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

November 21, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Marland moved resolution 32:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that violence against women is a serious problem which all governments have a responsibility to prevent; and recognizing that there is a body of research which shows a causal link between pornography of a violent nature and violence against women; and recognizing that there have been conflicting court decisions on whether publications in various media, depicting various sexual activities, are obscene; and recognizing that the Ontario Film Review Board is guided in its classification decisions by principles outlined in the regulations under the Theatres Act which are based on community standards; and recognizing that the Ontario Film Review Board, following recent court decisions, has decided that community standards are such that explicit sexual acts between consenting adults should no longer be censored so long as the films do not depict sex involving violence, coercion, degradation, bondage, minors, bestiality and necrophilia; and recognizing that

section 163(2)(

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits people from knowingly selling or exposing to public view "any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever"; and recognizing that

section 163(8) of the Criminal Code defines "obscene" publications as being dominated by "the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence"; and recognizing that in recent months, police have charged video store owners under sections 163(2)(

a) and 163(8) of the Criminal Code for renting or selling adult sex movies which had been approved with a "Restricted" rating by the Ontario Film Review Board; and recognizing that action must be taken so that the enforcement of the Criminal Code does not conflict with the decisions of the Ontario Film Review Board; the Attorney General should consult with the federal Minister of Justice and all provincial attorneys general to develop a more workable definition of "obscene" which can be applied consistently by law enforcement authorities and film classification agencies, and should encourage the federal government to introduce a bill amending the Criminal Code of Canada to replace the old definition of "obscene" with this revised definition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member for Mississauga South has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Marland: I stand in this House this morning to discuss what in my opinion, I respectfully suggest to the members of this House, is the most grave and serious matter I have discussed in my six years as a member. My private member's resolution proposes that once again the legislators of our province and our country open discussion on the subject of pornography, including its effect on society and appropriate action to control its distribution and consumption.

Pornography is a subject about which we all have strong feelings. It is a subject so controversial that Canadians and their legislators cannot agree on what is or is not pornographic, but we all know that pornography involves sexuality and the abuse of power -- men's power over women and adults' power over children.

In order to provide a framework for our debate today, I will use the definition of pornography from a fact sheet on sexual assault called Pornography: The Links, which was published last November by the Ontario women's directorate. It defines pornography as "sexually explicit material that portrays or endorses degrading or abusive sexual behaviour."

The starting point of my resolution is the extremely serious problem of violence against women, and research which shows that there is a causal link between pornography, as I have defined it, and violence against women.

Consider the cover of Maclean's news magazine last week, which read:

"Women in Fear: Abductions, sexual assaults and murders of women are causing growing alarm among Canadians. A campaign to end the reign of terror has begun."

This campaign must not only help women to protect themselves, but also determine and work towards eliminating the causes of violence against women. Given the disturbing conclusions of research linking pornography to sexual assault, we must reopen this debate.

At this point I have to emphasize that although I am standing in this Legislature this morning as a woman, this is not a woman's issue. It is an issue for every human being in a position of responsibility in this nation, and in so saying, I challenge anyone in this House this morning who has a mother, a sister or a daughter to not support this resolution.

In any discussion of pornography, the controversial subject of censorship arises. Because Canada's provincial governments have responsibility for film and video classification, our government must be a strong voice in the debate on censorship and pornography. I have focused my resolution on a situation which has caused the censorship debate in Ontario to heat up in recent months. The police have been charging video store owners for renting or selling adult sex videos, even though these videos have received the approval of the Ontario Film Review Board with a "Restricted" rating.

How could such a situation arise, and what can we do to resolve it? These are the questions I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board, in a letter last spring. In her reply, the minister said:

"In reaching classification decisions, board members are guided by specific principles, outlined in regulations under the Theatres Act, which are based on community standards.

"Being a citizen agency that is restricted to working within the parameters of provincial legislation, the board does not have the authority, nor is it qualified to determine whether the material it classifies violates the Criminal Code's obscenity provisions."

While the board reaches its decisions based on community standards, the police enforce the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that it is a criminal offence to sell or expose to public view "any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever." The Criminal Code defines obscene material as being dominated by "the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence."

The problem is, what is undue exploitation of sex? There have been conflicting court decisions in this regard. Generally, though, the courts have held that Canadian community standards will determine what is undue exploitation. This is still problematic, since there is little agreement on what constitutes Canadian community standards. In short, the Criminal Code's definition of "obscene" is unworkable.

The present situation wherein the Ontario Film Review Board's ratings conflict with the police's

interpretation of obscenity in the Criminal Code cannot be allowed to continue. We need a revised definition of "obscenity" that can be applied consistently by law enforcement authorities and film classification agencies.

In the same letter I quoted from moments ago, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations agreed, saying:

"As you indicate in your correspondence, a clearer definition of 'obscenity,' that could be applied consistently by law enforcement authorities, and film classification agencies, such as the Ontario Film Review Board, would be very useful in eliminating conflicting

interpretations of what is obscene or pornographic."

The government of Ontario does not have the authority to amend the Criminal Code, of course, but we can be a catalyst for change. If the Attorney General of Ontario requests that the federal Minister of Justice and her provincial counterparts develop a new and workable definition of "obscenity," this will send a strong signal to the federal government and to Canadians that changes to our pornography laws are urgently required.

In developing a new definition, it will be essential to have broadly based consultations with the residents in each jurisdiction. While the government of Ontario cannot dictate what consultations other governments should undertake, I believe we can safely assume that the attorneys general and the Minister of Justice would not develop a new definition of "obscenity" in a vacuum.

At this point I will turn to some of the factors we must consider in our efforts to develop a workable definition of "obscenity."

First, we must ensure that the new definition protects the rights of Canadians as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must also consider a broad spectrum of views on what is obscene. At one end of the spectrum are people who are offended by any explicit portrayal of sexual activity, even nudity. At the other end are people who believe adults should have the right to view, read or listen to any material of their choice.

In between are people who believe that erotica, the portrayal of sexual expression between two consenting people, should not be censored for adult audiences but that we must have controls on materials that depict degrading or abusive sexual behaviour. Even among this middle ground there is considerable disagreement over what activities are within the range of normal sexual behaviour.

If we are to recognize the dignity and worth of women, as well as women's rights to security and freedom from cruelty, we have to impose certain limitations on freedom of expression. These limitations already exist for hate literature; they must also exist for pornographic materials which induce hatred of women.

As I will discuss in a few moments, there is substantial evidence that pornography is a causal factor in many cases of sexual assault. Members of this House who do not believe in the censorship of pornographic films and videos should view the film about pornography called Not a Love Story, produced by the National Film Board of Canada in 1981, which included a wide range of actual pornographic footage. As well, they should contact the Ontario Film Review Board and ask to view its out-take films which consist of the materials that have been censored from movies and videos.

When I was a councillor for the city of Mississauga, I viewed the out-takes and was so angered, sickened and frightened that I insisted my fellow councillors also see these films. Several of my colleagues, all male, joined me for another screening of the out-takes. To give members an idea of how violent and degrading these films were, one councillor left after five minutes saying he could not stand any more, and the remainder of the men did not complete the total viewing.

This is an opportunity to send a strong signal to Ottawa and the other provinces that it is time to revisit the difficult issue of pornography. The security and dignity of Canadian women depend on it.

Mr Fletcher: I want to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for introducing this resolution. I think it is going to go a certain distance as far as the causal link between pornography and violence against women is concerned.

Throughout society right now, what we are seeing are some of the effects of what has been happening at universities in this province. I know at the University of Guelph emergency poles have been put up which flash and ring bells if there is an emergency. I know these are not just meant for women who are being attacked, but that was the primary reason for having the poles there.

We have women marching in cities throughout the country calling to take back the night. Again it is just more evidence of the violence that is coming out. Surely if people in this country can band together to try to stop smoking, they can band together to try to stop the violence that is being directed towards women.

As far as the Ontario Film Review Board is concerned, it is an agency made up of citizens who represent a cross-section of the Ontario population. Its role, as outlined in the Theatres Act of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is simply to classify films for commercial distribution. All films and videos except educational, library or film festival material must be submitted to the board prior to public distribution. Over the years, the film board's role has changed, along with society's changing attitudes. Life is far more complex now than it was in 1911 when the board was known as the Board of Censors. Back then, a greater emphasis was placed on censorship,

whereas today it is classification.

There is still some material, however, that the board will not classify. For instance, it is very sensitive to and will not classify films containing violence, degradation towards women, minors involved in sexual activity, brutal violence with sexual connotations and animal abuse. If a film does not meet the board's classification criteria, the board will not allow the film for distribution. But only the courts can decide whether materials are obscene. I agree with the member for Mississauga South that the Attorney General should consult with the federal people and other provinces to try to get a certain definition of what can be obscene.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations did meet recently with members of the board and did encourage their efforts to seek dialogue with community members to try and determine the kind of behaviour that is acceptable in their home towns and in their own neighbourhoods.

We also want to assure the people of Ontario that the classification set out by the board is a classification that the people on the board are trying to establish through community standards, and the standards are changing all the time. These standards are reflected and upheld in the movie and video industry.

Not only is the violence being directed towards women just from films that we can rent in a store or see in a theatre; it is also on television today. It may not be as graphic, but you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the violence being directed towards a woman in a TV show is just as dangerous as anything else we can view.

We have to start somewhere. I agree with the member for Mississauga South that this is a good starting point, trying to find out what obscene is and trying to stop some of the material. I am one of those people who will say no to censorship, but in some instances censorship has to be used in order to stop the exploitation of people in our society. I believe the member for Mississauga South has really hit it on the nail with her resolution. I will be supporting it wholeheartedly.

Mrs Caplan: On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I am pleased to participate and speak today to this resolution by the member for Mississauga South regarding a matter which is really outside the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. As the member for Mississauga South clearly stated, the Criminal Code, under which the

definitions of "obscene" fall, is within the federal jurisdiction, and it is in the federal Parliament that these issues will ultimately have to be decided.

However, the resolution of the member for Mississauga South does give us in this House an opportunity to speak about an issue affecting our quality of life and our feeling of having safe and secure communities within Ontario, and that is the increased violence we are seeing.

