role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 5, 2007

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-Apr-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 5 April 2007 Jeudi 5 avril 2007

WEARING OF FLOWERS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(DIRECT ELECTION OF DURHAM

REGIONAL COUNCIL CHAIR), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES

MUNICIPALITÉS (ÉLECTION AU SCRUTIN

GÉNÉRAL DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL

RÉGIONAL DE DURHAM)

VISITORS

WAR OF 1812

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(DIRECT ELECTION OF DURHAM

REGIONAL COUNCIL CHAIR), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES

MUNICIPALITÉS (ÉLECTION AU SCRUTIN

GÉNÉRAL DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL

RÉGIONAL DE DURHAM)

WAR OF 1812

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

POLICE OFFICERS

ORLEANS YOUNG PLAYERS

THEATRE SCHOOL /

THÉÂTRE JEUNESSE D'ORLÉANS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

YMCA OF PETERBOROUGH

CLARKE ROAD SECONDARY SCHOOL

TRICIA CUMMINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007

SUR LA PROTECTION DES MINEURS

PARTICIPANT À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEL SWART

VISITOR

ANNIVERSARY OF VIMY RIDGE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

CONVENIENCE STORES

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

BRUCE NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

MINING INDUSTRY

SPORTS AND RECREATION FUNDING /

FONDS POUR SPORTS ET LOISIRS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

PETITIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

TUITION

GTA POOLING

LABORATORY SERVICES

GTA POOLING

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

REGULATION OF ZOOS

GTA POOLING

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

GTA POOLING

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

GTA POOLING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEFERRAL OF VOTES

2007 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

WEARING OF FLOWERS

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for members to be able to wear this beautiful tulip, which is to promote awareness of Parkinson's disease in the month of April.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is there consent? Agreed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(DIRECT ELECTION OF DURHAM

REGIONAL COUNCIL CHAIR), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES

MUNICIPALITÉS (ÉLECTION AU SCRUTIN

GÉNÉRAL DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL

RÉGIONAL DE DURHAM)

Mr. Ouellette moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to provide for the direct election of the Durham Regional Council chair / Projet de loi 172, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités pour prévoir l'élection au scrutin général du président du conseil régional de Durham.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Ouellette, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): The region of Durham is growing at an astounding rate. In fact, it's recognized as one of the fastest growth areas in the country. Oshawa and Durham region have also experienced unprecedented economic growth and prosperity in recent years, and that's never been more evident than the drive in this morning. It was three times as long as it normally takes. Oshawa is listed as one of the highest-growth communities up to 2009, maybe to 2012, with all the growth and development going on there.

The regional government provides many essential services for the people. The regional chair position now oversees over 600,000 constituents—a very important position indeed. Now it's time to have a chair who is directly elected by the people he or she serves.

On November 13 of last year, in the municipal elections, the residents of Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering were asked if they supported the direct election of the regional chair, and the results were overwhelming. In Ajax, the support for a directly elected regional chair was 89.39%; in Pickering, the support for a directly elected regional chair was 89.24%; and in my riding of Oshawa, the support was 86.31%. On February 14, 2007, Durham regional council endorsed the resolution.

I must say that I've been very impressed and actually overwhelmed with the support that I have seen in response to the introduction of this bill. I can't get over the number of phone calls, e-mails and correspondence, all complimenting this bill and the importance of democracy at the local and regional levels.

As a matter of fact, I will give some examples from the local weekly paper, Oshawa This Week: "Electorate Says Yes to Voting for Regional Chairperson"; "Region Endorses Bill Calling For Direct Election of Chairperson." Ajax mayor Steve Parish: "I hope this bill is supported by government and passed expediently." Oshawa mayor John Gray: "Mr. Ouellette is fulfilling the requests of the people of Oshawa." Ajax councillor Colleen Jordan: "It is time we start moving in the direction people ask us to." And our member from Durham, Mr. O'Toole: "I commend [Mr.

Ouellette] for reintroducing this bill, as it reflects the wishes of the people of the regional municipality of Durham."

I think the important point here is that this is why I previously introduced the bill; that is, this bill is what the people of Oshawa and the region of Durham have requested and voted for. They want more democracy in our area and they expect the government to support their wishes.

I know some concerns have been brought forward—I met with the minister briefly yesterday and we discussed this—that we may hear this morning regarding the cost of implementing a direct election. Well, the evidence is clear that in other, similar jurisdictions they have moved forward with a direct election for the regional chair and the cost concerns have not been validated.

I would like to share some of the information on similar experiences from the region of Halton and the region of Waterloo, two regions which are very similar in size and population to Durham region and which now have an elected chairperson. The evidence from these jurisdictions is interesting, but not quite surprising. General observations from these regions show that voters are now accustomed to and pleased with having a directly elected regional chair, and voter turnout is consistent with other municipal elections.

There is no indication that a party apparatus backs or assists any candidate. There is no evidence that candidates cannot campaign effectively. The incumbent advantage is no different than in any other election. There is no apparent advantage to candidates from larger municipalities within the region. In fact, the chair of Waterloo region is actually from a township and not from the larger municipalities of Kitchener, Waterloo or Cambridge. The residents feel the elected chairperson best represents the entire region. The residents believe that the direct election results in a chair that is more powerful and, quite frankly, more accountable.

If you look at some of the stats from Waterloo, for example, the chair was first elected in 1997 and the voter turnout was very consistent with other municipalities in similar situations. The highest-spending candidate in the previous election—they have the stats for 2003; as 2006 was just finished, they don't have those returns completely compiled yet. In 2003, the chair for the region of Waterloo spent a total of $25,883 to get elected, a considerable amount less than what the average member in this chamber would spend. Not only that, but in Halton, where the chair was first elected in 2000, the chair spent a total of $40,388.22 in order to get elected.

As well, I would read a number of pieces of information from, for example, the town of Ajax. This is re Bill 172, direct election of regional council chair. It's to the Honourable John Gerretsen, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

"Dear Sir:

"Please be advised that the following resolution was endorsed by Ajax town council at its meeting held on January 22, 2007:

"'That the government of Ontario be urged to approve Bill 172, the Municipal Amendment Act (Direct Election of Durham Regional Council Chair), 2006, without delay;" and it goes on.

Not only that, when you look at what took place at Durham region council—this is a letter to the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario:

"Honourable Sir, at their meeting held on February 14, 2007, the council of the regional municipality of Durham endorsed the following resolution:

"'Whereas the'" chairperson "'of the regional municipality of Durham has considerable responsibility, influence and authority over numerous public policy and service issues affecting all residents, businesses and electors in the region of Durham;

"'And

whereas a fundamental principle of democracy is that the electors, through a general vote, have the right to freely choose their political representatives;

"'And

whereas an identical question was placed on the Ajax, Oshawa and Pickering municipal election ballots asking electors if they wished their local councils to approve a resolution to request that the government of Ontario make a regulation requiring that the method of selecting the chair of the regional municipality of Durham be changed to election by general vote;

"'And

whereas electors responded to the ballot question as follows'"—and it goes on to list:

—Ajax: Yes, 89.39%; No, 10.61%.

—Pickering: Yes, 89.24%; No, 10.76%.

—Oshawa: Yes, 86.31%; No, 13.69%.

"'And

whereas the ballot question results, while not legally binding as 50% of the ... electors in any of the municipalities did not vote on the question, indicate significant support for changing the method of selecting the regional chair to election by general vote;

"'And

whereas Bill 172, Municipal Amendment Act (Direct Election of Durham Regional Council Chair), 2006, which would require that the head of council for the regional municipality of Durham be elected by a general vote, received first reading by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on December 12, 2006;

"'Now therefore

be it resolved:'"—remember, this is to the Premier from the council of Durham region—"'That the council of the regional municipality of Durham endorse Bill 172, Municipal Amendment Act (Direct Election of Durham Regional Council Chair), 2006, and that the government of Ontario be urged to pass this act and provide royal assent without delay.'"

It's quite clear, when you receive information such as this, when you see the votes coming in on the municipal ballots saying that over 86% and 89% in Ajax in Pickering want it, that those areas specifically want this to move forward.

Some of the difficulties: We heard or we thought that if it was directly elected, the larger municipalities would control what takes place. However, that's quite contrary to what has been shown in the region of Waterloo: It was from a township that an individual has been elected as chair. So quite clearly, the concerns brought forward by some of the municipalities in the region—and yes, there are pros and cons for everyone.

I know some of my colleagues will expressly bring out some of those pros and cons, especially my seatmate, who is the former chair from the region of Halton and will discuss some of the actual financials, possibly, some of the levy costs and the overall implications of directly electing a regional chair.

The evidence is clear that the region of Durham is now ready to move forward with the direct election of the regional chair. I would ask all members for their support and consideration on this day.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches—East York): I rise to support this particular motion. I rise to support it not only because the people in Durham have spoken very strongly through the ballot box that they want this but also because I think that the whole way in which regional governments have been structured in the past is arcane. It's of another era. It's of a time when the province would meddle in the affairs of the municipalities, which hopefully is coming to an end.

I remember and we all remember the time when the province had a say in who was going to be the regional chair, and that the regional chair was not even an elected person. In many of the regional governments across Ontario today, they are not elected. They do not seek office. What they do is seek the support of those who have been elected to office. They make deals with politicians and they make deals in order to get elected. It's done in a closed group, and the public has very little or no say in how it is done.

I support what the member for Oshawa is trying to do, but I think it isn't going far enough. I'm going to vote for it. But what is good for Durham should be good for all the other regional governments in Ontario, for all those places that do not have one-tier governments like Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa or London. All of those places that have a two-tier government should have the same opportunities. We've seen what happened in Halton. We have a member today, the member for Burlington, who was the first regional chair of that municipality and who was directly elected. It seemed to me that she did a pretty good job.

I think she was elected and re-elected again until she determined that the time was up and she wanted to move on and come here.

The whole issue of having non-elected people in charge I think would rankle any true democrat. It would rankle anyone who thought that this was the way to go. Therefore, because the people have spoken so strongly, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we give them what they want. Because the municipal politicians have backed that up, there can be no excuse, which I have heard from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing from time to time, that he's not going to take action on referenda because the local municipality doesn't agree with the people.

That's the case in the city of Kawartha Lakes, and that's the rationale he has given for not doing it. But he cannot have a similar rationale here, because not only do the people want to change the system but the politicians want to change it too, and there should be absolutely no hindrance in getting that done.

There was one question raised by my friend from Oshawa that is related to the cost. I'm not sure within the body of his bill when he intends this to happen, if it's right away and to go out for a brand new election, or whether he wants this to happen in the elections in 2010.

Mr. Ouellette: Next election.

