Intended
appointments
Mr Robert Brechin
Mr N. Scott White
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth ND)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1033
in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): I'll call the meeting to order for the
purposes of Hansard and for our purposes. Welcome to members of
the committee. I think we're the only committee that's allowed to
sit right now. Some members have even changed in appearance at
this committee.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Temporarily.
The Chair:
Temporarily, I'm told.
We have two reports to deal
with. First of all, the report of the subcommittee on business
dated Thursday, March 15, 2001.
Mr Spina: I
move acceptance of the minutes.
The Chair:
All in favour of that motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
The second is the report of
the subcommittee on business dated Thursday, March 29, 2001.
Mr Spina: I
move acceptance of the minutes.
The Chair:
All in favour of the motion? Opposed, if any? Did anybody put up
their hand, first of all? All in favour of the motion? Opposed?
Motion carried.
We come to the appointments
review, but before we do I should indicate to the committee that
we have received a memorandum dated March 27, 2001, that reads:
"This is to inform you that one item included in the March 9,
2001 memorandum has been withdrawn, and, therefore, should not be
considered." That was under the auspices of the Ministry of the
Environment, the Pesticides Advisory Committee, Syd Antler. Peter
Allen, the general manager of the Public Appointments
Secretariat, has sent that to us. So that proposed individual has
been withdrawn. I just wanted to inform members of the committee
of that.
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Toronto-Danforth): You mean there is still a Pesticides
Advisory Committee?
The Chair:
There is still a Pesticides Advisory Committee, believe it or
not.
I'm going to, as I have when
I have to, in my capacity as the environment critic for the
official opposition, I'll relinquish the chair to the Vice-Chair.
For once, I get to ask some questions in the committee, as I did
before. I'll ask Mr Crozier if he'll come forward for the first
appointment.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
ROBERT BRECHIN
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party and third
party: Robert Brechin, intended appointee as member, Niagara
Escarpment Commission.
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Bruce Crozier): The first appointment is Robert Brechin.
I hope I have that correct, sir.
Mr Robert
Brechin: Correct, Mr Chairman. Is this fine?
The
Vice-Chair: That's just fine. Make yourself comfortable.
You will be given an opportunity for some opening comments if you
so choose. The length of time of your comments will be taken from
the government's questioning time, but I wouldn't let that deter
me at all if I were you. Then there'll be some questioning in
rotation, if time allows, for the other caucuses. Please, if you
have some comments, proceed.
Mr Brechin:
Yes, I do. Good morning, Mr Chairman and committee. Thank you for
permitting me to share this time with you. I understand and
appreciate the demands placed on elected officials, both of time
and paper, so I will try to be brief but comprehensive.
My name is Robert Brechin and
I am the seventh child of Scottish immigrants. James Brechin, my
father, was a gardener, and Rachel Crighton, my mother, worked on
an estate in Scotland before coming to Canada. Edith, my wife, is
one of seven children born to Italian immigrants who also came
off the land. Both Edith and I are blessed that they settled in
this beautiful, bountiful and unique part of the world. Our six
children and eight grandchildren will be equally blessed if we,
as a society, are good stewards and they work hard.
Both Edith and I were born in
Hamilton. We moved to Stoney Creek into a new subdivision backing
on to Battlefield House. The war memorial of 1812-14 marking the
graves of those who fought and died there was at the bottom of
our street. In 1965 we moved to Burlington, again into a new
development, a former orchard where I picked fruit as a boy.
Dofasco provided me with an
uninterrupted, interesting and sometimes exciting career for 40
years in accounting, sales, international marketing and as
director of the Canadian tin plate recycling council. In 1991
Dofasco offered a plant-wide early retirement package which I and
some 3,000 other people accepted. Between 1978 and 1997 I served as ward 7 alderman on
Burlington city council. Concurrently, between 1991 and 1997 I
was elected councillor to the region of Halton. I chose not to
run for re-election in 1997.
During my business career I
was actively involved with the Hamilton and District Chamber of
Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the
Canadian Exporters' Association in a variety of committee chairs
and board member functions.
My current volunteer
involvement includes St Raphael's parish and the Burlington Reuse
Centre. In the past I have been involved in board and/or
fundraising activities for the Hamilton/Burlington YMCA, United
Way of Burlington, Hamilton-Wentworth, Joseph Brant Memorial
Hospital, Burlington Art Centre, LACAC and the Canadian Institute
of International Affairs; there are others.
I submitted my application
for appointment to the Niagara Escarpment Commission with the
conviction that with my experience and knowledge I could make a
meaningful contribution to the preservation and maintenance of
the Niagara Escarpment.
There are a multitude of
pressures which require special, sensitive and careful land use
planning; these pressures will. The population growth in Ontario
from Canadian immigration policy alone could reach 80,000 people
annually. These pressures are a result of the conflict between
the desire to protect the environment and simultaneously utilize
the tremendous resources the escarpment provides.
1040
Consider for a moment: we
farm it, we mine it, we build roads through it, we have
recreation park facilities on it, we encourage ecotourism, we
develop the Bruce Trail on it. Not only can we see it from outer
space, but also we have accepted UNESCO's designation of it. The
challenge is to accommodate all these interests. A balance must
be found between promotion and protection.