I believe we are quite fortunate in this province. I think we are fortunate because, compared with any other community in the world, Ontario is one of the safest. Certainly against any city of comparable size, Metropolitan Toronto would be considered one of the safest. Having said that, I am also aware that the increase in crime, particularly violent crime, and the increase in violence in our society, particularly domestic violence which is occurring in the home, are things we must be very aware of if we want to learn from what other major cities of the world have experienced and ensure we take preventive actions now to maintain a safer, more secure community for the people of Ontario.

Safety in our streets and security in our homes are, I think, non-partisan goals, something we all share as parliamentarians and members of this Legislature, regardless of political stripe. They are things we all want. I think we are all distressed at the increasing rates of crime across this city, this province and this country.

Particularly during times of economic downturn and recession, we know it is extremely important that we are aware of anything we can do to assist those people who are troubled, who are suffering because of job loss and who perhaps lash out in their despair at those they love most, their spouses and their children. Our programs and policies in Ontario must reflect our commitment to a safe and secure community and environment.

I thank the member for Mississauga South for giving me as a provincial legislator the opportunity to discuss my concern about increasing violence and abuse and my concern about safety on behalf of my constituents and my community, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, the city of North York and the riding of Oriole.

The member for Mississauga South referred specifically to the Attorney General working with or requesting federal legislators and the federal government to come up with a new definition of "obscene." Some of the most obscene things I have witnessed in my time as a member of government and in my time in public life before I was a member of this Legislature had nothing to do with erotica, had nothing to do with the beauty of sexual nature. Many of them had to do with exploitation of women, violence against women and children and the kinds of unacceptable behaviour that we would find obscene by any community standard.

As a former chairman of the Ontario Liberal Women's Perspective Advisory Committee, I know we spent a great deal of time discussing the pulls and tugs we had, because nobody likes censorship. We value our freedoms in society. We want the greatest freedom possible for ourselves, our families, our friends and all the people of Ontario. As legislators, we know lawmaking is always defining the rights of society and the rights of the individual, and as a Liberal my principles and my concerns are that we consider the rights of the individual as well as the collective rights of society and we balance those interests in a way which reflects the public interest.

When I discuss with my constituents the issue of pornography and

definitions of obscenity, there is much confusion. Many of them do not realize this is a matter which is wholly within the the purview of the federal Parliament. There is very little the province can do regarding a new definition of obscenity. I think we all agree a new one is needed and would help to clarify the role of the Ontario Film Review Board.

I have been able to share with interested constituents the history of the film review board in Ontario, the important role it has played and how its role has changed. During this debate it might be helpful to the people who are watching this discussion to be aware that things have evolved and changed since 1911 when the original board of censors under the Theatres and Cinematographs Act consisted of three persons. They had the right, on behalf of all the citizens of Ontario, to censor films. All films had to be stamped by the board when approved. That has changed dramatically over the years.

In 1914 it was stated that children under 15 had to be accompanied by an adult; in other words, an adult member of the household. That was very clear, and there was a requirement under the act that children had to be accompanied before they could attend films.

In 1918 the board was given a completely free hand to permit or refuse any film. An appeal committee of three persons -- the minister, his secretary and one other -- was established to make those decisions on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

In 1919 women's groups advocated more freedom and more rights for their gender. The press criticized the censor board's reluctance to have women appointed on a permanent basis and the minister was deluged with applications. Finally, at the end of 1919, a woman was appointed to the Ontario Board of Censors.

In 1920 the board was changed and reconstituted and the new board contained two women. The former chairman in fact was Mr George Armstrong, and he was reappointed to oversee advertising. By 1921 the board had adopted a set of standards and copies were sent to distributors, who were asked to examine and censor their own films before submission. Despite the precautions, the board usually made further eliminations, and in 1921, 67 films were rejected and 825 had eliminations. Over the years 1926 and 1927 there were again many changes.

In 1930 the Theatres Act was amended to include film exchanges. Operators were graded, fixed fees established for censorship and so on. Rules said, for example, that alterations were recommended by inspectors and leases could be revoked for non-compliance. Matinees on Saturdays and holidays between 10 am and 6 pm were introduced and, for the first time in Ontario, children under 16 were permitted to attend movie theatres unaccompanied.

In 1931 there was enabling legislation that brought about a quota system for British films because of the influence of American gangster films. For the very first time, in the early 1930s we saw concern about violence in our society.

I could go on far beyond my 15 minutes. I just want to say that from the 1930s through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and well into the 1980s the classification system evolved and developed. I am very aware of how the Ontario Film Review Board works, the important role it plays in our society and its commitment to development of ongoing community standards as attitudes in our society change.

I know they are very sensitive, because they come from all parts of this province. They are now selected to reflect the communities they live in, and I think that is a very important step. I believe that in this society, where we see the levels of child abuse, family violence and domestic abuse, where we see cartoons on TV that are extremely violent, where we see the kind of violence on TV -- sometimes even in advertising but certainly in TV programming -- what has happened within our society is a desensitization of what we find unacceptable and our tolerance unfortunately has led us into an era where violent behaviour and acting out is all too common and is seen as acceptable.

I believe the debate that has been initiated in this House today goes far beyond a discussion of simply a definition of "obscene" that discusses pornography. I am very concerned that we see an attitude towards violence, all kinds of violence. A few years ago we had the terrible example of snuff films. They were not sexual in any way. They had nothing to do with sex. Most violence, most pornography and most of that which is truly obscene in our society has very little to do with sex and certainly nothing to do with erotica.

The challenge of Project P, the police enforcement unit within Metropolitan Toronto, and of legislators is to look for ways to improve our quality of life and to ensure the safety and the security of women and children, especially in their homes and communities, so that women and children can walk safely on the streets. We have a goal to work together.

If we can discuss in open forum how we can achieve that goal so that men and women and children will feel safe in their communities and in their own homes and so that disputes can be resolved in alternative ways rather than through violent behaviour, then I believe we are making progress not only towards a more sensitive and humane society but towards building the kind of life in Canada that we want for our children and our grandchildren.

I know that here in Ontario there are many programs which are supportive and that encourage this kind of self-help for people who have experienced violent behaviour. I know there are very few opportunities for members of the Legislature to speak on a topic which is primarily under federal jurisdiction, that is, looking for a new definition of "obscene."

In 1984 the Ontario Liberal Women's Perspective and Advisory Committee recommended a new definition and sent that definition to the federal minister of the day. I want to express my own personal disappointment that there has not been any action taken on what I think was a very reasonable and reasoned proposal.

I encourage support for the member for Mississauga South's resolution which suggests that discussion take place in the appropriate forum of the provincial Legislature. I commend to the Attorney General and to the government of the day the work done by the Ontario Liberal Women's Advisory Committee, and I will support this resolution.

Mrs Marland: Just to resume where I left off, we must consider the growing body of research on the relationship between pornography and violence against women. The fact sheet on sexual assault entitled Pornography: The Links, which I referred to earlier, notes some of the research which has been studied by the Ontario research directorate. This fact sheet cites a study of sex offenders which found that 56% of the rapists and 42% of the child molesters in the sample said pornography did play a

part in their offences.

Another study of video pornography, adult videos and highly restricted triple X videos, found that 13% of all scenes involved sexual violence, including rape; 35% involved sexual harassment; 17.5% involved sado-masochism and 6% involved sexual mutilations. This Canadian study raises an obvious question: If film classification agencies like the Ontario Film Review Board say they censor out sexual violence, why and how are these videos slipping through the cracks?

The fact sheet also cites a national survey of Canadians' use of pornography, which indicates that young people aged 12 to 17 years are the primary consumers of pornography. If we are not concerned about anything else, we must be concerned about that statement, that the primary users of pornography are between the ages of 12 and 17, and 35% of these young people expressed an interest in watching sexually violent scenes -- rape, torture, bondage, etc. These are very frightening statistics. What effect is the consumption of pornography having on youths who are reaching sexual maturity and forming values about relationships between men and women?

The fact sheet also raises many issues to consider. For instance, males commit most sexual assaults, and studies have shown that males are also the biggest consumers of pornography. The fact sheet also notes: "Violent and dehumanizing pornography has been shown to increase acceptance of rape myths, increase acceptance of violence against women, decrease sensitivity to the suffering of rape victims, increase sexual callousness, increase male willingness to rape." Studies indicate that pornography undermines internal inhibitions against rape. It presents women as objects and perpetuates the myth that women enjoy rape and find it sexually exciting.

In an experiment on desensitization, researchers showed men 10 hours of R-rated movies with sexual violence over a five-day period. On the last day, the men watched a documentary re-enacting a real rape trial. The men blamed the rape victim more for the rape, rated her as significantly more worthless and saw her injury as significantly less severe than did a control group of other men who had not viewed the R-rated movies. We cannot and must not ignore this evidence which is piling up in support of a causal link.

I would now like to quote from an eloquent letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail by the former minister responsible for women's issues, the member for Scarborough West, Anne Swarbrick. This letter appeared in the Globe and Mail on July 25 of this year, and I will say with great pleasure that Anne Swarbrick is a member of this Legislature whom I personally admire and respect very much. She is an extremely bright, capable young woman. Responding to some criticism of the fact sheet produced by the Ontario women's directorate, the former minister wrote the following five paragraphs:

"The relationships between sexual assault and pornography are not simple. Studies' conclusions range from strong connections between pornography and sexual violence to none.

"Our publication Pornography: the Links does not state that pornography causes violence. Rather, it shows through annotated statements from a number of studies that pornography creates and supports a climate in which sexual violence against women is rationalized, minimized and even made acceptable.

"That climate, in turn, supports the myth surrounding sexual violence that women are first and foremost sexual objects, that women secretly enjoy forced sex, that women, unbeknown to ourselves, desire to be sexually assaulted, and that women need to experience pain to experience pleasure.

"Pornography designed to degrade women or show abusive sexual behaviour reinforces these myths. That is the danger of pornography, and that is how it is linked to sexual violence against women.

"Sexual assault is

an act of violence, power and control. Sexual violence against women is rooted in, reflects and reinforces the inequality between men and women in our society."

Before concluding my remarks, I should stress that my resolution will fill just one of several gaping holes in our pornography laws, which require a major overhaul. However, within Ontario's jurisdiction, responsibility for the control of pornography is limited to the work of the Ontario Film Review Board; hence by necessity the rather narrow scope of my resolution.

