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

December 14, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

L040 - Thu 14 Dec 1995 / Jeu 14 Déc 1995

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

SCIENCE NORTH

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN NIAGARA

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

MISSISSAUGA NEWS

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO

RETRAINING FUNDS

CHILD CARE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

EMERGENCY SERVICES

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

EMERGENCY SERVICES

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

EMERGENCY SERVICES

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRESS GALLERY

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

HEALTH CARE

USER FEES

EDUCATION POLICY

WASTE TRANSFER APPLICATION

FEDERAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

LIQUOR CONTROL

WASTE TRANSFER APPLICATION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

JOB CREATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

ST JOSEPH'S HEALTH CENTRE

TAX REDUCTION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

LABOUR LEGISLATION

MALPRACTICE INSURANCE PREMIUMS

ST JOSEPH'S HEALTH CENTRE

DANGEROUS OFFENDER LEGISLATION

ADULT EDUCATION

COMMENTS OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

RENT REGULATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

SPOUSAL BENEFITS

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1995 / CHARTE DE 1995 DES DROITS DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(CONTINUED) CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1995

WATERLOO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1995

CANADIAN NIAGARA POWER COMPANY, LIMITED ACT, 1995

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1995

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT, 1995

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1995

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Boushy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day / Projet de loi 25, Loi prévoyant la célébration du jour du Souvenir.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I'll try to be very brief so that other speakers can contribute to this important debate. I'd like to point out too that this is the first time I speak at length.

I think the bill is clear enough to this House and to the people of Ontario. It would establish November 11, Remembrance Day, as a provincial holiday.

The reason I brought this bill forward is simple: to give deserved recognition to those who fought, died and were wounded to protect our country and defend democracy.

Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces that haven't made Remembrance Day a statutory holiday. It is time that we recognize the debt of gratitude we owe to the tremendous bravery and sacrifice of those who served for our sake.

I hope that, together, we can honour the memory of the past and keep it alive. Remember, if not for the brave veterans who served the cause of freedom, none of us, ladies and gentlemen -- none of us -- would be able to sit here this morning and go on with the business of our democratic government.

Remembrance Day is becoming just another day of the year to many people in our communities, even though it should be one of the most important days to Canadians.

My fellow colleagues, we cannot allow those who paid the supreme sacrifice to be forgotten, nor should we forget the atrocities of war faced by veterans so that we could live in a free, democratic society.

As I said, only Ontario and Quebec do not recognize Remembrance Day as a provincial holiday, and it's about time we changed that. It would be appropriate for us to move ahead with recognizing it this year, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

Some people may argue that we can't afford to take another day off, but recognizing Remembrance Day would only bring the number of statutory holidays up to nine. I think the closure of business for one more day is a very small price to pay compared to the high price the veterans paid in order to protect our future. We owe them this respect. They paid for our future with their struggles and their lives. How can we even put a price on their sacrifice? Remembrance Day should be more than one minute of silence that's quickly forgotten as we get on with the business of the day.

We owe so much to those who served and died. I don't think it's too much to ask that we give up the convenience of keeping stores and schools open on November 11.

If you give this bill your support, you will be telling those who fought for us, "We will never forget you, we will never forget what you did, and we are forever grateful."

This is a bill that should have been enacted a long time ago. I have seen tremendous support for making Remembrance Day a provincial holiday.

Up beside me in the members' gallery is Wilma McNeill. She is so aware of the importance of Remembrance Day that she has spent six years fighting to get it recognized. Last year she collected 15,000 cards of support, one of which was signed by our Premier, Mike Harris.

Today I'm not just asking you to support my bill. I'm asking you to support the memory of over 100,000 Canadians who died for us.

Allow me to read you part of some of the many letters of support Mrs McNeill and I have collected. I have the letters here, copies. I'll be glad to send them over to anyone who would like to see them. This is one from Vic Dudek, a respected vice-principal in Sarnia. He says the bill has his full support: "This is a very worthwhile endeavour."

John Stewart, vice-president of the Air Force Association of Canada, says: "That this province, one of the cornerstones of Canada, should have eliminated the recognition in the first place is a slap to those who...gave of themselves to keep this country a cornerstone of democracy. To recognize days of lesser significance by declaring them holidays makes it even more shameful."

Here's a resolution from Sarnia city council: "That Sarnia city council support the Royal Canadian Legion...and request the provincial government to declare Remembrance Day a statutory holiday."

Here's one of interest to this side of the House. Jean Charest, leader of the federal PC Party, wrote this to Mrs McNeill: "When I last visited Sarnia, I signed my name supporting your cause. I still support your cause now and wish you the best of luck."

To the other side of the House, I'd like to point out, if you're listening, from Lyn McLeod, Leader of the Opposition: "I believe that it is of utmost importance to our honour and our privilege and our history to honour and remember those courageous men and women who bravely fought to preserve our liberty." I have Mrs McLeod's letter here. If you'd like to have a copy of it, I'll be glad to send it over to you.

From the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when she was deputy leader of the PC caucus: "This day is, without a doubt, vital to the history of our country and the world. It would be a tragedy to allow the efforts and accomplishments of our veterans, indeed, all veterans, to ever be forgotten."

The list of supporters goes on and on.

To me, and to thousands of other people, the issue is what importance and relevance we as a society give to Remembrance Day, and in particular to those men and women who risked everything for our country.

In our democratic society, cooperation is very essential, and I'm reaching out my hand and asking for the support of everyone from this side and from the other side of the House. I hope everyone here will carefully consider that before you decide how to vote.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm quite pleased, as a matter of fact, to rise and speak in support, although briefly, of the proposed bill. I think this is a very small act that we can do in remembrance of our heroes. I'm sure we wouldn't be here in this wonderful democratic place if it wouldn't have been for the efforts, the sacrifices and the lives of those people.

Just let me tell the House how important it is and why it is so important. Almost on a daily basis, members receive delegations or groups or students from the various parts of our province here from our ridings, and it was just on Monday of this week that I had one of the groups from my own riding, from the riding of Yorkview. While we were entertaining the youngsters, going through the hallways of the House here, a young girl said: "Who are these people? What do they represent?" It was one of the pictures of a particular battle in which Canadians were involved.

We got into a little bit of discussion with the group, and I said to the teacher, "It is wonderful to see the kids here today so they can see, they can learn, they can find out," but I said, "That is not enough," and they all agreed very attentively. They said: "Yes, it is indeed not enough and we have to learn. We have to learn our history, our people, our past." We have to start as of now to say thank you to those people who have made it possible that even our own kids can go around to school, learn in a free and democratic society.

Without further ado, as I've said, there would be many, many reasons to say yes, why we should be in support of this bill. I think it is a good thing to do it, to have a particular day to remember our heroes and those who fought for us so that we could enjoy our country free and strong. Therefore, I'm very pleased and proud to support the bill as it is presented.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I would remind those in the gallery that our rules prohibit any demonstrations, and that includes applauding.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I rise today in support of Bill 25, entitled

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day. I stand before you and I am one with you in one of the truly great centres of democracy, our Legislature.

All too often we forget this simple fact. As members of the government or as members of the opposition, we tend to get tied up in the processes of our day-to-day functions. We tend to view the processes of this House in terms of how successful we are or were in obtaining our objectives and, in doing so, we sometimes forget that as members of the House we are all involved in democracy in action. We are involved in the processes of democracy.

I feel a great joy in being a member of this House. I have tremendous pride in being a member of the party that forms the government of Ontario. I want to say that I believe that the men and women in opposition work very hard at representing their constituents and it is their obvious hard work at putting forward their views in what they perceive as being in the best interests of their constituents that has earned them my begrudging respect.

I am raising this point because despite how much I or any other member of the government may disagree with the views of the opposition, or however they may disagree with our views, should the need ever arise, I would be among the first to defend their right to be here and to make their views known.

It is only a few short months ago that a truly momentous event occurred in the province, an election, a democratic election. The fact that our party won the election is secondary in importance to the fact that an election was held, that the people of this great province had the opportunity to cast their vote for the candidate of the party of their choice. It is this simple act of casting a vote in a multi-party duly constituted election and all that this act signifies which separates the democratic countries from the totalitarian countries throughout the world.

In this country and, in particular, in the province of Ontario, voting is such a simple process that we take it for granted. Voting in a free election without fear is a legacy which has been passed on to us from our parents, our grandparents and previous generations.

The simple act of voting is our right as members of a free democratic society. It is a right which has been given to us only by the blood, sweat and tears of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and it is a right, a legacy which has been left to us by the tens of thousands of Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice, the men and women who fought and died, who gave their lives to defend the principle of democracy, who gave up their lives in order that we may take

part in the simple process of casting a vote, who gave up their lives in order that we could be here today in one of the true centres of democracy.

My election campaign had the theme, "for the love of our children." I am proud to say that teaching our children about the importance of democracy was also a major component of the campaign. I truly believe it is absolutely essential that our children be taught the harsh realities of the sacrifices of the history that paid for their right to be members of a democratic society.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. I am proud to say that my father, Ken Wettlaufer, served overseas during the war and, like so many of his generation, my father proved through his actions that he was willing to sacrifice his life to defend democracy. I thank God he didn't have to, but he was willing to in order to defend our freedom of choice, to defend our right to elect our government and for this I am truly thankful.

Like my colleague the member for Sarnia, I believe that the time has come to increase the level of understanding among our children and among those people who are new to our shores about the history of the sacrifice in blood that has paid for our democratic right. I agree with my colleague that Remembrance Day should be more than one minute of silence and that it should also be a day of thanks to those men and women who put their lives on the line in order that we can be here today.

While it is important that we look back at our history, I would like to point out that it is equally important that we recognize the contribution of the men and women who currently serve in the Canadian armed forces. It is these men and women who not only stand to defend this country, but who have made Canada the most respected peacekeeping force throughout the world. We must be vigilant in teaching our children the valuable service of these men and women.

I don't suggest that we should add to the burden of the costs of small business by adding one more paid holiday. What I do suggest is that we reconsider some of the statutory holidays that we have and perhaps replace one of the less important ones with a statutory Remembrance Day.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): First, let me congratulate the member for Sarnia, Mr Boushy, who introduced Bill 25,

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day.