With my experience as a child
exploring the wonders of the escarpment, as a father sharing
similar excitement with my children, as a business person
balancing different points of view and priorities, as a volunteer
seeing the diversity between the fortunate and less fortunate of
our society, as a former councillor who understands the need for
good land use planning, I look forward to accepting this
challenge.
Thank you. I would be pleased
to answer your questions the best I can.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Brechin. We'll begin that
questioning with the NDP caucus.
Ms Churley:
How long do I have?
The
Vice-Chair: Ten minutes.
Ms Churley:
Good morning. Thank you for coming this morning.
First of all, I want to ask
you-and I always ask these questions-your political affiliation.
It's my understanding that you've been involved in some form in
Cam Jackson's campaigns in Burlington.
Mr Brechin:
Yes. I don't have any hesitation in acknowledging that I am a
member of the Burlington PC association, although I question if
that's a fair question and I wonder how it relates to my desire
to protect the escarpment.
Ms Churley:
I always ask these questions because I find that at times it can
be relevant, depending on one's background and positions on
certain issues, and sometimes who you golf with or not.
However, as you know, there
are some real concerns among some, particularly CONE and myself
and my party, about the tip of the balance that's happened at the
commission, where a lot of the people who are there to protect
the environment have been systematically removed. More and more,
we see the balance tip so that there are more pro-development
types on that commission. Therefore, my questions are going to be
related to that particular concern.
What is your understanding of
the primacy of environmental protection versus the development
orientation of the NEP? As you know, this is the largest-scale,
environmental-based land use plan in all of Canada, different
from municipal official plans in that it's actually designed to
protect the environment. So I want to know, when you talk about
balance, given the mandate of this plan-which was brought in, by
the way, as you know, by two successive Tory governments in the
past-what's your understanding when you talk about balance
here?
Mr Brechin:
I think we have an obligation to protect the escarpment. In so
doing, I don't think we can ignore that landowners do have some
rights, providing they don't infringe on the protection of the
escarpment.
Ms Churley:
I mentioned CONE before. You know who CONE is, I assume?
Mr Brechin:
Yes.
Ms Churley:
Recently CONE had put out a report card lamenting the
fact-actually grading people on the escarpment in terms of the
way they've been voting in terms of protecting the environment. A
commissioner named Larry Miller, whom you may know, said that he
didn't want to see more information from CONE in his packages. He
continued to say things like, "It bugs the hell out of me the
very childish way they do things," and, "CONE is out to
intimidate members, but they don't intimidate me," that sort of
thing. I just wonder what you think about CONE and the very
important role, in my view, that it plays. Would you support
those comments by Mr Miller?
Mr Brechin:
I don't believe so. CONE has legitimate concerns and they express
them fairly well. I think I would find them as a good source of
information to get a balanced viewpoint.
Ms Churley:
As you know, there's been some controversy and discussion,
particularly after a member of the Tory caucus, Mr Bill Murdoch,
brought in a private member's bill-are you familiar with that
bill?
Mr Brechin:
I understand it died on the order paper, but I question whether I
could support that bill.
Ms Churley: That's what I wanted to
ask you. I wanted to ask your views because I think this is
really fundamental, the view that the Niagara Escarpment plan
should be downloaded to the municipalities and have the
municipalities be the ones responsible for land use planning on
the escarpment.
Mr Brechin:
No, I don't think the escarpment commission should be disbanded
at the present time and perhaps even in the foreseeable future. I
think you have to have a consistency through the whole Niagara
Escarpment area, which is, I understand, some 450 miles, but I
stand to be corrected. I don't think we can have a variance
between eight municipal governments administering that with a
consistent approach.
Ms Churley:
I'm very pleased to hear that. I certainly am quite concerned
about this move, so it's nice to know that you would oppose,
then, any move to-
Mr Brechin:
That's a legitimate concern.
Ms Churley:
Yes, thank you.
I wanted to ask you if you
support amendment 71. Being from Burlington, I assume you know
that's the escarpment link, which we understand has now been
approved by the commission. This would add lands from the
Burlington and Hamilton areas to the Niagara Escarpment planning
area. I believe this was called the escarpment link. It came from
the Parkway Belt West plan, which when we were in government we
shifted to the Niagara Escarpment plan. That's been approved. Do
you support that?
Mr Brechin:
I'm not too familiar with what you're talking about and I would
need more study, but from your comments it would seem that it
would be logical that the Niagara Escarpment plan should assume
the jurisdiction of those lands.
Ms Churley:
I have one more question if I have time.
The
Vice-Chair: Yes, you have three and a half minutes.
Ms Churley:
That's wonderful.
I want to know-and I know
this is difficult for people just coming on in a new position,
but I presume that you've thought about this-given your
background and the interest you've expressed in protecting the
environment and land, what your priorities would be in this
position and what you would do to strengthen environmental
protection in the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Brechin:
I'm at a pretty high learning curve in this whole area. I think
one of my first thrusts would be to get a better handle on the
various land use designations of the escarpment plan, such as the
core, the buffer, the transitional areas, and get a better
understanding of the differences between those
classifications.