I ask all the members of this House to show solidarity on this essential issue of the need to protect society from materials which portray degrading or abusive sexual behaviour. In order to eliminate the confusion over what is and is not obscene, a new Criminal Code definition must be developed which can be consistently interpreted by all parties: by police who enforce the Criminal Code, by judges and jurors who decide court cases, by the Ontario Film Review Board which classifies our films and videos, by theatres which show films, by stores which sell and rent videos, and by citizens who view these films and videos.

Redefining obscenity is a difficult task but one that is vital in our efforts to build a strong society which, in the words of the Ontario Human Rights Code, recognizes "the dignity and worth of every person" and provides for "equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law."

There will have to be compromises to develop a new definition, and as with any other controversial issue, it will be impossible to satisfy everybody. None the less, I believe our Attorney General, together with his federal and provincial counterparts, should be able to devise a workable definition after whatever study, discussion and consultation each jurisdiction believes to be appropriate. We cannot amend the Criminal Code ourselves but we can play a key role in ensuring that it is amended.

I ask for members' support by passing my resolution today and I ask the Attorney General to convey this resolution from the government of Ontario to his counterparts in Ottawa and across Canada. This is an opportunity to send a strong signal to Ottawa and to the other provinces that Ontario believes it is time to revisit the difficult issue of pornography.

Finally, I just want to add a quote from another cabinet minister of the current Ontario government, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who this week issued a press release headed "Minister Denounces Violence Against Women," dated November 18, 1991:

"'I am touched personally and professionally by the fact that women in our society face violence at the hands of men, and that, even more important, many women live in continuous expectation of violence at the hands of men,' said Richard Allen, Minister of Colleges and Universities, speaking at the Ontario Campus Men's Conference this weekend."

I think the words speak for themselves. This is a resolution against which no one could vote.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure as usual and always to rise and speak to an issue in private members' time on Thursday morning, and this is no exception. The member for Mississauga South has brought forward her resolution and I think it would be fair to say there is not a member sitting in the Legislature who does not have a great deal of empathy with what is being brought forward.

In the resolution, the proposal for consultation stems in part from what the resolution calls conflicting court decisions on what is obscene and from the fact that the Ontario Film Review Board has approved some films for release in Ontario that have subsequently been the subject of criminal charges by police forces in Ontario.

The Attorney General is always prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue with the federal government and his provincial counterparts to ensure the continued just and appropriate administration of the criminal law. However, it would be inappropriate to engage in the proposed discussions at this time. The reason, very simply put, is that the matter is before the courts.

The current definition of obscenity was introduced by the Parliament of Canada in 1959 and since that time it has repeatedly been given very careful consideration by provincial appellate courts across the country, and on numerous occasions the obscenity provision has been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result the courts, working co-operatively with Parliament, have developed an elaborate yet sensitive and ultimately practical definition of "obscenity."

The courts have been careful to ensure that this definition takes account of developing community standards in a restrained and judicial way. It is therefore inevitable that occasionally, as social views develop and change over time, the courts will be called upon to reassess what types of material fall under the definition of "obscenity." That is the situation at the present time.

Every day of the week hundreds of provincial, divisional and General Division judges in the Ontario Court of Justice hear criminal matters across the province. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that on a very few occasions some of these judges might have very limited differences of opinion when interpreting criminal law such as the obscenity law. When this occurs, lawyers from the Ministry of the Attorney General are apprised of the situation and where appropriate take all steps within their power to bring these cases before the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking clarification.

Indeed, an important part of the function of any Court of Appeal is to resolve these differences of opinion among judges in the trial courts. That is simply a fact of life.

On the issue of obscenity, the limited differences in

interpretation at present are entirely limited to the trial courts. Ministry lawyers involved in those cases are doing everything they can to facilitate their hearing by the Court of Appeal. This is the usual route by which differences in

interpretation by the courts are resolved. This route of appeals, first to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada, has served the administration of justice extremely well for decades and there is no reason to assume it will not do so again.

Legislatures depend on the courts to interpret very broad words that must inevitably be used in statutes and to ensure that the

interpretation given to a statute such as the obscenity law reflects contemporary community standards. In this respect, the administration of justice has been very well served by the courts. Therefore, it is advisable that we await higher court rulings on this issue so we may benefit from the higher court's wisdom on the proper

interpretation of the obscenity law.

There is another reason why it is premature to discuss a new definition of "obscenity" at this time. Apart from the proper

interpretation of the obscenity law, its constitutional validity is currently before the courts. As everyone is well aware, Parliament, in enacting criminal law such as an obscenity law, is bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any obscenity law which Parliament might make must respect the constitutional guarantee of free expression.

At present, the current obscenity law has been challenged as a violation of that freedom of expression. This case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in June 1991 and a decision has not yet been made. Until that decision has been made, there can be no useful discussion of the obscenity law among legislatures because we have yet to receive the benefit of the court's ruling about how obscenity might be regulated without infringing on that freedom of expression.

Consequently, because of the cases pending before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no point in discussing the current obscenity law. The courts have, in three decades since the obscenity law came into force, effectively provided authoritative guidance in this area of the criminal law. There is absolutely no reason to think the courts cannot assist the administration of criminal justice in this way again.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased today to support the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga South and I find it abhorrent that the previous speaker, the NDP member for Durham East, would not be supporting this resolution, particularly in light of the comments and quotes my colleague the member for Mississauga South attributed to members of the NDP government, the NDP cabinet.

It is abhorrent that any member of this Legislature would contemplate not voting to support this resolution. Perhaps the member for Durham East has missed the point of the resolution, that we are trying to send -- I commend my colleague the member for Mississauga South for bringing forward the resolution -- a very strong message to provincial attorneys general and to the federal government that the definition of "obscenity" and what actually constitutes pornography must be clarified in the Criminal Code because the Ontario Film Review Board, as the member for Durham East pointed out, relies upon community standards.

We worry very much in my caucus and in the Ontario Conservative Party that community standards are slipping. I studied this for a short time in university when I took a theology course. I give credit to Professor Janine Langan at the University of St Michael's College for pointing out the studies that indicate pornography is an addiction. It is an unhealthy, unnatural addiction and unfortunately, with the Ontario Film Review Board certifying and passing pornographic videos that help to feed that addiction, I worry that community standards are slipping, that we are on the slippery slope.

I ask members of the NDP government to review their thoughts on this if certain members are contemplating not voting for this resolution, because when we allow so-called X-rated and triple X-rated videos to be sold, as they are just a few blocks away on Yonge Street -- there are some six stores in a four-block strip from north and south of Wellesley and Yonge that sell and rent triple X videos.

People have to realize that when you allow those to be sold and viewed and when you consider that pornography is an addiction that we, by not doing anything, are helping to feed to our young people, they grow up with very unhealthy and unnatural beliefs in what the morality of our society is and should be.

If members have ever seen a snuff film -- a film where extremely degrading and obscene sexual acts are committed against women, where at the end of the film the victim is butchered and dies, and where very often large segments of the film are explicit in showing what is done with the bodily parts -- they would know the slippery slope this society is on.

It is our responsibility as legislators, on behalf of our constituents, to try to bring some high moral standards back to society. By allowing what some members, I am sure, think of as mild pornography to be viewed by our young people and in fact by people of all ages -- we are particularly worried about young people because we know that addiction starts as early as their teens -- the fear is that some day snuff films will become acceptable and community standards will change to the point where the absolute pinnacle of violence against other human beings becomes the norm and accepted in our community.

I put that out as a warning that may come true some day if we do not do something about it, because it was not too many years ago in Ontario that we found the pornographic material now on the newsstands and in film to be abhorrent. Now we see snuff films coming in, where the police really do not have the tools to do the job. When the Ontario Film Review Board allows pornographic material to come in and be viewed, when the police, as we know from the resolution, have charged some video shop owners with distributing obscene material, and at the same time our own government agency has approved that material, there is something seriously wrong.

My colleague the member for Mississauga South is trying to bring that debate to the Legislature. She has done a commendable job of doing that today and I ask all members to support this because it is the slippery slide of morality in this society. We must stop that trend and do nothing to feed the addiction of pornography, particularly in our young people. I ask for all members' support. It is a worthwhile resolution and I cannot believe anyone would ever vote against it.

Mr White: I rise to speak to this issue without the careful and astute research that the member opposite has demonstrated, but I have had many years of experience in working with victims of sexual molestation and sexual assault, almost all of them women, and I have known the tremendous tragedy that their lives have faced after those assaults and after those molestations.

The tragedy is primarily that this is not

an act of sexuality; this is

an act of violence,

an act of cruelty,

an act of power. For them, their sense of their selves, their sense of their sexual beings, their sense of their erotic lives and their sense of being able to connect intimately with others have been often permanently damaged. This crossing between what is violent, what is obscene and what is beautiful and erotic is unfortunately true for all of us, to some perhaps lesser degree, and I want to commend the member for bringing forward these issues of violence that are supposedly of a sexual nature and distinguishing them from what is truly erotic or sexual.

Sexuality, erotic interchange, is something which is intimate. Love speaks to care, to respect and to affection. A loving, erotic exchange is the very opposite of the kind of violence that the member opposite speaks of as obscene. Eros, in Sigmund Freud's terms, is a very creative, vital force and it is opposed and contaminated by the forces of control, violence and power. It is the very opposite of those things.

In our community, those forces of violence, coercion, degradation and the forces of oppression and exploitation are rampant. If we as a community can make an expression of that distinction I think we are helping our community. If we as a Legislature can have this kind of debate, I think it leads the way in terms of the most important and powerful depiction of what is good, natural and affectionate as opposed to what is violent, oppressive and degrading.

That is not a clear message. Certainly the Ontario Film Review Board is making some clarification in that. What is sexual and what is erotic are acceptable, but the issues of violence and degradation, that contamination, are not, they are making clear, and I think this debate helps to do so as well. These will be difficult decisions determining what is obscene. To what degree is something obscene? Is table dancing obscene? Are these kinds of depictions obscene?

Especially within the context of a society which has traditionally oppressed women, traditionally oppressed both men's and women's sexuality but particularly women's because they have been the victims of force and rape, their senses of their selves have been tremendously degraded within this overall context.

Mrs Marland: As I think the House is aware, this is not only an extremely sensitive issue; it is also an extremely emotional issue. Since I will not have an opportunity to speak again this morning, I wish to thank the members of all three parties in this House for their support, which I anticipate in passing this resolution this morning.

