that the public at large are going to support the opposition viewpoint on this. There are be differences in opinion. We certainly had our controversies when we were in government over some decisions made by the commission. We had our appeals to our cabinet. There are differences of opinion and there will continue to be, even within the commission itself. But in the past, under all three stripes of government, we have had diversity but we have had a group of people whose bottom line consistently has been to support the principles of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. That is what we are breaking precedent with here today. This is new under any government of any party and it's a very dangerous road to tread.
I would ask the members of the committee to reconsider your position. Certainly you don't all have to vote together. There may be some in the committee who don't support this appointment. I would ask that you consider, for the protection of the escarpment, that this appointment not be concurred in today.
Mr Agostino: We will not be supporting the appointment. I'm surprised the government did not take the opportunity that was offered to them at the beginning to withdraw this appointment. Today we have had a number of people come forward. The opposition has supported some of the recommendations and some of the appointments the government has brought forward. However, by going along with this appointment today, let me suggest to the government members, you're making a mockery out of this appointment process.
I think our job is to look at each appointment based on its merits and then make a decision based on what contribution this individual will bring to the body you are appointing them to. In reference to a previous appointee, Mr Staff, Mr Baird said the gentleman supports the aims and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I can accept that as an argument for an appointment. We may not agree with some of the direction, but certainly I can accept that as an argument.
In good conscience, government members cannot believe that Mr Seabrook supports the aims and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. How do you appoint someone to a body that is there primarily, I believe, to protect the Niagara Escarpment when this individual feels this body should not exist, that you should wipe it out, that you should eliminate it?
It is an absolute nightmare appointment. It is one that is going to come back to haunt you. Let me quote what the gentleman said in an article by Greg Crone that ran in the Spectator. It says, "I am a conservationist, but when you get into these preservation schemes, and that includes the escarpment" -- this is what he is being appointed to -- "I don't fully support the preservation idea." These are Mr Seabrook's words.
Many of us feared the worst when the Niagara Escarpment was taken out of the protection of the Ministry of Environment and brought over to the Ministry of Natural Resources. This appointment will only give credence to those fears. Disappointment will only substantiate what the opposition has said, that the reason you moved the Niagara Escarpment Commission out of environment to natural resources is to allow more development and to simply declare open season on the Niagara Escarpment. You are sending that message out loud and clear with this appointment.
1200
From time to time bad appointments and bad recommendations come forward. This is one of them. You have an opportunity and a responsibility, I say to the government members, to very clearly look at this and realize it is not in the best interests of the Niagara Escarpment, unless what your minister is saying in the House and what the member is telling us is untrue. I believe Mr Hodgson's words when he says there is still concern about preservation, but I can tell you that with this appointment, you are basically destroying the credibility of your minister, you are destroying the credibility of the commission to a great degree and you are destroying the credibility of this committee to objectively look at appointments.
This is an absolute nightmare. If this is the type of tone and example we're going to set, we might as well put up a For Sale sign on the Niagara Escarpment, because that's what you're saying to the public: "It is up for sale; it is open season. It is up for development. Do what the hell you want, because protection is no longer a priority."
Can someone on the government side of the House, if you get an opportunity, answer this question: Explain to me why you believe it is in the best interests of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment to appoint someone to the commission who believes very clearly that the commission should be eliminated. Can someone explain to me how that fits into the aims and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment? Can someone explain to me how that works to the best interests of protecting this wonderful natural resource? How do you protect it by putting someone on there who says: "I don't believe it should exist. I believe we have too many regulations. I believe there's too much control. I do not believe in conservation of the escarpment"? Those are his words.
It is absolutely bizarre that you would actually consider this. Leading up to this, we were basing our opinion on what we had read, his own comments and what he had said. The comments of the gentleman at the end of the table today should leave absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind about the inappropriateness of this appointment. He may be a nice man, have a great family, be very involved in his community; that is not what we're judging here today. We are judging the appropriateness of this individual to sit on this commission.