Ms Churley:
Are you aware, then, that there has been concern recently from
those on the side of protecting the environment versus
development, in trying to find that balance, who think that the
balance has been shifted and there have been some very bad policy
decisions made and some very bad zoning decisions made that go
counter to the commission's own? Are you aware of that and, if
so, what would you do to correct that balance?
1050
Mr Brechin:
I can't say I'm too familiar with the instances you're speaking
of. If you could give me an example, perhaps I could comment
better.
Ms Churley:
What prompted you to apply for this position?
Mr Brechin:
I thought with my experience and knowledge, it would be a waste
not to try and make a contribution to the community I live
in.
Ms Churley:
Did anybody approach you to apply for this position-
Mr Brechin:
No.
Ms Churley:
-or was this something that you have an interest in?
Mr Brechin:
I indicated to Cam Jackson, who is my MPP, that I had an interest
in being of service if there was anything that was a fit. He came
forward with several opportunities, and I selected this one as
the one that seemed to fit my interests and my capabilities.
Ms Churley:
But you would say, then, that although you have an interest in
this, from your responses to some of my questions, you do have
quite a learning curve here and that I can count on you, from
what you said about wanting to protect the environment, to take a
look at some of these poor environmental decisions that have been
made recently and perhaps be one of the ones to tip the balance
back to protecting the environment?
Mr Brechin:
That would be a good start in my education.
Ms Churley:
Can I count on you, when I look at your record a year from now,
to be one of those who will-
Mr Brechin:
Certainly. If you would send me some of the decisions you aren't
happy with, I'd be more than pleased to study them.
Ms Churley:
Great. Thank you very much.
The
Vice-Chair: We will continue in our rotation of
questions with the government caucus.
Mr Spina:
We'll waive our time, Mr Chair.
Ms Churley:
I asked all the questions they would have asked.
Mr Spina:
That's right.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll move, then, to the Liberal caucus and
Mr Bradley.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): The first question I have goes back to
the issue of how much control municipalities should have and how
much control the commission should have. There is a significant
body of opinion, particularly as you get up into Grey county and
the member for Grey, that the role of the commission should be
assumed by municipalities; that you allow the individual members
of municipalities who have their councillors, who go to church
with the developer, who see the developer at the Rotary Club,
things of that nature, to make the decisions, instead of a
detached commission that is supposed to be independent of those
pressures.
On Wednesday, March 3, 1993,
in the council chambers at the Halton Regional Centre, there was
an issue that arose that seems to fit into that: "Planning and
public works committee
report 693, item 5.1: update regarding possible delegation of
Niagara Escarpment development control permit approval authority
from the Niagara Escarpment Commission to Halton region." That
was an issue that was voted upon. There was a recorded vote and
you voted in favour of that. Would you today still be in favour
of that particular motion which would have changed the Niagara
Escarpment development control permit approval authority from the
Niagara Escarpment Commission to Halton region?
Mr Brechin:
Not likely would I have supported that today. If I recall, that's
a long time ago.
Mr Bradley:
It was 1993, right?
Mr Brechin:
Yes. Part of that came about-it's the concern the council had
with some of the delays the commission was taking, some of the
decisions the commission was taking, and I think it was passed
more tongue-in-cheek, wanting to send a message to the
commission, knowing that the government wasn't about to act on
that motion.
Mr Bradley:
I personally would be very concerned that a serious motion of
that kind would be tongue-in-cheek and that we would have a
motion at the regional municipality of Halton that would call for
that and that people would seriously be voting for it if they
weren't really in favour of it, but be that as it may, as the
lawyers say.
Mr Brechin:
I think perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part, but I
was trying to convey the message as briefly as I could. I don't
think we thought the government would act on that motion.
Mr Bradley:
You mentioned that one of the concerns was the lack of what you
would call "movement" by the commission. The commission, as you
may be aware, in recent years has been almost annihilated in
terms of its budget. It has fewer staff to do the job-this must
sound familiar-and fewer resources and, some people would say,
less clout than it used to have.
Would you be supportive of
restoring the staffing and the resources it had, say, half a
dozen years ago?
Mr Brechin:
I'd have to study that in more depth but, from what you indicate,
an increase in their budget might be well worthwhile. However, we
folks who were born in the 1930s, all the ones I've met, seem to
be pretty frugal and try to do more with less. That doesn't mean
to say the commission can. Again, that is an area I'd be pleased
to study.
Mr Bradley:
Do you think the government might be able to find the funds for
that if it were to significantly reduce the amount of money it
spends on government advertising, now over $200 million?
Mr Brechin:
I couldn't comment on that.
Mr Bradley:
You couldn't comment on that. OK. My friends there on the other
side are smiling.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): How much did your government
spend?
Mr Bradley:
Far less, and it wasn't partisan advertising. However, we won't
get into that debate with my good friends on the other side. I
know they don't want to get into that today.
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I remember "Preserve it; conserve
it."
Mr
Bradley: I remember that one too.
We have a situation now
where wineries are moving into the escarpment-
Mr
Brechin: In great numbers.