As far as I'm concerned, there cannot be a more significant act as to remember those who have fought for our way of life so that we today can have a semblance of freedom and democracy. All of us would agree that the torch of freedom must be and should be passed on from one generation to the next. What better way to do this than to observe a special day?

Of course, there will be those, as the member for Kitchener and the member for Sarnia have indicated, who will say that this special observance day which, as Mr Boushy pointed out, is not recognized only in Ontario and Quebec, will be somewhat costly. I think that objection may be overcome by various ways and means.

The other objection, of course, that may be raised would be that even if we declare this a statutory holiday, what guarantees do we have that the memory of those who fought for our way of life will be enhanced and preserved and that it will not, as in many other holidays, be just another indication of something that was happening in the past and will be quickly forgotten?

It seems to me that what we must do today is not only to remember those who have given their lives and who have fought without question so that our way can be maintained -- democratic principles and a life of freedom -- but it seems to me that there must be an infusion, if this day is to be observed, of a number of programs that are tightly knit and sponsored either by private organizations or by a government agency so that indeed the memory of those who have lost their lives and fought for our way of life can be maintained. Simply to declare and observe a statutory holiday is not good enough.

I know that the member for Sarnia and all of us who are here today will be in favour of this observance. However, there is nothing in this bill that speaks to a program, a sense of action, a sense that there will be a memory maintained as opposed to simply another holiday that the family can take off and go to the cottage.

Look at any other statutory holidays. Without a mission statement, without a direct way to prod the memory of all of us to remember those who fought and died, without this kind of a program, another holiday is not all that appropriate. We therefore must ensure that along with this Bill 25,

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day, there comes a way of action from this government that we will remember this special day.

I am in favour, I'm sure most of us here are in favour, and the member for Sarnia does not have to quote members of the opposition to get support. He, as we all know sitting here, has only to convince his own party, which has a vast majority of members here and who can pass this act, who can pass this bill in a split second without any of us voting in favour.

I appreciate that the member for Sarnia has quoted our leader and other members across the province on the importance of this day, but I remind him that all he has to do is to speak to a few members of cabinet, maybe just one person who is already committed to this act, and it will be done.

Our worry of course has been, as I've indicated before, that along with this special observance and along with the passage of this act comes a special program so that all of us, children, homemakers, politicians, business people, will be drawn into remembering those who have fought without question and who have died in the trenches, whether that be the conflict of the First World War, the Second World War -- whether those are conflicts within those countries that we fought against, because there too we have members who have given their lives for freedom, to destroy tyranny and dictatorship. That's why, I might add, we on this side of the House are so sensitive about your passing Bill 26.

Having said this, I know there will be certain questions, but I'm saying to you again, it is of utmost importance that everyone should remember what has taken place.

We can quote those who fell in the Korean conflict. There were 350 Canadians who gave their lives so that our men and women in arms would be supported and so that our way of life across the globe would be maintained.

There are conflicts today in Bosnia where Canadians have suffered and given their lives. There are conflicts right around the globe, and I'm sure that anyone who is only somewhat familiar with this bill on observance of Remembrance Day will certainly agree that it needs to be done.

Whether some people would like to remember solely those who fell in one war or another will be insignificant, because we know that all those who fought for freedom and lost their lives need remembrance so that our generation and the next generation and those who come after the next generation will maintain a sense that, yes, we have to give thanks to those who've given their lives for our freedom, for our democracy and so that we can speak freely in this Legislature.

So I talk to all my friends in Ontario when I say we will support this, certainly I will support this, but remember, in addition, it must be more than one minute of silence at noon when the guns salute those who have fallen. There must be a program. There must be a program in our schools so that the children will know that their way of life can be threatened at any time and so that our rights are being protected.

That is the essence of this legislation and that is the essence of what we stand for when we vote for this legislation.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): As we pass the 50th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War, the younger generation of Canadians are certainly forgetting the many soldiers who died for our country of Canada. In fact, I'm going to remind the members of the House and the people of Ontario that 68,300 Canadians died in the First World War, 46,542 died in the Second World War, and 314 died in the Korean war.

Over 115,000 soldiers died for Canada and democracy. The number of Canadians who died in the three wars is equivalent to the population of the city of Guelph and the town of Fergus combined. Think of that statistic.

I am speaking strongly in favour of the act proposed by the honourable member David Boushy, which will provide for the observance of Remembrance Day, because I believe that we need a permanent reminder to the people of Ontario to show respect for the veterans who fought and died in past wars.

Already government offices, banks, financial institutions are closed on Remembrance Day. I also believe that other businesses and non-essential institutions should also close. The closure of a business for one day is a very small price to pay compared to the ultimate sacrifice that our veterans paid in order that each one of us can live in a free and democratic society.

I would urge the members of this House to support this bill so that Remembrance Day can become more than one minute of silence.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I rise in support of this bill as well. I think it is a very significant act, and I would like to congratulate the member for Sarnia for bringing this forward. But as my colleague has said earlier, we need much more than this. We need the commitment from the government to actually make it happen.

I'm a newcomer like you to this particular House, and I'm not quite sure as to what the status of private members' bills are once they're passed, whether in effect it becomes a fait accompli, but we need much more than this, and we need a government that is willing to look at not only the economic issues that we face here in Ontario -- and I don't want to be partisan about this, but I find it somewhat ironic that this kind of a motion should come from a government that seems to equate everything to what's going on with the economics in this province.

But having said all that, I can't think of a better country than Canada. I know there are many members in this House who, like myself, were not born in this country, and I can't think of too many other places in this world where it would be possible for somebody who comes from another country, whether they're youngsters or in their teens or even older than that, to get the opportunity to serve at either the local level or at the provincial or the federal level.

I think we have an open society. People in this country are willing to accept people, for the most part, very quickly, and I think that one of the reasons why we have that country is for what the veterans have done from us.

I come from a community which has a strong military background. They have a strong military college, the Royal Military College, and also CFB Kingston, and I know that one of the extra special days for me, as both a local politician formerly and now as a provincial politician, is Remembrance Day, because not only do we get an opportunity to truly remember those people who fought for this country and fought for democracy, but it also gives me an opportunity to meet with many of the veterans at the various legion and air force and naval association events on that day.

As some of you may know, I was born in the Netherlands, and I think all of us remember the CBC programming that took place this May when literally for three or four days solid, for six hours a day, we were given sights of Holland and the festivities that took place there and the veterans and the manner in which they were being hailed by particularly the young people of that country.

What it indicated to me more than anything else was that all of the young people who were involved in those celebrations, even though they were in most cases two generations removed from people who have actually been involved in the war, knew about the war, knew about the contributions that the Canadian soldiers had made in the liberation of Holland, and so I think that's very important.

Why do they know that? Because they're taught that on a continuous basis in school, of the tremendous contributions that Canada made in the liberation of that part of Europe at the end of the Second World War.

I think that whatever we do, and I hope we do get this proclaimed as a national holiday and as a holiday here in Ontario officially, let us make sure that the educational programs as well in our schools continually remind our young people of the sacrifice that the soldiers have made for us, not only in the Second World War but in all the other conflicts throughout the world over the last 100 years.

I fully support the efforts of the member for Sarnia and I wish him well as undoubtedly this matter will be deliberated by cabinet as well.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak briefly on Bill 25 and, as others have said, to congratulate Mr Boushy, the member for Sarnia, for bringing this bill before us. I will support this bill, as I hope others will as well, although I do have some concerns that I want to put before the Legislature. They're not dissimilar from the concerns that I've heard from other members who've spoken so far on this.

I think it's more than appropriate, as I believe is the intent of the bill and Mr Boushy in bringing this forward, that we continue to enhance the ways in which we commemorate Remembrance Day.

I certainly take the intent of this bill in making, were this bill to become law, Remembrance Day a school holiday for the purposes of the Education Act and a public holiday for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act, to mean that we would want to add to the sense of understanding that there is already now about Remembrance Day and the sense of remembering the sacrifices that many people have made for this country and throughout the world to fight for the basic principles of freedom and democracy that we now today hold so dearly.

For all of those reasons that I know members have talked about and many people across this province feel strongly about, as do I, it is incumbent upon us that we continue to remember, particularly as we seem to be getting in time further and further away from the great conflicts that led to the establishment initially of Remembrance Day, but knowing that in fact there is still a lot of conflict across the world and that it is important therefore for us to remember, in all ways that we can, the contribution that the many men and women who have died in the many wars have made towards the pursuit of freedom and the pursuit of democratic principles.

I think for those reasons it is incumbent upon us to continue to support initiatives that allow us to focus, at least on that one day of the year, on remembering that and ensuring that we dedicate ourselves and rededicate ourselves to not pursuing solutions through war.

It is in that same context that I have one concern that I want to put before the Legislature, and it will not deter me from supporting this bill, because I think the issues, as I say, are important, but if this bill passes, before it becomes law there are ways of addressing that and I would be looking certainly to the Minister of Education and Training to provide some discussion and some leadership on this issue, and that is the part that relates to schools and the school holidays.

I'm sure, as members might know, that the change that I believe reversed, if I'm remembering correctly, and that made Remembrance Day not to be a school holiday was done purposefully to ensure that there was a focus in our schools, not just on Remembrance Day but around that time of the year, so that our young people would appreciate and understand the importance of Remembrance Day. I think it would be quite important that that not only not be lost but particularly if Remembrance Day were to now be a school holiday, that somehow that also continued to be a focus.

It is one thing when schools are open on that day and children and students can participate, as they do now, in various events in the schools as well as in the community at large that aim to remember. It would be a little bit more difficult for that to be done within the school context, certainly on Remembrance Day, were it to be a school holiday, but it is not impossible, and I think that it is yet an issue that has to be addressed and should be looked at.

On the spirit of it, certainly I would support this bill, and I think it's timely, but with that one strong urging if this is going to go anywhere beyond the expression of this House in giving its support, that that is a concern I believe needs to be addressed. I see the member for Sarnia nodding and I appreciate his understanding for that notion and that concept to have to be looked at as well.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I too am quite frankly proud and pleased to stand and speak in support of this private member's bill. The member for Sarnia does credit to his constituents and to the people of not only his community but across the province in bringing forward this issue.