I know it is a subject that has nothing to do with political parties or partisan politics. It has everything to do with something that all of us, as legislators in this House, share. It is the feeling of helplessness we all share. It is the feeling that we see every day examples of violence in our society that we wonder what we can do about. We wonder what the remedy is. Is there something we can take as our responsibility and take action on?

This resolution this morning is such a small part of the bigger picture, but at least it is a part, and in supporting this resolution maybe this one little part will be the beginning of filling in the whole picture and completing the puzzle that faces all of us to deal with the subject about what is happening with violence against women and children in our society today. We all care, and therefore we do not see this as an intrusion into society's freedom, but rather as a protection of the freedom and the society that we should be able to enjoy.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS' PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Morrow moved second reading of Bill 147,

An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Projet de loi 147, Loi visant à protéger les travailleurs de la santé contre la transmission du virus de l'immunodéficience humaine.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes to initiate debate.

Mr Morrow: Before I start my debate, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House because I have a cough and I am stuffed up. I understand that happens with higher altitudes such as we sit in here.

I rise today to lead off the debate on Bill 147,

An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The bill amends the Workers' Compensation Act to remedy three important issues workers have to deal with in today's environment. First, it defines health and safety precautions to try and stop the transmission of HIV when working with blood products. Second, it guarantees that people will not lose their jobs if they are accidentally infected. Third, it puts the onus of proof on the Workers' Compensation Board if a worker gets the AIDS virus doing his or her job as a health care worker.

Statistics from medical journals in the United States confirm that 5% of the cases of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS, were exposed to it by blood products. This may seem like a small number, but the most recent statistics from the Federal Centre for AIDS show that there are 2,157 people alive at the present time with AIDS. Of these known cases, 246 were in contact with AIDS through infected blood or blood products; of these, 148 have already died.

I have contacted the Hamilton AIDS Network for Dialogue and Support, HANDS, to get the most recent information available. Most people know what the major risk factors are, but they do not know the percentage of adults who have AIDS as a result. I am reminding members of the House that 78% are related to homosexual or bisexual activity; 1% to intravenous drug use; 4% to both factors; 7% to heterosexual activity; 5% to no identified factor, and 5% are recipients of blood or blood products. It is the last group that this bill will assist.

The acquiring of the virus by exchange of blood may seem like a small number, but when you have a closer look at the data, a completely different picture starts to appear. While 2% of the male cases were infected through blood, 25% of females were infected in the same manner. With the predominance of women working in the health care field it shows that the spread of this deadly disease to women through their employment is substantial. This is an even higher percentage than the substantially high risk the intravenous drug user group has.

Using the 1989 figures, there are 436 people diagnosed with AIDS in Ontario. If 5% received the infection through exchange of blood, this means that there are 22 people in Ontario alive at the present time who are in this category plus another 5%, or 22, who have yet to discover that they have been infected.

Of course, over the past 10 years our knowledge of AIDS has increased, but there is still a substantial number of people who are continually being infected by coming into contact with tainted blood. The Canadian Red Cross Society began testing for the AIDS virus in November 1985 so one must remember that this may skew the early years of reporting, but that does not mean the government of this province must stop being vigilant in our attempts to control the spreading of AIDS. This is what Bill 147 will address.

Some of the workers who must receive this protection include health care workers, morgue attendants, embalmers, laboratory personnel, medical cleaning staff, police, firefighters, prison staff and schoolteachers.

Bill 147 sets out the drafting of regulations by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for such things as gloves, masks, clothing and precautionary equipment for health care workers and also prescribes sanitary measures to protect workers from coming into accidental contact with blood. Just the use of face shields, eye protection, double gloving, waterproof gowns, surgical masks and waterproof footwear will, according to most experts, almost reduce to nil the risk of surgical teams acquiring the virus.

In a discussion with the Hamilton branch of the Canadian Red Cross Society, I was told that it has policies in place that protect workers from coming into contact with high-risk groups and a reporting mechanism if any staff could be infected through the mishandling of blood. This type of health and safety precaution is what should be done by all employers whose staff may come into contact with blood.

This bill recognizes that it is time to look at the different ways that AIDS is being passed. I am still surprised that women are coming into contact with this virus in an almost completely different way from men. With the recent announcements by the Ministry of Health, this government's real attempts to stop the spreading of HIV show me the importance of this legislation.

In sections 3, 4 and 5 of this legislation key protections for workers are outlined.

Section 3 reads: "No employer shall dismiss a health care worker who has contracted the virus if the only reason for dismissal is the contraction of the virus."

The subsequent sections guarantee workers who have contracted AIDS through their employment the right to remain at their duties as long as there is no danger to the public and fellow workers. This gives workers with AIDS rights for re-employment and also gives them access to alternative responsibilities with no loss in pay or benefits.

Workers in the province must have health and safety provisions to protect them from death or illness on the job and, at the very least, to give them support if they are infected. The present legislation makes it the responsibility of the workers to prove that they have received the virus during their employment. In some cases it may be many years before AIDS is diagnosed and it would almost be impossible to relate it to an event that may just involve receiving a cut while working with tainted blood.

All our constituency offices that are involved with decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board know that proving continuity with some injuries can be very difficult. To suddenly test HIV positive and have to review employment history, remember duties as far back as three years and show that a specific event with unknown factors lead to the acquisition of the AIDS virus would be an almost impossible task for anyone. Health care workers must receive the benefit of the doubt, and therefore subsection (9b), as set out in subsection 7(1) of the bill, has been included. It is time that workers who could acquire the disease in this manner be recognized and also protected.

Passage of this bill gives health care workers needed guidelines for disposal of hazardous bodily fluids, prescribes sanitary measures in the workplace, defines safety equipment to be used by different classes of health care workers and gives coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act for those infected.

This bill, I hope, will help to remove the stigma that still exists in today's society on those who are HIV positive. The recent announcement by Mr Johnson has helped in some way to bring this issue to the forefront, but there is still more that has to be done and a lot more that has to be understood with respect to caring for those with AIDS.

Mr J. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum now is present. We continue debate on the motion on the floor. All three parties will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mrs Sullivan: I was very interested in reading the bill that is being put forward by the member for Wentworth East and I commend him, really, for his efforts to assist people in the health care field. Unfortunately I am concerned about specific aspects of the bill which I believe are misdirected and I will not be supporting the bill.

I do want to say, however, that I really think this is a useful piece of information to be brought forward. I believe there is considerable misunderstanding and misinformation in these fields and that an opportunity through a vehicle such as this to discuss these issues is important. I think people in the health care field and people in the community have concerns about some of the issues we will be discussing, and these are matters where a little bit of light frequently is useful.

There are two reasons that I will not be voting for this bill. The first is that there are established protocols in existence to utilize what are called universal precautions when handling blood and body fluids of all patients or residents, not just of those who are known or suspected to carry high-risk infections or diseases.

The second reason that I will not be supporting this piece of legislation relates to the recommendation with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and its treatment of health care workers. It seems to me that recommendation would require health care institutions, and particularly hospitals, to require HIV testing on staff before, during and at the time of the conclusion of their employment with that institution. I believe that is a highly problematic situation, one that we would not support under any circumstances. We do not believe that is an appropriate way of proceeding.

I would like to explore both these areas a little more thoroughly and talk about the past approach to infection control and disease control. We can recall that in the past -- we have a doctor in the House and I know he will be familiar with many of these precautionary elements -- to keep infections from spreading in health care facilities, workers used really two basic techniques which were routine and which were applied in virtually any health care setting. The first was the no-touch technique, which meant that dressings were applied with tongs, for example, and that scrupulous washing up was required. That was one technique.

The second was the isolation technique, which was used when a patient was known to carry or was suspected of carrying a specific disease. That technique was used particularly in instances such as smallpox or hepatitis. In hospital settings, patients may have been placed in an isolation ward. In the home, an entire premise could have been placed in quarantine.

More than 20 years ago, however, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta set out a system of category isolation for various groups of diseases, depending on how the diseases were spread. Some 10 years ago, those categories were changed to a disease-specific system. In 1985 a Canadian system of disease-specific isolation was introduced by Ottawa's Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. In all those systems there were specific precautions applied for diseases which were known to be transmitted by blood or body fluids.

While those systems were valuable for most situations where the disease was known or suspected, there were some quite specific drawbacks. The disease had to be correctly diagnosed. The timeliness of the diagnosis became a vital issue so that precautions would start quickly, and anyone who carried the disease had to have similar, recognizable symptoms so that the cases could be readily identified.

With some diseases, such as hepatitis B or HIV, those particular systems were less than useful. People with hepatitis B virus develop symptoms in only 50% of the cases and many carry the disease with no symptoms. An HIV infection is almost always without symptoms until the latter stages.

It was clear there was a need for new precautions and for new systems to be put into place. As a result, the Centers for Disease Control published new recommendations for the prevention of HIV transmission in health care settings. This document recommends that health care workers use universal blood and body fluid precautions, or universal precautions, with all patients.

Because those precautions relate specifically to the prevention of blood-borne diseases only, revisions were made to the universal precautions in 1988 and 1989 to provide further definition of body fluids as those that may transmit blood-borne diseases. What was clear was that earlier infection control practices, the no-touch and isolation techniques, were to continue in place.

About three or four years ago, a new system of infection control precautions was introduced and is in fact in place in some cases in the body substance isolation system, the BSI as it is commonly known, which moves the emphasis from the diagnosis to the specific interaction between the health care worker and the patient.

There are no signs on the bed or doors of the patients who have communicable diseases. Instead, health care workers use barriers to avoid contact. We are familiar with those: the gloves, the masks, the goggles, the face shields, where moist body substances of all patients are protected from contact with the health care worker.

While the Centers for Disease Control has not yet endorsed BSI, many facilities, including several dentists' offices, have put those practices into effect. Once again, it is ideally a universal system, with all workers in direct contact with patients interacting with all patients in the same manner. Some Toronto hospitals have adopted the BSI system to meet their internal needs.

Under some of these circumstances, I think I should spend a little time to indicate that precautions for workers not directly in contact with the patient, such as laundry workers, orderlies and cleaning staff, have been similarly developed in laborious detail and to exacting standards and are in place in our institutions.

The current infection control principle is to treat all patients in a similar, safe manner, since all people infected with a disease cannot necessarily be identified.