Mr. Prue: It's 2010. If it's in 2010, I want to tell you that the cost will be so minimal to the municipality. There are already poll clerks, there are already ballot boxes, there are already electoral places that will be determined to house the poll clerks and the ballot boxes. The cost of putting an additional couple of names on a ballot will be minuscule.

Just to close, I think this is an idea whose time has come for the people of Durham. I would implore the government to look at this, and if you're going to do it for Durham, think about all the other municipalities. Think about Peel, about York region, about all the other places that have regional governments with appointed chairs. This hearkens back to a day which has long passed.

If the government is true to its word, and I have heard many members on the government side speak to this and say that they believe municipalities are mature levels of government, then they also have to believe that the municipal electors are mature levels of electors and have the confidence and the good sense to choose in their minds who is best for them and not to leave it up to a municipal council to appoint someone who does not even seek elected office.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'm delighted to join in this debate. I want to begin by stating that I do have a lot of respect for the member for Oshawa. He is a hard-working MPP, and he's also a fellow hockey coach. For anybody here who thinks that it's tough to be a politician and you take a lot of abuse, try being a hockey coach. It's a heck of a lot tougher than the job we have to go through year in and year out. I know the member for Oshawa is an excellent hockey coach because he happens to coach my constituency assistant Monica's son, David McGee.

I've heard nothing but good things, and when you hear good things from a hockey parent about a hockey coach, it means he must be pretty darn good. So I congratulate him for that. I tell him I have a lot of respect for him for that.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to support his resolution today, and let me explain why. You see, our government believes that the best solutions in municipal governance are those that are developed at the local level and supported locally. While I know and I recognize that there is what seems to be a building consensus for direct election of the regional chair throughout the region of Durham, there's still a process in place whereby municipal representatives and the public can bring forward this change.

I really don't feel comfortable usurping that process to sort of dictate from here what we think is best rather than allowing the municipal politicians to participate in what I think is a very legitimate and proper process for them to go through.

Let me just outline what the process is. It sounds complicated but it's really quite simple. Regional council would have to pass a resolution requesting that the minister pass a regulation under something called subsection 218, regional powers—not very difficult for them to do. It sounds like there may be a consensus at the region that may allow them to do that. Notice of this and the holding of a public meeting would be necessary. I think that's important. The public should have an opportunity to speak to this.

A bylaw would be passed by the regional council and circulated to lower-tier municipalities for endorsement. Councils of lower-tier municipalities would then vote on the upper-tier bylaw, and the bylaw would have to be passed by a majority of lower-tier councils representing the majority of the public by the population.

I don't think it's that difficult to get that kind of consensus. When you do make a change in terms of structure of governance, it's important that you do have a consensus. There is not a full consensus out there right now, and that's one of the concerns we have. The community of Clarington, for instance, is on record as being opposed to this. We don't think their views should be totally ignored. This could still go forward under this structure without Clarington's support, but we think their voice should be heard.

In addition, the representatives from the township of Brock, the municipality of Clarington, the township of Scugog, the town of Whitby and the township of Uxbridge voted against the resolution at regional council. So I am not sure whether the consensus is as strong as we are being told today. It may well be, but if it is, there is a very fine way for the municipality to bring this forward.

I don't want to get too political here, but our approach to municipalities is that we have confidence in municipal leaders to be able to carry out their responsibilities. That's why, under the new Municipal Act and the new City of Toronto Act, we have given them more authority and more autonomy. We have confidence in their ability to do this.

This is an approach that's directly different from the approach taken by the previous Tory government, which felt they had to—I don't want to use the word "dictate," but it's probably appropriate in this circumstance—dictate to municipalities when they thought, "You should amalgamate." For instance, in the city of Toronto, where 73% of the people didn't want to do it and despite the fact that there was almost unanimous consent—almost unanimous, not entirely—from local representatives not to do it, they thought, "The province knows best; let's impose this."

My concern is that this is a similar approach, and I think it demonstrates the differences in the approach taken by the different governments. The McGuinty government looks for a consensual approach: "Allow municipalities to do what they're entitled to do and use their autonomy. We have confidence they will do that appropriately."

We are not going to impose a solution on them here, even though most of us on this side of the House probably agree that direct election of a chair makes sense. There are a lot of good reasons to do that. We just don't feel we are in a position where we want to impose that. We want municipalities to go through the proper process and develop the consensus they need with their people, with upper and lower tiers. We think that's the more appropriate way to go, and as a result we won't—I won't—be supporting and I won't be recommending that members of the Legislature support this particular resolution.

Well-intended as I think it is, we think it just runs contrary, going through and imposing our view at Queen's Park on the people of Durham. It's not the appropriate way to go.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline (Burlington): I'm pleased to rise and support my colleague from Oshawa on his private member's bill. I speak from personal experience, having been elected twice as a regional chair in Halton. Just from a personal point of view, I can tell you that there is no more honour or pride than in having the trust of the people shown to you in a public vote. It was a really good feeling in 2000, when council requested of the provincial government of the day to have the regional chair of Halton directly elected.

The first direct election of the regional chair was in 2000, and I guess because it was the first time, many of us wondered how, physically, this would be carried out in a large area that spanned four provincial ridings. But, quite frankly, it's what the people wanted and it was something they accepted and took great pleasure participating in.

I asked council to make this request of the provincial government because it was at a time when services and financial responsibilities were being transferred to the regions,

whereas previous to that the regions were collecting about 14 cents of every property tax dollar. When the transfer of services and financial responsibilities occurred, we were collecting much more than that. It actually turned about, and the local area municipalities were collecting about 14 cents or 15 cents of every dollar, school boards were collecting about 14 cents or 15 cents of every dollar and the region was collecting about 70 cents of every property tax dollar. I felt it was critical that the head of council be directly accountable to the people, based on the amount of money that that particular level of government collected in taxes.

Overriding, for me, was the accountability directly back to the people whose services you were providing, whose money you were collecting, whose advice you needed to take and whom you needed to report back to. It needed to be a direct relationship, not a relationship through members of council who were elected. That indirect relationship was a broken line for me. It also speaks to democracy. My family came to Canada in 1953, and we lived in refugee camps. I know what democracy feels like.

Democracy is being in Canada; democracy is being in Ontario: having the ability to speak out and say what you would like, and most especially having the right to vote for the people who represent you. So democracy for me was a big part of why the regional chair in any municipality should be directly elected.

Appointed by council, as I said, is that broken line that occurs and it's that disconnect with the people. Even though your style may be to connect directly with people, you still don't have that same accountability that you do when you're directly elected by the people. You all know how that feels, because we're all directly elected to this Legislature. It's a good feeling. It's a strong feeling. It gives you a confident feeling that you're representing the people.

Being an appointed chair, to me, resembles the appointed bodies that occur from time to time, and I am not a proponent of special-purpose bodies. I never have been. The more that are created, I think the more problems that occur. Decent people serve on appointed boards, well-meaning people serve on appointed boards, but when it comes down to it, they are not accountable directly back to the people. MPAC, OLG, CCACs, LHINs—these are well-meaning people that run these arms-length, autonomous corporations, but do you know what? People can't reach the people making the decisions, and I don't think that's right in a democracy.

In a government that delivers the critical services in a municipality, if the federal government were gone tomorrow, we wouldn't know for a year. If we were gone tomorrow, you wouldn't know for months. If the local level of government were gone, you would know the instant you tried to turn on your tap, you tried to turn on your lights, you wanted an ambulance, you called for a fire engine or you called for a police car. It is the level of government that touches the people closely, directly and instantly. The person that heads that council should be directly accountable to the people.

The critical services that are delivered come with a high cost and in large part are invisible services, so you don't know about regional government as quickly as you might know about your local government that runs the buses on the streets, that has the parks that your children play in, that floods the ice rinks that your children play in and that has the libraries. Those are visible things in the community. But your regional government presents a product to the people that, for the most part, is invisible.

When you turn your water on in a regional municipality, you don't think about who is responsible for that service. You don't even think about whether your water is clean and safe; it just happens. That invisibility of regional government is, I think, something that needs to be changed. One way to do it is to create the direct election of the regional chair, because then that person goes out into the community and the community becomes aware of who that person represents.

If you think about it, in councils where regional councillors are indirectly elected to the region—for example, in Burlington they are elected as Burlington councillors and then appointed to the region—most councillors don't run on regional issues. Most councillors run on issues very local to them: on parks and recreation and libraries and that kind of thing. Those larger issues are never profiled. But the regional chairman is the only person in a regional council that represents the entire region. If that person is elected, he or she is accountable to that entire region.

These are the critical services that are provided in a community. Let me tell you folks that since the realignment of services occurred in the late 1990s, regional budgets are very large, topping over half a billion dollars and more in the larger regions. This is a lot of money for councillors to be handling, but the head of council ought to be accountable directly back to the people for that large amount of money that's collected and overseen.

It's not a difficult campaign, because when you're campaigning in a local municipality the issues don't really vary much from municipality to municipality on a regional basis. The geography is larger; no question. But it is not a difficult campaign, and I speak to that from personal experience.

I feel that the pros far outweigh the cons. I've told you about why I feel it's important that the mandate to represent the entire region and to be accountable is the overriding issue for me. It's about democracy. It's about being in the new millennium, being a sophisticated municipality where the people have the right to say who they want as the head of their council.

I will say, though, that there are a couple of issues that are—what can I call it?—less than advantageous in a process like this. One of them is that if the municipality chose—I haven't seen this happen in any area where a regional chair is directly elected—party politics could creep in. I'm not a believer that party politics belongs at the municipal level; it does not. You see it in some of the very large municipalities and, quite frankly, it does not work. That is one opportunity that I think would be a disadvantage.

The other thing is that name recognition sometimes can override the ability of the person to actually carry out the job. That could be a disadvantage to the municipality. But I think that, given what I know from experience, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina): I will be supporting this bill that the member from Oshawa has presented. I agree with many of the arguments presented by the member from Oshawa, including the arguments presented by the member from Burlington, except the last comment, and I'll get to that in a second.

The member from Scarborough Centre raises an interesting point—and the only point that he said that he will be voting against—and that is the principle of consensus and that they have the power, as a regional council, to be able to, on a consensus basis, simply come to terms with this issue. It seems like a very reasonable argument.

On the face of it, it sounds as if it would be very difficult to say, "How could you disagree with the notion of consensus?" It seems so friendly; it seems so nice; it seems like the way to do things, except, if we did things by consensus nothing would ever happen, by and large, because you're always going to have one person saying no, for whatever reason. In this case, one little town might decide, for whatever reason, "No, we just don't like it." If you left it to the principle of consensus, no change would happen.

So, should the notion and/or the principle of consensus override the principle of direct accountability and the principle of transparency? I say no to that argument. I think direct accountability should override consensus in this regard. I think transparency is a much better principle to speak about and to support rather than the issue of consensus in this case.