This November 11 past fell on a Saturday, on a weekend date, but the fact is that more often than not, November 11 is during a weekday. What that means is that legions in the largest part but other groups as well in our community who take on to themselves the responsibility for organizing the special event of remembrance and celebration of courage are forced to do it on a day other than November 11 itself. These are entirely appropriate but, quite frankly, it loses some of the poignancy, to think of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

I think this is a most fitting bit of legislation. I've been honoured, as you have in your own community and as Mr Boushy undoubtedly has in his, to have been able to participate in these very important days of remembrance and also days of celebration. These are days of celebration of the courage and commitment of women and men who have served this country, who have served humankind in the best tradition of concern about the state of humanity.

Don't forget that inevitably the people who gave their lives, the people who paid the supreme sacrifice in these wars and conflicts were never the old; it was the young, the youngest of our community, just as it's the youngest now who serve the world in their role, a very noble role and one that's increasingly recognized, as members of our armed forces in various peacekeeping activities, who will be called upon as we know, as they're being called upon now, to engage in policing activities in Europe, and as I say, still with the very real risk of paying that ultimate price.

I can't help but reflect, having read this short but important bill, on the fact, and I mention this every occasion on Remembrance Day in Welland-Thorold and in Port Robinson and on Decoration Day when similar ceremonies are conducted, that as the veterans of these two great world wars and the Korean War and, yes, veterans of the war in Vietnam -- Canadians served there and gave their lives. As these veterans get older and older, there are fewer legionnaires in attendance at these ceremonies.

It's with pride in my communities, and I'm sure that's not unique to Welland-Thorold but across the province, that it's young people, young women and men who are active members of the various cadet movements, young women and men who are participants in the scouting and girl guide movements who very much participate as fresh young blood in these ceremonies of remembrance and celebrations of courage. I've been pleased to be able to commend them year after year as the number of aging veterans is reduced.

I reflected today on a good comrade of the Welland branch of the legion, Jules Beauchamp, who died just a short time ago. As Jules got older and older, he found it more and more difficult to participate in the actual parading, but he would always be there with his wife at his side, helping a little bit as he hobbled along with his cane.

To his very final days, Jules, as a very important member of our community, a veteran of the Second World War, active in some of the most incredible and dangerous and tragic conflicts during the invasion of Europe, never forgot. Jules remembered. He remembered the sacrifice of his young comrades during that war and he never lost the gratitude for the fact that he was able to come back.

I knew Jules Beauchamp, knew him well and loved him, as his family did and as other members of the community did. I knew him as a mature man and then as he got older as an old man, but let's not forget that Jules Beauchamp, like his comrades when they were in Europe, liberating Europe, were but young men. They were teenagers. Most of them had no need for their shaving kits.

Let's not forget that in 1945 the population of this country was but 10 million people. The whole country of Canada had a smaller population than the province of Ontario alone today. From that 10 million came young women and men who were the best, the bravest and the most capable, and yes, far too many of them didn't return to their farms, to their parents' homes, to the workplaces that they left.

I'm pleased to see this legislation.

I think it's important that we mark Remembrance Day with something that is significant by way of a statutory holiday, with the hope that this won't be regarded as an opportunity, oh, for a long weekend or an opportunity to spend another day wherever it is one might spend it at the beginning of November, but to spend that day in one's community and hopefully at the cenotaph that is there in every community in this province, the monuments to the courage and sacrifice of those young women and men from the world wars and from the conflicts, and from the peacekeeping endeavours that Canada has participated in through the United Nations, that people will take advantage of this respite from their labours, yes, to remember, yes, to mourn, and yes, to celebrate that incredible Canadian spirit that was developed during the bloodiest, most treacherous and inhuman of exercises, and not only to reflect on that but to make their appreciation, to make their cognizance of this great sacrifice known by their presence in those parades of aging legionnaires, and of young and healthy members of the current armed forces and of the cadet movements and of the girl guide and scouting movements, to march with those people and by their presence at those cenotaphs to make the comment that we will never forget, but also because of course it's important that the reason for not forgetting is so that history won't repeat itself.

As well as celebrating the courage and mourning the sacrifice, we have to reconfirm our commitment to avoiding the incredible tragedy, the beyond tragic, the inhuman phenomenon of the Holocaust, the inhuman phenomenon of the terror of fascism through Europe and through the Far East and the toll that took on not just the generation that suffered under the jackboots of those totalitarian forces, but the toll it's taken on their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren, because the inhumanity of those fascist exercises wasn't eliminated at the time of liberation either in Europe or in the Far East; the inhumanity persists with us today.

To remember, to mourn, to celebrate, but to make a commitment to maintaining peace, to avoiding the bloodshed and the barbarism of war, to ensuring that we talk about things, to reconfirming our commitment to a United Nations, albeit imperfect, far superior to any of the alternatives; to be able to negotiate and talk and to understand that peace doesn't just mean an absence of war, that peace means equality and peace means economic justice, because the tragedy of hunger and starvation, the tragedy of deprivation, is surely as great as the tragedy of bombs and flames.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today and respond to the private member's bill from the member for Sarnia. We each, I'm sure, in this House would pause with the greatest respect for those who have given indeed the ultimate gift; more specifically, on the special occasion of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Europe. It's also a reminder at this time as our troops from Canada move to Bosnia in the new role of peacekeeper and police. Canadians have been held in high esteem for their work in providing peace around the world, starting with Lester B. Pearson.

I'm also proud to make the contribution as my son is a member of the Canadian armed services.

There's another side to this issue which I need to address: Do we need another holiday? I'd like to remind members when they cast their vote, is it not more appropriate to stop, to think and to remember those who gave the greatest gift?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It's my pleasure to stand here and, first of all, congratulate the member for Sarnia on introducing this bill. It certainly is an important bill. I'd also like to congratulate the members in the House for, in most ways, agreeing with this bill.

I am a bit appalled and dismayed that some of the members, especially from Parkdale and Kingston and The Islands, would take this opportunity to criticize the government on other bills. There is time for that at different times in this House. I am a little appalled that they would do this on such an important issue as this. I guess they don't have confidence in themselves to be able to do this at other times, so they chose this time in the House to do this.

I'm also honoured to tell the House that I am a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 6 in Owen Sound, and this year when we paraded on November 11, probably one of the worst days we've had that I've ever paraded in weatherwise, we had more people out this year than we've ever had; one of the best parades we've ever had. I can remember that I was soaked right to the skin, as most of the other people were, but nevertheless the parade took place and people remembered, the people who showed up, and a lot of people showed up this year, and that's great. But does that go far enough? I'm not sure.

Most people who work for government now have the day off, so it wouldn't be that big a thing to go on and make it a public holiday.

I'm going to support this bill and again I want to congratulate the member for Sarnia on bringing it to the House.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill. I'm an immigrant to this country. Some years ago my parents decided that we would come to this country, and the reason for that choice, I suggest, through discussions with my parents, was that fundamentally this country was seen as a place where there would be freedom, where there would be peace and where people would be able to live knowing that the democratic rights that the men and women of this country fought for over the years would be preserved.

I'm indebted to my parents for having made that decision. I'm honoured to serve in this House as someone who wasn't born in this country, and perhaps the reason I feel such passion for the democratic process is because it was a choice my family made to be here.

I will speak very strongly in favour of supporting this bill, but I'd also like to go one step farther. I would like to suggest that what's at stake here is not that we have another holiday, but that we would take the time throughout the course of that day and truly remember why we're setting aside the time we've chosen to set aside, and that it wouldn't just simply become another day, as many other holidays become, to forget the spirit and the intent of that day.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to suggest that in this country, and in this province specifically, we urge our Minister of Education and Training to put some thought into ensuring that our young people, as they come through our educational system, are made aware of the heritage of our country and of this province, and that the young people in our province, particularly on Remembrance Day, know why we've taken the time to celebrate, to observe, and that the young people in this province have a true and sincere understanding of the importance of democracy, of what democracy has cost and the lives that have been laid down to preserve it.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It gives me great honour to rise in support of this private member's bill. I'm fortunate to have in Trenton one of the largest armed forces positions there is, not just in Ontario but in Canada. Since I'm new to government, this year was one of the first times I have taken the time to go to that monument, to lay that wreath. We had some 1,500 people stand out in the pouring rain with no umbrellas, because those people of Trenton don't believe in umbrellas. We all got wet.

We've got to make sure that the people who now are growing old tell those stories, put them in records, so that two or three generations from now our people who are away from the ability to have touched people who have been touched by that war and that disaster -- we need to have those stories in the records to make sure our future generations understand and still remember the great sacrifice those men and women made.

Mr Boushy: I'm the type of person who believes, as I indicated earlier, that cooperation is essential in our democratic society. I want to thank my fellow colleagues from both sides of the House for their support. It is very important to me and my riding that this be a unanimous vote in the House.

In regard to some concerns, I'd like to point out to my fellow colleagues that this is going to a committee to go over the concerns. I'll be very happy to bring up all the concerns they have regarding a definite program for the schools in our communities as well as the need for another holiday. Perhaps we can come up with a plan for replacing another holiday. I'm very pleased with the support, and thank you very much.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Agostino moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 22,

An Act to provide for an Oath of Allegiance for the Members of the Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 22, Loi prévoyant le serment d'allégeance pour les députés à l'Assemblée législative.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): First of all, I'd like to thank the members on all sides of the House for the interest and the number of calls from people who have taken the opportunity to speak to me about this bill and to clearly understand what the bill is today and what the intent of this bill is, and I appreciate that.

If this bill is approved today by my colleagues in the Legislature, it would require elected members of the House to swear allegiance to both the Queen and to our country, Canada. We'd become the first Legislature in Canada to have such an oath of allegiance to Canada.

I would like to give some background about the oath and the historic significance to this House and to this country. The first mention of an oath in Canada dates back to 1774 in the Quebec Act. As some members may be aware, there was no legislature in British North America at that time. All legislation pertaining to what is currently Ontario was passed in Westminster.

However, public officials took an oath at that time which read as follows:

"I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George, and him will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his person...and I will do my most to endeavour."

In 1791 the first Legislature was created in Upper Canada and Lower Canada. At that time, the members of the House took an oath which was identical to the oath of allegiance that members of the British Parliament still take today. It reads:

"Do you swear by Almighty God that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law?"

In 1867, with the passing of the British North America Act, the oath of office which we take today came into effect. In the 128 years since, this oath has not changed. Even in 1982, when the Constitution was patriated, the oath remained the same.