I would ask the government members to respond to some of those questions and give us some sense of security on how this appointment will serve the interests of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, how it will serve to protect the escarpment and how you can appoint someone who believes that the body you appoint him to should be wiped out. It is not there.
It is an absolutely, in my view, disgraceful appointment. It will come back to haunt this government and it will be held up as an example of government incompetence. It will be held up as an example of the government's hidden agenda to open up the Niagara Escarpment totally to development. I don't think that is something you or your minister is going to want to wear.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I first want to acknowledge that I missed part of the submission, and while I've read it, I think that should be noted. I don't wish to deal with the entire issue. I want to limit my comments to one specific aspect of the argument that has been made. That is with regard to the issue of conflict of interest.
This person does not have a conflict of interest, period. I can't for the life of me understand why it would be raised at this particular time. I have difficulty with why this argument seems to be raised as often as it is, when there is no conflict. There is a potential for conflict. There's a potential for conflict for every person we appoint, particularly those who live within the confines of the boundaries -- every person. We heard today that approximately 70% of the people who have been appointed by all governments live within the boundaries. I don't know whether that is appropriate, whether it is too high or too low. I certainly think, when we make appointments to any of these boards or commissions, that we're forever looking for people who have a vested interest and have some relationship with what is being done.
I hesitate to suggest, and I don't, that it's a cheap shot, because good arguments have been made by the member for Sudbury East. If they are accurate, they bear a considerable amount of weight. I find it very frustrating to be sitting here and seeing people come forward and have that kind of thing laid upon them. There is a format; there is a procedure in place to handle conflicts as they arise, as they well might arise, with this person or anyone else. That's the end of the story. As long as the individuals comply with those rules, they shouldn't have this type of thing hung on them.
One of the reasons we have difficulty in having people come forward to serve in these capacities is this very type of situation. We have a situation right now in Ottawa-Carleton where a respected member of the New Democratic Party has just stepped down and been replaced on the Hydro board. What an opportune time to take cheap shots at someone who has served, a former leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms Martel: What are you talking about, Garry?
Mr Guzzo: Let me finish and you'll understand. The truth of the matter is that it would be very unfair. There were many people around Hydro who would tell you that Mr Cassidy made a very substantial contribution in his five years on that particular board. But who cares today, with the publicity surrounding Hydro? Nobody would even worry about the fact that he had made a valuable contribution. It's just apropos and timely. That is causing the government and all governments in this province considerable difficulty in attracting people to serve in the functions with which we deal here on a weekly basis. I find it very frustrating to sit here week after week and have that thrown in the faces of the individuals who come forward.
Mr Baird: I noted with great interest Mr Agostino's statement, "I believe Mr Hodgson's words when he says he wants to preserve the escarpment." I certainly appreciate that. I think the minister has been extremely clear: The Niagara Escarpment Commission will continue to oversee the planning decisions in the escarpment area. The Niagara Escarpment act will remain on the books. That is a clear and specific commitment on his part.
The Legislative Assembly has dealt with this issue twice in private members' hour. One of the first resolutions brought forward was by Mr Bradley, who was here earlier. I don't know whether it was unanimous, but I believe it passed with overwhelming support. I certainly got up at the recorded vote and voted in favour of it, after looking into the issue of preserving the escarpment and familiarizing myself with it. So the words of the minister have been backed up with a recorded vote in the House.
Mr Skarica brought forward a resolution with respect to a particular issue in support of the escarpment. Again I think it was virtually unanimous on the recorded vote, where members had to get up and be counted and their names went on the record supporting the commission, supporting its mandate and in that case raising a particular concern.
To try to point to the bogeyman in the closet on this issue is a bit of a sidecar to the main issue. The government, the minister, caucus and the Legislative Assembly itself have been incredibly clear on their support for the commission. I don't think the minister and the government could be any clearer.
Mr Gravelle: I'd like to make some general comments, one of which Mr Baird dealt with, which is that the minister has publicly stated that he supports the aims and objectives very strongly. I appreciate that. This of course begs the question: Then why would he allow a name to come forward or put a name forward of someone who clearly does not support the aims and objectives?