Mr
Bradley: -in great numbers. There's one proposal that
came forward that would call for cottages, they would call
them-in other words, accommodation-and a culinary school. Would
you be in favour of that as part of a winery development?
Mr
Brechin: Was that Stoney Ridge?
Mr
Bradley: No, that was Vineland Estates.
Mr
Brechin: I don't think I would think that was a fitting
use for escarpment lands. We've got to protect our agricultural
lands, particularly our fruit-growing lands in the Niagara
Peninsula, because we aren't going to replace them if we pave
them over.
Mr
Bradley: That particular statement you made is music to
my ears. As I drive down the Queen Elizabeth Highway and watch
acre after acre paved over, I am pleased to hear what you have
just said, because we are quickly losing that valuable farmland.
Sir, you're absolutely right; we can't get it back.
Mr
Brechin: I'm a little older than you and I think my
distress is a little more acute.
Mr
Bradley: Good. I'm even happier to hear that. Do you
believe that the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of
Natural Resources should be responsible for the Niagara
Escarpment Commission?
Mr
Brechin: That's difficult to say. Both should be capable
if they have a sincere desire to protect the escarpment and come
to reasoned decisions that are arrived at openly, honestly and
fairly.
Mr
Bradley: Could you figure out in your own mind, because
you're a man of some considerable experience in municipal
government and other organizations, why on earth the Premier
would remove responsibility from the Ministry of the Environment,
which is there to protect the environment, and give it to the
Ministry of Natural Resources, which is there to do a lot of
things, some of which are to allow people to do a lot of
developing, such as the aggregate industry and so on? In other
words, they have a clientele which is different from the Ministry
of the Environment's. Do you think it would, then, be better left
under a ministry whose mandate it is to protect the environment
than under one whose mandate is not necessarily to protect the
environment?
Mr
Brechin: I have no idea why and I'm not privy to the
facts that made the government come to that decision, so I really
would have trouble commenting on that. There's no question that
the escarpment is a fantastic resource, as I mentioned in my
opening remarks, with some of the things we do with it.
1100
Mr
Bradley: There is a concern, and I would think many of
us would share it, that as a resource the farmland we have out there-once the ski
hill is in the escarpment or once the hotel is built, the
Escarpment Hilton or whatever it happens to be, or once another
severance is given to yet another friend of somebody, the
escarpment loses each time. I call it death by a thousand cuts as
opposed to one big decision. This is why we're concerned, those
of us who are concerned about the environment, when we see people
being bounced from the commission who, unfortunately for them,
got an A from CONE for the way they voted. I'm not saying
you-I'll reserve judgment-but there have been other people who
have been appointed who certainly, I would project, would not be
getting an A from CONE, and some reappointed who got Ds and so on
from CONE. All that concerns me, sir.
Let me ask you this
question about your personal background. It's a business
background. Business often tends to be pro-development. Would you
describe yourself and your general philosophy as pro-development,
not specifically the escarpment, but would you say you are
pro-development?
Mr
Brechin: No. I recognize the landowner has some rights
that must be considered, as long as they don't bring discomfort
or dislocate their neighbour.
As to some of your other
comments, you can't destroy through development what you're
trying to protect and what the attraction is and the beauty is.
It's fine to try to develop ecotourism, but you can't destroy the
attraction in the process.
Mr
Bradley: Thank you. I know Ms Di Cocco had some
questions.
Ms Caroline Di
Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): You stated in your opening
remarks that we have to attain a balance between promotion and
protection. I didn't quite understand what you meant by that,
"promotion and protection." What did you mean by "promotion";
what did you mean by "protection"?
Mr
Brechin: Well, it's already going on. It's a great
source of mineral extraction; we mine it. We're trying to develop
parts. We've developed the Bruce Trail. We develop it and we farm
it quite extensively.
Ms Di
Cocco: Again, I don't-
The
Vice-Chair: This will be the last question.
Ms Di
Cocco: Just quickly, then, what do you believe your
responsibility is on the commission?
Mr
Brechin: To protect the escarpment, maintain it. The
commission does that through control of development by the
issuance of permits.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir, for appearing this morning
and allowing us the time to discuss the issue with you. The
decision on the concurrence on your appointment will be made, I
expect, at the end of this meeting.
Mr
Brechin: Thank you very much, Mr Crozier and
committee.
By the way, has Ray Lowes
ever been recognized for his work on developing the escarpment,
the Bruce Trail? That might be one of my missions. I think that
should be recognized.
The Chair:
Thank you kindly, sir.
N. SCOTT WHITE
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: N. Scott
White, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Realty Corp board of
directors.
The Chair:
The next person to come before the committee is N. Scott White,
intended appointee as chair, Ontario Realty Corp board of
directors.
It seems we're going this
way, so I think I'll go to the government first.
Mr
Wettlaufer: We'll let him make his presentation
first.
The Chair:
Yes, I will, but I just wanted to let you know that.
Sir, as you recognize, you
have the opportunity to make a few remarks at the beginning, as
long as you wish, in fact, I think up to 10 minutes; that's the
Conservative time. As has been explained, we subtract that from
the time that the Conservative Party, the governing party, has to
ask questions.