That it has not changed in 128 years is a very powerful message. This original oath has deep-rooted meaning and tradition to me. And I want to reassure members of this House that the passing of this additional oath today will not in any way, shape or form alter the original oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II which has been prescribed in the Constitution and which this Parliament does not have the power to change whatsoever. What we have the power to do is add a second oath to it which would be the oath to Canada.

What I'm proposing today, in my view, will make a change for the better. We can build on this very powerful tradition, heritage of this country with a stronger oath that not only captures our history, our roots in this country, our traditions, but also reflects the realities of today.

A couple of days ago, the Solicitor General announced in this House a bill that would allow police officers now the option to swear allegiance both to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to Canada.

What we are doing today is basically making the same requirement to members of this Legislature. That oath will allow members of this House to swear the original constitutionally prescribed oath and make it mandatory that we also take a second oath to Canada.

I'll read what this new oath combined that we will all take would read:

"I, (member's name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

We would then add a second part:

"I, (full name of member), do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be loyal and bear true allegiance to Canada and that I will perform the duties of a member honestly and justly, in conformity with the Constitution of Canada."

As you can see, Bill 22 will not eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen. The oath as prescribed by the Constitution, as I've said earlier, we do not have the power or authority or, I believe, the right to change. However, we have the right and the power and the authority to add a second oath to it.

I came to Canada when I was nine years old. My parents, fortunately, chose Canada as a country where they were going to raise their family and try to make a better life for themselves. I'm very proud of this country. I'm very proud of the opportunity that Canada has given myself and millions of other immigrants over the years, people who came to Canada simply with a hope for a better life and came to a country that gave them that hope, that with hard work, with commitment, with dedication, we can succeed and you can make a better life for yourself.

I'm very proud to be living in the best country in the world, and it is a country where people line up daily to try to get into, and it is a country I know we're all very proud of.

I think it is important for us as Canadians to start speaking out more proudly, more openly, about our country. We shouldn't be afraid to use the word "Canada." We shouldn't be afraid to tell the world how proud we are of this country of ours, how proud we are of living in the best country in the world.

It is time for us as Canadians to start waving the flag a little higher and say "Canada" a little louder so people around the world continue to hear our message and hear our message about this great country of ours.

I remember my frustration last June when I could not take an oath of allegiance to Canada. It's bizarre that if a member today in this Legislature chooses on top of the original oath to swear allegiance to Canada, he cannot take his seat in the Legislature. I can tell you that in most other countries around the world, elected officials would be barred from holding office if they did not swear allegiance to the country which they're serving in.

In Ontario, if you choose to swear allegiance to Canada you cannot sit in the Legislature of this province.

When I was in Montreal with the unity rally I was amazed, and with great pride, at the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who had taken the time to speak out for Canada, and at the people of my riding who boarded buses at 3 o'clock in the morning to be in Montreal, along with people from every riding across this province and across this country. I was amazed at the people who stood beside me who had travelled from the Yukon to be in Montreal that day, to do their part to keep Canada together.

It was amazing to see thousands of Canadians who spent sleepless nights and dozens of hours to be there and to say to Quebec, to Canada and to the world how proud we are of our country and that, yes, Canadians are willing to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of this wonderful country of ours. It is a very powerful message and a message that should not be lost on us.

In our country's history, it was never more important than today that as leaders in our communities we stand up and speak about our patriotism, our allegiance and our love for Canada. I feel that as leaders in our communities, when taking the oath of office we should state how proud we are to live and serve in this country.

The Premier is on record in June of last year of supporting a change that would include Canada in the oath of allegiance. Yesterday morning the Solicitor General -- on radio 640, Roy Green -- stated he would support this bill and the change that would add the oath of allegiance to Canada to the current oath which we now have. We can make history. We can be the first legislative body in Canada whose members take an oath of allegiance not only to Her Majesty the Queen but also to our country, Canada.

I have been extremely encouraged by the phone calls, the letters, the emotions that Ontarians and Canadians have expressed to me over this issue. I received letters from people right across this province. I received calls from right across this country.

My friend the member for Sarnia, in the previous motion, moved a very important bill in regard to the recognition of our war veterans in this country. Some of the most moving calls that I received over this issue and in June over the oath issue were from veterans, people who fought on behalf of this country. A gentleman, 80 years old, who called me from Saskatoon in tears, emotional about Canada, told me how important it was to him that we as Canadians start reflecting more proudly, speaking about our country, and that our institutions must start to reflect that.

I do not want to take anything away from tradition and heritage of this country, a tradition and heritage that made us the country we are today. The role of the Queen, the heritage, is extremely important to us. It is important to me because, as someone who came from another country and was allowed to maintain his heritage, his background, his culture, I very much appreciate the heritage, the culture and the history of this wonderful country of ours, and I want to maintain that. But I also want to strengthen it with the realities of Canada in 1995 and to the year 2000.

That reality is that we have a different country and that the oath should reflect the changing of Canada. I urge my colleagues in the House today from a basis a unity, of goodwill, of what I believe is a move that is positive for all of us to support this bill and ensure that the next Legislature of this province not only swears allegiance to the Queen but also swears allegiance to Canada.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I am pleased to rise today and indicate my support for this bill presented to us today by the member for Hamilton East. I want to stress a couple of things in indicating my support and in urging members of the assembly to support this bill, and those are points that certainly the member for Hamilton East has already made but I think bear underscoring.

The first is that this bill, in proposing that members of the assembly swear an oath to Canada and to the Constitution of Canada, does not replace the existing oath; in fact, it is added to the existing oath. That's important because I think the discussion around whether the existing oath should be replaced is really another discussion.

I think again -- and this is the second point -- as the member himself pointed out, it really is not even within the purview of this Parliament to change the existing oath, but it is certainly within the purview of this Parliament to add the oath that is being proposed today.

But the essential point there is that we, therefore, can do something which I think is quite significant, which is to indicate as members of the Legislative Assembly our allegiance and our loyalty to Canada as a country and to the Constitution of Canada without in any way taking away from the whole other debate that comes around the issue of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Whatever my views may be on that score in terms of the oath of allegiance that exists now to the Queen, I have to say that I understand and am quite respectful of the traditions that have been built up over the years that go back to the roots of this country and I actually am appreciative of the fact that we don't have to get, in dealing with this bill, into a debate about whether the existing oath should continue. It does continue and in fact it will continue until the Parliament of Canada decides otherwise.

So my only admonition, if you will, is that I certainly know the member for Hamilton East as someone who is quite colourful in the way in which he brings issues to the Legislature and I think we all recall when he brought this issue to the fore at the time that he went to take the oath, and I have no problems whatsoever with that. I think that it is within the realm of creativity of every member of this Legislature to bring issues that they believe are important to the public's attention, and so I took that, and take that even today, upon reflection, as the approach that the member for Hamilton East chose to bring this issue to the public's attention.

I was a little bit perplexed, I have to say, however, at the actions of another parliamentarian, not of this House but of the Parliament of Canada, indeed someone who holds one of the highest offices in this land, that of Deputy Prime Minister, being involved in that demonstration, because she of all people, as someone who has taken that oath by virtue of being a member of the House of Commons many a time, should have realized that it was in fact the Parliament of Canada that has jurisdiction to deal with the existing oath.

So I found it a bit perplexing that she would choose the Parliament of Ontario as the place to make a statement about the appropriateness or not of the existing oath rather than the Parliament of Canada.

But coming back to this point, I do appreciate, the theatrics aside, the member for Hamilton East bringing this issue before the House. I hope that it will meet with the support of this Legislature. I know that there may be some members who may have some concerns about, does this take away from the existing oath, and I think it's quite important to continue to stress that it does not. If this were to become law, we would be continuing to take and to swear the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and, in addition to that, we would be swearing an oath or an affirmation of loyalty and allegiance to Canada and to the Constitution of Canada.

I just want to conclude by stressing those two latter points. Again as the member for Hamilton East has indicated, we tend, as Canadians, to be somewhat hesitant to use the term "Canada" to voice our allegiance to Canada as a country, and I think we should try to shed some of that hesitation, some of that quietness sometimes that seems to be prevalent. I think that it's important also in this small way for members of this Legislative Assembly to be able to swear allegiance to Canada and to the Constitution of Canada.

Certainly, at this time in the history of this country, when the future of the country continues to be under some doubt, I think this is but another small way for us as parliamentarians to say that we think Canada is not only worth maintaining as a country but is something we would have no hesitation in making part of the oath of office we would take. It's in that spirit that I see the bill that's in front of us from the member for Hamilton East. I certainly am appreciative of the fact that he's brought this issue forward, and I intend to support it and urge members to do likewise.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I rise to join the debate on

An Act to provide for an Oath of Allegiance for the Members of the Legislative Assembly by the member for Hamilton East.

In his letter to me of November 17, the member explained he had tabled this bill "not to discount the importance of an oath to the monarchy, but simply to ensure that members who serve the province of Ontario also pledge allegiance to Canada. There has never been a more important time in our history when our nation's leaders should stand up and pledge their patriotism and allegiance to Canada."

But the present oath required by the Constitution already provides that members of legislative assemblies take an oath to the legal embodiment of our country, which, as the Constitution defines, is in fact Her Majesty the Queen.

It is the office of the Queen to be the embodiment of the Canadian state and also the embodiment of the province of Ontario, and therefore to be the focus of allegiance. This office, being a part of the Constitution of Canada, cannot unilaterally be changed by a province. Therefore, this bill by the member for Hamilton East would be a defiance of our Constitution since it would deny the Queen her office.

The bill also quite wrongly assumes that taking an oath to the Queen of Canada is not at the same time taking an oath to our country. It is the Canadian law and tradition to personify the country through our Queen, who is a living person. This reaffirms that in this country and province, government is about relationships between people, not abstractions.

As the Canadian philosopher John Farthing once noted, there is a danger in depersonalizing our country. He said: "How seldom we now hear our leaders speak of the Canadian people -- the term has almost lapsed into disuse -- but only and always of Canada, which is every day shedding more of its essentially human qualities to become the ever more pure abstraction of a physical environment."

The problem with taking an oath directly to one's country is knowing exactly what one is swearing to. What constitutes one's country? Is it the rocks and trees? Is it the land itself? Is it the people? Or is it the government or someone else's vision, which we may or may not believe in?