The Public Hospitals Act requires our hospitals to pass bylaws that establish and provide for the operation of health surveillance programs, including a communicable disease surveillance program for all who carry on activities in a hospital setting. I just want to read from a note from the Ontario Hospital Association with respect to a particular disease:

"This program must, with respect to a particular communicable disease, include the tests and examinations set out in any applicable communicable disease surveillance protocol published jointly by the OHA and OMA for that disease and approved by the Minister of Health."

Clearly, there is already an interaction with the Ministry of Health in place.

As we move from institutionally based care to community-based care, it is clear that specific disease prevention protocols will have to be put into place for health care workers in non-traditional sites. The Ministry of Health, I believe, should be identifying those protocols through consultation with practitioners and others. This particular bill that is being put forward is not the vehicle for doing that.

I know my colleague has important things to add to this debate. As I indicated, I certainly will not be supporting this bill, although I am pleased that some of the issues have been raised and put on the table so that there can be some public discussion of the issues.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to spend a few moments this morning speaking on Bill 147,

An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV, put forward by the member for Wentworth East.

I should say at the beginning that Bill 147 should be commended for its attempt to assist health care workers who contract the deadly HIV or AIDS virus in the workplace. I believe this bill is similar to private member's Bill 68, which received second reading in this House last April, put forward by the member for Simcoe Centre. That bill sought to amend the Workers' Compensation Act to compensate workers who contract a blood-borne disease while in the workplace.

The intent of Bill 147 has a great deal of merit as we struggle in Ontario and around the world to balance the civil rights of people living with HIV and AIDS with the whole issue of public health. As I recall, back in April the member for Simcoe Centre said there were about 200 reported cases of occupational exposure to HIV. He also mentioned at that time that the risk of a health care worker contracting HIV from blood products was up about 0.9%. However, Bill 147, which is designed to assist health care workers who contract HIV in the workplace, may create more problems than it actually solves.

For the following reasons, my caucus colleagues and I join with the Liberal Party, which is a rare thing indeed, in not being able to support this piece of legislation this morning:

The Ontario Hospital Association feels this legislation will create many problems both for employers and the employees or workers that this legislation is designed to protect and help. It is clear that Bill 147 seeks to preserve employment for HIV-infected workers, but what has not been made clear is that while this bill protects an HIV-infected person's right to work, the language and intent of the bill will serve to violate other critical rights of workers.

The following is a quote from the Ontario Hospital Association in a letter dated November 6. It was addressed to the member for Simcoe Centre, who is also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. The Ontario Hospital Association says:

"We have very serious concerns that this could lead in many instances to employers deciding that the only way to limit their liability would be through testing employees before, during and at the termination of their employment. This would be contrary to both the blood-borne surveillance protocol for Ontario hospitals and other surveillance protocols for Ontario hospitals. These protocols explicitly reject the use of testing and screening of staff, yet despite their presence hospitals may be forced to contravene them should your bill" -- referring at that time to Bill 68 -- "be enacted."

Section 7 of Bill 147 would amend

section 122 of the Workers' Compensation Act to read:

"If the worker contracted the human immunodeficiency virus and at or before the date of the disablement was engaged as a health care worker, the virus shall be deemed to have been due to the nature of that employment unless the contrary is proved."

As a result, the onus of proof on whether or not a health care worker contracts the HIV in the workplace falls upon the employer. The consequence is that employers will be forced to implement mandatory AIDS testing as a means to monitor whether or not HIV is contracted in the workplace. In order to protect themselves, employers may be forced to factor in lifestyles in determining whether or not to hire an employee, and the result of this could be discriminatory hiring practices by employers. I do not think that was the intention of this bill, but it would be one of the consequences of this bill.

I will also give another quote from the Ontario Hospital Association regarding

section 7 of Bill 147:

"We fear the result of this would be that health care employers would begin to screen staff before, during and after employment in order to prove the infection did not result from employment. Employers might also seek to learn about confidential lifestyle factors that would put the employee at risk for HIV infection outside of the job."

In order to protect health care workers, Bill 147 could prevent numerous workers from ever gaining employment in the first place, and I think that would be sad.

Another concern about Bill 147 centres around sections 2 and 6. These sections both deal with universal blood and bodily fluid precautions. The member for Wentworth East should be aware that his bill attempts to legislate something that is extremely difficult to legislate, and that is professional judgement. Enacting Bill 147 runs the risk of pre-empting the work done by the Ministry of Health in this regard. The ministry has spent almost two years developing a position paper outlining and defining its support for universal blood and bodily fluid precautions. By enacting Bill 147, the government would be putting the cart before the horse.

The OHA in a letter also concurs with this: "Putting this proposed legislation into place and drawing up the sorts of regulations suggested in

section 6 may lead to conflicts between the Ministry of Health and Labour, and confusion on the part of health care workers and employers."

In the United States, their hospital association has struggled with this sort of legislation for several years and has yet to reach agreement on the kinds of protective practices and equipment that should be required by law.

Another problem with sections 2 and 6 is that no one, not even the centre for disease control, has been able to come up with specific lists of precautions, circumstances and the precautionary equipment needed. The OHA recommendation regarding sections 2 and 6 is, "We think these sections should either be omitted altogether or else a simple reference made to the Ministry of Health document and/or recommended standards of practice published by the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control in Ottawa."

Section 4 of Bill 147 is also fraught with difficulties. Subsection 4(1) reads:

"If a health care worker contracts the virus in the course of his or her employment, the worker is entitled to continue working at his or her position and fulfilling all of the duties and responsibilities inherent to that position as long as those duties and responsibilities do not endanger the safety of the public or of his or her fellow workers."

Subsection 4(2) reads:

"If a worker cannot continue with all or part of his or her responsibilities without endangering the safety of the public or of his or her fellow workers, the employer shall asign to the worker alternative responsibilities that are similar to the worker's regular responsibilities, that require similar qualifications and that have the same salary and benefits."

Once again, while the intent and compassion are commendable, they are not grounded in practical reality. Workers who contract the AIDS virus will put their own lives in danger by continuing to carry out the demanding duties of health care workers.

Section 4 does not consider the health and safety of the infected worker whose determination to stay at his job may place health care workers with an impaired immune system at risk.

Going back to

section 7, this bill seems to mirror Bill 68 in its attempt to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. I was pleased back in April to join the debate on Bill 68 and I want to reiterate what I said then and relate it to Bill 147 today.

Section 7 of Bill 147 is redundant. For example, as is the current practice of the Workers' Compensation Board, if the WCB receives a claim from a health care worker who pricks himself and who is handling blood, the board will handle the costs for the HIV testing. Also, the board takes it upon itself now to do its own investigation into the incident. The bottom line is that workers who contract HIV, be they in the health care professions or otherwise, are taken care of and there is no need for new amending legislation.

Subsections 122(9) and (9a) of the Workers' Compensation Act set out the structure for compensation for employees who contract HIV in the workplace. Subsection 122(16) of the act already gives the Workers' Compensation Board the power to do so. I will quote that section:

"The board, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may declare any disease to be an industrial disease and may amend

schedule 3 or 4 accordingly."

So it is already possible and is in fact the practice of the Workers' Compensation Board to handle people, including health care workers, who are infected with HIV at their place of work.

It is ironic that a member of the NDP government has chosen to table this, which could be termed a humane and compassionate bill, during the same week the Minister of Health closed the door on assistance for some 375 haemophiliacs in Ontario who contracted HIV through Ontario's blood supply in and around the year 1985.

On Tuesday of this week, in this chamber, I asked the minister a very pointed question as to whether she would compensate those 375 haemophiliacs who are living with HIV, many of whom have developed AIDS and some 55 of whom have died. Many of those, unfortunately, were children.

The minister gave, I thought, a rather inhumane, static and legal response, claiming that the government had already discussed this issue with other provincial ministers of health and that they have all agreed their governments do not have any legal culpability in terms of taking responsibility for the blood supply when we were not screening the blood supply in Canada and in Ontario for HIV. We were not screening it properly, and for a short period of time in the mid 1980s were not ensuring the safety of that blood supply to the best of our ability.

It is interesting to note that from 1987, and the decision was finally announced in December 1989, the federal government did take responsibility and did set out a compensation package for haemophiliacs in Ontario who had contracted HIV through the blood supply. I think there is a legal culpability on the part of this government.

There is a case -- it is in the Toronto Star today -- where a lady out west contracted HIV and eventually full-blown AIDS through the procedure of in vitro fertilization. The courts just awarded her over $800,000 and explicitly said that there is legal culpability in this case in terms of the doctor not fully taking precautions to ensure the lady would not contract HIV.

There is also the case I mentioned on Tuesday where a six-year-old boy in Australia was forced to take the Australian government to court to get the government to live up to its responsibility for the purity of the Australian blood supply. The end result was that the six-year-old boy was awarded $800,000, but he and his supporters were forced to come up with some $15 million in legal costs, which the government eventually absorbed. That government, based on the fact that the courts ruled in favour of the little boy, must now settle with other haemophiliacs who contracted HIV through the blood supply in Australia.

I cannot send a clearer message to the government. I strongly feel, contrary to what the minister told me in this chamber on Tuesday, that the government has a share of responsibility because it is a voting member of the Canadian Blood Committee, which has responsibility for screening blood products in Canada and that it shares in a responsibility that has already been admitted by the federal government, and that the expensive route is the route the government has now chosen to take.

There are 18 cases launched this week naming the provincial government, among others, as having a responsibility in this matter, and unfortunately the government has taken the expensive route of forcing this matter to the courts.

I suggested on Tuesday and strongly believe that the fiscally responsible thing for this government to do would be to settle now with the haemophiliacs infected with HIV rather than go through an expensive court challenge, but it is a decision the government has taken and a decision it will have to live with.

As I conclude my remarks, it is ironic that the member for Wentworth East and the member for Simcoe Centre, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, agree in this legislation and in Bill 68 that was brought forth in April that people who contract HIV through the workplace should be included under the compensation program provided by the Workers' Compensation Board, but this same government, on exactly the same principle, on exactly the same type of case, refuses to acknowledge responsibility and bring forward a compensation package for haemophiliacs in Ontario who, through no fault of their own of course, simply placed their faith in our blood supply and in our health care system, were let down and mistakes were made.