When you run for a regional council chair, you are running on a platform that is clear and transparent to the public. You are forced to put out a platform. As the member from Burlington said, you would be running on regional issues, not local issues, so when you run, everyone in every region would know what ideas you are advocating for and on that basis people will support you or reject you. How could we oppose the idea of direct election? It's hard for me to say I would oppose that. I like direct election. I like the idea that people have a platform and that I know what he or she stands for. On that basis, I either vote for them or I don't vote for them.

I understand the fears; I do. I appreciate the fact that some of the towns in that region would be very worried about losing their possible autonomy or their smallness and that they might be swallowed up by the big ones. It's a possible, legitimate fear. But I'm not sure that that fear is greater if you have a direct election versus the fear that you might have now at the present time in a non-direct election. I think the fears are equally true whether you elect somebody directly or not. So while I understand that there may be fears, the principle of direct election should override that fear.

I don't think cost is an issue. My colleague from Beaches—East York said there isn't much of a cost issue, the member from Burlington said as much, and the member from Oshawa. I don't think that's an issue, and I'm not sure that we're going to get too many arguments connected to the issue of cost.

I wanted to remind the member from Oshawa that I will be supporting it, in spite of the fact that your leader, Harris, at the time, you'll recall, when he amalgamated the city of Toronto, did so in spite of the fact that over 80% of the public that was consulted in a referendum said no to amalgamation. We should remember that because I was supportive of the people who, in a referendum, said we shouldn't amalgamate, in the same way that I'm leaning to support your argument that a lot of the people where there has been a referendum are leaning heavily towards having direct elections.

We have to be very supportive of those kinds of initiatives. I'm convinced that the member from Oshawa remembers this very well and is likely not to ever repeat that mistake, in the same way that the NDP was in government then and made a few mistakes and is likely not to repeat the very same ones. It's true that you might commit others, as we might, should we ever get into government, but I think we are not likely to repeat the same ones.

The member from Burlington raised another fear, and that is the fear of party politics at the municipal level. I have never been frightened of party politics at the municipal level. In fact, I believe the majority of people know which party we belong to. I am convinced that the good folks who elected the member from Burlington knew then that she was probably a Conservative Party member and/or a Conservative Party supporter or a member who has Conservative politics.

I am convinced that people know us, in the same way that if I did not reveal my leanings when I was a school trustee, in the way that I spoke, in the motions that I supported, people would say, "He looks and sounds like a New Democrat." So what separates us from saying, "I am a New Democrat and vote as a New Democrat, but I do not reveal myself as New Democrat"? The point is, we reveal ourselves in the way we speak and the way that we vote, and people know that. So hiding your politics is subterfuge, really.

I'm not sure that we would making politics at the municipal level worse if all of a sudden people said, "I'm a Tory," and others, "I'm a Liberal," and others, "I'm a New Democrat." We have it now, except there is no label at the moment.

But all I say to people is: Look at the voting record in all of the regional council debates, all of the city debates, town debates; look at the voting patterns of individual members and you can pretty well have a good sense, "This person is a Tory; this person is in the middle, always a Liberal; and this person is a New Democrat"—usually a New Democrat on the left. There are times when some Liberals go to the right and some Liberals go to the left. This is equally true, but on the whole, people know, based on their voting pattern.

The main thrust of my argument is that direct accountability is something we should all be supporting. People have a right to know who is going to be their regional chair where we have regional governments; and to go further, as my friend from Beaches—East York said, where we have regional governments, the government should move quickly to direct elections. It shouldn't be just as it relates to this Bill 172; it should be with all regional governments across Ontario.

I think it's good bill. It's a bill that I will be supporting and many of the members of the New Democrat Party are likely to support. We will see whether other Liberal members have a different point of view than the one raised by the member of Oshawa.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough—Rouge River): I rise to speak on Bill 172 as presented by the member from Oshawa. I have to say that I pay respect to the member from Oshawa that he is trying to move forward the business of his city of Oshawa. But the member mentioned several things that I am concerned about. I cannot support this bill in its present form because the member seems to go through the statistics that the city of Oshawa and the town of Ajax moved resolutions to support this bill.

Also, there was a question on the ballot in Ajax, Pickering and Oshawa and there was overwhelming support for this particular bill. He mentioned the percentages, but I tend to look at the numbers. He mentioned that there are approximately 600,000 people in the region of Durham. When I look at the numbers of people who actually voted yes, it's only 48,892. I would calculate that to be less than 10% of the population of the region. Ten per cent, to me, is not an overwhelming majority and it does not tell me that the people of the region have spoken strongly.

Even if I were to take that and further break it down by individual cities, it probably would show a whole different picture altogether.

I have to say that our government has been working very hard to build a relationship with municipalities over the last three years. There has been a lot of good bridge-building, if I can say, within the last three years. I would have to say that I'd respect the municipality's wishes. If the municipality wanted this to happen, we have legislation today that allows it to happen. If the region of Durham has debated their resolution to support Bill 172 and actually advised the government that they support Bill 172, I would find it overwhelming to support this bill if the region had also followed the process in the Municipal Act, which is clearly stated in

section 218. Let me just clarify why it concerns me that we are not following

section 218. If you read the details of

section 218, the regional council has to pass a resolution requesting the minister to change regulations. But one specific part of

section 218 reads: "Bylaw passed if the majority of lower-tier councils representing a majority of the upper-tier electors endorse the bylaw." There's a specific reason for that in the act today, because what it does is provide fairness for the minority partners of a regional municipality. It allows the minority partners to have some type of fairness before something happens that affects the smaller group or the minority people in that particular region. This particular bill, I do not believe, respects the wishes of the minority regions because it's really looking after what Ajax, Pickering and Oshawa want and it's ignoring the other smaller municipalities.

I pulled down from the Internet the vote of the regional council of Durham when they debated Bill 172 and it's interesting to note that the mayor of Pickering voted no, although his people want it. So you have to ask yourself, "What is the problem here?" Well, obviously there isn't consensus. The whole Municipal Act is designed in such a way that you have some form of consensus or agreement by the general public and the majority of the people who are around.

This particular bill reminds me of what happened in Toronto. I was a member of the city of Scarborough council at the time. I will tell you, it will come across, if we accept this bill and support it, that the province is meddling in the municipal world again. To me, I can't support that. There are many pitfalls with what happened in Toronto and, no matter what, the government will not be looked upon positively if we impose this bill on the region of Durham. So I cannot support it.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): It's interesting that the Liberals aren't supporting this bill, because it deals with the electoral process and it deals with a lot of the same things that are happening with the parliamentary reform committee and how that's operating in Ontario. It's interesting how that's operating in that 103 members, who were unelected—in fact, were unknown by the constituents that they represent—were brought together to talk about changing the way in which we elect members to this House.

Here we are discussing how—or will be discussing in the bill—those people are going to be elected to this House, and we have no idea who the 103 people were who came together and created this system. They were totally unelected. There was no review. There was no peer review, certainly, as to who they were. They came together and created a system, which they refer to as MMP, I think it is, that is going to change, or could possibly change, the way in which the Ontario government is run.

The Liberals have supported this bill and they're bringing in this new system which could very well change the way Ontario is governed. So it's not surprising that we stand here today and listen to the Liberal Party and they're totally against, or not in favour of, having the due process of democracy take place, and the chairman of a major region with a population that is greater than one province and perhaps two or three provinces—it certainly is a very large area that they are representing—isn't elected. There seems to be a theme that runs through it.

Not only that, we stand in our place here and talk, and I know that, whenever I talk about things, I'm hopefully well briefed on it and somewhat knowledgeable on the things I talk about. I sometimes wonder about other members of this House as to whether they have that same degree of knowledge as to what they talk about. I'm certainly not talking about the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is always well briefed, but he was looking at me rather surprised when I mentioned that.

But today we have someone in the House who has actually gone through the process that we're talking about going through in the former chairman of the region of Halton, Joyce Savoline, who went through the process of becoming an elected chair, of representing the people. She stood in her place today and told of her experience. So we have this first-hand knowledge. First-hand knowledge in this place is always fairly rare. I think even the Minister of Municipal Affairs would agree that it's fairly rare to have that first-hand knowledge and experience when we're discussing a particular bill.

It was interesting to listen to her account of how it felt when you're on one side of the equation and how differently it felt when you were on the other side of the equation and how much better it is when the people whom you are representing actually elect you to office in that you have that feeling of representing those people in a very real sense. So we're fortunate today to have this. I'm surprised, quite frankly, that the Liberals aren't understanding this aspect of it. They're getting this first-hand experience. I'm surprised they're not a little more open-minded on this particular subject.

But then, I guess when we consider the direction the reorganization of the political process in the province of Ontario might be taking, in that we may move to a mixed-member proportional representative system where up to 30 seats in this House, in this Legislature, wouldn't be elected at all—they would have no responsibility to an individual group of electors; they would be elected off a list—this is something that is so undemocratic. To be elected off a list means that you would have absolutely no responsibility to the people of Ontario.

You would only have responsibility to the people who made up the list: the party bosses. Boy, if we need less influence by party bosses anywhere in this province, it would certainly be in this Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr. Chudleigh: I'm getting lots of advice from members across the hall, but I suspect when the time comes, we will see them stand and vote the wrong way on this bill.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I wasn't expecting necessarily to speak to this bill but certainly will take the couple of minutes that were left over after my colleague and friend from the riding of Trinity—Spadina made his remarks, as well as my friend from Beaches—East York. I would have to say that I stand firmly with them in support of this particular bill.

Certainly, when I was on regional government, in my first opportunity to be elected in my community there was direct election of a regional chair and I think, frankly, which was the best way for people to hold to account elected officials. It's the best way for people to be able to determine whether or not the performance of that person met the standard that they had hoped, that that person was performing their duties in an appropriate way and that judgment came on election day at the municipal level, when people could vote for the person who was running for regional chair and determine whether the person who had that position was doing a good job or not.

There are certainly other ways that you can express your feelings or your concerns about the performance of your elected officials during their term of office, and I would certainly encourage anyone watching here today to do that on a regular basis and not just wait until the next election. I can recall that always being said when I was on council in the city of Hamilton: "We don't have too many public meetings and we don't need to have public input because the public input comes on election day." I don't think that I necessarily agree with that; in fact, I know that I don't.

I think getting public input and getting the community to be involved in decision-making is important. However, ultimately, direct election of the regional chair is important, and that's why I support this bill.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to join this debate this morning. I want to congratulate the member from Oshawa for bringing this forward. I was part of a government that was two-tier prior to this, and I know the frustration one goes through on that upper level. In my case, it was a county. We had a warden who was chosen amongst the mayors of each municipality. In a majority of times, things worked out just fine, but sometimes there were some challenges; let's put it this way. And not once or twice; I'll be very clear.