When we swear to the Queen of Canada we know exactly who we are swearing to: the person in our Constitution who is the source of legal authority in Canada. If we swear to "Canada" undefined, we are most likely swearing to some idea in our own minds.

Oaths, however, have to be legally enforceable. They cannot be enforceable if they are made to vague and undefined abstractions or, even worse, in such a situation their enforcement would restrict legitimate freedom. For example, new Canadians coming from less democratic countries are likely to interpret an oath to an undefined Canada as an oath to the government of the day.

Furthermore, almost no country in the world has oaths to the country directly. Republics for the most part require an oath be made to the Constitution, because the Constitution is at least definable in law. Monarchies like Spain and Thailand have oaths to the King. Some countries require no oath or declaration at all from prospective citizens. Since the time of the French Revolution, France has had two kingdoms, two empires and five republics. Presumably, there is not sufficient agreement about what should be in such an oath for it to have had an oath of any kind.

Oaths are legally binding commitments, with punishments for failure to live up to them. They should therefore be precise and limited. Our current oath of office for members meets this test. Loyalty is to the personification of the state, to the Queen, who has herself previously taken an oath to govern the people properly.

Oaths to the country or to presumed social values are in fact attempts to impose ideological uniformity on Canadians and a real threat to human rights and freedoms, as such oaths have turned out to be in other countries around the globe. Canadian oaths of loyalty, however, are reciprocal. We take an oath to the Queen because she has taken an oath to us.

Under the terms of this bill, a foreign, one-way oath would be imposed on members of this Legislature. Except through the Queen, Canada is not a living person who can take an oath to us in return.

The question must be asked whether this bill by the member for Hamilton East is the beginning of an introduction of a republican-style national ideology. People who want such an ideology for Canada do not like the Queen, because she gets in the way by always bringing back to us the realization that Canada is not a collective entity but just millions of individual people with a history of living together in communities.

Official national ideologies are foreign to the Canadian experience, and they are indeed undesirable. Whenever they have prevailed in this century, it has been at a terrible cost, because such ideologies do not tolerate minority views. Such national ideologies are insatiable. They require an enemy, such as an imagined foreign, ethnic or racial threat to feed their fires.

Canadians do love their country and are proud of the many diverse cultural groups that go to make up our unique mosaic. It is the crown that binds us together as a nation, personifies our values and country, and protects our cultural, religious and political rights. Under a national ideology, such tolerance and the development of multiculturalism, as it has in Canada, would have been impossible.

It is clear that Canadians must build on the unity they have already from the basis of the Queen, which we often tend to overlook as our best guarantor not only of our laws and freedoms but also of our unity as a nation. The Queen is not only the personification of the Dominion of Canada but also the personification of the province of Ontario. As the great Liberal Senator Eugene Forsey explained, in Canada there is only one authority, the Queen, manifested through 11 governments.

This is distinctive to Canadian federalism. In the United States, the President is only head of the central government, the governors are heads of the states, and there is no uniting authority. When we take an oath to the Queen, we are taking an oath to Her Majesty in her federal and provincial realms and reaffirming the essential unity of the two.

If we were to separate the Queen and Canada, as this proposed bill would do, we would also be separating Canada and Ontario, and Canada and Quebec, for the Queen is the only institution who is both federal and provincial at the same time. If there were an oath to Canada, would we not also need a separate oath to Ontario, as this is a provincial Parliament? These divisions would certainly give comfort to separatists.

Perhaps if the member for Hamilton East had read the recent study by a Canadian political scientist entitled The Invisible Crown, he would not be bringing forward this bill today.

This proposed additional oath would also be open to legal challenges. The Constitution establishes the conditions under which a person may sit as a member of this House. Can this House unilaterally establish additional conditions? Could a person who took the required constitutional oath be refused his or her seat? I think not.

By imposing two oaths, the member for Hamilton East is certainly calling the oath to the Queen into doubt as an oath to the country. If that is so, he and other members of his party should consider this: This bill proposes to sacrifice Canadian traditions and political culture, the Canadian Constitution, Canadian unity and Canadian freedoms to a public relations proclamation. This is unacceptable and I cannot support it.

This bill does highlight a problem, but it is not the one the member for Hamilton East suggests. The current oath is not the problem, nor are our Canadian institutions. Our problem is that successive governments have not explained our existing institutions that serve us so well.

The solution is to ensure that all Ontarians understand that the current oath to the Queen is also, through Her Majesty's coronation oath, an oath to the people of Ontario on behalf of the Queen. I therefore propose a possible

preamble to be read in public by the Clerk of the Assembly to members of the Legislative Assembly before they take the constitutional oath required of them, as follows:

"Her Majesty the Queen is the embodiment of the sovereign authority of Canada and Ontario. At her coronation Her Majesty took an oath to govern the people of Canada according to their laws and customs and to cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all her judgements. You are now asked to take the oath of allegiance by which you will be binding yourself to Her Majesty's oath to the Canadian people and, through Her Majesty, committing yourself to serve the people of Ontario."

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I rise in support of my colleague from Hamilton East --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Surprise, surprise.

Mr Duncan: -- and I rise in a non-partisan fashion.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): As you always do.

Mr Duncan: Listen, some of us take this very seriously.

I recognize the significance of his bill. When I took my oath, I swore allegiance to the Queen, and I was proud to do so and I have no qualms about doing so. But I would like to swear an allegiance to my country. My country is very well defined for me. I understand my country. The wording that's been proposed in the bill simply allows us as members of a Legislature, upon taking office, to further our obligation and further our commitment to this country.

Nous sommes ici dans cette Chambre et nous comprenons que le pays du Canada est un grand pays et nous voulons faire une obligation à notre pays et à nos citoyens. Moi, je suis fier de soutenir mon collègue de Hamilton East and say that I am prepared to honour our traditional oath and our constitutional and political heritage, as well as recognize our country.

We should approach this not in a partisan fashion but as one small step in furthering our country at what is obviously a difficult crossroads in her history, standing up as elected members in this House, representatives of our home communities, and saying that this bill deserves to be passed, deserves to be recognized. Our oath of office, while reflecting our traditions, should reflect our country.

I'm proud of the way my colleague has raised this issue. Like him, I come from immigrant stock, although I'm not a first-generation Canadian, and I'm proud and would be proud to be able to swear the additional allegiance to our country.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's interesting that this bill is juxtaposed to the one we debated earlier this morning, because of course we talked earlier about veterans, the young women and men who fought so bravely in the two world wars, in the Korean war and in other conflicts, and they of course were part of Her Majesty's or His Majesty's forces, had no qualms and were proud to be.

I've got to tell you, Speaker, I'm troubled by this bill. I truly am. I listened carefully to Ms Munro from Durham-York. I think I understand her analysis and, quite frankly, believing that, I tend to concur. We have tended to personalize the monarchy, and not that the monarchy is impersonal, but by the process of -- I suppose it's the phenomenon of postwar, post-1950s certainly, media intervention and exposure to the individuals and again the sort of bent that's developed in England and in North America.

But there's a failure here to understand, in my view, that the Queen is the head of state, as distinct from the head of government. I think that's a very important part of our democratic political life and institutions. It certainly distinguishes us from republican communities, where the two are merged. And to maintain that distinction, I submit, is very, very important.

I hope this doesn't surprise you and I hope it doesn't offend those people when I mention it, but I was very honoured -- as a matter of fact, it was along with Bill Vankoughnet from Frontenac-Addington -- that I received an honorary membership in the Monarchist League of Canada. I accepted that gratefully and I value that very much.

I think this bill is not particularly well thought out. Comment has been made already on what it means to bear allegiance to Canada as distinct from, for instance, to commit oneself to a unified and maintaining a united Canada.

Canada is growing. It's a very young country, but we've seen in the course of its 125-plus years that Canada has changed dramatically in terms of what territories constitute Canada. We certainly don't want to see the country diminished in any way. We certainly don't want to see it lose any of its parts, any of that mosaic that makes a strong, united country.

I want to tell you clearly that when I swear allegiance to the Queen -- and I'm pleased at the Solicitor General's announcement this week about returning that oath of allegiance for police officers -- I understand that the Queen is the head of state of Canada and that it's inherent in doing that that I'm swearing allegiance to the Constitution of my country, to the unity of Canada, in my mind. At the same time, unfortunately and sadly, there are a whole lot of -- yes -- Canadians who do not understand the role of the monarch in our constitutional monarchy and the important role that the monarch, she or he -- she at present -- plays in the workings of democratic institutions.

So I'm going to say this, and I know that I'm liable to be criticized, but that's nothing new: I'll be more than pleased to hear from members of the Monarchist League, because I feel at this point on second reading to support in principle this bill, having made clear that I regard it to be redundant. I know that this government would want this bill to go into committee, this government would want this bill to be discussed by all members of the community, and Mr Agostino should be given the opportunity to justify the need for an oath to Canada and why in fact that would be needed when there's already an oath to the Queen.

As a monarchist, as somebody who I believe understands the role of the monarchy, I think the oath to the Queen is important in our lives. Similarly, this warrants debate. Although not overly comfortable with it, I will support it because I would very much like to see that debate continue.

Mr Baird: I am pleased to rise today to speak to my colleague from Hamilton East's private member's bill. I would like to raise a number of concerns with the bill that Ontarians have shared with me, especially members of loyal societies such as the Monarchist League of Canada who are dedicated to promoting public awareness about the contemporary role of the crown and constitutional monarchy in our society. One such concern is that the proposed bill before us this morning is an attempt to bring in republicanism by the back door.

It is important to note that the current oath of office for members of the Legislative Assembly is already an oath to Canada, as legally defined and provided for in the Constitution of Canada, where the Queen is defined as the only legal embodiment of Canada, as our country's head of state.

Although my friend from Hamilton East states that his proposed bill is not a challenge to the role of the Queen in our society, in pith and substance it does represent such a challenge. The only justification for taking an additional oath is to ensure that the second oath deals with matters that are not touched on by the first one. It is clear that the intent of this proposed bill is to call into question that an oath to the Queen of Canada is at the same time an oath to the people and country of Canada.

But it has also been the historic Canadian practice to personify the country and province through the Queen to emphasize that government is about people and the relationships between people. To alter this long-standing aspect of Canadian life would be to undermine the distinct Canadian identity in North America.