But that should not, as the
Chairman said to a previous person, confine you in your
remarks.
Welcome to the committee.
We'd be happy to hear an opening statement from you.
Mr N. Scott
White: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, good
morning. Thank you for this opportunity. I intend to make my
opening remarks brief to explain to you who I am and what my
qualifications are for the role of chair of the Ontario Realty
Corp.
I was born and raised in
the city of Toronto. I'm a happily married father of three
children. I've been in the commercial real estate business for
the past 30 years. I started with a firm called W.H. Bosley as a
sales trainee and worked my way up to salesman specializing in
office leasing.
From W.H. Bosley I was
appointed as director of leasing for Dominion Realty, which is a
subsidiary of the CIBC, and was responsible for the construction
and leasing of Commerce Court, a 2.5-million-square-foot office
development in downtown Toronto.
After the successful
completion of the leasing of that project, I was appointed as
head of the investment, commercial and industrial division of a
firm called Young and Biggin. My charge was to develop that
division. During my tenure there, I increased the sales staff to
15 people and revenues to approximately $3 million.
In 1976, due to some
unfortunate non-real-estate investments by the owners of Young
and Biggin, it went into bankruptcy. I was then asked to join a
small new firm in Toronto called Leasco Realty, which was in the
commercial leasing business. I was made a partner and managing
director of that firm. Over the next nine years, that firm grew
to be one of the dominant forces in the Toronto office leasing
market. We also expanded into the industrial market, the
investment business and the property management business.
In the early 1980s we felt the pressure of the
large US commercial brokers looking carefully at Canada, and more
particularly at Toronto. We were looking for ways to protect
ourselves and decided to become a national firm. We started
looking at other Canadian markets and firms within those
marketplaces, and in 1985 we were successful in acquiring a firm
in Vancouver called Macauley Nicolls Maitland, which had offices
in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Seattle. We merged that firm
with Leasco Realty, renamed it Colliers Macauley Nicolls, and
sold the former employees of Macauley Nicolls Maitland a 50%
interest in the firm, making it a truly national firm. I was
appointed president of the company at that point in time and was
responsible for its operations in eastern Canada. Since then,
Colliers Macauley Nicolls has grown to be the largest commercial
brokerage firm in Canada. We have offices in every major market
in Canada, stretching from Halifax to Victoria.
In 1997 I was appointed
vice-chairman of the company and moved to Vancouver. Again we had
a concern about competition and the globalization of our industry
and decided to expand on a global basis, starting in the United
States, where we opened approximately 15 offices, the major ones
being in Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Phoenix,
Dallas, Detroit and Cleveland. We also became partners with
Jardine Matheson and purchased a 50% interest in a firm called
Colliers Jardine. It is one of the largest commercial brokerage
firms in Asia and Australia. We also acquired an interest in a
firm in Mexico and expanded our operations into Brazil, Venezuela
and Argentina.
Next, we decided to take a
look at Europe, and we expanded into eastern Europe and opened
offices in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest and Bucharest.
1110
Today, Colliers has
revenues of about $400 million annually, versus 1985, when we put
the two firms together, when the revenues were approximately $10
million.
Over the years, I've given
my time and effort to a lot of charitable work in the educational
field, the sports field and the medical field.
In the year 2000 I decided
to return to my roots here in Toronto, and at the end of that
year I retired from Colliers Macaulay Nicolls. But I'm not yet
ready to put my feet up on my porch on my farm, which is on the
Niagara Escarpment. As my wife keeps reminding me, it's for
better or worse, not for lunch. So I'm really proud to have this
opportunity to utilize my real estate experience and give back to
the community in terms of the proposal as chair of the Ontario
Realty Corp.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir. Members of the government caucus?
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): I just have one question because of
the peculiar interest that others might have. As a for instance,
I don't have my brokerage licence any more, but we hear daily on
the news the problem of shares and transfers and conflicts. So
with that, I wanted to ask, do you have a financial interest yet
in Colliers that would make a difficulty perhaps with the Ontario
Realty Corp?
Mr White:
We have a shareholders' agreement within our company which
requires me to sell and the company to buy when I leave the
company, and we are in the process of negotiating that price at
this point in time.
Mr
Johnson: Thank you. That's all I had.
Mr Spina:
That was the question I had. We'll waive the rest of our
time.
The Chair:
The official opposition?
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Good morning, sir, and welcome. Just to clarify
that, your curriculum vitae that I was given said that you have
been with Colliers as vice-chair since 1995 to the present-or
let's look at right now. You're in the process of leaving
Colliers. Is that correct?
Mr White:
I officially left at the end of last year. I am no longer an
employee of Colliers Macaulay Nicolls.
Mr
Crozier: So we could update that?
Mr White:
Yes.
Mr
Crozier: It says the end of 2000. While you were there,
did Colliers International do any business with the Ontario
government, and do they continue to?
Mr White:
Yes, they do.
Mr
Crozier: Since you have considerable experience and
considerable contacts, particularly with Colliers, how will that,
if at all, affect your position if and when you're appointed-and
you will be-as chair of the ORC board of directors?