One of my colleagues -- I can't recall which one -- earlier talked about a weakening of the system. I'm a regular member of the government agencies committee. Not all the members here are. I've been watching the process as well, and it struck me when the remark was made that it's really quite true. The fact is that you slowly but surely weaken the system. It's kind of an insidious process.
You put forward people. The minister on the one hand -- the rhetoric is there -- says, "This is what we stand for," yet you watch various government agencies become weak and become populated by members who are less and less committed to them, who are clearly changing the whole drift of what's happening. That process strikes me as happening right now with Mr Seabrook. No doubt he's a very fine individual, but clearly he does not support the aims and objectives of the commission, yet clearly the minister says he does.
To me it is a process whereby we watch the weakening of a process and down the line you can see the composition of the board changing. It is something we should all worry about, because if we and the members opposite truly believe it is important to put forward members with a variety of points of view but with a belief in the aims and objectives, I think there would be some great concerns about appointing this gentleman, particularly as he appears in many ways to be opposed to what the minister is saying publicly.
I've watched it with other agencies as well, other commissions, because I sit here on a regular basis and it very much concerns me. I've expressed that concern before and I think it's being highlighted again today.
Obviously, I will be supporting my colleague on this side of the desk in opposing Mr Seabrook. I really hope the government members would recognize that in some ways they're speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.
Ms Churley: I want to touch briefly on another subject that has to do with this appointment. A few of the appointees talked about the fact that there was a need for better customer service at the commission. I just want to point out how important this comment was in view of the cuts the government forced on the commission. There were 16 of 38 staff laid off.
Because of that, I'm giving another reason why it is so important that the board members not only be competent -- I have no doubt that the appointee we're talking about here would be -- but that the board is not continually all tied up in knots arguing about whether or not it supports the very premise, the very basic values of the commission.
The appointees said they wanted to get on with it and provide better customer service. It's very hard to do, given the budget cuts. I would add that, to my colleague from Port Arthur. I believe it was I who laid out the weaknesses we're starting to see, the cracks in the system here and I believe the demise of the Niagara Escarpment. I believe the budget cuts, and now having board members where we're going to have a lot of internal strife -- you've got people on the commission who don't even believe in the very basic values of the commission.
That is something else to consider. We need an efficient board, we need a board that understands, but we also need a commission that has the very basic support of what the commission is all about. We're not even going to have that any more.
I would ask the members from the Tory caucus again if they want to put their money where their mouth is. We had Mr Baird saying the caucus members support it, the government supports it, the minister supports it. I'm afraid what you're doing today by supporting this particular appointment belies that and I would ask you to reconsider. We need accountability here to the people of Ontario for the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment and we're fast losing it.
Ms Martel: Mr Chair, I'll be very brief. I just want to add one point with respect to Mr Hodgson's comment on this appointment. On the CBC interview that aired on July 19, Minister Hodgson said that Mr Seabrook was appointed to give the commission board some balance. I'm sorry, but everything I have read with respect to Mr Seabrook -- which is information that was given to all members of the committee -- and everything I heard him state today don't give me any comfort here at all that what the minister is looking for is to provide a balance.
We have an individual who clearly, by views that have been presented on a number of occasions and a number of forums and were reinforced here today, does not support the commission, does not support the act which was set out to protect the commission, does not support in any way, shape or form, as far as I can see, the UNESCO designation and, for the purposes of this committee, is not an individual who should be sitting at the Niagara commission.
I regret that the minister himself was not smart enough to recognize how inappropriate this appointment was. The minister very quietly could have withdrawn this nomination and that's what he should have done.
We have an individual who does not support the commission, who is not suitable to sit. I hope the government members recognize that, as they are given their order here today to appoint this person, they have someone here who is entirely inappropriate to do the job that he is being asked to do.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Mr Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to defer the decision on this appointee for one week.
Ms Churley: I was just going to ask that myself.
The Acting Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to defer the decision on the appointee? Unanimous consent? All in favour? Okay. Therefore, we will defer the vote on this appointee.
Any further business? I declare the committee adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1215.