This government has some responsibility. I find it ironic that we see legislation here today where they feel certain workers should receive that compensation but haemophiliacs should not.

Mr Mills: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 147,

An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, that has been introduced by my colleague the member for Wentworth East.

There is nothing that strikes more fear in health care workers than the possibility of their contracting HIV. This fear is really the thrust of Bill 147. The risk of occupational transmission of the AIDS virus concerns health care workers all across Ontario. The member's bill touches on a very sensitive issue. I commend him for bringing this forward in all its sensitivity.

However, I have some concerns about certain parts of the bill. My first concern deals with

section 1, which defines a "health care worker" as "any worker or professional who, in the normal course of their employment, may come into contact with hazardous bodily fluids."

On these lines I would like to speak to public safety workers such as the firefighters. Firefighters' exposure to infectious diseases is a major reason why firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions. Firefighters often suffer injuries and cuts and must help victims who have also been injured and may also be bleeding.

As things now stand, firefighters in Ontario cannot find out if a person they have treated carries an infectious disease such as AIDS. I believe that firefighters should have the right to know this information. This should be done not only for the protection of the firefighters' health and safety, but for the safety of the public as well.

I realize some people may be concerned that the privacy rights of an AIDS victim could be violated. I do not believe this would necessarily have to happen. In the United States, Congress has passed legislation that creates a fair balance between the privacy rights of an AIDS victim and a firefighter's right to know. Under the United States legislation, firefighters can find out if they have been exposed to an infectious disease while treating a fire or accident victim. This law does not jeopardize an individual's right to privacy, because all the medical information is kept strictly confidential.

The Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters likes the United States legislation and wants the province to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

That is my first concern, that the member's bill does not cover emergency workers such as firefighters.

My second concern deals with subsection 4(2) of the bill, which says that a worker who contracts the AIDS virus and cannot continue his or her job without posing a risk to the public shall be assigned alternative but equal responsibilities.

I have no problem with the basic thrust of this

section of the bill. In fact, I agree completely with my colleague the member for Wentworth East that the jobs of health care workers must be protected if they contract the AIDS virus. Doing anything less or otherwise would be discriminatory and totally unacceptable.

However, the wording of that

section of the bill in my opinion opens up a Pandora's box. For example, the bill does not explain how a health care worker would know if he or she is carrying the AIDS virus. This is important because people can carry and spread the human immunodeficiency virus even if they have not developed full-blown AIDS. I bring this up because it has implications for civil liberties. In the United States, legislators are currently grappling with the issue of mandatory testing for health case workers. That debate came about after a 22-year-old Florida woman developed the AIDS virus after being infected by her dentist.

The Florida case illustrates the complexity of the issue. How do we balance the privacy rights of health care workers with the public's right to know? I do not know the answer, but I think the member for Wentworth East should be aware that his bill cannot be discussed without dealing with that question.

Those are two of the concerns I have regarding Bill 147. The member is thanking me. He did not know what I was going to say. Once again I would like to thank him for having the courage to bring this bill forward. It really is commendable. The health and labour issues he raises are important and, at the same time, very controversial. Once again I commend the member, but I have some difficulty with it even though he is a colleague and a friend of mine.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the member for Wentworth East for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 147. While I know that the intention of the member for Wentworth East is honourable and well intended, I find this bill a bit hurried, as his colleague just stated. My colleagues the member for Halton Centre and the member for Simcoe West also stated that somehow the bill lacks details and has many redundancies.

When we talk about redundancies, there are many sections of this bill that have already been taken into account in the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which handles the fact of rights at work. Here it is again being mentioned.

I know I do not have a lot of time. I think what the bill is lacking is proper enforcement in place in this province. What we also have, most important, is lack of education.

Because I do not have a lot of time, I will quickly talk about education and read something that was directed to the Solicitor General at that time, the member for Cambridge, by Gordon Youngman, a consultant, specifically in regard to a case in the Solicitor General's area, the Centre of Forensic Sciences. I will read a

section of his letter. He is talking about the delay in the Gligor case that the Centre of Forensic Sciences had not proceeded with.

"The information regarding the transmission has not changed over the years since the discovery of the HIV virus almost 10 years ago. Health authorities around the world, but in particular the World Health Organization, the International Labour Office, the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta have issued very detailed guidelines known as Universal Precautions when dealing with body fluids and HIV.

"These guidelines also apply to other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis A and B. These guidelines apply both to those individuals who are alive and to those that have died. The number of infected health care workers in North America is less than 10% and those that are infected were as a result of" -- I would like the member to listen carefully to this -- "needle stick injuries because there was a breakdown in the use of the prescribed precautions." It talks about education and understanding of this disease.

"There is a need" -- this is the emphasis -- "for clear, specific, factual messages regarding the transmission of HIV that have greater applicability and relevance to people's lives and concerns...." This government and the governments of Ontario in the past have spent thousands of dollars to educate people about HIV. It seems to me the government members lack that education and lack that information. Specifically the Ministry of the Solicitor General seems to lack that in giving proper direction especially to areas in the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

As a matter of fact, at the moment there are about 700 backlog cases that have not been investigated because of fear of contracting this HIV disease, although it has been stated that the disease itself does not live very long outside the body after death. People have been generally aware of the modes of transmission but they are less aware of how to protect themselves. I think the amount of money that has been spent in the past has somehow not been effective. I would encourage the member to emphasize the fact of education and things that are in place there and not to duplicate the issue all over again.

Joan Burton from the health and safety association wrote in respect of this bill itself: "We strongly support the intention of this bill, but think that the proposed bill will create many problems for both employers and workers." This has been said not only by my colleague the member for Halton Centre but also by my colleague the member for Simcoe West.

I would encourage the member Wentworth East, although his bill is well-intended, to encourage his colleagues in the ministry to go back and visit much of that legislation and visit the areas in which we can have better enforcement. I think it will then be quite unnecessary to introduce this bill. I had hoped, if I had more time, to elaborate.

Mr Kormos: It should come as no surprise that I stand in support of my colleague's bill today. I am not about to engage in criticism of it because rather than criticism it warrants some sound understanding of exactly what happens here on Thursday mornings. This is private members' morning. Sometimes there are not the numbers of people sitting in the Legislature we would want on Thursday mornings, but members of this assembly, all 130 of them -- excluding you, Mr Speaker, because you of course are non-partisan and removed from the political fray.

As people who watch this know, on Thursday mornings private members get an opportunity to present either resolutions or bills without the restraint that is so often imposed on government members and government bills. This is an interesting part of the week. I particularly enjoy Thursday mornings because of the nature of the matters that are put forward and the types of debates that are conducted.

I am happy this morning to see that not only are people watching on television but people are here in the Legislature. We have visitors. We should say hello to young Warner Yorgason and Brandon Yorgason, both of them here with their parents, exercising their right to sit in this Legislature and observe what is going on either critically or fondly, however they wish, along with the persons sitting up in the visitors' gallery. It is their right.

I quite frankly wish that more people would exercise that right. This building belongs to the people of Ontario. The sooner the people of Ontario recognize that, appreciate it and understand it, like I am sure Warner and Brandon and their parents do, the better off this province is going to be. I tell members right now that we should be telling people in the province of Ontario to get here to Queen's Park and to use the building, to use the government that indeed is theirs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I would like to remind the honourable member we are discussing ballot item 46.

Mr Kormos: Of course we are, Mr Speaker, and we are going to keep discussing it for several more minutes.

So that is an important part of Thursday morning. I am also fortunate to be able to speak to this matter today because, among other things, it marks the end of our legislative week here at Queen's Park and it also marks the end of the term of this most recent group of pages, the young women and men from across this province who have served us for the last several weeks: people like young Jay Banerjee from Scarborough East and Janye Lee from Don Mills, just two of the pages among a whole bunch of them who have performed so well.

These are young people who have learned over the last several weeks some of the shortcomings of the members of this assembly. They have observed them. They have seen them live and in the flesh -- that is the shortcomings -- but I trust they have also acquired a sense of what it means to be a member of this assembly. I trust some of them aspire to sit here in these very seats and that they have learned already that if you are going to be sitting here it is far nicer down in the front row than it is up at the back. It is far nicer closer to the middle than it is closer to the exit doors.

There are 130 of us and there are 130 desks, one for each and every one of us. All of us, as members of the Legislative Assembly, have the right and indeed the obligation to speak out on legislation that is presented.

Here we have a bill, and it is no surprise to me that it comes from my colleague the member for Wentworth East. Here is a young man who has served his riding oh so well over the last year and few months. Here is a member whose riding can and should be very proud of because he has been outspoken on issues that have come before the Legislature. The member for Wentworth East has had the courage to stand up and speak about things that others have remained silent on. He has had the courage to be critical when criticism is warranted even on things some take for granted.

He has the courage to come forward with a private member's bill that, as has already been noted, has as a part of its nature some very controversial aspects.

There has been something happening with private members' bills not just over the last several months but over the last couple of years. I recall fondly the first, and so far only, time I had been given an opportunity to present my own matters during private members' morning. That was back when I was a member of the opposition sitting among the 19 of us. The members should remember there were only 19 of us.

I presented a resolution at that time which was debated vigorously. It was a resolution that called for the provision of syringes to diabetic seniors, recognizing that the syringe is an integral part of administering the insulin. Seniors should be entitled, and, by God, I do not look forward to the day and I will fight the day when we refuse or when we fail to provide pharmaceutical drugs for seniors under the Drug Benefit Formulary or when we impose such unacceptable things as user-pay schemes.

But recognizing that a syringe is an integral part of the process of administering insulin, I felt it was my responsibility, having been spoken to by so many constituents and persons who are not from my riding from across Ontario who felt it was important, I raised it in the Legislature. Although some time has passed, members will note that the Minister of Health has announced that syringes will now be available to seniors who have the illness of diabetes so that they can administer the insulin. That is a good thing. That means that this private members' morning works. It works for members of the opposition.

The member for London North, whom I respect a great deal, presented as a private member's bill her legislation dealing with helmets for cyclists. That was not only supported but now is in committee being discussed. We are hearing from participants across the province who have things to say about that legislation, and it will unfold as it should.

It is strange that members of the opposition would be concerned about the fact that this protects workers. It comes again as no surprise to me. The member for Wentworth East comes from the workplace to this Legislature. He spent his working life fighting for the rights and interests of working women and men, so it is to be expected that he comes to this assembly with legislation that protects workers.