Mr White:
I don't think it will have any conflict at all with the Ontario
Realty Corp. The role of the board is to set policy, not to
implement it.
Mr
Crozier: Correct, although the role of the board is
quite extensive in the direction that it gives to the operating
personnel. It may be that they set policy, but you're no doubt
aware that because of some interesting transactions that have
gone on, the board now has to approve all sales.
Mr White:
I wasn't aware of that, sir.
Mr
Crozier: Since you are now aware of that, would you
answer my question any differently as to-
Mr White:
No, I wouldn't. What you're talking about is an approval after
the fact. The property will have already been sold through an
agent. The board will not be part of that process.
Mr
Crozier: But perhaps you can explain this for me, then,
sir. Why would it be brought to the board if it's after the
fact?
Mr White:
I don't know, sir. Well, the sale is conditional upon approval of
the board.
Mr
Crozier: So it's not after the fact?
Mr White:
It's after such time as a broker was employed or the sales
process went on.
Mr
Crozier: But the board has to approval the sale.
Mr White:
Yes.
Mr
Crozier: So you're an integral part of that.
Mr White:
Yes, sir.
Mr Crozier: And you're going to
assure me and those of us who are here and the cabinet that has
actually made your appointment, you're going to assure all these
folks, that notwithstanding the fact that you have been in the
business for years and that you have close contacts in that
business, that Colliers International will receive not one iota
of favouritism or access because of those contacts?
Mr White:
Yes, sir.
Mr
Crozier: Thank you. I'd like to be assured that you can
sever that kind of relationship, because ministers in the
government, for example, and senior bureaucrats aren't able to so
quickly move from one position to another when it might be
affected by either decisions or contacts they've had before. My
point in going this route was to suggest that maybe there should
be a reasonable length of time before that's done. But be that as
it may, you've assured us that that's the case.
Did you ask for this
appointment?
Mr White:
I'll explain that with a statement. One of my competitors called
me up to ask me something and I explained to him that I could no
longer give him his answer because I had just retired from
Colliers Macaulay Nicolls. He was the one who suggested this to
me and then asked me if I would allow my name to stand for
consideration for this appointment. I was subsequently contacted
by the appointments secretariat's office.
Mr
Crozier: So one of your competitors who is in the same
business was aware that the appointment to the chair of the ORC
was available?
Mr White:
Yes, sir.
Mr
Crozier: Who was that? Who was the competitor?
Mr White:
His name is Blake Wallace.
Mr
Crozier: Oh, yes. OK. I have another question or two,
but my colleague may have questions as well. Thank you.
Ms Di
Cocco: One of the reasons I'm an MPP is because of a
judicial inquiry over land transactions that took place in
Sarnia-Lambton with regard to private and public lands, so I have
a real interest in this whole issue of disposition of public
assets or public lands to the private sector.
The track record of the
Ontario Realty Corp has been less than stellar when it comes to
the process of actually disposing of it. I guess what I'm asking
is, do you have any kind of opinion as to how the ORC possibly
has restructured its sales and bidding procedures?
Mr White:
Other than what I've read in the newspapers, I'm not really
familiar at this point in time with that process. I'm sure that
once I'm upon it, I will be brought up to date with the process.
At this point in time I don't really have a comment other than
that I understand that the audit has come back and has absolved
them, or the senior members of the staff, of any responsibility
or any wrongdoing.
Ms Di
Cocco: I guess one of my questions then is, in sales of
public land, what criteria do you believe should be in place
before it's disposed of?
Mr White:
I think the process should be a very transparent process.
Obviously the government itself has to go through a lot of
internal soul-searching when it arrives at the decision as to
whether or not land is surplus and whether or not they will sell
it.
1120
Ms Di
Cocco: One of the things I noticed in some of the
briefings I received was that initially one of the issues was
that government operations were supposed to be moved from leased
office spaces into government-owned facilities in order to reduce
spending on leases. In other words, properties that the
government has are supposed to be owned and used for office
spaces instead of leased. Instead, what appears to be happening
is that the ORC is selling off public space and then the
government is renting it back again. Do you think that is a
fiscally good way to do business?
Mr White:
I think each instance has to be looked at carefully, but you've
got to remember that Commerce Court, which I just mentioned, was
owned by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce until very
recently and they sold it and leased it back-as has the Royal
Bank, with all its real estate, sold it and leased it back. They
have made the decision that they aren't in the real estate
business and that they're better off to be tenants and focus on
their core business rather than trying to be in the real estate
business as well.
Ms Di
Cocco: I've heard the issue of possible conflict and
that in no way would the company you're associated with gain from
or have any dealings with transactions that would be approved by
your board. Is that the case? Is that what I took from your
response to Mr Crozier?
Mr White:
I might have misunderstood Mr Crozier, but certainly through my
appointment, Colliers will not receive any advantage from my
being involved with the Ontario Realty Corp. If they're going to
go out and compete for a job, they're going to have to win it on
their own skills.
Ms Di
Cocco: What do you believe your responsibility to be on
that board?
Mr White:
As I said earlier, I think the board's responsibility is to
establish proper governance and to set policy for the corporation
to go ahead and implement.