The problem that I have with this—the cost and the accountability and all of that stuff, I think, is all irrelevant when we talk about democracy at its best, with all fairness. Where I have a challenge with this—I wish the member would have broadened the scope of his bill so that it's not just for Durham. I think we should have talked about all two-tier municipalities, because I really believe that what's good for one should be good for the other. If we're going to treat Ontarians the same, every Ontarian needs the same respect. I believe in elections; I believe in democracy.

That's what put us here, and we should all be proud of that. My challenge is when this level of government goes down to its siblings and puts handcuffs on them, telling them, "This is what you must do." That's what I have a problem with, in all fairness. So if we are going to change laws, I think the law should respect every municipality and every community the same.

In the county that I come from, in 2002, we had some amalgamations. They were driven by the folks at those lower-tier municipalities; that's what they wanted to do. I must say, we went from 13 municipalities to seven, and they work very well. They were not imposed on us. We drove that piece, but we worked within the structure and the rules of the day.

I'm not sure how much more strongly I can express that I believe in democracy, in the election process. As much as sometimes we say, "Well, it's only 30% of the people who turn out and vote," we ought to congratulate those 30% because they believe in democracy, and I respect that. We need to look at ways to increase that.

My challenge here is that we're going to be circumventing the rules for one municipality when they don't have consensus. I have a resolution in front of me from Clarington that strongly opposes this. And there are other municipalities, probably smaller than Oshawa, probably smaller than Ajax. I guess maybe I have a soft spot for those municipalities because I come from a small municipality, and it's always afraid of Big Brother ruling the roost. That happened when we were going through amalgamation in the county of Northumberland to form a one-tier level of government.

That's one of the things that the smaller municipalities were opposed to, and this is why the smaller municipalities got together, they amalgamated, and it worked very well.

So we have the process in place. I would encourage the folks from Durham to go through the process, to listen to what the people have to say, and proceed with that. If tomorrow we have another piece of legislation that deals comprehensively across the province on how we deal with two-tier municipalities, how we elect folks, I'd really like to get engaged in that debate and to pursue that piece, because I believe they should be elected. I make that very, very clear.

My problem here is that we're using some powers of the province—and I don't want to get political either—that the previous government used, and I don't want to go down that road. I believe in decisions made on the ground. So I cannot support this the way it is, but I do believe in the process.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ouellette, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Ouellette: I appreciate the comments from the members for Beaches—East York, Scarborough Centre, Burlington, Trinity—Spadina, Scarborough—Rouge River, Halton, Hamilton East and Northumberland. I'm going to try, in the time I have, to speak about a couple of issues.

First of all, Beaches—East York: Yes, the intention would be to move forward in 2010, during the next full election.

I should also mention that the member from Erie—Lincoln has brought a bill in to address the same issue in the region of Niagara. He has had similar difficulties as I did, being stuck on the 401 trying to get here.

Now, a couple of things. I think we'll start where we finished off, with the member from Northumberland. You talk about the difficulties in possibly the smaller municipalities being taken over, yet you also stated that you went from 12 to seven and didn't have any problems and it worked well. Going to a committee process and having a committee look at this bill at least would explore those opportunities, so if there's future potential for our doing it province-wide—and, quite frankly, the reason I didn't go province-wide is because I represent Oshawa.

I had the stats and the figures from Oshawa and the comparators with Halton and Waterloo to bring forward today. Through the committee process, we can certainly address those issues and talk about that and, quite frankly, your municipality would be given the opportunity at that time to discuss the pros and cons of it.

Now, if we move backwards as well and speak to the issues brought forward by the member from Scarborough—Rouge River, the member stated that the mayor from Pickering voted against it. Well, some of the difficulties there in his comments were saying that the minority is making the decision there. It's now the minority that's making the decision, and it's democracy. We're trying to move forward.

In closing, in the few seconds I have left, I'm just going to say what the region of Durham resolution was: "That the council of the regional municipality of Durham endorse Bill 172, the Municipal Amendment Act (Direct Election of Durham Regional Council Chair), 2006, and that the government of Ontario be urged to pass this act and provide royal assent without delay."

VISITORS

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform this House that a private school from the riding of Thornhill is in attendance here today. I wish to welcome the students from As-Sadiq Islamic School.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That's not a point of order, but they are welcome.

WAR OF 1812

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Munro has moved private member's notice of motion number 50.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mrs. Munro, you have up to 10 minutes, and the floor is yours.

Mrs. Munro: Before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to welcome and recognize Rob Leverty, who is in the gallery here representing the Ontario Historical Association, and, in the gallery above, John Adams and Joe Gill, from Friends of Fort York. I want to welcome them and appreciate their support.

Just a few days from today, Canadians will gather together to remember with pride and sorrow the battle of Vimy Ridge. Ninety years have passed since this great and terrible battle, which many see as the birth of Canada as a fully independent nation. Our ancestors of 90 years ago would themselves have looked back to the battles of the War of 1812 as events that helped create the Canada they knew. The Canadians who fought in the battles of the War of 1812 laid the path for the nation that would send its troops to Vimy and for the nation we live in today.

Why is it important for us to remember the War of 1812? It is important because if the people of this province had not taken a stand to defend their freedoms, neither our province nor our country would exist. The actions of our ancestors in the war remind us that preserving freedom means we must sometimes risk our lives. Canadians know this in Afghanistan, they knew it in Korea, and they knew it in two world wars. They first learned it in the War of 1812.

My resolution proposes to establish an independent commission that includes amongst its members experts on the war and representatives of those communities most affected by the war. I want to see this commission working with the federal government and other provincial governments, as well as the US federal and state governments. In my consultations, I have received unanimously positive support for the idea of this commemoration.

Indeed, many of the volunteer groups that help preserve our forts and sites, as well as government agencies involved in heritage and tourism, are already planning for the bicentennial of the war. A provincial commission would help coordinate commemorative events and assist local volunteer groups and communities in their commemorations.

Another growing group that is very interested in the bicentennial are historical re-enactors who commemorate many of the historic regiments and events of the War of 1812 and the revolution. In the US, bills and resolutions to commemorate the war have already been introduced in Congress and many state legislatures. Americans may dispute who won the war, but there is no question the events such as the burning of Washington and the battle of New Orleans are important in American history. The Star-Spangled Banner originated in the war during the siege of Fort Henry in Baltimore. In fact, the bombs bursting in the air of their anthem actually came from our ships.

The bicentennial provides a tremendous opportunity to educate our people about our history and to help them enjoy the tourist value of our heritage. Forts and battlefields and other sites are scattered throughout Ontario: from Crysler's farm near Morrisburg to the battle of the Thames in southwestern Ontario; from Nancy Island in Georgian Bay to the battle of York, and south to the forts and battlefields of Niagara. Defenders of Canada included British troops, local militia and Native forces, including those led by the great Tecumseh.

I know some of my colleagues will be speaking more about some of the important events that happened in their local areas. Sometimes when we think about battles taking place in Ontario, it's hard to really believe they took place in our province. Vimy or Juno Beach cost many Canadian lives, but they occurred far, far away. The battles of the War of 1812 happened only miles or, in the case of this House, blocks away.

Canadians see our nation as a land of peace, yet it is amazing how many of the turning points of our history took place during war. Ontario was founded by Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution. We stood together during the War of 1812. Our nation came of age in two world wars. Canadians have been tested many times in wars. I'm glad we did not fail.

The wars we have had to fight to preserve our freedom have made us well aware of what peace and freedom mean. One particular reason it is vital for this Legislature to commemorate the war is because of the events of April 1813. American forces landed at York on April 27 and defeated the British and militia forces. On April 29 and 30, they committed some of their greatest outrages, plundering empty homes, burning parts of Fort York, and the town and even stealing the mace from the Parliament buildings.

The American commander did return some of the plunder, including some of the books stolen out of the public library. The mace you can see downstairs in the foyer today was only returned by order of President Roosevelt in 1934.

Perhaps the greatest outrage committed in York was the burning of Upper Canada's Parliament buildings, the meeting place of our predecessor assembly. As their successors, we have an obligation to remember the war—to remember that the elected assembly of our province was attacked and to remember how the war affected members of this House and, indeed, all of the people in Ontario.

As members of this assembly, we can be proud that our predecessors continued to meet regularly during the war. We have no Hansard record from this time, but we do know the words the Lieutenant Governor spoke to the assembled members in his speech from the throne in 1814: "The valour of our soldiers and citizens has proved what can be effected in a good cause by men who have nothing in view but their own honour and their country's safety." As a member of this assembly, I can only express my greatest respect for our predecessors continuing to meet throughout the war, even after the Parliament buildings were burned and the war continued.

Not only the seat of government suffered; the war presented a great burden for most residents of Upper Canada. In 1814, the Legislature, addressing itself directly to the Prince Regent on behalf of the King, stated, "The whole male population of Upper Canada able to bear arms does not exceed 10,000 men and it is scattered over a frontier of at least 800 miles in extent.

Nearly one half of these were embodied for the last campaign." The war probably affected almost every family in Ontario, and in their address to the Prince Regent they told him, "Many of our militia men have fallen by the sword of the enemy, many have been disabled, and a large proportion of them have died from diseases contracted while in the field and from being destitute of every comfort.

Our population has decreased, our properties have been destroyed, and hundreds are reduced to beggary and want without even the consolation of knowing that their exertions, their fidelity and their sufferings have been represented to the government and to the country for the maintenance of whose rights they have made such sacrifices and such exertions and to whose favourable notice they look forward as their greatest reward."

We must never forget that the war was not just a series of battles. It was a time of great suffering for many people in Upper Canada. Our ancestors defended their freedoms and their loyalty to crown and country, but many did so at a tremendous price. The war did not end in a victory for either side, yet the survival of a free British North America meant that half a century later there could be a free Canada. It meant 200 years of peace, a peace that leaves our country with no fear of beggary or want, living in peace and freedom. Our debt to the men and women who fought and survived the War of 1812 is immense, and we hold an obligation to remember them and their struggle.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): It gives me pleasure today to speak on this motion presented by the member from York North. Certainly I respect the member's interest and passion for history and heritage and culture. Long before I got to this Legislature, I knew of this member and I knew of her passion and interest, and I want to thank her for what she has done there.

I think it's important for me at this point to indicate to this House what has already been done by the Ministry of Tourism with regard to the opportunities that we will have in 2012 to celebrate the bicentennial of the War of 1812. As a ministry, and as the parliamentary assistant, I'm pleased to say that we have identified six key sites in this province where we are now in the process of organizing focus groups, and from those focus groups, local committees. Focus groups have already been established in St.

Lawrence and the Thousand Islands, and that brings in the area I represent, my constituents of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh. There are also focus groups in Windsor-Chatham, Georgian Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, and from these focus groups now we have local committees formed. These local committees have received small grants to assist them in the early works of establishing what strategies will be put in place—a draft plan—and hopefully by the early part of this summer we will have some idea of what will happen, what will take place and what ideas will be formulated in these areas.