This legislation warrants the support of every member of this Legislative Assembly. It does not deserve the petty criticism that has been cast towards it when in fact we are talking about second reading. What the member for Wentworth East's private member's bill deserves is to be passed so that it can go to committee for that refinement, that discussion and that debate that is so important. To do anything less is to neglect our responsibilities as legislators. I say we should be supporting this legislation and supporting it vigorously.

Mr Morrow: That is really hard to follow. In wrapup, there are some agencies I would like to thank for all the work they have given me and the research done.

I would like to thank the Toronto board of health for all the advice it has given me, and especially Anne Moon, who is a member of the board. I would like to thank the Hamilton AIDS Network for Dialogue and Support for all the research it has done. I would like to thank the Hamilton branch of the Red Cross, because without it this would not have happened. There are other individuals, especially Chris, Heidi and Bob, and a man by the name of Doug Decker who went out of his way for the last week to really make sure I would be presenting this this morning.

Mr Curling: Bob Rae.

Mr Morrow: Sure, I will thank the Premier, there is no problem. I will thank the member for Welland-Thorold and I will also thank every other speaker who spoke on this this morning. Their criticisms and their support go a long way. I would also ask that everybody in the House support this.

I will tell the member for Halton Centre though that when Bill 68 did come up, hepatitis B was a part of that bill and I did speak to that, just so she knows so that might jog her memory. I think that is all I have to say on this, although again I would ask that everybody do support this bill.

PORNOGRAPHY

The House divided on Mrs Marland's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 35

Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Frankford, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Jamison, Jordan, Kormos, Lessard, Marland, Martin, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Owens, Perruzza, Poirier, Runciman, Sterling, Sullivan, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays -- 0

HEALTH CARE WORKERS' PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS DE LA SANTÉ

The House divided on Mr Morrow's motion for second reading of Bill 147, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 19

Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Frankford, Hansen, Hope, Jamison, Kormos, Lessard, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Owens, Perruzza, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, G.

Nays -- 16

Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cunningham, Curling, Haslam, Jordan, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Poirier, Runciman, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to have a bit of a clarification from you. When you asked for the voice vote on the member for Mississauga South's motion, I noted, because I was very close to the member for Leeds-Grenville, that he voted against the motion in his voice vote but when you asked for the standing vote he voted in favour. He voted both ways.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order. The members are allowed to vote as they please.

Mr J. Wilson: On a similar point of order that I hope you will rule in favour of, Mr Speaker: I note that the member for Durham East in his remarks opposed the member for Mississauga South's resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

The House recessed at 1216.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Brown: It is disgusting that during the middle of a recession, during a time of unprecedented tax increases and government deficits, the NDP government should decide to put people in the housing industry out of work with Bill 121.

We have heard that 16,000 people were put out of work by Bill 4 and that 24,000 jobs are put at risk by Bill 121. This morning hundreds of people crowded the front steps of the Legislature to ask how long they would have to wait to put the Premier out of work.

The crowd heard from John Makuch, whose concrete restoration business died after the NDP brought in Bill 4. He told the crowd he used to have 50 employees, but under the NDP he now has 10. Concrete restoration is an example of necessary maintenance that needs to be done to keep apartments safe. We are not talking about gold-plated lobbies; we are talking about basic maintenance work the NDP is disallowing, forcing tenants' homes to become slums.

Landlords, tenants and construction workers all demanded changes to Bill 121 during the public hearings last fall, but the government has failed to listen in its amendments to the bill.

The Liberal caucus will be putting forward our amendments to make Bill 121 fairer to landlords and tenants and to bring back the necessary maintenance work and jobs destroyed by the NDP. We call upon the government to support our proposals and put fairness and security back into the rent laws of this province.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of the Environment today that their original land use directive is not in tune with the views and the needs of the people of Grey. This was made very clear in last week's municipal elections. Voters elected candidates who believe, as they do, that the land they bought and pay taxes on belongs to them and not to some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Toronto.

The ministers should examine these results and try to understand the reality of the situation, rather than relying on the Owen Sound Sun Times and the 50 or so malcontents who signed a petition opposing Grey county's policies for the sum total of their knowledge on this subject. The Sun Times and these objectors have led the ministers astray by giving them false and misleading information.

The paper has done the ministers and the people of Grey a serious disservice. In my view, because of the harm they have done and continue to do to the community, the editorial writers ought to tender their resignations, as they do not reflect the views of those they purport to serve. Failing that, they should at least apologize to the people and the elected officials of Grey.

The ministers must begin to depend on more than their few unreliable sources and actually consult with the local officials. By doing this, they should find that they will receive far more co-operation than they are presently getting.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr Dadamo: I am pleased to inform the members of this Legislature that the citizens of Windsor and Essex county have proven themselves one more time. I am pleased to announce, as it was last Friday evening in Windsor at the Cleary International Centre, the raising of over $7 million by the most giving and sharing people in all of Canada. In the last three years, the organizers of the United Way in Windsor have kept a target of $7 million.

The real heroes are all those who gave to the United Way unselfishly even during recessionary times. And how about the hundreds of volunteers who door-knocked and solicited company employees? All those people who gave their time and money merit much applause and praise.

David Armour, area executive director for the United Way, all the labour locals in Windsor and Essex county, as well as business should be applauded for their efforts in yet another accomplished campaign.

A recent survey found that 71% of Canadians volunteered in the past year. That is up from 59% in 1987.

In closing, on behalf of the members for Windsor-Riverside and Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Essex-Kent, I say congratulations to those who worked on the United Way campaign in Windsor and Essex county.

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTINGS

Mr Curling: Police investigating police: I can remember a time not long ago when this would have troubled the NDP. "An outrage," they would have shouted then, "A mockery of justice."

The Premier said that police investigating police was wrong, period. "The independence of the process is critical," he said after the Donaldson shooting. Cynical opportunism? Grandstanding? Or did the NDP truly believe that police should not investigate shootings by their fellow officers? That is what is happening right now. It is happening despite a new law which was designed expressly to prevent it.

The NDP government has allowed the special investigations unit to become a sham, a smokescreen behind which police can investigate alleged criminal acts by members of their own force. This is worse than the previous system, which at least had members of another force carrying out the investigation. Police confidence in the ability of the special investigations unit to conduct an independent investigation into police shootings has been undermined because of a private arrangement between the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the SIU and the police chiefs of Ontario.

The damage done by this Solicitor General is irreparable. What needs to be done now is clear: Revoke this made-behind-closed-doors deal and remove the agency from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, recreating it as a truly independent civilian body with the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate to investigate police shootings independent of outside interference.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr J. Wilson: On numerous occasions the member for Simcoe East and I have raised in this Legislature the concerns and resentments held by ratepayers in Simcoe county regarding the plan to restructure their county by amalgamating municipalities.

Simcoe county taxpayers voiced their hostility to restructuring in a loud and forceful manner during the recent municipal elections. Two municipalities in my riding put the issue of restructuring on their election ballots. In Sunnidale township, a staggering 94% of ratepayers voted no to restructuring. In Nottawasaga township, 85% turned thumbs down on restructuring.

There is a lesson in this for all elected members of this Legislature. Several local politicians who supported the restructuring study did so against the wishes of the electorate and suffered dearly at the polls.

On Monday my colleague the member for Simcoe East and I will be meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We intend to bring to the minister the results from last week's municipal elections and the very real concerns of a great many Simcoe county taxpayers who oppose restructuring and who are frustrated because politicians refuse to listen their concerns. We will ask the minister to put the issue of restructuring on hold for a period of five years so we can have some time to evaluate the amalgamation that has already been forced on the south end of the county. I hope the minister will take to heart the lessons learned in last week's election.

Also, the November 12 elections produced a new name for the amalgamated town of Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham. I wish to inform all members that the the name of the new town is New Tecumseth.

PURCHASE OF PAPER MILL

Mr Wood: Today is the day the people of Kapuskasing and the employees of Spruce Falls were given to come up with the money to have an employee-owned paper mill. In June the people pledged over $13 million for the mill. Despite the economic situation in northern Ontario, I am pleased that the communities have not only reached their pledged goal but have surpassed it. Over the three-week campaign, 980 employees have given $9.85 million and 470 non-mill employees have contributed $4.79 million. Together, over $14 million was raised to buy Spruce Falls.

This effort reflects my constituents' strong belief that their company will survive, given all of today's economic pressures. With everyone working together, almost anything is possible.

All stakeholders -- the people in Kapuskasing and the surrounding areas, the government and Tembec -- are to be commended in making this sale a success. It is an indication of what can be done when all parties co-operate in a common goal. With this pledge, the people of Kapuskasing show their belief and courage to contribute to the economic wellbeing of their communities. I again would like to express my admiration and congratulations for their support to make this employee buyout worth while.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Phillips: I am going to do something unusual and compliment the Premier. I would prefer, of course, to say it to the Premier's face, but a person of his importance cannot be spending time here in the Legislature. Fortunately I am told someone on his staff does review Hansard. It would be my hope they might pass on these comments to the Premier.

My comment I think shows the human side of the Premier. Apparently the Treasurer had planned an onerous two-week trip to France, England and Germany, but as soon as the Premier heard of the $2-billion shortfall in revenue, he spotted an opportunity to give one of his cabinet a chance to showcase himself and get some real publicity. In a typically unselfish move, the Premier said to the Treasurer, "I'll do the two-week tour and you can have the spotlight." While the Premier endured cold rides down the Thames, the pressure of a grilling at his old college and having to sit through a long dinner with Labour Party candidates, the Treasurer was able to get lots of publicity.

What a comfort this must be to the rest of the cabinet, to know that the Premier will not steal the limelight. If a hospital has to close, the Minister of Health can be assured that she will have the full limelight. When an environmental crisis hits, the Minister of the Environment knows she will be able to get full credit.

As we look skyward, with the Premier's plane from England circling, just awaiting the end of question period, I hope all of us will celebrate the human side of the Premier that has been so graphically displayed in the past two weeks.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tilson: Many businesses in my community have suffered the effects of the recession. They have had to downsize, go out of business or flee to the United States. The businesses that have managed to stay afloat should now be looking ahead to a brighter future as we slowly start to see a turnaround in the economy, but they are not.