Ms Di
Cocco: Do you believe you have any responsibility to the
public assets that are there? As an individual on that board,
what is your responsibility?
Mr White:
I believe my responsibility is to see that the Ontario Realty
Corp works as effectively as possible for the government of
Ontario.
The Chair:
There is time for one last question.
Mr
Crozier: Mr White, the federal government has recently
given a significant tract of land to the preservation of an
environmentally sensitive area, that being the Oak Ridges
moraine. What I'm interested in is, leading up to your
appointment and at this stage, what if anything has the
provincial government told you their priorities are for you as
chair of the ORC to see that provincial-government-owned
government land that is environmentally sensitive be
preserved?
Mr White:
I have had no discussion along those lines with anybody.
The Chair: Those are all the
questions to be asked. We go to the third party.
Mr
Crozier: I thought he was answering the question.
Ms
Churley: Thank you very much for joining us today so we
have this opportunity. I wanted to pick up where the Liberal
caucus left off, and that is, to talk a little bit about some of
the environmental implications and the need for a second look at
what's been happening, not just according to me but to the
Environmental Commissioner. First of all, are you aware that the
Environmental Commissioner's report-I believe it was the
1999-2000 annual report-criticized the ORC's environmental
record? Are you aware of that report?
Mr White:
No, I'm sorry. I'm not.
Ms
Churley: It's something I would suggest that you take a
look at, because the commissioner expressed some real concerns.
They are concerns of all of us and, I would like to think, as
well, of my Tory colleagues sitting here today.
There is quite a bit of
controversy around the development in the Oak Ridges moraine, but
there is development happening elsewhere that there is concern
about as well. The concern is that the ORC has been marketing,
rezoning, subdividing and selling government lands affecting
these environmentally significant lands. Those include lands in
the parkway belt north of Toronto-I mentioned the Oak Ridges
moraine-the Markham-Pickering agricultural lands reserve, and the
Rouge Park area. The commissioner has said that this has been
done quickly, without adequate environmental study or public
consultation.
Since you haven't read the
report and this is new to you, I want to alert you to it, that
this is of significant concern to those, I would say, among all
parties in the Legislature who are concerned about the
preservation of environmentally sensitive land.
That will lead me to my
question, since you can't respond specifically to that. The
question would be, are you willing, as the chair, to take a look
at the implications of this? I know it has been suggested that
the government's strong mandate is for the ORC to be businesslike
and just sell lands at all costs and make the biggest profit
possible. Many of us believe that's not enough, that we owe other
debts to our society, and I wonder what your position is on that
in terms of a balance between making a profit but also protecting
our land.
Mr White:
I think that's a very important balance to continue to maintain.
I can only suggest to you that the Ontario Realty Corp should be
taking direction from its client, its only client, which is the
Ontario government, in terms of how it deals with it. If there
are rules in terms of the environment that it should be
following, it should be following those rules.
Ms
Churley: These rules, by the way, are under what's
called a class EA under I think the Environmental Assessment Act.
I understand that because there have been accusations-legitimate,
in my view-that the ORC has not been following these rules, this
class EA is now under review. Would you take the position that
it's important for this process to be there for the ORC to follow
because they play such a huge role in our environmentally
sensitive land? Would you support keeping that process in
place?
Mr White:
Certainly, subject to reading and understanding what the rules
are. If there is any disparity from those rules, I would
certainly feel that it would be the ORC's responsibility to
correct those disparities.
Ms
Churley: So can I ask for a commitment from you that you
will take a look at this and make it a priority to deal with this
specific problem?
Mr White:
I will certainly take a look at it and make the decision whether
it is a major problem that should be pursued immediately.
Ms
Churley: That's a careful answer.
I want to change tracks
here a little bit and talk about affordable housing. I recognize
that this position, if approved today-and I can safely assume it
will be. You know that we have a severe housing crisis in
Ontario, and particularly in our larger urban centres. Everybody
is aware of that. Both senior levels of government have removed
themselves from housing. Affordable housing is not being built
any more. The Tory government here changed rent controls and got
out of the business and downloaded housing to the municipality,
saying that the private sector would develop and would build
affordable housing. It is not happening.
There had been a policy
under our government that some land, surplus land, would be set
aside as land to be given to social housing developers to provide
affordable housing. That's no longer a policy of this government.
Would you support at least taking a look at that being brought
back as government policy again with some of the existing
lands?
1130
Mr White:
I don't think I have personally any influence on government
policy. If the Ontario Realty Corp is asked to give land to
support housing, it certainly would, but the government would
have to make that decision and that request of Ontario
housing.
Ms
Churley: Do you personally support such a position?
Mr White:
Personally I'm in favour of public housing. How it gets there is
another issue.
Ms
Churley: Those are all my questions, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
I guess that concludes all of the questioning, then. Thank you
very much, sir, for appearing before the committee.
Mr White:
Thank you.