I'm very happy to report that to this House.

I'm hoping that the opportunities we have as we lead up to 2012 and the bicentennial will give the drive to individuals to profile literature. For example, in my own local area, Dorothy Dumbrille wrote A Boy at Crysler's Farm. The member from York North referred to Crysler's Farm in her opening remarks and in her presentation earlier today. That is a very pivotal battle in the War of 1812-14. It took place just as you head down the St. Lawrence River to where the Long Sault Rapids used to be. The Long Sault Rapids are no longer there.

They were flooded in 1958 when we lost the six communities of the Lost Villages. Even the site of the battle of Crysler's Farm was flooded. But before it was flooded, earthmovers came in, scoured up the earth from the site and built a huge mound. Today the obelisk that was put up to commemorate that war sits on top of that mound of earth.

I think all that along the St. Lawrence, around Lake Ontario up to Erie and even into Quebec—the member commented that she wishes the federal government would get involved here, as do I, because this is really a national event. We have the battle of Chateauguay, in Quebec. We know that Montreal was quite involved, because it was the interest of the forces of Wilkinson, as he headed down the St. Lawrence to team up with the forces of Hampton as he went up through Lake Champlain, to take Montreal to cut off the supply and immigration routes up the St. Lawrence. These are the stories that I'm hoping we will be able to tell and profile and put on a pedestal.

The member also made comments about people who do re-enactments at these different sites. In eastern Ontario, at Crysler's Farm, we have the Friends of Crysler's Farm Battlefield Memorial. Every year they put on a celebration, a re-enactment. This year, on July 14 and 15, they will have another re-enactment at that site. Providing for this commemoration of the bicentennial will give added support to the good work these people do in encouraging people to travel and learn about their history and heritage, and also to present and tell the story of this great province. It's one aspect of a great history that we have.

As a retired history teacher, I'm really proud to have had the opportunity of standing here and speaking to this bill.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe—Grey): I'm pleased to rise and speak on the resolution introduced by my colleague the member for York North, Julia Munro. I support establishing an independent commission on developing a plan for the bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812.

This morning I want to take a few minutes to recognize the local efforts in my riding of Simcoe—Grey and in my home community of Wasaga Beach in presenting annual events that commemorate the War of 1812 at the Nancy Island Historic Site.

The Nancy was a schooner launched in November 1789. She originally sailed the upper Great Lakes as a private cargo vessel built for the fur trade before being pressed into service as a British supply ship in the War of 1812-14, which was fought, of course, between the United States and Britain in Upper Canada.

While in this service, the schooner was destroyed in the Nottawasaga River by American forces. When the United States declared war against Britain in 1812, the Nancy was wharfed at what is now called Windsor. At that time, the Nancy was requisitioned as a British transport, capable of mounting six four-pound carriage guns and six swivel guns, according to an inventory provided to General Isaac Brock.

During the summer and early autumn of her first year of war service in 1812, the Nancy sailed Lake Erie, transporting goods between Detroit and Fort Erie. Following a devastating battle in September 1813 against the British fleet, the Nancy was the sole surviving British ship left on the upper lakes. Until the summer of 1814, the Nancy continued in service as a transport to the British fleet between Fort Michilimackinac to the mouth of the Nottawasaga River.

Following the American forces' attack on Fort Michilimackinac in July 1814, the Nancy was hidden upriver two miles from the Nottawasaga supply base by Lieutenant Worsley and his force of 22 seamen and 23 native Canadians under the command of Lieutenant Ramsay Livingston and nine French-Canadian voyageurs.

When the Americans discovered the hidden Nancy, she was attacked by three American ships and 500 men armed with a formidable array of guns and weaponry. Knowing the situation was hopeless, and rather than let her fall into enemy hands, Lieutenant Worsley destroyed the Nancy in the Nottawasaga River.

Over the next 100 years, an island was established by the Nottawasaga River currents, gradually depositing silt on the sunken hull of the Nancy. It was not until July 1911 that Mr. C.J.H. Snider located the Nancy hull, which was at that time visible beneath the surface of the water. Another 14 years would pass, though, until the Nancy was rediscovered by Dr. F.J. Conboy in 1925. More than 114 years following its destruction, the hull had been raised and placed on the island with the official opening of the Nancy Museum in 1928, designed to commemorate the site of the Nancy's demise and her gallant defence.

Now known as the Nancy Island Historic Site, this seasonal tourism destination operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources in Wasaga Beach. As part of its commitment to sharing history, the Nancy Island Historic Site provides an annual re-enactment that attempts to capture the spirit of Lieutenant Worsley and his men during the 1814 battle of the schooner Nancy. Over the three-day event, the public is able to wander with up to 400 volunteer re-enactors staying on Nancy Island and participating in a grand encampment in historic 1812 fashion through what is called Wasaga Under Siege.

The re-enactors include families that entertain visitors with military tactics and lifestyle activities that include live period music, meals prepared over open fires, musket and cannon demonstrations, settlers with their wares and a variety of other demonstrations. Re-enactments of historical and other fictional battles are fought in beach areas 1 and 2. The battles end with the British winning the local Nottawasaga battle.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie—Lincoln): I don't remember that battle.

Mr. Wilson: And it's the same thing every year.

The efforts of the Nancy Island Historic Site, featuring the Wasaga Under Siege re-enactment, were acknowledged in 2006 when they won the Wasaga Beach Chamber of Commerce business of the year award. The award recognized the role of the Nancy Island Historic Site through its historical programs and the 1812 re-enactments in making the community a tourist destination noted for its general service and hospitality in sharing such a remarkable history with all visitors.

In 2005, more than 4,000 visitors enjoyed the War of 1812 Wasaga Under Siege experience. In 2006, the Nancy Island Historic Site had almost 13,000 visitors. The economic contributions of these activities are significant to Wasaga Beach and our area communities. In this regard, attendance numbers to events at the island demonstrate the success of the interpretive education and historic programs offered to the public during a seasonal operation that provides three full-time summer jobs. Already, Wasaga Beach and the Nancy Island Historic Site have set aside the weekend of August 12-14, 2012, for the bicentennial event.

The War of 1812 is an important part of Ontario history. I'm happy to share the efforts of my riding to promote the events of the War of 1812 for both Ontarians and visitors in a meaningful, educational manner.

Let me conclude that, again, I'm pleased to support the resolution put forward by my colleague from York North establishing of the War of 1812 bicentennial commemoration. She certainly deserves great credit for bringing this forward.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I suspect, like pretty much everybody in the House today, that we're all going to be supporting this initiative by the member for York North.

I wanted to focus my remarks in this regard on my own experience of growing up and being raised in a community where one of the great battles took place, and that's the Battle of Stoney Creek, and I'm sure that the member for Stoney Creek is going to be speaking about this as well. I'm a Creeker. I certainly did grow up in Stoney Creek. In fact, the Battle of Stoney Creek took place not too far from where I grew up. There is a monument there. There is a castle, if you want to call it that.

There's a park, and every year there are re-enactments not only from Canadians who participate in the re-enactments but Americans come as well for these re-enactments. It's a fabulous celebration in our community of the history of what took place in Stoney Creek during the War of 1812.

I want to spend a little bit of time explaining exactly what exactly took place during the War of 1812 in the area of Stoney Creek, so I'm going to read from an

article in the Upper Canada Tribute that was published June 7, 1813, and it says this:

"An American army was seen marching up the forested paths of Stoney Creek, towards Burlington Heights, by local settlers, 19-year-old Billy Green and his brother Levi, on June the 5th. This army of Yankees was the same group that had defeated General John Vincent's army, only a week earlier at Fort George. This army of about 3,000 troops (as told by witnesses) had walked up the trail, planning on trying their luck again, and to invade farther into Upper Canada.

"They stopped at a farm of the wealthy homeowner James Gage and made camp, as they were weary after the day's march, with little provisions. Some nearby settlers claimed to have seen the army walking quite a bit farther up the road, looking for a good area to set up camp, although obviously not thoroughly pleased with the land they then turned around, and marched back to the Gage farm. American Generals, Chandler and Winder, took control of the house, locking the large family in the cellar. The house became their headquarters.

"A local blacksmith named Isaac Corman, was taken to the encampment, as a prisoner. Corman let slip that he was Kentucky born, and related to an American general so they gave him leave, with the password, so that he would be able to get out of the camp safely. Billy Green learned the password from Corman, his brother-in-law."

The

article goes on to describe the battle that ensued after the British troops decided that they were going to be able to take the Americans by surprise. Interestingly enough the battle, although the Americans had a larger number of troops, was won by the British largely because of this element of surprise and the fact that the American troops were caught unawares by the British and the surrounding settlers who joined in the battle. In fact, the way it's described, it says,

"When he arrived at the Heights, it was full of about 1,800 redcoats (most of them wounded and ill), local militiamen and civilians fleeing from the Yankees. There were green-coated Glengarries of the St. Lawrence, a company of black men commanded by Captain Robert Runchy, and regular soldiers, hundreds of miles away from their homes." This describing the troops who gathered together to fight in that battle.

The

article goes on to describe in great detail the skirmishes that occurred over those two days in the Battle of Stoney Creek. It concludes by saying,

"The Battle of Stoney Creek (June 5th and 6th) was a wise decision on the part of the British. Had the soldiers not marched up the path from Burlington Heights to Stoney Creek, the Americans would most likely be invading farther into Upper Canada at this very moment. Instead, they are believed to be heading with great speed towards the border, and it is all because of the short 45-minute battle fought in Stoney Creek."

I know that the member in her comments remarked about the historic nature of the War of 1812 and what it meant for us as a Canadian nation. I think this one description, particularly of the Battle of Stoney Creek and the likelihood of advancement of the American forces, had that battle not been successful was certainly looming large in the mind of the writer of this

article in the Upper Canada Tribute from back in 1813.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that I grew up in Stoney Creek. As I was reading some of these articles and I came upon names like, of course, James Gage—anybody who has been to Hamilton know that Gage Avenue is a major street in our city. It will be the experience of all of the members, I'm sure, in this Legislature who have had historic commemorations of the events that took place over centuries in the past that many of the street names of those communities are named after significant players in some of those events.

In just this one

article they refer to James Gage—of course, Gage Avenue being an important street in my own riding of Hamilton East—but also Billy Green, the young man who was the first to tip off the British about the advancing Americans. The member for Stoney Creek will know that Green Road is a very important street in the former city of Stoney Creek, which is now part of the larger city of Hamilton.

As well, this blacksmith named Isaac Corman—and, growing up in Stoney Creek, Corman Avenue was another street that a number of my friends lived on. I lived on Grays Road—that's "Grays" with an "s," as opposed to "Gray" with no "s," which is a little controversy that continues to roar from time to time in Stoney Creek.