In addition, another important concern is that an oath of office is a legally binding oath for members of the Legislative Assembly. The focus of our allegiance must therefore be definable under the law. This is why the republican oaths of allegiance are directed to their constitutions or another symbol which mediates the concept of national loyalty in a concrete fashion. The Liberal private member's bill represents a subtle form of republicanism.

It comes as no surprise given the current situation with the federal Liberal government and proposed changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act which cause a number of us great concern. This new republican declaration proposed by the Liberal minister Sergio Marchi in fact contains no reference to the Queen, and although the Chrétien government has not officially sanctioned any new citizenship oath, it will soon announce a decision. We sincerely hope that decision will include maintaining the monarchy in that oath.

Recently, the federal Liberal government announced a new coat of arms, changing it without even any consultation to both the Parliament and the people of Canada, and that caused great concern to many of my constituency.

Changing the oath of allegiance to downplay the monarchy will not change the political course of Quebec separatism, which is, I suppose, an honourable goal.

I speak for many Ontarians when I say that I will not support this proposed bill which goes counter to the best established traditions of this House, of the province, and of this Dominion. God save the Queen.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I will be supporting this bill.

Je crois qu'il est grandement temps de parler des pommes lorsque c'est le temps de parler des pommes, et de parler des oranges quand c'est le temps de parler des oranges.

Je crois que la confusion qui existe dans cette Chambre ce matin démontre très clairement comment certains Canadiens ne sont pas vraiment fiers de leur appartenance. Je crois que ce projet de loi ne met pas de côté la reine du Canada. On célèbre la reine du Canada, mais par contre, l'allégeance ou le «Je serai loyal envers le Canada» inclut la reine.

Je félicite mon collègue de Hamilton-Est qui, encore une fois, nous rappelle qu'il faut être fier comme Canadiens et d'employer le mot «Canada» à tous les instants.

Moi, personnellement, je n'ai jamais pensé que la reine n'était pas ma reine ; j'ai toujours pensé qu'elle l'était. Par contre, je crois qu'il est grandement temps, avec toutes les choses qui se passent dans notre Canada, avec les résultats d'un référendum qui a été très près, de se dire fiers Canadiens et de démontrer à toute instance que nous voulons être de fiers Canadiens.

Alors, j'appuierai ce projet de loi et je demande à ceux qui l'opposent de penser très sérieusement aux conséquences. Je rappelle que nous sommes Canadiens, de fiers Canadiens, et qu'on mette de côté nos petites différences, que nous soyons unis et que nous soyons fiers d'être Canadiens. C'est pourquoi je vais appuyer le projet de loi 22.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to make two points here and put them on the record. First of all, there's the whole question of what this motion speaks to. I guess on the surface I don't have a problem in where the member is going with this and certainly wouldn't have a problem supporting it.

I believe that to swear allegiance to not only Her Majesty the Queen but our Constitution makes ample sense. Unfortunately, this is not a matter that can be dealt with legally through this Legislature; there has to be

an act of the Parliament of Canada, as I understand it, in order to be able to change our particular allegiance, our particular oath. I would just point that out.

I just want to speak to something I've heard the Conservatives talking about on this motion, and that is their view that somehow or other the member for Hamilton East is trying to sneak republicanism through the back door. I have an extreme amount of difficulty when I hear Conservatives railing against republicanism, because they are the party, quite frankly, that is moving closest to republicanism in the United States in the history of this province.

We see the government of Ontario time and time and time again doing away with the social programs that I think identify us as Ontarians and as Canadians. If we're seeing one thing through the entire national debate that we've had on national unity over the past number of years, it's that up until about 10 years ago, Canadians identified themselves through their social programs and through the national institutions of this country.

People identified themselves as Canadians through the CBC, through the national energy program, through Petrocan, through our health care system, through our welfare system, and they said, "Canada is truly a country that is different than the United States because we believe, since the inception of our nation, that we need to work hard at making sure we have programs and we have a system of government that binds us Canadians together from east to west and not north to south."

If Canadians today in Quebec, and I think Canadians across this country, are worrying about what's going to happen to the future of Canada, I would say greatly it's because Canadians don't see themselves any more when they look at their governments and they look into our country. Because when they're looking at more and more our governments both in Ottawa and within the provinces, and especially now here in Ontario, where the governments are taking away the very underpinning of what our society is all about, they wonder: Will we have a health care system down the road?

Will we have a social welfare system to take care of our poor and our needy? Will we have the CBC? Will we have all of those things that we need in order to be able to identity ourselves as a country?

I think, justifiably so, Canadians and Ontarians are somewhat worried and somewhat preoccupied about where their governments are taking them.

So I would just say to my friends from the Conservative Party, to try to wrap this thing up in voting against it on the basis of you seeing this approaching us to republicanism, you certainly don't have ground to stand on there. In fact, the Tories, if I remember correctly, are the ones who went to the Republican Party of the United States and got some of their campaign organizers to come into Canada, into Ontario, last year to help them develop their election platform. I see that as more of an attempt to move us closer to republicanism than I would ever see this particular motion trying to do.

I would say to the member for Hamilton East that I have no difficulty in supporting the motion. I think it makes ample sense. I think that as a Canadian, as an Ontarian, I should be swearing allegiance not only to Her Majesty the Queen and her heirs but also to the Constitution that we, as legislators, both at the provincial and federal levels, are sworn to protect and to uphold.

I would certainly urge the member to talk to his federal counterparts in Ottawa in order to get them to move our oath of allegiance closer to what you're trying to do within this motion, but on principle, I don't have a problem.

On that, I would like to thank the member for bringing forward this motion, and certainly I have no difficulty supporting it.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all say that every day here brings a new series of surprises to me as a new member. I honestly could not believe some of the comments that I heard earlier, particularly from the member for Durham East, as to why we should not be swearing allegiance to Canada as well as to the Queen.

Let me first of all say that the Queen is a symbol not only for Canada, as the head of state for Canada, but for the entire Commonwealth, as a matter of fact, and no one is suggesting that symbol ought to be removed. Besides, she is a very charming individual who has worked very hard for the people in the Commonwealth in her capacity over the last number of years, and I'm sure we all wish her well, because she is a very dedicated individual and somebody that we in Canada ought to be extremely proud of.

But we live in a changing society, and just because something is a tradition, that doesn't necessarily mean that something should remain static and the same. Over 40% of the people who live in Canada now do not have their roots in this country and they find it extremely difficult to relate to the Queen as the head of state. In my capacity, both present and formerly, I constantly reminded people of the positive aspects of having the Queen as our head of state, and I think that people, once it is explained to them, do realize that and do accept her as that. She's certainly held in extremely high regard throughout Canada.

This whole debate reminds me a little bit of the flag and anthem debate that took place in Ottawa some time ago, that merely because we are adding a new symbol to our nationalism, we are thereby somehow detracting from other symbols that we hold dear in this country, and I totally reject that.

To suggest that by swearing allegiance to Canada, we don't know what we're swearing it to -- as the member for Durham East said, "Are we swearing it to the lakes, the rivers, the countryside" or whatever -- is no different than, who are we really singing to when we sing O Canada? What are we singing to? It's a song that we are extremely proud of, and it doesn't take away for a moment the regard that many people, including myself, still have for God Save the Queen.

I know many of the organizations that I belong to make a habit of singing both anthems, one usually at the beginning of a meeting and the other at the end of a meeting. I think that shows solidity and it shows an understanding of the traditions in this country.

Let's go back to what happened in Montreal just before the referendum in Quebec. When we think of the tremendous outpouring of patriotism, emotionalism for this country, how was that best expressed by people? It was expressed by people coming to Montreal and showing that by waving flags, by singing O Canada. Now, can we go back to the situation the way it was before the early 1960s, when we didn't have a flag and we didn't have our own anthem? I don't think that same emotionalism, that same feeling for the country, could have been exhibited in those people if we did not have those other two symbols of national unity.

Finally -- and I will be yielding some of my time to one of the Conservative members -- I just want to say this: To suggest that swearing allegiance to Canada is somehow detracting from swearing allegiance to the Queen I think is nonsense. I must admit that I was surprised when I was sworn in as a member of the provincial Legislature how short the actual swearing-in not only ceremony but statement is. I had anticipated a much longer statement, the way it is, for example, when one gets elected at the municipal or at the school board level.

The mere fact of swearing allegiance to the Queen and that's all there was to it surprised me, and I think it probably surprised a lot of other members as well.

I would urge all members of this Legislature to vote in favour of this and to give us another opportunity to look further into this.

There is a real connection between the last bill that we talked about and this bill, because in the last bill every comment that was made by people in this assembly was that these people fought for Canada, the people who fought in the various wars. Who did they fight for? They fought for Canada.

I think that all we're doing by adding this to our oath of allegiance is adding the reality of the situation that currently exists in Canada to the oath, and that is that we are proud to swear allegiance, not only to the Queen of Canada but also to Canada itself.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I will recognize the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay if there is unanimous consent to do so. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to speak in support of this bill today, and I want to make it clear to all members that when I speak in this House, I feel a solemn duty to represent the people of my riding. These are not just my own views.

I am certain that the original oath to the Queen will continue to bear currency in Ontario and that we will continue to use that, and I certainly respect that oath, but like the member for Kingston and The Islands, I was surprised when I took my oath for this Parliament that it was simply the oath to the Queen, because as a member of a school board, there were additional oaths which referred to Canada.

"There is much about the monarchy that is obscure and even mystifying to many Canadians....

"What are the real functions of any head of state if there is a Prime Minister and cabinet to look after all the real executive work? The answers to these questions cannot be found in the written Constitution, which assigns the executive power to the Queen without defining what it is."

In listening to my colleagues, I heard from the member for Welland-Thorold that there is uncertainty among Canadians on exactly what the role of the monarch is in regard to politics and political power in Canada. I want to say that although I have been a student of Canadian history, I have been a law student and practised law in this country, I am among those Canadians for whom there is some mystery in how the monarchy relates to political events in Canada.

So I feel it is important that members recognize not only the de jure power and authority of the Queen, but also the de facto power of Canadian political institutions and the right of a member to swear an oath, not only to the Queen but also to Canada.