The Chair:
We have a couple of things I should note. First of all, you're
aware of the 30-day deadline that exists between the cabinet
passing an order in council and the committee dealing with it. I
think that's how it works. The House-may I be editorial? The
Chair is not supposed to be. The House will at long last be back
in session-you know how I always like the House to be back-after
four months. Therefore, if we were to extend the deadline we
could deal with it when the House is in session, as opposed to calling another meeting
of this committee before the House comes back, if that is what
you would like to do. We would then not have to schedule another
meeting before the House comes back if there's unanimous consent
to extend the deadline until the committee's regular meeting on
April 24.
This is only for two
people: the McMichael Canadian Art Collection board of trustees,
Mr Blake Wallace and Mr Mario Cortellucci. Do I have unanimous
consent of the committee to extend that 30 days?
Interjections.
The Chair:
Thank you kindly. I appreciate that. We will not have to have
another committee meeting before the House reconvenes.
We will now go to the
appointments review itself and the concurrence motions that
usually come forth. I will entertain any concurrence motions.
Mr Spina:
I move concurrence of the appointment of Mr Brechin.
The Chair:
Mr Spina has moved concurrence. Any comment first?
Ms
Churley: Just briefly, and I would ask for a recorded
vote. Although I was pleased with some of the responses of Mr
Brechin for the Niagara Escarpment position, I just want it on
the record that I will be voting against this appointment.
Although I found Mr Brechin to be an open and charming man, I
feel very concerned, and it is a great concern, that some of the
staunch environmental protectors on that commission have been
systematically let go from the commission.
I didn't raise it as a
question but I'm also concerned that there are no more women left
on that commission. It's something that I've fought for all my
adult life, to make sure there is some kind of gender balance.
This has been an issue that I've brought up before and it's been
dismissed.
But due to the fact that
some of these supporters were lost in the last round, and here we
go again, I wanted to see somebody who had a very clear
understanding of the environmental protection role of this
commission and made it very clear that they had researched and
understood it, and also were concerned about this lack of balance
and were going to in fact come today and tell us that they were
going to take that on, make it an issue and fight very hard for
that balance to be restored. I just don't feel that Mr Brechin
fulfills that role that I wanted to see presented here today.
The Chair:
Any other comments from anyone? If not, a recorded vote has been
requested.
AYES
Johnson, Kells, Spina,
Wettlaufer.
NAYS
Churley, Crozier, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
Mr Spina:
I move concurrence in the appointment of Mr White.
The Chair:
You've heard Mr Spina's motion. Any comments?
Mr
Crozier: Just a couple of comments. I was perhaps a bit
surprised that the candidate for appointment hadn't received any
comment or contact from the government and therefore wasn't able
to answer the question about whether the government has given any
direction about the sale of sensitive lands. My surprise is that
I would have hoped that the government maybe would have had a
discussion with Mr White and perhaps covered that issue.
Also, I am a bit concerned
that there was some confusion around the role the board will play
in the operation of the Ontario Realty Corp in that the board of
directors has to approve land sales. There was some concern on my
part in that I don't think land sales or asset sales are complete
until after the board has given its approval. If it is a fait
accompli, then what's the point of the board of directors being
involved in it at all?
Third, it was an
interesting little issue that popped up in that, of all people,
of any number of people it could be, Mr Blake Wallace was the one
who told Mr White of the availability of this appointment. I only
bring that up because it's interesting to me how interwoven some
of these things are. We know that Mr Wallace is coming up for an
appointment on the McMichael board and we know that Mr Wallace
has had some communication with regard to the Adams mine issue.
It's just interesting to me that all these little things seem to
be interwoven, and therefore I have a bit of concern about this
appointment.
The Chair:
Ms Di Cocco?
Ms Di
Cocco: Just an observation: what concerns me about a bit
of the discussion is that unfortunately it seems it's the roles
and responsibilities of boards that ensure that the process we
have in this province is one of integrity and one of
responsibility on behalf of the citizens of this province.
It seems to me, just from
the fact that people are coming forth-and I think it's wonderful
that we have people available to do this, but who on the other
hand don't seem to have an understanding of what the structure is
in which they are going to play a major role. That concerns me to
no end. If the person who is going to be at the helm, the chair,
doesn't understand the roles and responsibilities, then I am
concerned that maybe we are just going to have rubber-stampers of
a partisan nature, which I believe isn't something the people of
Ontario deserve when it comes to some of these highly sensitive
areas, as well as the huge responsibilities on behalf of the
people of the province. That is just my comment on that.
Mr
Johnson: I'd like to request a recorded vote.
The Chair:
Any other comment before we have the recorded vote?
Mr Spina has moved
concurrence.
AYES
Johnson, Kells, Spina,
Wettlaufer.
NAYS
Churley, Crozier, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
Mr
Johnson: I have one other thing. We mentioned the next
meeting, and I think the date mentioned was April 24, and that's
a Tuesday.
The Chair:
It's April 25.
Mr
Johnson: It should be Wednesday, April 25?
The Chair:
That is correct. I was about to note that. I had a note placed in
front of me to indicate that since we meet on Wednesday mornings
it would be on April 25 that we would be dealing with those two.
Thank you very much, Mr Johnson.
A motion to adjourn?
Mr Spina:
So moved.
The Chair:
Mr Spina moves that we adjourn. All in favour? Carried.