But nonetheless, growing up in Stoney Creek and knowing the history of the War of 1812 and the significant role that the battle of Stoney Creek played in that war, I was quite honoured about a year ago to be approached by an organization in Hamilton called the Canadian Club. The Canadian Club was commemorating an anniversary of theirs, a significant anniversary. They asked me to participate in a bit of a skit, if you will, in period costume, commemorating some of the events of the Canadian Club.

In fact, the

article I just read from the Upper Canada Tribute is illustrated with a painting by a woman named Sara Calder. Interestingly enough, Sara Calder was the woman whom they asked me to portray in this historical skit at the Scottish Rite Club, which is a fabulous facility in our downtown area.

The Canadian Club asked me to play the part of Sara Calder, so I needed to do a little bit of research on her. I found out—I was surprised they asked me to do it—that she was a very vocal woman of her time. She was a woman who was in the women's auxiliary in the Canadian Club. One of the things she actually undertook, much to the chagrin of the gentlemen of the Canadian Club at the time, was an effort to raise funds to develop a memorial for the battle of Stoney Creek.

Sara Calder was pooh-poohed by the gentlemen of the Canadian Club and told that there is no way the monument would be able to be funded and there was no way there would be enough monies raised to put together a monument to the battle of Stoney Creek.

She said, "No, I don't agree with you. I am going to go and make this effort on my own with the ladies' auxiliary, and we're going to put up a monument to the battle of Stoney Creek." Sara Calder went ahead, notwithstanding the disdain of the male members of the club, and made sure the money was put together to raise the monument at the battlefield which now exists, at which there are many celebrations that take place memorializing or commemorating the war.

Having said that, one of the other things I think is interesting is that Sara Calder—which is why there's a painting of hers in this article—was a founding member of the Women's Art Association of Hamilton. To her credit, she had spent a great deal of time painting various scenes around Stoney Creek and around the community at the time. Some of those paintings recently were brought back to the battlefield and are actually displayed there at Battlefield Park in the Gage House, I believe, although I'm not sure exactly where the paintings sit at this time.

So it was quite fortuitous that the member brings this particular resolution forward, and it's one that I certainly will be supporting, because I've had the opportunity a couple of times now to reflect upon not only the War of 1812 but specifically the battle of Stoney Creek and to learn so much more about that in my participation with the Canadian Club in their efforts to do some fundraising, quite frankly, but to also spend some time commemorating their own history as an organization in Hamilton.

I have to say that the reality of war is not a pleasant one, ever. As we go through, hopefully, the efforts of putting together the commemoration of this war in various communities in Canada and in the United States, I think it's important to remember that there are many people who were not memorialized in any of the monuments, or at least not in many of them.

I wanted to refer particularly to the First Nations communities that participated in many of the battles. I would hope that we make sure that we're engaging First Nations communities in terms of their efforts that they added to this monumental occasion back in 1812.

People will know that there were a number of black slaves who had fled America and had come to Canada, either as slaves, initially, or through the Underground Railway and other initiatives to flee from slavery, and those men were also participants, on behalf of the British, in the War of 1812.

So, as we go through this commemoration process, as we go through this process of putting together the various events that, as the member indicated in her resolution, will be tourist draws and important times to reflect on our history, I think we need to really make sure that we're engaging First Nations and the black community to make sure that their role is not overlooked and that they are equally memorialized in our efforts as we move forward.

As I was reading through this

article on the battle of Stoney Creek, one of the things that comes straight out at you is—they're talking about the legacy of the war. Interestingly enough, although we see the War of 1812 from the perspective of our nation-building, if you like, in terms of the British-American issues that were on the table, some would say that there really was no resolution, that the War of 1812 didn't really resolve any of the outstanding issues that brought it to a head in the first place.

Having said that, though, one of the things that does come through clearly is—in this article, it says, "Although a monument is raised in honour of the soldiers involved, no Mohawk warriors are credited in it for doing battle."

There was a corps called Runchy's Coloured Corps that actually fought at the battle of Stoney Creek—and there were other participants from the black community.

I have to say that as we go forward and we look towards the celebrations, we have to make sure that those celebrations reflect accurately on all of the various players who participated on behalf of the British in the War of 1812.

I know that there are other members from the Niagara region who are going to be speaking to this as well.

As a person who grew up in that area, the significance of the War of 1812 for many of the communities in that area is nothing to dismiss. It's something that was part of my growing up, part of my heritage. At Battlefield Park, particularly, not only were there re-enactments, but there were often fireworks celebrations on Canada Day and Victoria Day. That was certainly a great part of my growing up.

I can only look back to people like Sara Calder and others who had the foresight to make the big effort and to raise the funds to put these memorials together. As I look back at my youth and the times that I spent at Battlefield Park, particularly, I know that if it wasn't for their efforts at that time, there certainly wouldn't have been the memories that I have around Battlefield Park. That's probably the similar experience of many members here who have those kinds of memorials in their communities.

As we go forward with this initiative—and I certainly hope the member from York North gets full support for her resolution—let's make sure that on this bicentennial celebration effort, not only are we pulling in some of those participants who perhaps were overlooked in the previous memorializations of these battles, but that we are then setting a new foundation for the children and the young people of today to remember the significance of the War of 1812 to Canada.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member from historical Stoney Creek.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to support, of course, this motion coming from the member from York North, whom I really do respect for all the work she has done in heritage and culture. She was my predecessor as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture, so I take particular interest in this.

However, you cannot talk about the War of 1812 without talking about Stoney Creek, as you've just heard. It was the turning point of that war, the battle of Stoney Creek, and it is re-enacted in exquisite detail, magnificent energy and enthusiasm every year on the first weekend in June. I invite each and every one of you to come back. You will be absolutely amazed. You will think you have stepped back in time, because the Americans, the British, the Canadians, the Mohawks—they all come. They are in full authentic regalia.

These volunteers, these individuals, through their own money, their own effort, create these garments and these costumes. They have tents set up; there are fires burning; there are muskets roaring. It's quite an amazing site to see. I think it's June 2 this year. It's a Saturday, right after the Flag Day parade in Stoney Creek. I invite you all to come and spend the day in Stoney Creek to see the battle of Stoney Creek.

I have to just take a moment: The re-enactment happens at Battlefield House Museum and Park—32 acres in Stoney Creek of nature, trails, herb gardens, a lovely monument and two early-19th-century houses which are impeccably restored. It's amazing, the work that is done by the staff and the volunteers who keep this house—there are two houses, because they moved Nash-Jackson House there, and it's spectacular. I was very privileged to be able to take a cheque for $300,000 from this government to Battlefield House Museum and Park recently to make sure that they are ready for the big anniversary coming up.

I'm very quickly going to try to capture some of the excitement of that battle, because nothing goes as planned, does it? We all think back—oh, there was a battle; these guys went over here and they won, and then these guys went over there and they won. But it doesn't always work that way. Actually, it's a little of: you're on, you're off, and things get messed up.

On May 27, the Americans had captured the British position at Fort George and the British, under Brigadier General John Vincent, retreated to Burlington Heights. The Americans, under the overall leadership of General Henry Dearborn, were slow to pursue, but when they finally did so, a force numbering 3,400 under Brigadiers General John Chandler and William Winder advanced to Stoney Creek, where they encamped on June 5. The two generals set up headquarters at the Gage farm, which is now Battlefield House, and you can see it.

One of Vincent's staff officers, Lieutenant Colonel John Harvey, reconnoitred the American position and determined that it was badly placed and inadequately protected. He recommended making a night attack. The British column, 700 men from the 8th and 49th regiments, were guided to the American camp by a local farmhand—Billy Green, the scout, already remarked on by the member from Hamilton East—and I can tell you, there's a Billy Green Elementary School in my riding which is taking

part in the healthy schools challenge, which is a much better battle to be involved in, but I digress.

So the British arrive, and little Billy Green had been able to find out the American password and the American challenge, which was brilliant work on his part. The British arrived in position at 2 a.m. on June 7, and began advancing towards the American campfires, but in the darkness they stumbled into American soldiers. Either Indians or the British—we're not sure who—raised the Indian war whoop immediately and the Americans were alerted.

Harvey had already ordered the flints to be removed from British muskets so that there wouldn't be any premature firing, no mistakes to alert the Americans, and some of the units had actually even unloaded their muskets. So the small party, under Major Charles Plenderleath, rushed forward to capture four American guns with the bayonet, but most of the British were still back there, trying to get their flints going, their muskets going, and they were more surprised than the Americans, because there they were in the heat of battle and they didn't even have their guns ready to go.

So, you see, it doesn't always go very smoothly.

Now, where are we here? Winder mistook British troops for his own men and he got captured, so there was another misstep in all of this. Major Joseph Lee Smith of the 25th US Infantry saw the capture of Winder and he alerted his men and was able to reverse.

Even though things were going so terribly for the British, this actually did end up being the turning point, because the casualties in this confused fight had been about even, and the Americans had been shaken by this. With their general's capture, the American colonels decided that Dragoon Commander James Burn was the man to go ahead, but he was already criticized for having made a mess of a previous attack, and he made a bit of a hash of his next step.

The American flotilla on the lake that had been supplying all these guys got wind of things going badly, so they retreated, and eventually it was this big skirmish at Stoney Creek that got the Americans into retreat mode, and finally they retreated all the way back across the river.

Despite my enthusiasm in describing this great battle, I am conflicted to a certain extent in promoting the celebration of a war. But in our modern-day celebrations of these things, we do focus more on the vagaries of war, and we focus on the need to find alternatives to solving our differences and our conflicts, other than through war and through violence. In fact, over the centuries we have learned that sitting down and talking to each other actually is a very effective manner and method of resolving our differences.

If it was not a very effective means of resolving our differences, then the history of mankind would indeed be very different. In fact, if war and violence were the only solution, we would not be here at all at this point.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): Let me start my remarks by saying that I'm pleased to stand today and support the resolution on the creation of a War of 1812 bicentennial commemoration commission by my colleague sitting right beside me, the member from York North.

The War of 1812 was a defining moment certainly in our history as Canadians, and indeed for those now living in the province of Ontario. I phoned my brother, who is quite a history buff and a history teacher, to get a follow-up, and I could not, of course, in the time we are allowed, say all the things that he told me about the War of 1812. But his theme was that there is not enough emphasis put on the history of our great country that is being taught to our children, and on the noticeable achievements of our ancestors before us. It is taking a backseat in our schools.

Our students can name past US Presidents, but they can't name maybe the heroes of the War of 1812, and I think that is quite a tragedy that we should start to rectify.

So despite the fact that many causes of the War of 1812 were geographically far removed from our colony of Upper Canada at that time, our lands proved to be the immediate battleground of much of the war, and many of my colleagues have mentioned what battles took place in their ridings. They didn't come as far north and east as my riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. But it was a significant demonstration by Canadians to remain independent of the United States and loyal to the British crown.