Mr Agostino: I want to thank all the members of the House who have spoken on this issue today. I'm a little amazed at some of the comments, such as we're taking an oath to an undefined Canada. I can tell you, my Canada's very well defined. My Canada's very, very well defined, and I know what country I'm in, I know what this country stands for, and I take great offence at the suggestion that by taking an oath to Canada we are taking an oath to an undefined Canada or taking a foreign, one-way oath. Taking an oath to my country is not taking a foreign oath.

It is taking an oath to the country that I live in, that I work in and the country that I'm proud of, and that is the best country in the world. I'm proud to be part of this wonderful country and to take an oath to Canada, and I clearly know and can define what Canada is all about.

I just want to assure members of the House, the Conservative members, the Solicitor General the other day tabled a bill in this House that in effect gave police officers the option to take one or both. That was the Conservative government. Premier Harris in June is on record as supporting a change that would add Canada to an oath. The Solicitor General yesterday is on record as supporting this change. I certainly don't believe that those two honourable gentlemen want to bring in back-door republicanism. I don't believe that the Premier or the Solicitor General of this province wants to take away from Her Majesty the Queen and the tradition of this country.

I can tell you, I understand fully the role of the monarchy, I appreciate it, and it may surprise some members, but if you walk into my office, I have a picture on the wall of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. I understand and respect the tradition of the monarchy.

What I'm asking members to do today, in a non-partisan way, is, let's add to this tradition. Let's recognize the reality of a new Canada that includes the tradition, the history, but also what Canada is all about today. Let's, in a non-partisan way, support this and let's move on with it and let's be the first province in this country to be able to swear allegiance to Canada as well.

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal first with ballot item number 13. Is there any member opposed to a vote? Second reading of Bill 25 then,

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day, standing in the name of Mr Boushy. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill is ordered for committee of the whole?

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I would like this bill to be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: Carried? Agreed that it will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 14: Is there any member who is opposed to taking a vote at this time? Second reading of Bill 22,

An Act to provide for an Oath of Allegiance for the Members of the Legislative Assembly, standing in the name of Mr Agostino. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members take their seats. Are we ready?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): We're just waiting for a member.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Duncan, Dwight

Leadston, Gary L.

Bartolucci, Rick

Fisher, Barbara

McLeod, Lyn

Bisson, Gilles

Gerretsen, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Boushy, Dave

Grandmaître, Bernard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Jim

Gravelle, Michael

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Grimmett, Bill

Ross, Lillian

Caplan, Elinor

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ruprecht, Tony

Christopherson, David

Hastings, John

Sergio, Mario

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Kormos, Peter

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Kwinter, Monte

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Doyle, Ed

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Wood, Bob

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Martiniuk, Gerry

Shea, Derwyn

Baird, John R.

Munro, Julia

Sheehan, Frank

Barrett, Toby

Murdoch, Bill

Skarica, Toni

Ford, Douglas B.

O'Toole, John

Snobelen, John

Galt, Doug

Parker, John L.

Kells, Morley

Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays 16.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Will the bill be sent to committee of the whole?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Chair, I'd like to ask that it go to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a majority in favour?

All those in agreement, please rise.

Please sit down.

The majority is in favour. The bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

It being past 12 of the clock, this assembly stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The government's economic statement was a recipe for recession. This government made an election promise to create 725,000 jobs. However, in its economic statement the government made no reference or commitment of any kind to a job creation strategy for the people of Ontario. The current unemployment rate is forecast to stay much the same in the next two years, only demonstrating that the Tories are going to fall far short of their goal of creating 725,000 jobs.

Equally disturbing was the all-out assault on hospitals, seniors and children. In contrast to your election promises, you cut over $1.5 billion in the health care budget, over $400 million for elementary and secondary schools, and of course there was your vicious attack on seniors through new user fees under the Ontario drug benefit plan.

Almost lost in this were the draconian cuts to municipalities, over $552 million in municipal transfer cuts, which will impact on everything from local property taxes to essential services such as policing, fire and ambulance services. As a result, people are going to shell out more for garbage collection and transit.

The government's mini-budget was the product of mini brains and mini thinking. It is, at best, a recipe for a prolonged recession and, at its worst, an attack on the people who can least afford it.

SCIENCE NORTH

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The cuts to Science North announced in the economic statement will have a serious impact on this northern agency. It puts science education at risk in Sudbury and it negatively impacts all of northern Ontario, given the agency's mandate to deliver programming in the north.

The fact is that the operating grant Science North receives from the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is lower than all four other southern Ontario cultural attractions. The grant is 30% lower than the Ontario Science Centre on a per-visitor basis.

In recognition of its special needs, our government, through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, provided Science North with a three-year, $300,000-a-year operating grant. This supplements the base operating grant and permits Science North to deliver outreach services across the north.

In 1995 alone, science discovery camps occurred in nine communities, 59,000 people in 24 communities experienced the van programs, science teacher training took place in five centres, and the science toolboxes were on loan to seven different areas. No other organization is available to deliver this kind of science education to northern communities.

The 7% funding cut from MCCR represents a significant challenge to Science North, but it's the loss of the MNDM grant which we understand is in the works that, in the words of executive director, Mr Jim Marchbank, "would be devastating. It will require massive program cuts, especially to the outreach services."

As the government slashes and burns to finance the tax cut, I hope it will consider the enormous loss northerners will face if Science North is crippled to the point where it can no longer provide the educational science programming it is mandated to deliver.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN NIAGARA

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I just returned from my riding this morning and I was once again reminded that the people of Niagara South and throughout the province of Ontario elected us to change the status quo. They elected us to bring hope and opportunity back to Ontario again.

The taxpayers of Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Wainfleet have told me they were frustrated with staggering welfare roll increases under the NDP and Liberal governments. They wanted to see the new government take the steps to reduce these rolls.

I'd like to share with members some good news about social assistance in the Niagara region. The number of people on welfare has declined steadily for the past five months. Since the end of June, over 4,600 people have stopped receiving social assistance in the Niagara Peninsula.

The decline follows the provincial trend. Over 103,000 people have left Ontario's welfare system over that same period. That's very encouraging after years of staggering welfare increases with $40 billion put down the hole.

In one month alone, from September to October, the number of people relying on social assistance dropped by over 36,000 -- the largest monthly decline in at least 25 years.

I'd like to think that the 15 new jobs coming to Port Colborne with Trench Manufacturing and new jobs with Great Lakes Bureau and Ronal Manufacturing in Stevensville are paving the way to new jobs in Ontario and a rapid decrease in the welfare rolls.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Today this legislative session ends. During this session, we saw a government that failed to keep its word. We witnessed a government so arrogant it actually tried to lock out elected officials from the democratic process.

We also watched as cabinet ministers lurched from one mistake to the next. First there were the drafting errors. Then there were the infamous 69-cent cans of tuna. Then came the invented crisis -- Palladini's dogsleds and cell phones. Now we have a minister who is forcing municipalities to slap user fees on everything from fire services to kids' library books.

At times during this session, the government became a comedy of errors. Unfortunately for too many in this province, the actions of this government just weren't funny.

For the poor, who are facing one of the meanest, ugliest winters in memory, it wasn't funny. They have been punished by this government.

For the seniors and the disabled, who trusted Mike Harris, they were betrayed by this government.

For the sick, who were promised that not one cent of health care would be cut, they could only watch in shock as this government slashed more than one $1.5 billion from health care and slapped user fees on seniors' medicines.

This session will go down in history as the beginning of the commonsense dictatorship.

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In rising this afternoon, I want to state to the people of Sault Ste Marie and the people of my community my concern, and the concern of many of my colleagues here in the House who have come and spoken to me this morning, for those who have been affected by the cave-in of the roof at the Station Mall plaza and our wishes that anybody who's been hurt by that will be okay, hurt in any way, either physically or whose job is affected etc, all the ways they will be affected by this. They need to know that we're thinking of them here and that we're wishing them well.

I also want to say just briefly to the House that I met in Sault Ste Marie and North Bay over the last few days with a number of people concerning the financial statement of this government and Bill 26. Frankly, they're very concerned in the north about the impact it will have on health care and on jobs.

On the health care front, we spoke to a number of health care professionals and people, and they're concerned about how we're going to keep and attract professionals, given that you're going to take a whole ton of money away from them re the question of the malpractice insurance initiative you've taken on. They're very concerned about the fact that they will now lose even more jobs as the cuts take place that will --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

MISSISSAUGA NEWS

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is my privilege to rise and extend warm congratulations to the Mississauga News on its 30th anniversary.

One cannot envision what the Mississauga News was like 30 years ago without also thinking about what the community of Mississauga was like 30 years ago. Mississauga has become the pride of the fledgling cities to the west of Toronto. It is a masterpiece of urban development which has been showcased to architects of similar communities throughout the world.

As a newspaper, the Mississauga News has served its readers in a most exemplary manner, increasing its range and depth of influence in tandem with the city's phenomenal growth. It has been an acknowledged leader within the newspaper industry and is in fact also regarded as a model for other developing newspapers.

However, it is important to remember that the Mississauga News began as a community newspaper and, despite the rapid expansion surrounding it, has remained true to its original mission.

I think I would be remiss if I did not mention the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, who has been, to say the least, an integral part of the development of the community in Mississauga. Her views and contributions have been evidenced in the columns of this journal for almost 30 years.

It is therefore difficult to speak about the Mississauga News without realizing the trinity involved: the city of Mississauga, the mayor of Mississauga and, of course, the focus of this tribute, the Mississauga News, whose publisher, Mr Ron Lenyk, and staff, Mr Fred Loek, are here with us today in the members' gallery.

Congratulations on a job well done.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I wish to comment on the report released this week by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council. This is an issue of great importance to my Liberal colleagues in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I presume that my Conservative colleagues also feel the same way I do.

The council proposes three scenarios for reconfiguring health services in the area. These involve the closure of the Riverside, Grace or Civic hospitals or a combination of these three sites. Members of the public have only until tomorrow to react and express their views.

One of the most controversial proposals is to close the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, CHEO, and move its operations to the Ottawa General Hospital. If you move CHEO, you will lose its focus. CHEO is a full paediatric care facility which responds to the unique health care needs of children. It is different in every way from a major adult hospital. In 1994-95, CHEO had approximately 9,000 inpatients, 150,000 outpatients and 48,000 through the emergency department.

If CHEO is merged, as suggested, children's priorities will lose out over time. It has been shown that paediatrics quickly become diluted by stronger and louder adult interests when placed within an adult facility.