The government's proposed changes to the labour laws have small businesses more frightened than ever before, and I would like the Minister of Labour to pay close attention to the comments I am sure are coming to him and other members of his government from constituents around this province.

A constituent of mine writes the following letter:

"My response to increased union and/or government involvement in the day-to-day operations of my business will be to downsize it to two employees, my wife and I. Unfortunately, 48 highly motivated and productive employees who have never indicated a need or want for union help will be job-hunting."

Who knows better how the minister's proposals will affect business than business owners? Their fears and promises of shutting down or leaving Ontario are real, and I hope to God the minister is listening.

EARTH DAY

Mr Christopherson: I rise today to inform members of a bill that will be debated in this House on December 5, 1991. My private member's bill would designate every April 22 as Earth Day. Its purpose would be to encourage participation in community, provincial, national and international activities that share a common purpose with the activities organized by the Earth Day movement.

As members know, Earth Day promotes and celebrates individual environmental action, and in 1991 some 700 organizations, 3,000 organizers and two million individuals in Canada co-ordinated or participated directly in Earth Day.

Positive environmental action begins at home. Each one of us has the ability to make a difference in maintaining and improving our community's, our nation's and our planet's ecological health. It is important to realize that this goal can be reached in manageable increments and that gradual changes in lifestyle will ultimately lead to a better quality of life for us as individuals and, as important, a sustainable global environment.

I believe enactment of this bill would be a small but important step in providing leadership on perhaps the most important issue facing us all. I invite and urge all members of the House to support this bill.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, just a brief point of order before we move to the next order of business: The point of order actually arises out of the orders of the day which I see here on my desk. I notice the government has placed some 25 orders in Orders and Notices today. It seems to me that under those circumstances, the Solicitor General may have inadvertently not only misled this House but misled the public as well.

I heard him quoted this morning on the radio saying that Bill 115, which is going to allow the stores to stay open in December but make sure they stay closed the rest of the year in respect of Sundays, was going to be law as of today, that we were to be debating that bill for third reading in the House today and completing our deliberations.

There are a number of people in our caucus who are prepared to do that. I, as whip of the standing committee on administration of justice and one of the spokespeople on that bill, am prepared to debate that matter today. Apparently the Solicitor General suggested that it would be law today. I cannot see how the government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, could possibly have expected us to deal with that matter, with the number of speakers who intend to speak on that bill, when he put some 24 orders on the Orders and Notices paper before consideration of Bill 115. I invite the Solicitor General --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member may know that he does not have a point of order. Following routine proceedings, the Speaker will call for orders of the day and at that point the government House leader will announce which order is to be followed.

Mr Bradley: On a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: We in the official opposition are prepared to delay the start of the session this afternoon so that the Minister of Agriculture and Food can make the statement he is making outside the House at this very moment.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines has indeed a point of interest but not one of order. It is time for oral questions.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As question period is about to begin, there are virtually no cabinet members of substance, with the exception of the Treasurer; none of the important members.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. The member for Oriole will know that she does not have a point of order. There is nothing in the standing orders to compel the attendance of any member of the assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr Elston: I have a question of my favourite storyteller, the Treasurer. The last instalment was given by this gentleman just this week, actually given here in a second phase of an announcement which he made earlier. What the Treasurer did not say is more important than what he did say. He has indicated that he will be raising provincial taxes. He has indicated he is going to stick to his deficit plan by way of ensuring fewer dollars being made available to people who are working in municipalities and school boards.

Can the Treasurer confirm that what he has actually announced is not only provincial tax increases but an obligation by municipalities and school boards to raise their levies as well so that they can maintain their services?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure I understood the last part of the question.

Mr Elston: Are they going to have to raise taxes to deliver the services?

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, I see. I now understand the last part of the question by the former interim leader, the former interim leader who assured us all he would never run for permanent leader, but I will not dwell on that matter.

What I did say was that we know that next year the fiscal situation in which we will undoubtedly find ourselves is going to be very difficult. If there is one message -- not just some message but one message with about three parts -- I have received from the official opposition it is that (

a) it wants us to maintain our expenditure programs, (

b) it does not want any new taxes and (

c) it does not want us to allow the deficit to go any higher. Having said that, all I can assure the member opposite of is that we will do what we can, in as creative a balancing act as possible, to make sure we do indeed carry out the wishes of the member opposite.

Mr Elston: That was not my question. Did the Treasurer not say, by way of his announcement last week and again this week, that municipalities and school boards would require an increase in their taxes to maintain their services?

Hon Mr Laughren: What I have been trying to signal to everybody across the province, including those people who are known as our transfer partners -- school boards, hospitals, municipalities, colleges and universities -- is that everyone is going to have to work together to try to cope with this very severe recession we are in. When the transfer announcement is made for funding next year for our transfer partners, that transfer announcement will contain a very small number.

I think everyone understands that inflation is going to be considerably lower next year than it is this year and we simply cannot continue to fund our transfer partners at the level we did this year. It is just not possible.

Mr Elston: I asked the Treasurer if his announcements over the last couple of years have not required the municipalities and school boards to raise their taxes to maintain services. The answer is obviously that this is required.

The honourable gentleman will know that for a family of four in Ontario having an income of $40,000, about $8,600 of that is already given to provincial and federal tax officials. Having announced that next year municipalities and school boards will have to increase their property tax, a regressive tax which the New Democrats campaigned against some time ago, as we know, how can the Treasurer stand in his place now and answer a question about fairness in taxation and other things when he is forcing those people he calls his partners to increase their tax burden to those constituents who will have to pay to just maintain the services they require from municipalities and school boards?

Hon Mr Laughren: No announcement I have made so far has required our partners out there to raise their taxes. At the same time, all of us in the public sector, whether we are in what is known as the broad public sector -- in education, health care -- at the municipal level or in the provincial government, are going to have to manage our affairs smarter, more efficiently and more productively than we have in the past. There is absolutely no question about that, because the money is not there to continue to spend the way the former government did in the last five years.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Elston: I have some interest in that last response, but I have another question of the Treasurer, who is finding new ways of spending money that is not his own.

In the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, November 20, there was an

article quoting the Minister of Financial Institutions, a colleague of the Treasurer's, indicating they were looking at the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as a model for spending money in Ontario to do the things they want to do but are afraid to confess to the public they are really doing. Would the Treasurer tell us if in fact the Caisse de dépôt model is going to be the one he is going to use to set up the Bob Rae Investment Corp?

Hon Mr Laughren: We announced some time ago -- and I do not think it is a surprise to anyone -- that we want to have some kind of pension-based investment fund in Ontario. At the same time, I do not believe you can just transpose a model from another jurisdiction to Ontario. I do not think it is that simple.

Second, if we do work out an arrangement with the public sector unions and their pension managers, it will be done in a co-operative, voluntary and collaborative way, not in an arbitrary way.

Mr Elston: I understand there are a number of documents in the Treasury domain and in other places that talk about taking as much as $300 million a year from the teachers' pension plans and from the Ontario public service employees' pension plan, and there have already been some arrangements made perhaps even to go so far as tendering for space with respect to setting up trading areas that might be used for the Caisse de dépôt model the Treasurer is considering.

I would like the Treasurer to tell us what discussions have been held with the teachers and the public servants to get their permission to use their pension money for his expenditure priorities.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, they would be the expenditure priorities of all the people of this province, not simply mine. All I can tell the member opposite is that we are working away trying to develop a model for an investment fund, because we think it is absolutely critical, as part of our economic renewal plans as we come out of this recession, to have a fund that is targeted for high value added and very progressive kinds of industries or sectors.

We have had some preliminary discussions with the public sector unions on this. There has been no decision made at all as to exactly what we are going to do or how much money is going to be in it. But the member opposite is quite right, there is paper around. We have had discussions with committees. There is no big secret about it, but at this point nothing definitive has been determined.

Mr Elston: We have seen this Treasurer telling us some stories about his fiscal management and his budgetary plan. He has already put off several hundreds of millions of dollars in capital expenditures until next year. He has already used Ontario Hydro to do the bidding of the government to deal with the Kapuskasing issue, which our friend and colleague the member for Cochrane North spoke about today in the House.

The Treasurer has already indicated that there are now other arrangements by which the pension funds that belong to those teachers and public service employees will be used to do his bidding. In fact, he is now offloading, along with the offloading to the municipalities and the school boards, the requirements to make public expenditures at the expense of those pensioners.

It seems to me the Treasurer should tell us what his full fiscal plan is. He has not yet provided us with a clarification of who is participating in making the expenditures for his government priorities. Will he do that?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite is fundamentally wrong. We are not offloading on anybody. If and when the investment fund is set up -- I certainly anticipate it will be, but it is not there yet. I have learned not to count my chickens in this business until the eggs are hatched, or whatever that expression is. I know members of the Liberal caucus are aware of that danger as well.

I do want to say to the member opposite that it is not a case of offloading. It would simply be a case of asking the people in the public sector unions if they wanted to share with us some of the surplus funds in their pension plans to do good work in the province of Ontario. Nobody is taking money away from them. They have to invest their money somewhere. We are just suggesting to them, "Would you like to join with us and invest in Ontario?" That is all.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Housing. I know she is aware that the rally held on the front steps of the Legislature this morning clearly illustrates the effects of the NDP government's two attempts at rent control legislation. These misguided attempts have had ramifications far beyond their goal of tenant protection. What should be clear to this government by now is that Bill 4 has been directly devastating to the construction and restoration industries as well as to landlords and tenants.

This morning it was readily apparent that many people in these industries have already lost or will soon lose their jobs as a result of this government. An employment impact study has indicated that as a result of Bills 4 and 121, 25,000 jobs will be lost in this province. It is estimated that as a result of Bill 4, in the restoration industry alone, 63% of the apartment renovation contracts have been cancelled. The result is that thousands have been laid off.

Before it is too late, will the Minister of Housing consider withdrawing Bill 121 and introducing in its place legislation which not only protects the tenants' rights but also preserves our housing stock and promotes a healthy and active construction industry?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is aware that Bill 4, to which she refers and to which people at this morning's rally referred, is a temporary piece of legislation. It was put in place by this government in order to provide time to consult around this province on the production of Bill 121, which is now before a legislative committee. I hope the member will understand that whatever holding action has been taken through Bill 4 -- and indeed it was a holding action which we brought about in Bill 4 in order to protect tenants during