The war of 1812 was the first time that native Canadians, French Canadians and British colonials fought together in defence of their land. I believe there were even some regiments from as far away as Newfoundland that were sent to help the United Empire Loyalists up here in Ontario.

The numbers would not exceed 100,000 in total, but in the face of adversity, Canadians of all backgrounds proved themselves and heroes emerged, heroes such as Sir Isaac Brock. To many, the hero of Upper Canada is best remembered as a brilliant leader and strategist in battle. He was promoted to Major General of the "49th foot" in 1811 and was made provisional administrator of Upper Canada.

Despite Brock's early preparations for the upcoming war, his men were gravely outnumbered. He was concerned about the loyalties of some of the people to the British crown, but the province's inhabitants consisted at that point, as I said, of United Empire Loyalists and of "late Loyalists," who had just recently arrived from the United States. Brock's immediate superior, the Governor of Canada, Sir George Provost, urged Brock to remain on the defensive and not risk battle, but Sir Isaac Brock would go to lead his men to fight valiantly on behalf of the crown.

And even when fatally wounded, he encouraged his York volunteers to push on. So Brock's memory as the fallen hero and saviour of Upper Canada has remained extraordinarily strong in Ontario's history, and we must ensure that those efforts are not forgotten.

Similarly, we must remember the efforts of another great hero, Ms. Laura Secord, whose portrait hangs in this very building. While billeting American soldiers in her home, she and her husband overheard the American plan to attack the British forces, and with help from the native forces, who were allies of the British, Laura Secord was able to complete the arduous, I believe 20-mile journey, to warn the local British commander, Lieutenant James FitzGibbon of the impending American attack.

So the courage and tenacity displayed in the efforts on this occasion, June 1813, places her certainly in the forefront of the province's heroines. I believe there's a simple frame building, restored in 1971, that remains as a memorial to the exceptional patriotism that she showed.

We want our children to understand and preserve stories like those of Isaac Brock, Laura Secord and native leaders like Tecumseh, and we need to commemorate those people who fought so valiantly to defend people of the province that we as MPPs now work so hard to represent.

So the creation of a War of 1812 bicentennial commission would be a significant step towards adequately honouring and celebrating our history in this province. I want to commend the member from York North for bringing this forward and look for all-parties' support on that. Thank you.

Mr. Hudak: I'm pleased to rise and support my colleague from York North, Ms. Munro, on her resolution today. I think we all know Ms. Munro as a dedicated educator who spent a good part of her life in instilling in her students an appreciation and a deep understanding of Canadian history and a pride in civic life. As an MPP in her second career, she continues to walk that talk with her resolution before the assembly today, which I as a Niagara member stand in proud support of.

My colleagues from Stoney Creek and Hamilton East paid great tribute to the Battle of Stoney Creek and the roles of Canadian heroes like Billy Green and of course Isaac Brock. We all in Niagara know Sir Isaac Brock very well and the role he played, sadly dying relatively early on in the War of 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights. Sir Isaac Brock, of course, has a highway named after him now and our university, a fine university, in St. Catharines-Thorold.

I'll talk a little bit about the Battle of Fort Erie, which is the town I was born and raised in. Growing up in Fort Erie, we always spent time, as kids, at church picnics or hanging out at the fort. At that time, as a child, it was an interesting place to try to sneak into, over those walls, where you'd see the occasional redcoat pass by. I think my colleague probably may have done the same. You'd try to sneak by the redcoats. We all knew of a friend of a friend of a friend who swore that they'd shoot at you if they saw you, but I don't think there was ever any evidence of the redcoats turning on the students.

But as you grew older, you had a greater appreciation for that institution and the role that Fort Erie played in the War of 1812. Of course, before the battle it was simply a small British military post, not even a fort, that became an important site. The Americans took control in July of 1814, which led up to a siege lasting until mid-September of 1814. Both sides saw massive casualties, and we'd argue that Fort Erie was among the bloodiest battlefields during of War of 1812, and ever on Canadian soil.

On November 5, 1814, the US troops then retreated after this long siege into Buffalo, but on their way blew up the fort, sending some 25% of it totally destroyed. It sat, as a matter of fact, in rubble for over 115 years and then was restored as part of a massive project in the 1930s. It's now part of the Niagara Parks Commission, one of the great sites along the parkway. I'm pleased to see the Minister of Tourism here for this debate this morning because I know of his dedication to the parks commission, and I'm pleased to see that the old fort in Fort Erie remains one of its key attractions.

A notable hero, just to connect the two parts of my riding, was Lieutenant Colonel Robert Nelles. He was one of the heroes of the British side at that time, of course a United Empire Loyalist, and his group, comprised of 40 Loyalists, founded the town of Grimsby, in the west end of Niagara, known then as "The Forty." Nelles of course was a very brave lieutenant colonel and, under his leadership, many of the war strategies and planning sessions took place at his home in Grimsby in preparation for the war.

I'm pleased of course to see Tecumseh recognized as well today. If not for the role of First Nations peoples under the brave Tecumseh at the time, we may have had a different outcome. The British were engaged in a full battle with Napoleon in Europe at the time, which engaged most British forces. The British regulars were tremendously outnumbered by the Americans across the way, the Americans, of course, hoping at the time that Canadians, or those who had recently left the States to settle in Upper Canada, would join their side and rally against the crown.

Of course, an important part of our history, something we should take great pride in, is that the vast majority of Canadians rallied to the British side and took up with them and, with the great support of Tecumseh and the First Nations people, helped to win many of the major battles that have been referenced in the assembly here today.

My last point is, I'm very pleased to hear that some work is currently under way. It's hard to imagine a day when Lake Erie and Lake Ontario were both part of pitched naval battles not that long ago. I look forward to working with Ms. Munro and members of the assembly of all three parties in helping to commemorate what was a sad time of course, full of death and destruction, but also a point that helped forge us as a nation and something worth celebrating for the Canadian heroes and First Nations heroes mentioned in the assembly today.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I wanted to say that this is precisely how this hour should be used, and the member for York North is to be commended in bringing forward—it used to be the way private members' public business was. It was relatively non-partisan, something that was of specific interest to a person. I'm delighted, knowing that all three parties have changed that somewhat now, but this is a nice exception today.

I don't know whether the commission itself—some people look at that as bureaucratic—is the answer, but I want to really commend the member for bringing that suggestion forward. I know she would be willing to work, because I look at this as a non-partisan issue with people from all three parties probably in trying to establish a way of celebrating the War of 1812-14.

My parliamentary assistant, the member for Cornwall and other places, has already said what the ministry is doing, and we're engaged in some of that. The member's quite right in saying that there are some additional steps that have to be taken as we get closer. The commission might be it; it might be an all-party committee of the Legislature. There may be some mechanism.

The member deserves credit for bringing this forward. It definitely has to be commended. I was with the American Consul in Niagara Falls. I got blessed with some award for tourism by national tourism, and he was presenting it. I said at the time to our American friends, just be to accommodating, that when they came over here to visit, we would tell them they won the war as long as when Canadians went over there, they would admit that Canada had won the war.

This is going to be a great occasion. It offers great opportunities for tourism and heritage and history. I was a history teacher at one time as well, so those of us who have been teachers recognize how important this is and those of us from the Niagara region know how important this is. So thank you very much for bringing this forward to the House for consideration.

The Deputy Speaker: Notwithstanding the non-partisan position of the Chair, I'm sure someone in this debate wanted to mention historic Fort Malden in Amherstburg.

Mrs. Munro, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Munro: First of all, I want to thank all of you who have taken

part in the debate today. What you did, in using your time to highlight the work that is being done in your own communities, is precisely what I hoped would happen because in the opportunity that I had, obviously it would be impossible to demonstrate the kinds of good work that is done in so many of our communities. I think these projects and activities, quite frankly, underline the importance of having a commission whose scope would be province-wide. Certainly I appreciate the comments, particularly of the minister, in recognizing the fact that we need to be going from the individual communities and the work they are doing to be able to have some province-wide scope.

My vision in bringing this forward is quite frankly based on the assumption that as more and more communities look into their roots, they in fact are going to find that they have an opportunity to participate in this as well. I think that's extremely important, again, to have a provincial framework. As I mentioned in my remarks, other governments are working on this. And I guess I would want to conclude that just as we did 200 years ago, we have to be ready to go toe-to-toe with our partners.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(DIRECT ELECTION OF DURHAM

REGIONAL COUNCIL CHAIR), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES

MUNICIPALITÉS (ÉLECTION AU SCRUTIN

GÉNÉRAL DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL

RÉGIONAL DE DURHAM)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time provided for private members' public business having expired, we shall first deal with ballot item number 75 standing in the name of Mr. Ouellette.

Mr. Ouellette has moved second reading of bill 172. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye".

All those opposed, say "nay".

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It's carried.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, I would request that the bill be referred to the general government committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ouellette has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

WAR OF 1812

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 76 standing in the name of Mrs. Munro.

Mrs. Munro has moved private members' motion number 50. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): Despite a scathing report by the Ombudsman and numerous media reports revealing the shameful extent of the OLG lottery scandal, this government continues to dodge legitimate and explicit questions about their lack of leadership on this issue. Rather than doing the honourable thing and taking responsibility for the actions, or inaction, of this government that have worked to create this large-scale scandal in Ontario's lottery system, you are busy at work creating a cover-up and communications strategy.

While innocent Ontarians were being cheated out of their legitimate lottery winnings, you and your political advisers were involved in an attempt to spin the scandal by discrediting the CBC report.

If, as you claim, you did nothing wrong and you did everything you possibly could from the moment you were made aware of insider lottery wins, then why are you refusing to make public the information that we are requesting? You claim to want a more transparent and reliable lottery system that will properly protect the public, but at the same time you are refusing to provide the public with the information they deserve. They have a right to know why it took this government so long to respond to reports of insider lottery wins and why, when a response did finally come, it was in the form of a scandal cover-up rather than a sincere attempt to clean up this disturbing mess.

If you have nothing to hide, as you claim, then you should respond to our freedom of information request and order paper questions and provide the people of this province with the information they so rightly deserve.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): The residents of west Toronto and the St. Clair revitalization group have a great planning idea that the city of Toronto and the federal government should take seriously.

Go Transit is presently working to tunnel an area just south of St. Clair Avenue West and west of Old Weston Road, making it easier for GO trains to pass a major rail crossing; it's called the "diamond grade."

As you know, the TTC is presently constructing a TTC right-of-way along of all St. Clair Avenue West, including the bottleneck caused by the dilapidated St. Clair-Old Weston Road bridge. The road—that is, St. Clair Avenue— passes under the bridge. It will be too narrow for the planned TTC right-of-way, since it will leave only one lane for traffic. It also creates a divide, a barrier, a no-man's-land between Old Weston Road and Keele Street. This was acceptable when the area consisted of slaughterhouses, but now it has 900 homes.