CHEO is a world-class care facility for children and the only one of its kind in all of eastern Ontario. It must be preserved.

RETRAINING FUNDS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Hundreds of cultural workers who live or work in my riding are losing their jobs or the funding which allows them to function as artists. Now the government is adding some insult to injury. As a result of the cuts announced by the Harris government, more than 20 workers will be laid off from the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum before the end of January. But in the Christmas spirit the Ministry of Finance has decided that laying off staff is not enough. The ministry's now trying to take back their retraining money.

This is a very simple matter. There is a binding agreement to provide money to retrain workers laid off from the art gallery and the museum. The Ministry of Finance is refusing to provide the money provided for under the agreement. I don't think it's right to kick someone when they're down and I hope the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation will agree with me and speak up on behalf of those workers.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Something great has happened in my riding of Chatham-Kent and I'm pleased to be able to share the good news with other members of this Legislature.

Two agencies providing child care services, the Family YMCA and Operation Our Kids, were each experiencing a decline in enrolment and, as a result, serious financial challenges.

A couple of months ago, Operation Our Kids, which also assists adolescent parents continuing their education, reluctantly announced it would be closing. Parents of the children using the centre were understandably concerned.

However, in a spirit of cooperation, the boards of directors of both agencies worked together to develop a solution. The two agencies are amalgamating their services, not only to economize but to ensure there will be continued, caring service for the children involved.

The initiatives taken by these two groups, with, I might add, the assistance of staff from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, typifies the strong spirit of community that is evident throughout Chatham-Kent. The work of those involved, and the result obtained, underscores what this government is committed to: the efficient delivery of services, with government, when needed, as a partner in change.

I am equally sure that this is just the first of many cooperative ventures by community groups in my riding and across the province as we all work together to meet our future needs and current realities.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Bill 8 received third reading yesterday, and as this government promised, job quota laws in Ontario will be replaced with a sensible and practical equal opportunity plan to promote workplace fairness for all Ontarians.

The equal opportunity plan that I am outlining today will support employers' efforts to address one of the most important challenges they currently face: their ability to adapt to a changing labour force by restoring the merit principle to Ontario's workplaces.

Our approach to equal opportunity recognizes that discrimination is already against the law in Ontario under the Human Rights Code. It promotes equal access through the removal of barriers but doesn't legislate equality of outcome. It restores merit as the basis of equal opportunity, not quotas. It is voluntary, not mandatory. It is based on cooperation rather than creating division. Our approach promotes equal opportunity for all Ontarians.

In response to the input we obtained from a range of discussion groups within the private and broader public sectors, a number of services will be developed. All will have a component dealing with the particular employment barriers faced by persons with disabilities. These services include a "one-window" information and referral service, a resource clearing house, demonstration projects and training and education.

The equal opportunity plan also includes a fund to support access and accommodation for persons with disabilities to participate in the paid workforce and in the volunteer sector. In addition, my ministry, together with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, will be reviewing existing employment-related programs for persons with disabilities. We will examine, in particular, accommodation strategies to enable persons with disabilities to enter and stay in the workforce.

One of the most significant barriers to equal opportunity prevents skilled people who were trained and educated outside of Canada from having their academic credentials recognized. The government will establish a self-financing service for assessing academic credentials.

The Ministry of Education and Training will work with my ministry to develop this service in consultation with organizations providing similar services in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, and with other relevant partners.

This government recognizes that it has a leadership role to play in promoting equal opportunity and in addressing workplace discrimination and harassment. That is why an equal opportunity plan for the Ontario public service is being developed.

Also, when Bill 8 receives royal assent, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services will be issuing an equal opportunity guideline for police services in Ontario. That guideline will be consistent with the provisions of the Police Services Act.

In the new year, the Ministry of Education and Training will issue policy statements on workplace equal opportunity and anti-discrimination education for school boards, colleges of applied arts and technology and universities.

This government recognizes that discrimination, when it does occur, must be addressed promptly and thoroughly. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has recently completed the first phase of a major restructuring process and will be entering the next phase in the new year.

While this process continues, my ministry will be developing regulations under the Human Rights Code to streamline case management as well as longer-term reforms to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission.

It is in the best interests of us all to work together as partners on this very important issue, for now, perhaps more than ever before, we have to bring down the barriers that prevent us from making the best use of the creative, talented and diverse workforce that exists in Ontario. The benefits we will gain from achieving this objective, as individuals and as a province, are immeasurable.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to announce major improvements to one of the most important front-line services for residents of this province, and that's emergency health care.

The government will reinvest health care savings to introduce the advanced life support skill of defibrillation to more communities across Ontario. Specially trained ambulance attendants operate defibrillators to restart the hearts of people who have suffered cardiac arrest.

Base hospitals, which direct the actions of ambulance crews in medical emergencies through a radio link, will buy defibrillators and upgrade ambulance attendant training in the counties of Renfrew, Elgin, Perth, Huron, Middlesex, Wellington, Dufferin, Brant, Leeds and Grenville, Lanark, Prescott and Russell, Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, the districts of Cochrane, Rainy River and Thunder Bay, and the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk.

In response to a successful pilot project carried out by the Ministry of Health, we will provide ambulance services in Ontario with lifesaving, symptom-relief medications. These medications treat people suffering from bad allergic reactions, diabetic emergencies, and asthma and angina attacks.

We're very proud of this new government program. During our pilot project, at least five lives were saved because ambulance attendants had these medications on hand for immediate treatment. The successful pilot project was conducted over the past year in the town of Tecumseh in Essex county, Halton and Peel regions, Simcoe county and the district of Muskoka.

Other data from this project indicate that this new program will result in significantly reduced hospital stays in many cases. In fact, some diabetic patients recovered so quickly that they were reluctant to go to hospital with the ambulance crew or did not require admission to hospital at all.

By either eliminating or reducing the length of hospital stays, this valuable new service will save the health care system money. We will pay for both these initiatives with taxpayers' money that was saved by getting rid of waste, duplication and administrative inefficiencies in other parts of the health care system.

This announcement is part of our continuing commitment to reinvest and drive health care dollars to front-line services that most benefit the people of this province. Lives will be saved by these two important initiatives, and more Ontario communities will have access to more critical, lifesaving services.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I really can't understand why this government remains so absolutely determined to avoid any kind of public scrutiny of its plans, even of plans that might seem, on the surface of it at least, to be good plans.

We have spent days of hearings on the issue of employment equity and this government's intent to scrap employment equity legislation. We had days when presenter after presenter expressed their concerns at the absence of anything to take the place of employment equity legislation. The government said their plan would be coming, their plan would be coming, and their plan would address everyone's concerns, but they refused to say what was in the plan, they refused to bring the plan forward when people who were presenting to that committee could actually comment on it.

Today, just little more than a day after they passed the legislation repealing any commitment to employment equity by this government, we get the first bits and pieces of the government's intention -- still no real plan, but some bits and pieces. I wonder why they were not prepared to give at least the parts of the plan they had decided on to the committee so that people who were coming forward could comment on it. I wonder if they thought their proposals might actually be criticized or they might be faulted for not having a real employment equity plan.

Or do they just simply want to dribble out their intentions in bits and pieces so that they can get regular pats on the back, as the Minister of Health likes to do, and never ever hear the concern that this is simply not enough?

Both parts, significant parts, of this announcement address some very real concerns, very real barriers, one being access for the disabled to our workplaces and the other being access to trades and professions.

It is difficult to know how much progress will be made in terms of access for the disabled, because it will depend on dollars and financial commitment from this government -- we see no indication of what dollars will be in the plan -- and it will depend on the commitment of employers.

We don't know how the recertification, another important issue, will work because we have no indication of how the licensing bodies in trades and professions will be involved, and without their involvement this means absolutely nothing.

I comment only on those two issues, because to comment on guidelines for employment equity in police services or guidelines for school boards, it's really bizarre that this is here, when this government has just successfully removed all reference to those from both the Police Services Act and the Education Act.

Lastly, these are only two steps. We need so much more. One of the things we need, if there's to be real employment equity for women in the workplace, is more child care. This government had an immediate opportunity given to them by the federal government yesterday to address the issue of child care. Where is the announcement from the Minister of Community and Social Services on child care?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to respond to the aspects of the bill that affect the disabled. I find that the statement today smacks of hypocrisy and patronizes the disabled people across this province.

You took away the employment equity aspects that affected and helped disabled people, and now you dare come back with this feel-good statement that doesn't make it mandatory to have access to employment services for the disabled. You should be ashamed of yourself. You owe disabled people in this province an apology. You've betrayed them again today, as you have for the last six months since you've taken office.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the few minutes remaining, I would say to the House that this is the fourth statement from the Minister of Health on emergency services. He talks about getting rid of waste, duplication, administrative inefficiencies, but he's not talking about the $1.5-billion cut to health expenditure in this province, he's not talking about the fact that with the new legislation he will be able to close hospitals at his whim, wipe out hospital voluntary boards, governance, control doctors absolutely, deregulate drug prices, give himself access to sensitive health records and disclose them without penalty. That is appalling.

The only good thing about this announcement is that at least the Minister of Health did not have the temerity to suggest that this was yet another Christmas present. The people in every part of this province need access to emergency services. They need access to those services that are going to give them the kind of life-saving care that we know is available; and for the minister to dress this up as yet another new announcement is a disgrace. He's a disgrace to the office, and we'll hear more that in committee hearings in the intersession.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): What has offered today by the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is an affront to everyone, but most especially to people with disabilities. It is arrogant because it has no substance whatsoever.

What you presented today is nothing more than what we've been doing for years. We have been offering the assistive devices program in the Ministry of Health; the vocational rehab services in MCSS; the job accommodation fund for the Ontario public service, which provides funds to accommodate staff, and the access fund for the voluntary sector. This includes funds for physical accommodation ie, ramps, elevators, and also included are hearing devices. We have been doing that.

What you're doing today is nothing different than what has been done. You can't fool the community, but especially the people who are here today to listen to your announcement. You recycled an old program. It's like repackaging yesterday's leftovers for today's soup du jour. These devices, although they're helpful and we've been doing it, will not deal with systemic discrimination, and that's what our bill, Bill 79, was all about. You are doing absolutely nothing for people with disabilities.

In response to many other things you said, yo