The residents are asking that the present tunnelling extend beyond St. Clair Avenue so that trains will pass under St. Clair Avenue, thus eliminating this barrier. Since the province is ready to support this proposal, I'm asking the city of Toronto and the federal government to do their part as well.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I speak for the people of Ontario, and Halton in particular, when I express my outrage, disappointment and disgust with this government's handling of Lottogate.

The Premier and his minister responsible for lotteries are hiding behind a Maginot line of silence. For weeks now, this government has shown us that direct questions do not receive direct answers. In fact, no question receives the dignity of an answer from this government. That fact is also being addressed by the press, thanks to Murray Campbell in today's Globe and Mail.

Yet the Premier and his Lottogate minister continue to play the waiting game. They think that if they just wait long enough, this issue will go away. Well, that's Peter Pan politics. Peter Pan politics is when you all sit in a circle, you hold hands, and you wish really hard that the problem will go away.

That is a very dangerous tactic. Too many questions remain unanswered, questions like: What is going to happen to the Lanark—Carleton constituent who may be out $12.5 million? Who was at these secret meetings? What was discussed? Why did it take so long to start implementing change? How do we know if anything has changed, and how will we ever know that it's changed? When is this Premier going to face up to the facts and finally start giving taxpayers the answers they deserve?

We all know the fate of the Maginot line: a massive flanking movement rendered it irrelevant. Eventually, the waiting game will be over. The memos and the e-mails and the truth behind the secret meetings will come out. Eventually, taxpayers will get the answers they deserve.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): Each and every day across Ontario, thousands of men and women in uniform put their lives on the line to protect our safety and enforce our laws. The 24,000 police officers of our province perform brave and courageous service on behalf of all Ontarians. I've had the privilege in the past of joining them for ride-alongs and have witnessed first-hand the hazards they face on a daily basis.

Tonight, I shall be attending a special function celebrating the conclusion of the lengthy careers of five officers who have a combined service of more than 150 years as dedicated members of the Toronto Police Service. I want to recognize not only these fine gentlemen, but also their families, who have given up precious family time to support their loved one's chosen career of exemplary community service.

I proudly recognize from the Toronto Police Service, 12 Division, Sergeant Bruce Bolitho, who served for 31 years; Staff Sergeant Christopher Hobson, who served for 33 years; Police Constable Robert Muckle, who served for 30 years; Police Constable Glenn Sluman, who served for 31 years; and Police Constable James Terry, who served for 33 years.

I ask all members in this House to join with me in saluting these five officers and in wishing them a very happy and lengthy retirement.

ORLEANS YOUNG PLAYERS

THEATRE SCHOOL /

THÉÂTRE JEUNESSE D'ORLÉANS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa—Orléans): On Saturday, March 31, I had the pleasure of announcing that the Ontario Trillium Foundation has awarded an $18,000 grant to the Orleans Young Players theatre group. This theatre school has been teaching youth about all aspects of theatre work since 1989. With more than 240 students, it is helping young people in Orléans develop their theatrical skills and talents, while teaching them valuable life skills such as team-building, communications and self confidence.

Kathi Langston is the artistic director at the school and she says the grant will be used to provide students with voice training from radio experts. It will also give them the opportunity to work with Rag & Bone Puppet Theatre and let the students create productions featuring the work of James Rainey, an acclaimed Canadian author and playwright. The students at this school will be able to showcase their work in almost 30 different productions to an estimated 10,000 people this year alone. They will also be able to produce DVDs of their work which can be shown in local schools for many years to come.

La Fondation Trillium de l'Ontario, organisme relevant du ministère de la Culture, reçoit chaque année du gouvernement 100 $ millions provenant de l'initiative des casinos de bienfaisance de la province.

With the help of this funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, these children will be able to expand their work and become an even more integral part of the culture of our community. I would like to congratulate the Orleans Young Players and wish them a very successful season.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): I looked in the Gage Canadian Thesaurus this morning to see what synonyms appear under "Liberal government." Here's a report of my findings: "stonewall, block, gain time, hem and haw, hold out, hold up, obstruct, play for time, resist, stall, thwart, use delay tactics."

Any one of these verbs describes how Dalton McGuinty and David Caplan operate when our leader, John Tory, and members of the PC caucus ask them "Who, what, why, when and where?" questions about secret meetings involving ministers' office staff and Liberal election campaign staff to cover up Lottogate.

It's the same game, a scandal that even has the same player: Warren Kinsella. Yes, folks, it's the same Warren Kinsella who testified before the Gomery inquiry about the federal sponsorship scandal. Now he's back, like a recurring rash, as one of several people associated with the cover-up to keep the lid on Lottogate. I wonder, will there be more secret meetings so people like Warren Kinsella, Wilson Lee, Don Guy, Jim Warren and Bob Lopinski can all sit down and get their stories straight?

YMCA OF PETERBOROUGH

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I am pleased to rise in the House to recognize the grand opening of the Peterborough YMCA on March 2, 2007. Founded in 1868, the Peterborough YMCA continues to be a stalwart of our community, providing services to each and every township within Peterborough city and county.

I wish to acknowledge the hard work of Bob Gallagher, CEO of the Peterborough YMCA, as well as the board of directors, staff, community partners and countless volunteers for their tireless work on the Building New Memories capital campaign to raise funds for the $13-million sport and recreation facility.

On February 12 this year, I had the distinct pleasure of announcing, with my colleague the Honourable Jim Watson, Minister of Health Promotion, an investment of $3 million for the new Peterborough YMCA. These funds are part of our government's $190-million economic stimulus plan to foster a strong workforce and a strong economy in the riding of Peterborough.

I would ask that all members join with me in recognizing the efforts of the many individuals and organizations that have helped the Peterborough YMCA realize their dream of a new sport and recreation facility in the great community of Peterborough.

CLARKE ROAD SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London—Fanshawe): I rise in the House today to congratulate Clarke Road Secondary School in my riding of London—Fanshawe for accepting the Ontario government's healthy schools challenge. I am proud that Clarke Road Secondary School has accepted this challenge, because research shows that a healthy school environment supports student success. I am proud that the McGuinty government has taken the initiative to implement programs within our public schools to promote and encourage active and healthy lifestyles.

The healthy schools challenge is a wonderful program, and I would like to thank the Minister of Health Promotion and the Minister of Education for implementing this program in our schools across the province of Ontario.

I believe that the teachers and students of Clarke Road Secondary School will benefit greatly from this wonderful program. Again, I would like to congratulate Clarke Road Secondary School on accepting the healthy schools challenge. I think it's a great initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak in support of this program.

TRICIA CUMMINGS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): I would like to acknowledge a remarkable young lady of great courage from my riding of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh. Petty Officer Second Class Tricia Cummings of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets was recently honoured with the medal of bravery for her act in leading three children she was babysitting out of a burning house.

This award holds great distinction, as it has only been awarded to six cadets in the past 112 years. This medal is usually reserved for soldiers and firefighters and those who risk their lives every day. To have it bestowed on one of my constituents, and at the young age of 16, fills me with a great sense of pride. In addition to this wonderful acknowledgement, she was also awarded the fire safety award certificate by the Ontario Fire Marshal's office.

I would like to publicly acknowledge Tricia and her actions, and to thank her on behalf of all constituents for her outstanding action and achievement. This young woman embodies the spirit and courage of the citizens of this great province and also of my riding. I am proud to say that of the six past cadet recipients, two are from my riding. This pays tribute to my constituents: people who do not panic, who use their heads, who are not afraid to get their hands dirty and who get the job done. I would also like to salute the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, whose commitment to duty and discipline, I'm sure, helped Tricia as she faced this dangerous situation.

Tricia was faced with circumstances that most of us dread, and she performed admirably. I wish to congratulate her for a job well done.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007

SUR LA PROTECTION DES MINEURS

PARTICIPANT À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

Mr. Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 201,

An Act to provide protection for minors participating in amateur sports / Projet de loi 201, Loi visant à protéger les mineurs qui participent à des sports amateurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): There are tens of thousands of volunteers in the province of Ontario participating in volunteer sports on a daily and weekly basis. As mentioned in debate earlier on, I happen to coach hockey. Although managers, trainers and coaches are all require criminal record or vulnerable persons police checks, somebody approached me at an arena one day and said that a convicted sex offender was refereeing six-, seven- and eight-year-olds.

Upon checking and verifying, we found out that, yes, this individual should not be out there, and we checked, to follow through, that there was no vulnerable persons police check required for individuals refereeing sports. Subsequent to that, we checked around the province and it applies to a lot of other sports in the province. We are following through on cleaning up a few holes to make sure that kids are safe in the province of Ontario.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business: Mr. Bisson and Mr. Kormos exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Kormos assumes ballot item number 77 and Mr. Bisson assumes ballot item number 78.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MEL SWART

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for all parties to speak up for to five minutes to remember a former member of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora—Rainy River): It is an honour to be able to speak about our former colleague Mel Swart.

This is one of those times when you could not possibly have enough time to say everything you want to say. When I was first elected to this House in 1987, Mel was a veteran. He had already been here 12 years. It was the beginning of his fifth term. He was one of the people who had been here for many of the historic battles.

I had heard a lot about him from about 1975 on, because I had worked in election campaigns and had been an unsuccessful candidate in a couple of campaigns. Always, you heard about the work and the advocacy of Mel Swart. What absolutely amazed me when I was first elected was that I thought, when I came in to work at 7 in the morning, that I would somehow be setting the bar. I would come in at 7 in the morning, and Mel Swart would already be at his desk.

Not only would he already be at his desk, but he'd have papers here, he'd be on the phone to somebody and he'd have some other project going on the work table beside his desk. Similarly, I thought on the evenings when I'd go home at, say, 11 o'clock that I was setting some kind of bar, only to look down the hall and see Mel Swart in his office on the phone, making notes—little yellow stickies all over the bulletin board reminding himself of the five, six or seven things he had to do.

Occasionally I would come into the office on a Sunday night and there again, getting ready for Monday—perhaps it was a special project he had under way—would be Mel Swart. He was an absolutely tireless worker, and he worked just as hard, even more so, in his constituency than here at Queen's Park.

I used to marvel at him in caucus meetings. Mel never tried to lecture anyone. He never, ever spoke down to anyone. His conversations with you were always that: open, earnest and honest conversations. Occasionally, someone in the caucus would pretend, or thought for a second or so, that they were smarter than Mel. Mel would listen to them quietly and politely. Meanwhile, you could tell that the wheels were turning, and at the end of the caucus meeting or the question period meeting, the person who inevitably came out on top was Mel Swart. Mel was not someone